Mitigation
Effectiveness
&•*&&&; *;PW*'&>-
Prepared for
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Region I
-------
WETLAND MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS
-------
REPORT
-------
WETLANDS MITIGATION EFFECTIVENESS
prepared by: Dr. Robert J. Reiraold, Project Manager
Ms. Sue A. Cobler. Biologist
Metcalf £ Eddyi Inc.
10 Harvard Mill Square
Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880
prepared under: U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-04-0015
prepared for: Mr. Ronald G. KanCredonia, Project Officer
Mr. Douglas A. Thompson, Project Monitor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ii
List of Figures iii
INTRODUCTION 1
SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS 5
Syfeld Corporation 5
Tamposi and Nash 15
Central Connecticut Expressway 25
Stratford Land and Improvement Corporation 35
Bourne Marina 45
EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION 57
GENERIC PERMIT RECOMMENDATIONS 60
INFORMATIONAL NEEDS FOR SUCCESSFUL MITIGATION DESIGN 68
CONCLUSIONS 72
REFERENCES 75
APPENDICES
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Mitigation Sites 6
2 Pre-project Plant Species List - Syfeld Mitigation
Site, Keener New Hampshire 8
3 Pre-project Wildlife Species Observed at Syfeld
Mitigation Site, Keene, New Hampshire 9
4 Wetland Plant Species at Tamposi and Nash
Site* Nashua, New Hampshire 17
5 Wetland Plant Species at Central CT Expressway,
Newir.gton and New Britain, CT 31
6 Wetland Plant Species at Bourne Marina Site 50
7 Summary of Effectiveness of Mitigation 58
ii
-------
LIST OP FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Location of Syfeld Development Site 11
Keene, New Hampshire
2 Syfeld Mitigation Site, - Keene N,H. 14
3 Location of Mitigation at Tamposi c Nash Site,
Nashua, K,H. 21
4 Location of Central Connecticut Expressway
Project 26
5 Location of Mitigation Basins at Central
Connecticut Expressway 28
6 Location of Stratford Land and Improvement
Corp. Site 36
7 Location of Bourne Marina Development,
Bourne, MA 47
8 Location of Bourne Marina Mitigation,
Bourne, HA 48
iii
-------
INTRODUCTION
Mitigation has become a very important issue
relative to implementation of Section 404 of the Clean
Hater Act. The purpose of Section 404 is to restore
and maintain the nation's water quality (a term which
encompasses many beneficial uses of water, such as fish
and wildlife habitat and recreation) by specifically
controlling the discharge of dredged and fill material
(Baker* 1984). Under this program, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is responsible for issuance or denial of
permits for discharge of dredged material which would
alter wetlands. Section 404 is the major federal
vehicle for protection of the nation's wetlands.
Guidelines for protection of wetlands are the
responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Wetlands are defined in the permit
regulations as
those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundvater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a. prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamp, marshes, bogs and similar
areas.
-------
When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers receives an
application for a 404 permit, the Corps processes the
application and issues a public notice. A 30 day
comment period follows where the Corps of Engineers, as
well as local, state and federal agencies (including
0.8. Pish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service) review the application. The Section
404 permit program requires that the impact of a
proposed dredge and fill project be evaluated in terms
of the public interest including such factors as flood
control, navigation, recreation, water supply and
environmental and socio-economic concerns (Ogawa and
Male, 1983). Under this section of the Clean Hater
Act, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of
permitted projects must be mitigated. Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CRF
1508.20 defines mitigation as follows:
Mitigation includes a) avoiding the impact
altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action; b) mlninlzlng impacts by
limiting the degree or magnitude of action and
its implementation! ej rectifying the impact
by repairingt rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment^ d) reducing or
eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during
-------
the life of the action; e) compensation for
the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources cr environments.
Generally, D.S. EPA Region I employs the term
mitigation to be restricted to those actions taken to
compensate for unavoidable impacts. Therefore, they
distinguish between the planning/alternatives selection
process (parts a and b of CEQ definition) and
mitigation in the sense of wetland creation and
enhancement (parts c through e). The EPA finds this
distinction useful for implementation of the regulatory
program in the field. This is mainly because if the
applicants view the alternatives analysis as a discrete
step - not just another mitigative technique - they are
likely to give it more attention.
D.S. EPA Region I has adopted a policy with
regards to mitigation that includes 1) mitigation
measures cannot be substituted for the alternatives
analysis required by the 404(b)(l} Guidelines {40 CFR
230.10(a)J; 2) EPA approach should be predicated on the
assumption that impacts can be avoided with the
mitigation policy becoming effective only in those
unusual circumstances when they cannot; 3) Region I
supports a full replacement of functional values (at
least 111) for losses of special aquatic sites from
-------
non-water-dependent activities; and 4) Region 1 favors
replacement habitat bo be *he same type as that
destroyed as well as on-site replacement of the
habitat.
During the course of its evaluation of C.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' public notices for Section 404
permits, U.S. EPA may recommend that unavoidable
wetland losses be mitigated through wetland creation,
enhancement, management, etc. Therefore to determine
if losses which occur from wetland filling are in
reality compensated in accordance with permit
conditions and agency policies, representative
mitigation efforts have been analyzed in detail. The
following review and analysis of five representative
mitigation sites in New England includes site-specific
evaluations of pre-project and post-project conditions,
mitigation effectiveness and generic recommendations
for more effective mitigation.
-------
SITE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS
Following an initial screening of over a dozen
Section 404 permit wetland sites, five different
mitigation areas were chosen as case studies by the
O.S. EPA Region I. These New England sites were
selected to represent a variety of environmental
variables and thus are representative of the
effectiveness of mitigation. These cases include
Syfeld Corporation in Keene, New Hampshire where a
shopping center was developed; Tamposi and Nash in
Nashua, New Hampshire where wetlands were filled for an
industrial park; Central Connecticut Expressway in
Newington and New Britain, Connecticut where a 0.7 mile
section of multilane expressway was constructed through
wetlands; Stratford Land and Improvement Corporation
(SLIC) in Stratford, Connecticut where wetlands were
filled for industrial uses; and Bourne Marina in
Bourne, Massachusetts, where wetlands were excavated
for construction of a marina. Each site analysis
includes discussion on historical background, permit
conditions, site visits and comments on mitigation for
each site. Table 1 summarizes these sites.
Syfeld Corporation
On IB November 1982, Syfeld - Keene Associates of
Miami, Florida received a permit (No. NEDOD-R-25-81-
675) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to place
5
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OP MITIGATION SITES
Site
Syfcld
Tamposi
& Nash
Wetland Type
Location Activity
Keene, NH Construction
of shopping
center
emergents
Nashua, NH Construction
of industrial
Desired
Wetland Type
Before Project
13 acres of
mixed woody
and emergent
1.9 acres
of emergents
After
Project
5 acres of
open water
1.7 acres of
emergents
park
Central
CT
Expressway
SLIC
Bourne
Marina
New London
Newington,
CT
Statford, CT
Bourne, MA
Construction
of 0.7 miles
section of
expressway
Construction
of industrial
park
Construction
of Marina
20 acres of
brook and
adjacent
emergents
r"20 acres of
of brackish
marsh
1.8 acres
of salt and
brackish
marsh
contiguous to
700 acre
existing
wetland
21.8 acres of
emergents and
open water
enhancement
of f20 acre
salt marsh
enhancement
and enlarge-
ment of exist-
ing l.B acre
marsh
93,660 cubic yards of bankrun gravel on a 13 acre site,
most of which was scrub/shrub and emergent wetland
adjacent to the Ashuelot River, in Keene, New Hampshire
for development of a shopping center. Appendix A
contains the actual permit. According to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the preproject wetland consisted
of admixture of palustrine forested, scrub/shrub, and
some open water emergent areas vegetated with red maple
(Acer rubrum), alder (Alnus sp.), highbush blueberry
(Vacciniura corymbosom), and other species (See Table 2
-------
for Plant species). Wetlands such as these generally
provide good habitat for mammals and songbirds and may
be utilized by waterfowl. Table 3 contains a list of
wildlife observed at the site, prior to construction.
The estimates of percent wetland habitat at this 13
acre site ranged from 10 percent (by the applicant) to
90 percent (by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). A
preproject field review by U.S. EPA indicated that
approximately 25 to 35 percent of the site was
undisputably wetland under federal definition and that
an additional 45 to 55 percent could technically
qualify as wetland. The area that was clearly wetland
was in the northeast quadrat of the site and consisted
of open water, a small area of emergent herbs and
shrubs, and a larger area of wooded swamp. Both
facultative and obligate hydrophytes, including
Steeplebush (Spiiaea tomentosa), Royal and March ferns
(Dyropteris), Sweet Pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
Alders Minus;, Red maple (Acer rubrum) and cattail
(Typha)t grew in this area. The other areas consisted
primarily of a schrub/shrub environment dominated by
alders which are facultative hydrophytes.
In order to mitigate the filling of this wetland,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit required the
creation of new wetlands by upland excavation. Four to
five acres of freshwater emergent wetland with some
deeper pockets, at an elevation designated by the U.S.
-------
TABLE 2. PRE-PROJECT PLANT SPECIES LIST - SY7ELD
MITIGATION SITE, KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE*
Upland Forest
white pine Pinus strobus
red maple Acer ruferun
lowbush blueberry Vaccinium sp.
sheep laurel Kalmia angustifolia
Wood Swamp
white pine Pinus strobus
red maple Acer rubrun
grey birch Betula populifolia
highbush blueberry Vaccinium coeymbosuot
winterberry Ilex ap.
marsh fern Dryopteris sp.
cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamonea
tussock sedge Carex stricta
Harsh
arrow arum Peltandra vlrginica
sedges Carex spp.
St. Johnswort Hypericum virginicum
hydrophilic grasses
tickseed sunflower Bidens aristosa
pickerel weed Pontedaria cordata
woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus
purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria
cattail Typha latifolia
Shrub Swamp
steeplebush Spiraea tomentosa
meadowsweet Spiraea latifolJta
* Observed by Janet O'Neil, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
9 September 1931.
8
-------
TABLE 3. PRE-PROJECT WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED AT
SYFELD MITIGATION SITE. KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE*
OBSERVED 5/4/83
Mammals
Birds
Fiver otter
Raccoon
Beaver
Muskrat
Red Fox
Gray Squirrel
Eastern Cottontail
Redwing Blackbird
Eastern Kingbird
Chicadee
Barred Owl
Crow
Yellowthroat
Hairy Woodpecker
Tree Swallow
Sharp Shinned Hawk
Yellow Bellied Sapsucker
White Breasted Nuthatch
Yellow Bellied Flycatcher
Mockingbird
Veery
Catbird
Reptiles t Amphibians
Wood Tortoise
Painted Turtle
Garter Snake
Green Frog
Spring Peeper
Red Spotted Newt
Lutra canadensis
Procyon Jotor
Castor canadensis
Ondatra zibethicus
Vulpes vulpes
Sclurus carol inens-is
Sylvilagus floridanus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Parus sp.
Strix varia
Corws tp.
Geothlypis trichas
Picoldes villosus
Iridoprocne bicolor
Accipiter striatus
Sphyrapicus varlus
Sitta carolinensis
Empidonax flaviventris
Mimas polyglottos
Catharus fuscesccns
Dumetella carolinensis
Gopherus sp.
Chrysemys picta
Thamnophis sirtalis
Rana clamitans
Hyla crucifer
OBSERVED 11/B2-4/B3
Mammals
Mink
Shorttail Weasel
Red Squirrel
Eastern Chipmunk
Snowshoe Hare
Northern Water Shrew
Whitetail Deer
Mustcla vison
Mustela erninea
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Tamias strlatus
Lepus ajnericanus
Sorex palustris
Odocoileus virginianus
-------
TABLE 3. (CONTINUED) PRE-PROJECT WILDLIFE SPECIES
OBSERVED AT SYFELD MITIGATION SITE, KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE*
Birds
Black Duck Anas rubripes
Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus
Mourning Dove Zenaida nacroura
Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Red Shouldered Hawk Buteo llneatus
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Kingfisher Hegaceryle
Scarlet Tanger Piianga olivacea
Eastern Phoebe Sayornls phoebe
Reptiles t Amphibians
Leopard frogs Rana
Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
Water Snake Nerodia sipedon
Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina
* Observed by Tim Flanagan, U.S. Soil Conservation Service
11/82-5/83.
Army Corps of Engineers, were to be constructed. The
location of the site is shown in Figure 1.
Plans for seeding and/or planting were to be
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their
approval before the project began. No plans were found
in the Corps files; however, recommendations for
planting were submitted to the permittee by the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service in New Hampshire.
The purpose of this mitigation, as stated in the
permit, was to create further areas for the
accumulation of water and the future growth of wetland
species. The permit required that excavation work in
the mitigation area be completed to a final grade and
10
-------
MITIGATION
SITE
ORIGINAL WETLANDS
NEW
BUILDING
(TYPJ-,
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
WEST STREET
EXIST. COMMERCIAL
ENTERPRISES
FIG. 1 LOCATION OF SYFELD DEVELOPMENT SITE KF.ENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE
(adapted from Syfeld-Keene Associates, 1981 permit application)
-------
subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval prior
to placement of fill material in wetlands at the
shopping center location.
The actual excavation for this mitigation site
began in the fall of 1983. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers required the wetland elevation to be 470 feet
above NGVD although no documentation exists in the
permit file as to how this was determined. Zn October
of 1983f the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inspected the
mitigation site and found the mitigation area to be
about 75 percent complete. However, the permittees had
already placed and graded fill at the shopping center
site and were ready to begin construction of the
buildings. At this time/ the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers reported that the work conformed
substantially with the conceptual design with some
minor variations in the plan. For example, the open-
water channel was about 27 to 28 feet wide, rather than
30 feet wide. The islands were somewhat larger and in
one case shaped differently from the plan. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers gave the developers verbal
permission at that time to proceed with the
construction of the shopping center buildings as long
as the applicant verbally agreed to complete the
mitigation.
12
-------
On 14 August 1985, a site visit was conducted by
Hetcalf £ Eddy. Mounds of uplands (islands) and
peninsulas approximately two feet above the surrounding
forest elevation, within an open water channel network
(see Figure 2) were observed. Upland vegetation on the
islands was mainly alfalfa and clover. Several paths
and holes indicating furbearing wildlife use were
observed in the area. Sparse emergent macrophyte
growth occurred at the edges of the channels including
Pontederiaf Typha and Nuphar. Most emergents were
approximtcly 12 to 18 inches tall. Dead blue-green
algal mats were observed at some edges of the
channel. None of the sparsely populated emergent
macrophytes were flowering in the mitigation site as
they were in the adjacent Ashuelot River wetland
ecosystem. Emergents in the adjacent river were dense,
tall (4 to 6 feet) arjd flowering all the way across the
river* not just at the edges. The surrounding banks at
the mitigation site were very steep, approximately a
4:1 gradient (resulting from the dredged material being
kept on site). The permit did not require the
developers to remove the dredged material from the
site. These banks were so steep so as to preclude the
presence of a gentle gradual slope conducive to
successful wetland development. The water in the
13
-------
• • • "*
••• ..••».:'-^';- *-.-.
" •* *' "••• * •*•••
,' • •• ' »• •'
::», f j..».r.. „-..
LEGEND i
N=NUPHAR
T« TYPHA
Pr PONTEDERIA
U« UNIDENTIFIED &vti*:±
LILY PAD
1--60FEET
F1G.2. SYFELD MITIGATION, SITE - KEENE, NH
-------
channels also appeared to be too deep in some places to
support emergent nacrophytic vegetation.
Suggestions for improving this site include
filling the open water with brush material to decrease
depth and create improved fish and forage habitat;
planting Pontedcria and Typha in the shallow water
areas; and evaluating soil quality (pH, cation
exchange capacity, etc.) to determine potential need
for soil amendments that would facilitate enhanced
plant growth.
The permit should have included detailed
specifications on the maximum elevation of uplands
above water elevation, elevational gradient of the
banks, and depth of open water areas. Permit
conditions might also have allowed for disposal of fill
off-site so as to allow for less steep slopes. The
U.S. EPA should have been notified that the permit
conditions had been violated by filling wetlands for
shopping center construction before mitigation was
completed.
Tamposi and Kash
In order to create a foundation for an industrial
park, Gerald Tamposi and Samuel Nash of Nashua, New
Hampshire received a Section 404 permit on 22 April
1981 (No. NH-SOME-81-122) from the U.S. Army Corps of
15
-------
Engineers. This permit is found in Appendix B. The
development is located at the intersection of Route
lOla and Northwest Boulevard in Nashua, New Hampshire
adjacent to the Pennichuck Brook. The project was
planned to retain approximately 1200 cubic yards of
fill which had been placed in approximately 2500 square
feet of wetland area and to place approximately 33,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel in approximately 60,000
square feet of wetland area. The existing fill
(predominately sand and gravel) was placed in 1979
with"out the required Department of the Army Permit.
After an investigation, it was determined by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers that legal action should not be
initiated and an after-the-fact application should be
processed. The new area which the permittee requested
to fill was a 1.9 acre pocket of wetland that had been
cut off from the adjacent brook by the unauthorized
fill.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the area where the unauthorized fill was placed was
originally an emergent wetland adjacent to the
Pennichuck Brook, vegetated with sedges (Carex spp.),
bulrush (Scirpus spp.)» alder (Alnus spp.) and red
maple (Acer rufcrun). The site of the unauthorized fill
was approximately 400 feet from the brook itself. The
wetlands that were filled provided storm water re-
tention, filtration of runoff, assets associated with
16
-------
TABLE 4. WETLAND PLANT SPECIES AT TAMPOSI AND
NASH SITE NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Species at site filled without permit before filling*:
Sedges Carex sp.
Bulrush Scirpus ap.
Alder Alnus sp.
Red Maple Acer rubrum
Species at 700 acre adjacent wetland**:
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria
Tussock sedge Carex stricta
Leather leaf Chamaedaphne calvculata
Cattail Typha sp.
Post-project species at newly created mitigation sites**:
-Rushes Juncus sp.
Sedges Carex sp.
Ferns Osmunda sp.
Narrow leaved cattail Typha latifolia
~* G. Beckett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser., December 1979
** Observed by Metcalf t Eddy, 14 August 1985
enhanced primary production and resultant detritus, and
wildlife habitat as part of a 700 acre existing
wetland. This fill isolated a 1.9 acre pocket of
wetland from the brook system. Table 4 contains a
summary of wetland plant species observed at the
site. The Findings of Fact document (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, dated 14 April 1981) found that
the effect of this permanent loss of an
existing isolated pocfcet of wetland would be
minimal since the wetland was surrounded by a
proposed industrial park and would not provide
a support area for wetland wildlife.
17
-------
In order to mitigate this loss of wetland, the
permit required the permittee
to excavate approximately 1.7 acres of upland
area, to an elevation of 96.0 MSL or equal to
the adjacent wetland, whichever is lower, to
create a vetland area.
The permit required the upland to wetland slope to be
*ept to a minimal grade practicable to allow for
vegetation. Although the mitigation plan called for
the creation o£ 10 percent less wetland area than that
which was filled, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
stated in the Findings of Fact document that
the new wetlands should be more productive in
terms of wildlife habitat, flood storage, and
filtration, than the existing vetland since
the proposed wetland area would be contiguous
to approximately 700 acres of existing wetland
and remote from the mainstream of business in
the industrial park.
The wetland to be filled was of alleged low quality
because it was cut off from the brook system by the
unauthorized fill.
18
-------
On 19 August 1983, two years after the permit was
issued* a compliance inspection of the Nashua site was
performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the
Nashua cite. The inspection showed that although
filling of the wetlands had been completed, no
•litigation of the filled wetlands had been initiated.
At the time of the visit, the site of the proposed
mitigation required by the permit was still an upland
island vegetated by blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), Royal
fern (Osaunda reyaJUs), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), and
arrowwood (Viburnum sp.). In contrast, the adjacent
undisturbed wetland had approximately 10 inches of
standing water and was vegetated by purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), and
leather leaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata). By April 1984,
the mitigation measures had still not been initiated.
On 15 April 1984, the U.S. Army Corps Engineers
requested that Tamposi and Nash provide a schedule for
initiating this work. By 25 June 1984, the Corps had
still not received a schedule or written response from
the developers and another letter was written by the
Corps on this date again requesting a schedule and
reminding Tamposi and Nash that the permit expired 1
December 1984.
On 1 June 1984 U.S. Senator Warren B. Rudman
requested the Corps of Engineers to extend the
19
-------
permit. The Corps denied this request stating that
Tamposi and Nash had had adequate time (4 years) to
schedule and execute their development plans. On 25
June 1984 the Corps again requested Tamposi and Nash to
send * plan and schedule for performing the
mitigation. On 14 September 1984 the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers received a site plan of the "Psychiatric
Institute of America" showing proposed mitigation
including creation of two small basins adjacent to the
hospital (see Figure 3). After reviewing this plan the
Corps requested that a 5 foot berm on the North side of
the larger basin be removed to allow for better
flushing of the basin from the brook and increase its
value; however, there was no basis in the permit to
allow for this since the permit did not specify the
exact design of the mitigation and Tamposi and Nash did
not own the land to the north of the basin. This land
was owned by Pennichuck Water Works. Tamposi and Nash
did agree to create three openings in the berm to an
elevation of approximately 96.25' MSL (two openings in
the larger basin and one in the smaller). These
openings were about 60 feet long and 40 feet wide. The
land owners, Pennichuck Water Works, did not allow
construction activities on land beyond the existing
tree line (about 15 feet beyond the property line).
20
-------
n * i r*i n «*«H«un n n
*iaMj l*_Jj u U J
ki j—^L Ji n
, — -4JL.
0
NOMTHWC9T tOVLCVARO
•j-,\ .. • '
1.
SCALE: r-160"
NOTE: Ad««>»*d from HamHran Ef»«kw«fl
"Final S«t« Plan Northmnt Boul»v»rd. August 1964*
y
FIG. 3. LOCATION OF MITIGATION ATTAMPOSI
A NASH SITE. NASHUA. N.ll.
-------
The mitigation sites were excavated in late fall
of 1984. The larger site is adjacent to the parking
lot of the hospital. It is an open water habitat 1 to
1.5 feet deep with very steep surrounding banks
(approximately 3:1 gradient). The smaller wetland is
also open water but with slightly less steep banks.
On 11 July 1985, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
visited the Tatnposi and Nash site to assess the status
of the wetlands in terns of their functions and values
and make recommendations for improvement if
necessary. At the time of the visit the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers reported two to six inches of
discolored (stagnant) water occupying the greater part
of each of the basins. According to the Corps, these
wetland areas were probably flushed only during periods
of heavy runoff or groundwater discharge and no natural
vegetation was growing yet in the basins. The Corps
stated that
the proximity of these two small mitigation
sites to the veil established 700 acre
wetlands may facilitate the establishment,
over several growing seasons, of sedgesf
rushes, ferns, skunk cabbaget red maple,
purple loosestrife and narrow-leaved
cattail. The banks appeared to have been
seeded with fescue and stabilized with straw.
22
-------
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers observed other
plant species that volunteered and grew sporadically
along the shore. These inluded rushes (Juncus spp.Jr
sedges (Carex spp.)« umbrella sedges (Cyperus spp.),
spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.)/ ferns (Osmunds, spp.)
and narrow-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia).
On 21 August 1985, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers informed Tamposi and Nash that
a commendable job had been done in grading the
bottom contours of the basins to the
appropriate elevation, and in seeding/
stabilizing the bank.
However, they informed the developers that there
was a notable lack of wetland (emergent) vegetation in
the basins, and suggested that they might want to
transplant from nearby stands and provided Tamposi and
Mash with a conceptual plan for revegetation. However,
transplant of wetland vegetation was not required in
the permit and thus it has not been done.
On 14 August 1985 a site visit was made by Ketcalf
and Eddy biologists. A few isolated individual culms
of Typha, sedges and rushes were found growing along
the perimeter of the water/upland edge of the larger
basin while barley and rye were growing on the banks.
23
-------
There were two sand bars on the northwest and northeast
corners (the locations of the openings) in the larger
basin (see figure 4). The sand bar at the northeast
corner of the larger basin was apparently created by
sand and sediment from the large storm drain beside
it. The sand bars were situated on soft wetland
substrate adjacent to palustrine scrub/shrub wetland
and emergent macrophyte wetland. There was a berm
vegetated with barley and rye on the northern edge of
the basin approximately five feet above the elevation
of the adjacent palustrine (oak and red maple) forest.
There are a variety of measures for potential
improvement of this wetland site. Stormwater runoff
from the entire industrial construction site appears to
drain (just to the east of the new wetland see fig. 3),
via the storm drain into the newly created larger
basin, resulting in heavy sedimentation and contami-
nation. This situation should be eliminated to enhance
opportunities for new wetland survival. In addition,
this site would have had a greater chance for success
if it had been in a location contiguous with the brook
and its wetlands and further removed from the influence
of the construction site and stormwater runoff. The
basin will continue to receive petroleum products,
deicing salts and other stormwater derived runoff from
the parking lots and developed areas even after the
24
-------
construction area is completed since storm drains have
been constructed to drain directly into the new wetland
area. The banks of the basin also are too steep to
support successful vetland vegetation since a greater
slope actually reduces the amount of area available for
vetland vegetation and causes significant erosion
problems.
Central Conneticut Expressway
On 30 April 1984 the Connecticut Department of
Ttansporation received a permit (No. CT-NEBR-84-116)
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to place and
maintain fill material consisting of earthen fill,
riprap and concrete below and above the ordinary high
water line in Piper Brook and Bass Brook and their
adjacent wetlands in conjunction with the construction
of a 0.7 mile section of the Central Connecticut
Expressway in New Britain and Newington, Connecticut (A
copy of the permit is found in Appendix C). Regulated
activities consisted of construction of a fully con-
trolled access expressway through the towns of
Newington and New Britain, two permanent ramps at Route
175 and the realignment of 18*75 feet of Route 175. The
expressway embankment was formed by placing 530,700
cubic yards of clean fill in 19.9 acres of existing
wetlands and stream channel. Figure 4 shows the
location of the alignment.
25
-------
I LOCATION MAP
VICINITY
NAP
SCALE
CONSTRUCTION Of
CENTRAL CONNECTICUT EXPRESSWAY
NtW BRITAIN AND NEWINGTON
HARTFORD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT
coo
ALL CLCVATIONS BASED ON
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL
DATA OF I92t
STATE PROJECT N0.8S-a&
DATE : FEBRUARY 1983
SOURCE :CTDEf. 1963
FIG.4 LOCATION OF CENTRAL CONNECTICUT EXPRESSWAY PROJECT
-------
The work area prior to construction consisted of
25 to 30 acres of upland forest and wood swamp, shrub
swamp and emergent macrophyte wetland adjacent to the
brooks. Industrial* commercial and residential
development formed its southern, western and northern
boundaries. The east side was bordered by two upland
peninsulas which were hilly and characterized by
hardwood forest except for where the confluence of the
Piper, Bass and Sandy Brooks flowed east with its
bordering wetland. Figure 5 shows the location of this
site.
On 22 March 1982, Steve 0. Fish of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife assessed the major kinds of habitat in
this area. According to Fish, the predominant natural
feature on the property prior to mitigation was wetland
area approximtely 17.9 acres in size. The Penn.
Central railroad embankment extended the length of this
wetland on its southern border. The north and
northwestern border of the wetlands graded into a mixed
upland forest. The western border of the wetland was
demarcated by a raised field created by excavation fill
from the Route 1-291 highway bed construction that was
begun in 1973 and abandoned in 1979 by the Connecticut
Department of Transportation.
27
-------
AMTRACK RAILROAD
1 >—I 1—-» 1
I 1 H—« f 1 •
FIC. 5. LOCATION OF MITIGATION HASINS AT CENTRAL CONNECTICUT EXPRESSWAY
-------
Major plant species within the wetland consisted
of dogwood (Cornus sp.), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymboswn), reed (Phragatites) t cattail (Typha
Jatifolia), and box alder (Alnus sp.). There were
indications of extensive wildlife use of the area by
such species as woodchuck (Marmota jnonax), nuskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus) and numerous song birds. The
wetland area on its northern edges was succeeding to a
wooded area. Many species of young saplings such as
red maple (Acer rubrum), white ash (fraxinus
Americana), birch (Betula sp,), and occasionally red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and black and red oaks
(Quercus sp.) appeared on this edge. The land began to
rise and slowly grade upward into an upland forest
habitat. This area was dominated by mixed hardwoods
such as black and red oak (Quercus spp.), white oak
(Quercus bicolor), hickory (Carya sp.) with some black
birch (Betula lenta) and white ash (Fraxinus
Americana}. Two other habitat types which made up the
next largest amount of acreage to the wetlands were
designated open field and old field by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The open field habitat consisted
mainly of perennial grasses and some herbaceous shrubs
such as golden rod. The old field habitat was
characterized by numerous of young tree species such as
gray birch (Betula lutea), black birch (Betula Jenta),
29
-------
red maple (Acer rubrum) and cedar (Junlperus sp.). In
addition, bayberry (Afyrlca pennsylvanica) was abundant
in the old field habitat. The open field was basically
created as a result of deposition of excavated material
from the highway corridor that was abandoned in 1979.
There were significant negative impacts on this area
due to four-wheel drive vehicles, dirt bikes and heavy
use by people for dumping, partying and even target
shooting. Table 5 contains a summary of plant species
at this site observed in March 1980.
According to the Statement of Corps of Engineers,
Findings and Environmental Assessment document dated 19
April 1984, the expressway construction at this site
required filling 19.9 acres of impermeable
wetland substrate and 2.0 acres of stream
substrate. Permeable upland areas would also
be filled along the 0.7 mile corridor. The
paved surface of the highway would be
impermeable while the embankments would be
permeable. The work also involves the
relocation or culverting of 2650 linear feet
of stream channel with a reduction in overall
stream length of 200 feet.
According to this document, the permittee would
fill about 19.9 acres of vegetated wetland including
30
-------
TABLE 5. WETLAND PLANT SPECIES AT CENTRAL CT
_ EXPRESSWAY, NEWINGTON AND NEW BRITAIN, CT*
Species present prior to construction:
Dogwood Cornus sp,
High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum
Reed Phragmites
Cattail Typha JatJfolIa
Box Alder Alnus sp.
Red Maple Acer rubrum
White Ash Fraxinus ajnerlcana
Birch Betulacaeae
Red Cedar Juniperus virgin! ana
Black Oak Quercus velutina
Red Oak Cuercus rubra
Species present at newly created mitigation sites:
Cattail Typha latifolia
Pickerelveed Pontederia
Observed by Steve O. Fish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
March 1982.
wood swamp, shrub swamp and wet meadow, and fill or
alter 2.0 acres of upper perennial stream. About one-
third of the stream channel to be relocated had been
rechannelized in the past for highway construction.
The filled wetlands were valuable for flood storage and
water quality maintenance as well as valuable wildlife
habitat.
Mitigation measures specified as conditions to
this permit for the project included the creation of
23.3 acres of wetland by upland excavation In
the five parcels of land referenced for state
project Ko. 88-98 in a letter from Ned HurJe
31
-------
dated February 23, 1984. These parcels are
shown on two copies of 2 "=200' scale plans
entitled "Central Connecticut Expressway
Photogametry, Cramwell to Farain?ton", as
altered by Mr. Burle to accompany that
letter. One copy of these plans is in the
Corps of Engineers permit file for this
project, the other is in the Connecticut DOT'S
file. Prior to beginning work on these areas,
the Corps will meet the representatives of the
Connecticut DOT to discuss the final design of
these proposed wetlands, including the
relocation of Piper Brook. The Corps will
coordinate with concerned Federal agencies.
The Connecticut DOT will coordinate with the
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection for their approval. [The permit
also required that] no temporary fill (i.e.
access roads or cofferdams) be placed in
waters of wetlands unless specifically
authorized by this permit. If temporary fill
were authorized, it should be disposed of at
an upland site and suitably contained to
prevent runoff from re-entering a waterway or
wetland, and the area restored to its
approximate original contours. During use it
must be stabilized to prevent erosion.
32
-------
Excavation of the mitigation sites took place in
November 1984 at site 4 and 5 while sites 1, 2, and 3
were excavated during the mid-summer 1985 (See Figure 6
for location of these sites). During excavation of
site 5 a rock ledge was encountered. With U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers approvalr the applicants worked
around the ledge creating two smaller basins (5a and
5b).
Metcalf & Eddy's biologists visited these
mitigation sites on 28 August 1985. The following is a
description of each of the six basins.
Basin 1. Basin 1 was a 3.5 acre site located next
to the embankment of the expressway. Water in the
basin was approximately five feet deep and in August
1985 there was no vegetation visible in the extremely
turbid water. The pond water level was equal to the
adjacent water level in the brook. According to Mr.
Jerry Mosimann of Arute Brothers Constuction Co., there
were many fish in the pond as a result of a recent
overflow of the brook into the pond. The slopes of the
banks surrounding the pond appeared very steep and
according to Mr. Mosimann, top soil was to be placed on
the slopes. Due to the location of the basin
immediately beside an 80 foot highway embankment, the
extreme steepness of the slope, and the rock riprap
cover of the embankment, it seems likely that this
33
-------
basin will function best as a sedimentation basin foe
stornwater runoff from the newly created expressway,
rather than as a newly created wetland.
Basin 2. Basin 2 was very large (13 acres, see
Figure 5) but had no vegetation at the time of the site
visit, with the exception of Typha latifolia growing
along the east border where the railroad track was
located. The banks of this basin had very steep slopes
and there were areas of significant erosion from the
steep hills to the west.
Basin 3. Basin 3 was approximately 2.6 acres in
size. It was still under construction on 28 August
1985. The slopes at that time appeared very steep and
seemed likely to promote highway runoff into the basin.
Basin 4. Basin 4 was approximately 4.7 acres in
size and two feet deep. It was excavated in November
1984. Very healthy Typha and Pontederia were growing
around the edges of this basin. It appeared to be an
ecologically viable wetland.
Basin 5a. Basin 5a was less than an acre in size
and impounded very little water in August 1985. There
was a large rock outcrop in the basin encountered
during excavation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
decided not to blast the rock to gain more wetland
acreage since the mitigation measures were already
greater than the 1:1 theoretical wetland compensation.
34
-------
Basin 5b. Basin 5b (excavated in November 1984)
was approximately 1.4 acres in »ize and approximately
two feet deep. The shallow water area was dominated by
healthy Typha. This was the most ecologically
successful of the mitigation sites excavated in August
1985. Zt was filled with Typha and appeared very
healthy.
In generalf the Central Connecticut Expressway
mitigation sites were successful at basins 4 and 5b
(which accounted for 6 acres of wetland habitat out of
21 expected acres). The basins that were excavated in
the summer of 1985 (1,2, and 3) all had very steep
surrounding side slopes which are not conducive to
successful establishment of wetland vegetation. Also,
basins 1 and 3 are immediately adjacent to the highway
and likely to suffer adverse impacts from the highway
runoff.
Stratford Land Improvement Corporation
The Stratford Land and Improvement Corporation
(SLIC) received a permit (NO. CT-ANSO-83-013) on 12
January 1983 to retain and maintain fill in the waters
and adjacent wetlands of Lewis Gut, at Stratford,
Connecticut. The permit describing this work is
contained in Appendix D. The purpose of the fill at
this site was to facilitate industrial development.
Figure 6 shows the location of this site.
35
-------
• • w *«-•*•• * *J »—** -\r __» . «
^crN'V£¥^&&
Approiimttt tcali: 1 "• M7
:.*?.?*?V2S
FIG. 6. LOCATION OF SLIC SITE (adapted from SLIC, 1982 Application for permit)
-------
K.IIU
ICCuJ IUF TAKIN MDV
I I ' ' '
HmT^r^ra
M»IN« •«£* \
/ V t^
.\ /v«
//
FIG. 7 LOCATION OF BOl'RNF. MARINA DEVELOPMENT, DOURNE, MA
(a«la|)tcd from MA DF-QE, 1900 permit application)
-------
—
SCALE: I^
HG. 8. LOCATIOK OF BOURNE NfARlNA MITIGATION, BOURNE, MA
-------
According to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
document prepared by Richard Roach dated 10 March 1982,
much of the SLIC property at this site was originally
tidal marsh that was diked from the ocean in the late
1940's and used as a disposal site for dredged
materials from navigation channel dredging in
Bridgeport Harbor. This earthen dike, near the
southwest corner of the property, was near the mouth of
a tidal inlet. Sometime between 1950 and 1959, the
dike was breached, either by natural causes or by man,
and as a result, natural tidal processes resulted in
ocean inundation of much of the area landward of the
dike (almost all of the westerly portion of the SLIC
property).
These conditions persisted until the summer of
1969, when due to regular semi-diurnal tidal
inundation, natural tidal marsh emergent microphytes
had become reestablished on the landward side of the
original dike. This also occurred on the eastern
boundaries of the property (on the seaward side).
Manmade openings had been left in the seaward dike and
in some locations the dike was also breached by natural
means. These manmade breaches on the easterly side of
the property had remained open from the 1950s to at
least 1968, allowing tidal waters to inundate areas
landward of the dike and facilitating the reestablish-
37
-------
ment of tidal marsh emergent macrophytes by natural
processes. However, subsequent to 1969, many of these
breaches were blocked by placement of fill or other
structures. No descriptions of these activities on
this portion of the property during this period of time
•re available and thus one cannot ascertain (based on
permit file information) whether or not the openings
were blocked by performing work seaward of the mean
high water line.
In August of 1969, SLIC began work on the fill for
the railroad embankment (see figure 6). This fill was
placed across a tidal creek that was subject to twice
daily inundation by mean high waters. Also, seaward of
the railroad embankment fill, some additional fill and
a culvert with a tide gate were placed to further
restrict, but not completely block off, tidal
inundation in the area landward of this fill and
culvert. The fill was placed across a tidal creek,
seaward of the then existing mean high water line.
Work continued on the railroad embankment fill and town
records indicate that the town of Stratford installed a
drainage ditch with a tide gate extending from Long
Beach Boulevard through the old dike and connecting
directly to tidal waters. The tide gate was installed
below mean high water line to insure that tidal waters
would not inundate the areas landward of the dike and
38
-------
the drainage ditch would extend the reach of tidal
waters if opened to tidal influence. Following this
activity* the permit file documents that development
and improvement activities ceased on this property from
1970 until 1978.
In December 1980 and January 1981, SLIC excavated
a series of drainage ditches for purposes of industrial
development And deposited the excavated material on
wetlands that were under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
jurisdiction. This work was performed without a
permit. SLIC also widened the existing dike system by
depositing excavated material on wetlands under U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction and excavated
material from the seaward side of the mean high water
line on the ocean side of the existing dike system
without Corps of Engineers approval. In February 1981
a formal Cease and Desist Order was issued to SLIC
leading to a lengthy series of meetings and
correspondence between SLICf the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the State of Connecticut. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers held that
the area was not physically and biologically
homogeneous and had a wide variety of unique
physical features and biological
communities. The area consisted of uplands,
open water ponds, tidal ditchese small tidal
39
-------
marshes, open-water estuarine areas that were
cut off [from the twice daily ebb and flow of
the tide] (apparently without required
permits)t perched wetlands and pondsf fresh
water wetlands, old earthen fill dikes that
have eroded considerably, and numerous other
manmade features.
The dike did not serve as an effective boundary
against inundation by tidal waters. During summer of
1981 SLIC submitted an after-the-fact application for
Section 404 permit.
A Section 404 permit, granted in Janurary of 1983,
permitted retention and maintenance of existing fill
and also contained an authorization to place an
additional approximately 72,000 cubic yards of fill to
an elevation of 8.0 feet HSL on approximately 895,000
square feet of wetlands for proposed industrial/
commercial development that was consistent with
existing zoning on the property (See Figure 6 for
location of fill). The applicant was also authorized
to place clean temporary fill at one location
approximately 100 feet east of Breach No.2 (see Figure
6 for location) to allow access to the dike between
Breach No. 2 and Breach No. 3 for purpose of carrying
out the conditions specified in the permit.
40
-------
Special conditions for mitigation listed in the
permit (zee Appendix D) included:
constructing A 1.5 acre fresh to brackixh pond
north vest of the €90 foot dike by sloping from
shallow to deep rater (no deeper than 3
feet)... Me would preserve J.5 acres of
existing nixed upland and vetland habitat
around tftg pond.
The applicant will leave undisturbed the
existing marsh vegetation on approximately one
acre located approximately 250 feet southeast
of the 690 foot dike. Jn addition
approximately one acre located adjacent to the
southeast side of the 690 foot dike will be
regraded by dragline working from the dike to
a final elevation of 2.5 to 3.5 M5L to
encourage marsh vegetation.
The applicant will increase the hydraulic
radius of the canal immediately north of
Breach No.l to ease hydraulic pressure with
top elevations of 0.5 KSL to retain-water in
the ditchesf creeks, and Marsh during low
tide.
The applicant will widen £reaches No. 1
and 2 another 100 feet by excavating the dike
to the level of the adjacent mars* surface.
41
-------
In the case of Breach No. 2 this would be
accomplished by removing the dike Around the
corner immediately north And east of the
existing breach. Tvo check dams would be
installed in the ditch at Breach No. 2 ( with
top elevations of 0.5 MSL).
The applicant vill remove 250 feet of the
dike to the level of the adjacent marsh
surface at Breach No. 3, starting at the
existing breach and around the corner in a
westerly direction. This should promote sheet
flow of tidal waters to the wetlands within
the dikes. The dike at Breach No. 4 will be
widened another 100 feet in the same manner.
The material removed from the dike at Breach
No. 3 will be placed in the drainage channel
between Breach Ho. 2 and No. 3 at a uniform
elevation of between 2.5 and 3.0 MSL to
encourage marsh vegetation. Material may also
be placed on the top of the existing dikef but
not on the seaward face.
No temporary fill (i.e., access roads or
cofferdams) may be placed in waters or.
wetlands unless specifically authorized by
this permit.
42
-------
The complete set of special conditions for this
project is contained in the permit in in Appendix D.
An amendment to the original permit was issued in
August 198S giving SLIC an
18 month extension to viden Breaches No. 2, 3f
and 4 Allowing enough time to resolve current
litigation by the state and develop a uaster
plan for the property acceptable to SLIC, the
State and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
- This amendment (found in Appendix D) also allowed
for change in the shape and orientation of the fresh-
brackish pond by elongating it to the southeast
(keeping the same acreage) as well as a change in
location of the pond in order to limit the extent to
which construction equipment would be required to work
in the existing wetland areas. Also,
a maximum of three roads will be necessary,
each 20 feet vide with a maximum length of 170
feet extending east from the railroad bed.
The roads are to be removed when the pond is
completed. The applicant is to dispose of the
excavated material from the pond on the north face of
the railroad embankment. This area (according to the
43
-------
August 19B5 Amendment) is to extend from the eastern
end of the railroad vest 750 feet, and no material is
to be disposed of at a distance greater than 70 feet
from the top of the embankment. Any material not
disposed within the zone is required to be placed on
upland areas (with an elevation above 7 feet HSL).
Ketcalf i Eddy biologists visited the SLIC site on
28 August 1984. Stressed PAragaites australis was
observed east of the existing tide gate located on the
vest side of the study area. It appeared that tidal
salt water was again flooding and ebbing from the area
since the salt-intolerant Phragmites austraJis appeared
to be showing signs of stress due to higher
salinities. This area will likely be ecologically
improved and revert back to its natural state (with
emergent macrophytes including Spartina aJternifJora)
when Breach No.l is widened by 100 feet (consistent
with the most recent permit requirements).
Widening the breaches to the ebb and flow of the
tide will be helpful in providing the much needed tidal
subsidy and thus facilitate reestablishment of the
vital plant and animal salt marsh communities. Grading
the resultant land in a gentle slope from an elevation
of 0.0 to 3.0 feet above KSL will favor salt tolerant
wetland species as opposed to the more opportunistic
Phragmites australis. Based on the existing vegetative
44
-------
characteristics of natural abundant emergent
macrophytes in the marshes to the north, the higher
elevation bare mud flats in the project area might be
sprigged with Spartlna patens for successful marsh
restoration. The creation of a fresh-water to brackish
pond at this site is inappropriate because it does not
create the same type of habitat as that which has been
destroyed.
Another suggestion for improving this site* that
is not included in the permit, is to remove the leaf
litter and detritus from the Phragmites australis by
burning (sometime between late December and early
March). This burning, coupled with restoration of
tidal flow, would enable Spartina (which will not burn)
to reinvade the area. Widening the breaches at the
same time and allowing increased salt water flushing
should give salt-tolerant SparrJna a competitive
advantage over Phragmites.
Bourne Marina
On 10 November 1981, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Division of Land and Hater Use received a
permit (MA-POCA-81-384) to dredge a two acre cove and
its peripheral wetlands to 6 feet below mean low water
in order to create a 5*4 acre boat basin in Bourne,
Massachusetts. A cofferdam was constructed at the
45
-------
inlet side of the cove to prevent sedimentation and to
allow the area to b« dewatered to facilitate marina
construction. Approximately 120,500 cubic yards of
granular material was excavated Cor the project, 50,000
cubic yards of which was dredged below mean high
water. The construction of a 180 car-capacity parking
lot and service building utilized 10,500 cubic yards of
this material and the balance was to be trucked to the
Bourne Landfill. Figure 7 shows the development site
(see Appendix E for permit and details of the project
construction).
Approximately one acre of wetlands bordering the
southerly and easterly portions of the cove were to be
transplanted to two areas, one immediately north of the
proposed basin/ and the other between the Dolphin Inn
and the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Bourne (See
Figure 8 for locations). However, the propogules for
transplant were destroyed during excavation. The
project also included installation of 1065 feet of 6
foot wide pile secured floating docks (consisting of
nine main floats)* within the newly created basin and
installation of a 106 foot by 8 foot fuel dock at the
inlet side of the marina. Approximately, 150 cubic
yards of concrete and bedding were to be placed below
MHW for a boat ramp.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Assessment dated 2 July 1981, the basin
46
-------
was south of an existing railroad embankment and within
several hundred feet of businesses along U.S. Route 6.
South of the site was a residential neighborhood. The
site itself was a tidal inlet that was dredged in
approximately 1960. There were approximately 3/4 acres
of fringe salt marsh, one acre of brackish marsh,
several acres of undeveloped upland, an abandoned road
and several abandoned houses on the site at the time of
the 1981 environmental assessment. The fringe marshes
on both the north and south shores of the inlet were
characterized by Spartina aJterniflora, Distichlis
splcata, and Phragmites austrails. This area provided
limited habitat for red-winged black birds (Ayclaius
phoeniceus). Eel grass (Zostera marina) covered the
inlet bottom. Shellfish present in this tidal cove
included American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), soft
shell clam (Mya arcnaria), quahog (Mercenaria
•ercenaria), razor clam (Ensis directus), blue mussel
(Mytilus edulis) and ribbed mussels (Hodiolus
jodaolus). Table 6 contains a summary of plant species
at this site.
Special mitigation conditions for this permit
included the successful establishment of marsh areas
vith technical advice to be provided by the Division
Engineer. The permittee was to transplant 5892 square
feet (1/7 acre) of high marsh and 9528 square feet (1/5
acre) of low marsh from the marina site to the
49
-------
TABLE 6. WETLAND PLANT SPECIES AT BOURNE MARINA SITE,
BOURNE, MASSACHUSETTS
Species present in cove and adjacent wetlands prior to
construction:
Low marsh grass Spartina alterniflora
Reed Phragmites australis
High marsh grass Spartina patens
Eel grass Zostera marina
Post-project species present at North Shore mitigation site:
Low marsh grass Spartina alterniflora
High marsh grass Spartina patens
Sea lavender Limoniun sp.
Classwort Salicornia sp.
Filamentaus green algae
Postrproject species present at the Cohasset Narrows site:
Low salt marsh grass Spartina alterniflora
High salt meadow grass Spartina patens
Spike grass Distichlis spicata
Filamentous green algae
shoreline of Cohasset Narrows/ between Dolphin Inn
and Massachusetts Maritime Academy (figure 8).
Other special conditions to insure successful
establishment of the marsh included
aj regrade area where advised J>y Division
Engineer, and lime and fertilize transplant
sites immediately prior to planting. Lov
marsh should be planted at low tide; b) for
areas to be transplanted within the inlet,
source material in the r*or« or" sods or clumps
were to be removed with sufficient soil depth
SO
-------
to include the root system (about 4-6 inches)
and planted the same day at the designated
transplant site. Material were to be
stockpiled in the Jintertidal zone to prevent
root desiccations c) Take source materials
from the Cohasset Narrows site from a source
designated by the Division Engineer. These
materials would be sprigs or plugs from nearby
salt marsh. Plant these materials within the
first two weeks of April 1982...; d) Plant
materials deep enough so that the roots are
below the ground surface and the stems are
above the ground surface e) Construct a fence
around the transplant to the north shore of
the site to protect it during construction.
Alsoe during construction when the inlet is
dewateredt the permittee's contractor should
thoroughly hose down and saturate the
transplanted and natural marsh areas within
the inletf with fresh or brackish water; f)
Construct a fence or barrier along easily
accessible portions of the transplanted eiarsh
at Cohasset tfarrows to prevent pedestrian or
motor vehicle access; g) if necessary, anchor
transplanted materials with netting to prevent
erosion before the marsh had time to
establish.
51
-------
This treatment was recommended for the north shore of
the inlet which was to be planted during the fall or
winter, and other portions of the Cohasset Narrows
marsh vaterward of the existing marsh.
The permittee was also to notify the Bourne
shellfish varden 30 days prior to the start of the
construction, so that shellfish could be harvested from
the inlet. Sediment controls such as haybales were to
be used to filter the dewatering effluent before it
entered the Cohasset Narrows. Effluent from the
stockpiled dredged material was to be routed back into
the basin, not to the inlet. The permit also
authorized
periodic maintenance dredging of the described
area not to exceed ten years from the date of
issuance; except that the permittee is
required to notify the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 90 days in advance of the intended
date of this vork. Work may not begin until
written authorization is received from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Metcalf t Eddy biologists made two site visits to
Bourne. Figure 8 shows the location of the mitigation
sites. On 11 December 1984 a shallow sand bar was
observed along the north shore of the marina supporting
52
-------
stands of Spartina alterniflora (in the lower
elevations) and Spartina patens, Limonium sp. and
Salicornia sp. more landward. There were also numerous
tide pools, containing stagnant water at low tide.
Landward was a relatively steep embankment (extending
toward the railroad with sand and cobble substrate).
The intertidal components of this area supported
emergent roacrophytes (including Spartina alterniflora)
and extensive mats of filamentous green algae (where no
emergent nacrophytes existed). Some reddish brown
areas were observed on the substrate characteristic of
algae and bacteria resulting from anthropogenic
influences (including but not limited to influence of
the adjacent upland diesel engine maintenance area).
According to Ms. Liz Koulaharis of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering,
although initially delineated for mitigation by grading
and revegetation, this area was never revegetated or
graded since the propogules were destroyed during
excavation. Also, due to temporary dewatering of the
site while marina was under construction and inadequate
spraying with brackish water, alterations to indigenous
vegetation and changes in topographical relief of the
site (due to slumping of bank associated with
construction of the channel), may have been responsible
for the changed characteristics of this site at this
time.
53
-------
The second mitigation site, near the Massachusetts
Maritime Academy on Cohasset Narrows was also surveyed
in December 1984. This area, with relatively low
relief (about 1:10), was a broad expanse of sand and
gravel substrate. The area near the upper reach of the
tide was generally devoid of vegetation, except for
some areas that supported Spartina patens and Ditichlis
spXcata. The areas midway between the upland and the
water's edge at low water supported stands of Spartina
altcrniflora and barren areas with mats of filamentous
green algae. Seaward of the apparent midtide
elevation, the area consisted of sand flats. The areas
that were transplanted with Spartina alterniflora as a
result of the mitigation effort appeared to be stressed
and few of the transplanted culms appeared to have
survived.
Metcalf and Eddy biologists observed similar
conditions when the site was revisited on 13 September
1985. Very few of the plants that were observed in
December 1984 at the Cohasset Narrows site grew
(through vegetative reproduction) during the 1985
growing season. Only one or two major clumps (1.5
meters in diameter) and one smaller clump (1 meter in
diameter) survived. There was evidence of ice
depressions in the high marsh and numerous small eat-
outs where Canada geese had eaten many of the roots and
54
-------
rhizomes. The site at the north shore of the marina
had some thick dense patches of Spartina aJterniflora
unlike the Cohasset Narrows site.
The apparent lack of success at the Bourne Marina
mitigation sites could be the result of 1} the planting
of the narsh too early in the season when environmental
conditions were still harsh; 2) the intertidal
elevation at which the plants were planted (which was
below the apparent midtide elevation and thus below the
elevation at which Sparti'na alterniflora could
reasonably be expected to survive); 3) the large year
round Canada goose population feeding on the root and
rhizomes; 4) the occurrence of icing during the winter
months; 5) the small size of the transplants and the
possibility that they were not planted with sufficient
root/rhizome material (to a sufficient depth) to assure
complete anchoring of the plants at the time oE
transplant; 6) the absence of a temporary protective
offshore bar to decrease wave action. According to Ms.
Janet O'Neil of the Corps, since the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers designed and regulated the transplanting at
this site and the town complied with all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers recommendations at the Cohasset
Narrows site/ the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will not
require the town to attempt to establish that marsh
again. However, since the lack of success at the north
55
-------
shore site was presumably due to improper care of the
marsh plants during dewatering, the Corps is requiring
the town of Bourne to replant the site (Ms. Janet
o'Neil, 1985 Fers. Comm.)*
56
-------
EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION
The effectiveness of mitigation is based not only
on the choice of site for the mitigation area but also
on the utilization of ecologically accurate, definitive
and explicit permit conditions. Table 7 summarizes the
representative problems encountered at the mitigation
sites selected for evaluation. The location of a site
for effective mitigation must be conducive to the type
of wetland habitat one is trying to create. Central
Connecticut Expressway (CCE) and Bourne Marina are
examples of inadequate site selection. Two of the
basins at CCE are so close to the edges of steep
embankments formed as a part of the highway project
that they will be continuously influenced by the
highway runoff. The Bourne mitigation site was an
unsuitable choice of location due to the low
intertidal elevation at which the plants vere planted,
the large year-round Canada goose population, the
severe winter conditions, and the heavy traffic by
people and all-terrain-vehicles. If the indigenous
emergent macrophytes were capable of surviving at the
Bourne site in dense patches, it is -likely that they
would already be vegetating the planting site by
natural means. Mitigation may have been more
successful with better chances of survival at Bourne if
57
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION
Site
General Rating
of Mitigation
Problems Occured
Syfeld
marginally
successful
Tamposi £ ineffective
Nash
Central ineffective
Connecticut
Expressway
SLIC
Bourne
Marina
NA*
marginally
successful
Slopes too steep; On-site
deposition of dredged
material; water too deep;
project construction began
before mitigation was
complete.
Slopes too steep; Inadequate
flushing; location too close
to project; storm water
runoff drains directly into
basins; permit not specific
enough as to location and
design.
Slopes too steep; location
(basins 1,2 I 3)
too close to project;
generally success-
ful (basins 4 fc 5b)
NA
Planting at too low an
elevation; improper care of
marsh while dewatering; poor
design by Corps; Poor site
selection;
* NA * Not applicable.ft is not possible to evaluate SLIC
mitigation because it has not been initiated yet.
several smaller sites were chosen rather than one large
site with little chance of survival. More time and
effort should have been spent determining the optimum
location for wetland creation and enhancement before
the mitigation was approved and thus enhanced
opportunities for success.
58
-------
Another issue that limits mitigation success is
the gradient of slope between upland and wetland.
These surrounding side slope gradients should be
specified in the permit. Syfeld, Tamposi and Kash and
CCE all had very steep slopes around the basins ranging
from about 3si to 5:1. These steep slopes limit the
area in which wetland species can survive since as
steepness increases the areas at elevations suitable
for wetland species decreases. Steep slopes also
increase the potential for erosion causing heavy
sedimentation in the basins. Gentle slopes (ranging
from 1:5 to 1:15) favor larger areas where more wetland
plants grow.
In many cases, permit conditions did not contain
adequate specificity. In all cases, the permit should
have specified a slope for lands surrounding the
site. The Syfeld permit should have required offsite
disposal of dredged material. By leaving the material
on-siter high islands with steep slopes were created
which were not conducive to wetland vegetation success
and instead resulted in areas where erosion was
exacerbated. The Syfeld permit could have specified a
maximum upland elevation. This permit also did not
specify the depth to which the open water channels
should be dredged.
59
-------
The .Taraposi and Nash permit was not specific
enough with respect to wetlands restoration. The
permit did not allow for removal of the berra that
prevented adequate flushing (hydrologic connections) of
the existing wetlands and newly created basins. The
permit should have specified the areal extent, volume
and elevation of excavation required for adequate
flushing. Also this permit should have addressed the
specific requirements for transplanting wetland
vegetation.
The Bourne Karina permit did not specify how often
the dewatered marsh should be sprayed with water
(during the construction period) and this contributed
to the lack of success at this site. Bourne permit
required regrading according to division engineers
instructions and this did not occur.
GENERIC PERMIT RECOMMENTATIONS
In developing generic permit mitigation
recommendations for wetland restoration, certain issues
should be explicitly addressed in the permit to assure
that every effort is made for successful mitigation.
The following is a discussion of some of these issues.
A common problem at most mitigation sites was the
steepness of the gradient or the slopes of lands
surrounding the excavated areas. A gentle slope is
-------
necessary for wetland vegetation. A slope of 1
(vertical): 5 (horizontal) to 1:15 is recommended for
successful wetland establishment. This type of slope
allows for extensive shallow and fluctuating water
level areas which is conducive for growth of emergent
taacrophytes and scrub/shrubs, and also minimizes the
potential for erosion.
In the development of a prudent mitigation plan,
another issue that should be taken into consideration
is that plant growth often can be facilitated by making
proper amendments to the soils. Recommendations should
be included in the permit based on consultation with
the local soil conservation agent relative to types,
rates of application and seasonal periods of
application of soil amendments prerequisite to
maximizing the success of stabilization of such
areas. Recommended soil amendments (fertizlizers
and/or lime) should be supplied in advance of any
transplating.
Based on the timely need for replacement of the
habitat being lost, it is more ecologically expiditious
(in most intances) to transplant indigenous wetland
plant species than to wait for natural succession to
begin. Selection of the most favorable types and
species of propagules should be based on species
already inhabiting nearby wetlands of the area. In
61
-------
developing the mitigation plan, the applicant should
consult with the local Soil Conservation agent for
specific recommendations on reseeding the wetland
transition zone banks surrounding the excavation area
for stabilization prior to issuance of permit.
Based on the specific type of wetland
habitat/cover type one wishes to create/ optimal water
levels for the vegetation must be determined. The
wetland must then be excavated to a soil elevation that
is consistent with the optimum water level. Kydrologic
analysis, should be conducted to determine at what
elevations the water system operates. Ideally, a
frequency distribution of river water level elevations
over several years in the river or stream closest to
the site should be used to determine the operating
range of the water levels in the stream and existing
adjoining wetlands. From this, optimum soil elevations
at which the wetland plants can survive, can be
determined within the range of the water elevations of
the system.
Generic permit mitigation recommendations should
also take into account water quality maintenance and
flood storage capacity of the new wetlands. No point-
source discharges (such as storm drains or combined
sewer overflows) should be allowed in the new
wetlands. Also flood storage capacity lost by the
62
-------
filling of wetlands should be adequately compensated
for by appropriate excavation in the same watershed.
In the case of estuarine emergent macrophyte (salt
marsh) enhancement or creation, permits should specify
the elevation (with respect to a tidal datum) at which
the emergent macrophytes should be planted. Generally
speaking, Spartina alternifJora survives best between
mean high water and mean sea level while Spartina
patens and Distichlis splcata perform better at
elevations equal to or above spring high water level
(Reimold et al. 1978),
The permit should also specify when wetland
vegetation should be planted. Early spring is usually
the best time for most coastal wetland areas; however,
caution should be taken at more exposed sites such as
Cohasset Narrows at Bourne Marina where harsh
conditions, such as icing, may damage transplants if
planted too early. Where palustrine scrub/shrub or
palustrine forested wetlands are being created, optimum
times for transplanting are when the propagules have
senesced.
The permit conditions should also address the
source of propagules. Generally greater success will
be attained with the use of propagules indigenous to
the local area as opposed to greenhouse stock imported
from great distances. Rates of removal of propagules
63
-------
should be specified however so as to not "denude" an
area from which propagules are being transplanted.
Reasonably, no more than ten to twenty percent (on a
density per unit area basis) of the culms of the
species being transplanted, should be removed from an
area.
Based on this review as well as general
observations of numerous other wetlands permits special
conditions in the Section 404 permits need to be more
specific, more detailed and more explicit in terms of
types and extent of different habitat types to be
created. Such specificity must be based on a thorough
understanding of the areal extent and habitat cover
types in the project area as well as habitat cover
types being evaluated for creation and/or
restoration. Therefore, a mitigation plan should
determine what habitat/cover types are needed in the
area and the areal extent of particular habitats to be
created for a particular project (Zentner, 1982).
Appropriate configuration of wetland basins, the
dimensions of wetland transition buffers and the mix of
elevations and habitat types must be stated in the
permit. Several approaches to determine such needs
include the Habitat Evaluation Procedure implemented by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and its various
alternatives such as PAH HEP.
64
-------
A mitigation plan should include a reasonably
detailed reconnaissance of the site before development
of mitigation requirements and after implementation in
order to assess the success of the effort. Detailed
monitoring and report schedules, methodologies and data
required to assess the success rate of a mitigation
plan should be formulated and included in the permit.
These monitoring details should be formulated through
interagency consultation to assure all resource and
regulatory needs will be addressed. An important
consideration in any wetland creation or enhancement is
knowledge of both elevations and soil characteristics
at the site. Preproject and post project monitoring
efforts must be of sufficient rigor to determine what
causes the successes and/or failures of projects.
Post-project monitoring should continue for a minimum
of one full growing season following completion of all
aspects of the planned mitigation to evaluate the
success of the mitigation effort. Reporting
requirements should be explicit so that all cooperating
agencies will receive copies of the pre and post
mitigation monitoring data.
Based on the five representative projects, post-
permit agreements between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the permittee should receive interagency
review and approval. Interagency approval from all
-------
applicable federal state and/or local agencies
(including but not limited to U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service,
etc* should be required for any amendments or
alterations in permit conditions. An example of the
need for such an approach is the situation at Syfeld in
Keen, NH where contraction of the shopping center
building was underway before mitigation was
completed. Consequently, the project was in
noncompliance with the permit until after-the-fact
approval from the Corps.
Once a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit has
been issued, any changes to the special mitigation
conditions should be reviewed by all applicable
federal, state and/or local agencies. Circulation of a
written document requesting any minor alteration in the
permit (by whomever desires the change, be it the
permittee, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, or the U.S. EPA
or other agencies) should become standard operating
procedure. Approval of this alteration would then
require written documentation and signatures from
designated staff at the appropriate agencies. Since
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to
amend a permit if it is determined that such a need
exists, this type of procedure should only be used for
minor alterations that need immediate approval (such as
66
-------
the decision by the Corps of Engineers not to blast a
rock ledge that was encountered at the Central
Connecticut Expressway site thereby creating two basins
instead of one). Any major changes should xequire an
asimendment to the permit* Such an amendment would
require review and approval by the appropriate
applicable agencies (i.e. U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife* National Marine Fisheries Service, etc.).
The decision-making responsibility for all changes in
explicit permit conditions must be dispersed.
In certain cases, mitigation measures should be
implemented prior to the commencement of any action
permitted under Section 404. Where it is determined by
the applicable agencies that the risk of failure is
high with respect to certain mitigation actions
proposed, the applicant might be required to
demonstrate reasonable success of the proposed
mitigation before any other permitted activities could
begin. Such actions may be applicable, feasible, or
desirable if success of the mitigation action is not
attained within a specified time frame (based on the
results of the past mitigation monitoring). In such
cases, amendments should be made to the mitigation plan
to facilitate its successful implementation or the
permit should be revoked. In some instances,
logistical or temporal considerations usually will
67
-------
dictate that mitigation be implemented concurrent with
the permitted project activities. Based on the
inherent objective of EPA to protect the nation's
vetland resources, applicants must demonstate
compliance with 40 CFR 230.10(a) and (b) before
considering mitigation. Consequently, mitigation
should generally always be completed before or
concurrent with the permitted project. Only rarely
should mitigation be implemented following completion
of all other permitted activities.
Finally, conditions for permits might consider the
requirement for a surety of performance bond or other
financial legal arrangements to assure success of the
proposed mitigation. By requiring some type of
financial guarantee as a condition of the permit/ and
by requiring that mitigation be completed and be
determined to be successful (based on the post
monitoring data) there will be less opportunity for
needless destruction of valuable wetland resources.
INFORMATIONAL NEEDS FOR SUCCESSFUL MITIGATION DESIGN
The following is a checklist approach protocol
which identifies informatinal needs with respect to
formulation of successful mitigation plan which could
be included as a condition of a permit:
68
-------
• Establish the project boundary as per the
404 permit application.
• Through recent aerial photography or other
Appropriate means, determine the areal
extent and quality of each habitat/cover
type in the project area.
• Determine project impacts on these areas*
• Determine the ecological habitat cover types
present in the project area and the relative
abundance and rate of destruction of such
types in the region surrounding the project.
* Determine soil and hydrologic conditions in
the project area.
• Develops applicable mitigation methods,
based on an evaluation of the following:
- List plant species and elevations for
each habitat cover type to be created.
- List mean low water, mean sea level, mean
high water and spring high water levels
(based on a local tidal datum) for each
coastal habitat cover type to be created
and/or develop frequency distribution of
water levels over extended period of time
for inland sites.
69
-------
Determine type of soils found at the area
including measurements of pH, organic
content and salinity where applicable.
Determine critical periods for wetland
transplanting, seeding/ etc., including
soil amendments needed.
Determine source of wetland propagules
for transplants and maximum percent of
the number of culms per unit area that
may be removed Cor transplanting.
Specify density of transplants, special
precautions to avoid desiccation, etc.
Specify elevational gradients where each
wetland/cover type shall be planted.
Prepare topographic map in 0.1 foot
contours showing post construction
proposed modifications to the area.
Specify slopes of all areas including
lands, submerged lands, new wetlands and
surrounding wetland buffer zone areas.
Specify interagency staff contacts for
verification of interim minor alterations
in the plan.
70
-------
Specify means required for applicant to
prove ownership/control of lands included
in permit application as well as lands
intended for mitigation.
Specify the size (areal extent) of each
parcel being developed as mitigated
wetland cover types and the excavation
with respect to the project or other
activities whose resultant anthropogenic
influences might negatively impact the
opportunities for successful wetland
restoration.
Specify plant species, propagule type and
density, means of planting and soil
amendments for surrounding wetland buffer
zone areas.
Integrate all the above into a detailed
findings of fact and an explicit
mitigation plan addressing each of the
above mentioned parameters*
Prepare a detailed schedule indicating
when fill, dredging, planting,
transplanting etc., in resource
mitigation area must occur.
71
-------
•**- Prepare a detailed schedule of events to
document requirements to implement and
complete mitigation, in advance of
permitted activities, or current
implementation of permitted activities
and mitigation as applicable.
- Develop a detailed post mitigation
monitoring plan including methodologies,
reporting schedules, etc. including
performance standards which will be
utilizied to evaluate vegatative success,
water quality, wildlife use, flood
storage ability, ecological value etc.
Identify actions to be taken to
facilitate assurance that the mitigatin
will actually be done as required
(financial quarantees, etc.)
- Describe detailed action to be taken if
mitigation measures do not appear to be
successful.
CONCLUSIONS
The review of five representative mitigation sites
in New England revealed a number of deficiencies with
respect to effective wetland mitigation. In most
cases, good intentions were not followed with
72
-------
sufficient documentation and technical foundation so as
to assure mitigation project success. Mid-course
changes were allowed without sufficient documentation
amd consent and often the initial prescriptions for
mitigation were not followed. The need for explicit
details *uch AS elevation, plant species, propagule
type, slope, time of planting, density of plants,
potential impacts of surrounding runoff, adequate pre
and post project monitoring and reporting requirements,
post permit interagency coordination and other
variables (stated earlier) were the greatest
contributors to lack of full success.
Based on these examples, in the view of the
applicant (and contractor), mitigation may appear to be
a necessary evil in order to get a permit. In the eyes
of some environmental regulators, the approaches to
date may seem very thorough and complete and thus seem
to satisfy procedural requirements. In the eyes of
other regulators and resource managers, the present
attempts at mitigation may seem fruitless and perhaps
even indicate that mitigation is not a viable
alternative.
Based on this analysis of mitigation as
represented in the five New England case studies,
mitigation has been all of these and more. The
emphasis for mitigatioon must focus on restoration of
-------
ecologically degraded systems, or enhancement of
ecologically Less valuable systems, and not merely
destruction of one viable habitat cover type in order
to create another. Future consideration of mitigation
should result in a more focused, orderly approach to
formulation, conduct, monitoring and readjustment of
the process so that it becomes even more ecologically
responsive and legally defensible as a means of
conserving oar nation's valuable wetland resources.
With more quantitative pre and post project site
reconnaissance, monitoring and reporting more explicit
mitigation conditions in the permit, and more
definitive, well documented intergency communications,
the concept of mitigation (as defined in 40 CFR
1508.20) is an ecologically viable alternative to be
consistently and equitably considered in implementation
of Section 404 of the Clean. Water Act.
74
-------
REFERENCES
Baker, G. F. 1984. An Analysis of Wetland Losses and
Compensation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404
Program: Managing Natural Resources. M. S. Thesis.
Univ. of San Francisco.
Ogawa, H. and J. Kale. 1983. The Flood Mitigation Potential
of Inland Wetlands. Water Resources Research Center*
Univ. of Mass. 164 p.
Reinold, R. J., M. A. Hardiaky and P. C. Adams. 1976.
Habitat Development Field Investigations, Buttermilk Sound
Harsh Development Site Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Georgia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Report T.R.D.-78-26
Vicksburg Press. 223 p.
Zentner, J. 1982. Development of Regional Wetland
Restoration Goals: Coastal Wetlands. In: Wetland
Restoration and Enhancement in California (M. Josslyn,
Ed.) Proceedings of a workshop held February 1982 at
Calif. State Univ., Haywood p. 23-31.
75
-------
APPENDICES
A. Syfeld Permit
B. Tamposi and Kash Permit
C. Central Connecticut Expressway Permit
D. S.L.I.C. Permit and Amendment
E. Bourne Marina Permit
t CODY
-------
APPENDIX A
Syfeld Permit
MCTCALF k CODY
-------
25-51-675
EtteV..«c D»t* _ 16 November 19B2
(tf »pplic*bJ»),
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PERMIT
1 Deceajber 19C1
to written rrqum B»wS _ - _**• • ptrmit to:
( ) Prrlorri work in or »Hrc«*>) ntvipblt w»t*rt »f thf Unitttf futri, wpcn ih« rtctwnmtndition «f tfc* Chitl o' Enpyt*tff,pvr»iur>t
to Section 10 el t*t KIWI and Htrtxct Act «* March 3. 1 W> O3 U.S.C. «011;
(X1 D'tch(>|* tfrtctptd ft fitl fnitiri*) into *«*ttn of tM UiiMd ttvtm uponTh* ittw»nct of • pcrmh from tM S*rr*!jry ef Ht« A>my
•ct>n« 1«w«wg*t th« Ct*{ »f Cn^n««r( pv'M*"! I* Sccton 404 of lS« f*tt^i W«tt/ Pollut.oo C«niro« An 186 tui. tiff. fO.. W-SOO).
t ) Tm«i»ori rikttfgrtf nuttri*} for (Ht purpMt of dwmpinf •* '"to oettfl «uwrt wport tft« iuu«nc« Bt » p»ftnii f to
Army •£!">> tt>fOt>ph ih« Chuf ol Ehflntin puftucnl to KoctiOA 103 of th* *A»(in« frot*cii»n, fti»»irti end (•netuwiot Act ol JB75
tM Sui. 1 052. P.L. 97 S37);
Byfeld - Keene A«««?c£»t««
Suite I01-C
6701 Sunset Drive
pl«ee 93,660 cubic yard* of bankfun gravel on a 13 ncre «it« a»«t of vhich
Is alxed uoody. eaergent wetland »t the nortKeast comer of Jta; lianpshire
Rt. 12 and We»t Street. The site i» bein^ developed for • sb^pping center.
Asliuelot te
Keene, Wev Uanpsbire
In arnfftfjM* »+1fl th* ptant inj drtv>tn|t cittctMd Iwmo wkkch »n lncwiy_«. -J tt*. *. *•- ei. ^ — •
, ^ , "Proposed !.'e*t St. Shopping Center In Keene,
S.H. County of Cheshire, State of Neu Hanpshlre Ashuelot RlveT rioodplain" undated
In tbr££ (3) »heet». MDrav!ia£ Showing llltlsation Agreeaunt" In one sheet undated.
«. T*>»1 •'« *ciivitm idrfit»in ifttH b» comitvm with t**» tnmt «nd p»ntfO< tp*CitiC**l'0n ol iht i«tm» »nj tond'tiOm of thit permit w+i.ch
nriv'l >n 1^* rr>od«(«C»).o*>. iwiMmion or r*»e(«lion 0f lh'» ptflil. •" vihott Of in p»r«, M HT forth mtvi !*>*«'fi£tlI»• Mi C«n»/»l
irn | 8' * twtio, «nd in tN*
-------
t> >*njl •!' *eti»il'ts *ut*>if»fl herein »heM. if they involve. during their cont|ruci,on or ocf »'-on. *"v d.tclu»o« Of pollutants into
»\.v*»» o' t<« Unites Su:*i or ocean waters, be 41 i'l f^-ei conusteni wth applicable water quality iu«a<>ei.cfliwrnt l.miiji.om »nf>ni. prefratmeni sundjrdi and management practices established pursuant to the Federal Water
Cc-nuno" Cpnt-oi Act el 1972 <«• L 97-SOO. B6 Stat.tlft!, the Mi»m fi emuon. Research and Sanctuaries Act el 197HM..9? 53J.
16 Sui 1052>. O> i>ursuant le applicant Sect* and lota' law.
C That «»h«n Iht •Ctivily autho ired h*«tin involves t discharge during its construction Or OPtritiOn. el »rty pollutant (including
frtajrU D> I'll m*lr«i»H. inte waters o( the United Sl»t«l, the authorired tet'vity Shall, if applicable water quality Standard* ate rrviMd
O< mod-'>«d durifj the ttrm of this permit, bt mod<(itd. >< necessary. IO ConlO'm with such revised Of modl*d w*\ti Qutlity Itandtrdi
months o< 1l» f'lt«tiy« dm ^ *ny rrvi»>0n O/ modification O' Mtttr quality ttanda/dt. Or M dirtcttd by »n wr«ttm*ntat en
r med>lf*<) ti*nd«ids. o< wptHifi tuch tenflf r ptriod ol timi at tKt D'it'«et Enf>nftr. ft* Environmental r*rOMCtAf to b» riatonab't und«> th« c>n:ufmtai%«n.
Ttnat 1»W 0.tc**r«» vntt not dnirov • thtattntd 0> tntfangtrtd t»tCi« « id*Mifi*d «nd*r tHt CndaAftttd totem Act. or
I*** t"!**1 habitat of twch »prc>«.
€. T*»t rS» »rrm• »*rm«fmit ih« D«tr«i Cn^ntcf or l>4 outn»ri«td rapmtntatnvU) or dr*i*nt«U) to malm
•! onr tim« dwn«d ntc*mry m ordtr to (tiurt that the activity btinf p«f(exm*d umJtr outhority of t*u« p*»mit « in
t»rrrn and COAdjlationinor dot! it
tht rtqutrtment to obiam Sutt en loc»l Mtent nquuKj by law « mwrit. The ptrm.mt »h«!l take >mmed>t i» action to comply with the provdioni ol thit notice.
Within ten dayt following receipt of thii node* of tutptinon. the permittet may requett • hearing in order to preient information
rt'cvant to a dcciien at to wSethtr hit permit ihouid bt re>niiited. modified or ftvokrd. II I hearing it reourmd. it iKiH bt conducted
P^Uiant to pr&cedurn prncribed by the Chief ol Engir>eer|. Alter COmp[|t>On of the hearing, or within a rtatotabll time after issuance
o< the »utpeni>»n notice to th« permiiiee il no h««'mj n rtqurtted. the pet mmi & condition! of thu permit or that such action would
einerwtte be in the pubdc interest. Any Kith mod-lic*iion. iwtpeniion. or levocition shall become iftctivt 30 day! altar receipt by the
permittee ol written notmoo* wai accidental, and the permittee hu been operating in compliance with th« termt and condit'ronr
o' the permit and is atie to provde MMlKtory etiurancei thji future operation! shall be m lull compliance with the ttrms and
condiioni ol thii permit, or 12) w dectt>on tithir to modify. Suspend or revoke thii permit in wholl Or in part shall be pursuant to procedures prescribed
fcv the Ch.ef ol En|ineer»
I. That in issuing this permit, the Government hasrtl>edon the inlormation and dau which the permittee has provided in connection
<»itn h>i permit epv'-ettio*. If. subsequent to the tstuanci ol thrt permit, such information »nd dst* prov« to be lalst, mcemplete or
i«i»cej'«ti. this permit may be mod-fitd. suspended or revoked, in whole or m part, »nd/or the Government may, in addition, tnitittita
Appropriate legat proceedmfs.
en. Tnat *ny m>*f<*tion. tuspens»on. or revocation of this permit shall »et be the basil for any claim for damage* tgairnt (he
Uivied States.
»v That the permittet sha'l notil« the District Engineer at what time the activity autho/iied herein will be commenced, •> far m
•dvtnci ol the timt ol comrnenccmini el the Dutrict Engineer may specify, and ol »ny luspension ol work, il lor a ptr«d of more than
«"e week, resumption ol work atd it! completion.
-------
|tt» »CI«dl . _
An ot r>«>-»-»S*r . fi ^S Ithrtf yttrt from |hc 04tt Ot rthiritt el tttii ptrmn urticti oth»t»iit lp*con *t
if *»tf »**»•»> |h« p*rm/rt»r 0w«ir*t to (e^tdon |h« •etwity »w|S»riMd h«rtm, vfil*** tufti »t*nOe*rr>tnl it p«'l Of *
bv **•*»« I*W Ptf*»mi»« W |f»fUfr«nn| Hn mwrwtt tar»m to • I*** p*li Sttit or lec*l Uw.ttn p«rmitt»t th»M ttkf »ach oeiion (t m*y bx
e>
4M no vw*MOo»bt* «nttr<*r«ftc* int*. »«*»^«ion by t»* *«»t*nc* or t«M of th* Ktwilr fcrthorntd htrtin.
t. Tr>M tlM* »*rmii m«r MM b* trfniltrrrtf to • ftirtf p*rty witHout |Ptby *tffttpn| to comply with #11 Mrrm K>d conoMiom of tM p»»m.i. In oadition. M t*w o*rmnitt
•r*ntfrfk t Otttf t*k*H nlcrtnct tfcif ptrmil ontf t*v« Wrm* tntf
«»tth 1S« d*«d with I** Rtf-llf ' Of O*«tft or Ottor l»9ropri«tl Of l«i*l.
II.
)M«T» lai contfiiiom «»l(iin| tprciltotiy le tt«f p'OP»t*d structure or work outr«ori«t4 by CM ptrmit):
«. Adequate »cdiitent*tion and erosion control device*, *uch as hay bales
or other device* capable of filtering the fines involved, shall be ia?lenented
and properly oaintained to ainiuiz.e impact* durinj construction. These devices
nust be reaoved vhen no longer needed.
b. The permittee is required to notify this office as aoon as possible
in writing of the exact location of the disposil cite. The proposed disposal
site shall not be used until the permittee has received written authorization
frco this office. In aost cases ve will be able to notify you by return mail
that the aite is acceptable. Kovever, it cay take as long as 63 days if a
field visit or additional public review it necessary.
c. The Tslni-sxrn finished grade of all surfaces, other than finished floor
(slab) clevAtiona ahall be 475.0 ft. KCVD.
d. Oil and gas separators will be installed in parVin& lot catch basins.
e. Salt will not be used for de-icing the parkins area.
f. Per the agreement of the applicant, Syfeld Developtient* Inc., and
Realties, Inc. and Ellis Hobertson Corporation, owners of both the land which
is the aubjo.cc of thi* application and the land north of aite of this proposed
shopping center, the applicant will excavate the area cross-hatched on the
"Site Location Plan*' drawn by Stephen h. Divis, undated to a wetland elevation
designated by the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers and with deeper pockets In
certain locations. Plan for seeding and/or planting vill be submitted to the
Corps for approval before project begins. The purpose of this activity is to
create further areas fo** the accu-railation of w«ter and the future growth of
wetland species. The precise location of the cross-hatched area will be
finalized after the New Knp»hire Water Supply and Pollution Control ConmUsion
approves the final design of the shopping center draintje syatea.
g. Construction work in the mitigation area shall be done first with
excov«tion completed to final grade and aubject to Corps of Enjinf.ers approval
prior to placement of fill aiteriil in wetlands at the ihoppinj center location.
-------
T«« «»J >>.v>ng Sprc*< Conditions «n« be aoOliCaO't «N»" appropriate
STB JCTURES IN OR AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES:
• That thit permri 00** no: •wthorilt th* inter Itrtnct with any Hitting Or propoted Ft d»'«< project and that t*>* p*f mitltt tKill not
f) fMVd 10 comptntat-on for damage or injury to IN ttrwCtwrti o* work awthoottd haitm wAlt>r\9 or future Opt'at'Oni u«0*'UK*n by Iht Uniitd Stattt in th* public interest.
t> Tnat no atttmot thai! bt mad* by (Kt permittee w 0*rv*nt tht fun »nd free wit by t*t public of alt fiavrf»b»* wwn »t
«o t*<« >f !•>•
c TI,»J .» l»vr doe>«v o< i*t*in »«d tr> 9tr/n«tltt. MOO" f*c*«t 0' * A9K* of rtvOC«1>O* 0' tha pttrriit or WOO* itl Itpi'ttion btfo-» Comptttion el tl«*
AwfaHi/rd »i'w«i. »N»«. •MrsOv/I <«p«nM to l*v Un>trd Sui« >ntf in tuch tim« (td m*nn«r M t>>t S^C'tl^y el tht Army Of
>>»» »>1l»O'./td r«)C'if*»-M»u»« m»y tf"tCI. 'CttO't thf Mkllfr«i*y to ill tQ"T*i Cond« S«Citl*'v «r hit Oevgn** m«y rttior* lh« vMUnwy » its
fO"n«v condition. by *0«»'»ei «r OlKt'»»M. and 'ICOvtr |h» eo«t
(or *m*» lo*lt: Thtt p*'"Mlre htrtby rKO}nii»t Iht POft'Oititv tKil (ttt llrvtturt ptrmitttd n«rtin m*y bt tubr+CI to
by «H«vt »«rv^ 4r«m »«t«int vri«lt. TrVt «iw«nc« ol ir»« p»'m/l do*l not nl-v*l trt« p«rmiut« from ULmg *>l proper tivw to
(K« tAiw^rty «f l«# itrwcrur«p«rm,UM> Nr*in »nd tht Mn**» by M*M*rd Nrrtin ineluoVt Pfriod'C m*inttn»nct dftdj.nj. it m»y b* p*>forrnt<( unoV trui p«rmMu»nct of thn pttmit (ttn yf *? wnlru othtrtmit ti
Tfvii tS« evrmintt «vJI ooVnM tht D«|rici Enf inttt in writing *t lt«it two wttk* bf fO'f Kt irittnd* to vndrruVt any
DISCHARGES Of DREDGED OA FILL MATERIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES:
». TK«t the dncn»rgt will b* carried out in conformity with Iht »o»lt »nd ObtKlrmn of th* EfA CwioVintt ttt»blith«d pur«w«n{ rd
4O4tb) of th« FATCA and pubfi»h*d in 40 CF R 330:
to. That tht dttchargt will eoniitt of iuit*b>t mjltrial fr« fiom to«ic pollwtanu in othtr trVri tract
C. That tfcf fill crtattd by the dnervKJt will bt p Act ol 1973. pubdvhtd in 40 CFR 220-328.
b. Trvri th* p*rmp>Ck>oui plac* >n th« vttv*l t« b* wt*d for th* txniportttion and/or
of th* d»»d»td mattrial at authorittd h*rtm.
Thit permit th»ll btcomt tff*Cti«« On tht dat* Ol t>t Drlt'iCI Engin+tr't sifnatu r».
htrtby acctpti and afl'tH to comply with the ttrrm and condition! o'
PERMITTEE DATE
•V AUTHORITY Of THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:
CARL B« SCIPLE DATE
orps of
nRineer
Colonel, Corps of
Division EnRi
T»a«»fe»t» hereby af tei to comply w«th th* term* and eond-tions of thit permii.
TRANSFEREE DATE
• ••• •:vr»%-~r%- I*:?;;-;. ?rr::: « :•.?•
-------
ELEV 478.o
—BUILDING
•'PROP. FINISHED
GRADE
ELEV. 100
YEAR FLOOD
XIST. GROUND
-SECTION A-A
t> tOO tOO KB 400
HORIZONTAL
MOM US 1.1 BUAO SHCtT (UlHl.K.M -VT.l
(FINISHED
GRADE-TYP)
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
EXIST COMMERDAll
ENTERPRISES
MOttMTY OVNtKl 6c IPO T:o 40Q
_i^^^^^^^B
M rut
CMVtL.
of
r»C»V*TtS AMD MCPLAC19 WMX CttAN
t.APtnoiHAirtT tt.ttd cy TBS Of CLUK
«UH tKWtL WIU. •( rLACCD
». 100 VCAH ruXO Cut*. AT CIKHAOtl IND 0> STOMM
It «?3 Q
LANDS DREDGE AND FILL
DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEL
DRAWING
I of 3
PROPOSED WEST ST. SHOPPING CENTER
IN KEENE N.H.
COUNTY OF CHESHIRE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
APPLICATION BY:
SYFELD - KEENE ASSOCIATES
ASHUElOT RIVER FLOOOPLAIN
-------
y
APPROX. EXIST GRADE
• OTC:
l AIOHI M*»ut[
MSUMfO
PROP 18" STORM DRAIN
0 200' 400' 600 BOO
. 46L80
PROFILE ALONG DRAINAGE EASEMENT
PROP
BUILDING
ITYP)
• DRAINAGE
1 EASEMENT
WEST STREET
EXIST. COMMERCIAL
ENTERPRISES
MAP SHOWING WETLANDS
DRAWING
2 of 3
PROPOSED WEST ST. SHOPPING CENTER
IN KEENE N.H.
COUNTY OF CHESHIRE
STATE OF" NEW HAMPSHIRE
APPLICATION BY:
SYFELD - KEENE ASSOCIATES
ASHUELOT RIVER FLCOOPLAIN
-------
100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
ELEV. 475.5
n fir ~|L»
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
EXIST. COMMERCIAL
ENTERPRISES
DRAWING
3 of 3
MAP SHOWING FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED WEST ST. SHOPPING CENTER
IN KEENE N.H.
COUNTY OF CHESHIRE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
APPLICATION BY;
SYFELD- KEENE ASSOCIATES
ASHUELOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN
-------
APPENDIX B
Tamposi and Nash Permit
MCTCALr * CODY
-------
fia. 31-79-507
r«!cct:ve
L-«tfen Catt
DEPAHTMSNT OF THE ARMY
PERMIT
i» writttt f*i*ic.;t (biro* _ 10_ JuTy. .1Q7Q .
{ » ffto"-. AA I ^ ot •'••eting tvti-igjMt w*im of th« U".:T
1C •' i** M«vm and HarboM Act of M*reh 3. 1M? iSi L.' S.C. 403J:
la* a permit to:
om*n»«rfji:or.
fr, •««•».
tC I O«*cfc«-j« o-rtf^erf w« liTI «n»i*ru! Wuo w«»r» ot it* C'n-ttS $-.i:rt vynn jvi rtiance •' • permit l»om »»»t f titt'i'. e' V-t A-.n
-':->3^> th; ^*r( ol tnji->»«.» pj>M*ni to Section fw> Ontioi Act (fe€ Sut. C'i. r i. SI j'.K."
>. iKf Csi:f e(
Vs* $w. t'JSJ: r.L «J-IC2>;
ir; it i-t. r
to Src: e* "£i Ol
ih*
*t -;t ot 13/2
Sasuel Tnr-posi 6 Crrzld Hash
2 Auburn Strcrt
Nashua . Kcw Knr.pjhlr* C3050
vl the Arfii>:
'" reviin t?4.ioxir»:itcly 1,200 cuhir. yaris of fill placed in approximate!/ ^,3"^C
ir.-ot of votlbnd a/t-n end to place ap?r?x!r^.tely 33,000 cubic yardK of wr.d tr.d (.e
in fcpprojcJrstely 80,000 nqunrc feet or vet lend aivn. PiJor tp j>2acir./ t'.t fill w
n;>px'oxir.«tpl; 6,200 ruble yards; of v»tlct.i Boil vill br cxcnvntc^ acn •/*«:" for
on tnc upland areas. The till natcr;.*! --ill bc» utr.bilizcd with apr-rcxir i:c!y 50
yar«!s of riprap or,-i provide a suitable foundation and grade: to coiistvu^t ir. i
building.
M l?fttl«nd Adjacent to P cm! chuck Brock
•« l^^hua, Kuw Hnripshirc
• f, nt Kachua, County of r.illcborouch, Stctc K.ll.ft in o^c ?:.*'.:,
"6/1/SO".
«: si
n O( l
o- tn
o«
tf.O
» «/*'
-------
ft Thti »« Kt>»-tc*o<$ •»»' JJl'iy n»i«^'tfi. tfii.e*- - .,. .
tun.to'ilt o« p»'lobiii>< pretr*»tm*ni tunot'dt t^O w«n*otmeM pt»ctict)~r.iVni>ta purivtit 19 t»« *«i/.,
Pa"""*" Contro' A;i el 1973 UVU. 9? SOO. •< Stit. 1161. the Mtrint froteciion. Ftetttrch tntf S»nciw»r*i Aei et 197} ».k 9J.JJ2.
1C Sut 10421. c> purtutM le »pp4ictt>ti Stai* »nd loc«i Uw.
r Thti «V«HA ihe octwily twtnoiiied l«f tin Mvo'vtl • *««•'•« during it» tontuwtlion o< epei«tion. ol »ny PC ,:i-t -s'ya.nj
0>f 09*0 e> '•" rr.jumtl. into wf ttit 41 the Unilttf $i»l»». the tw'.fio'irid tctivity thill, il »ppli:iUt wtter quidty ita-st-s: r» re\.ttd
e> msOit.5ddwi.ng i h« te>m el ih.t permit, be rnodil*d.iln*c*u»en o> m»tfiliC*tiOA of iwtiti quilily tttndkidt. or •» dtrtcud by in -; t-i-.:«i on
9>»n (onu.Aed in fwch rtnMd «r m»d>)it() tl*nd»'0t, •< within Wth longer ptriod cf t«m« n lh| Oitt'ict Cnjinttf. »"tf». tf 9-
rmint to U
Ttv«l 1*H «>x>i*fftt will not tftttfoy o 1hrt»t*n*d O< tftd»»iir*d !»«€«« M M*nl>tMd under tht Endin*ti*a tc-t-: *1 Act. or
*•> t'w wripxl on lit>>, «>/id'>ft. »nd raluf*< *n«tr»nm««ti«l v»lut«.
I. Th»| thr p^mui** *r«n tMttwwill protMtftl 1M U»M|ri,ct>on or work •utho'ind h«rtm bl • nv»An*r to *t ;; -•- -.M tr>y
t>«t P*'«MIIM «**H ptrmil IK* 0«t'CI tn»«ft«»» or N« aulliorltHl ftprtMnuiioth) Of d*|ifn*«UI 1C ?-4>t
»t •«» ttmt iiid tortin in food condition «nd in ftccordtnct ».•.- v » i «-» ind
nff>tl. »i»h«r in rt*l »ll»tt Of m»lnt»tt or »oy tkClwliot pfitrilttfi: «• r ^-*t is d«n
not •wl^O'i/f *TV injwy to p'OiX'ly o> irtv»t>on of rtgMl O< »"y tntnngcm*nt ol Fcckrjl, Suit, er tool Itffrt or ref^U'.-Z-t •> tiott it
th» >re><»rn>rni to bbinn Sw.f o> loc«l •utni rtquittd by U« tor in* Ktivily *uthorutd n*rtin.
I Tr»»i |h^ p«'n»1 nv»y be »«mn-.»..ty «utocnd*d. •« »««Blt O» in pMI. upon • findinj by tht Oittriet
tjvpf ni.on el tlx •ciivnv »-.>tNo»tcd hcr» n nould be m |N» gem'»< pub'< inltfttt. Jwch tut^cniien thill be (flrei:«t .•:•;• *«:t 'p: by
the permittee ol * »rciuer> noi::>ox»nd
(31 f.y «xr*Ufi which «'< drcmrd n*mury by the Dnmf. !•< -Mr :o*&au
tmntinent K»viJt to tt>e omtrit public inirittt. The p«rmilt(t |n«'l Ukt immed<4!t tctien to comply with |h« pro«i«ie-i :'•.-! *etrc».
%V.ihm tm d»r» toil»ynn( >tttf\ of Ihu nei-tt of twv>«nt: to • dvovon K to mheihei hitptimit irtoutd be rrmiutr S. mudifird or rrvekrd. II » hewing h rtnutiird. i*. fi . 1% tfljttitf
pvfiM>n« to pfoced^'n p>tKi>brd by tn« On I Of Eng.nrtri. Altrr ce">pltiian o> tNe l*»r.nj. tx Milhin » rttvorviWt tir» i".t- i'.:j»nee
•I IN. KrUMnnan rta«* to t>* p*n« p*rmii will iithtr be rtirnuir-tf, mo (kind or r»»t«ir
fc. TKH ihit pum.t mty be otN*' modrlird. tutprnsed pr nvs^td in wha>i or in put II th« Stcitixy ol th* Army f - : i
«tP>twntTe 0cu>minei Ihji ll«>e h«i brcn • vtolanun ol *ny of «ht term* or cooditiu*! ol thii petm'rt or |h«t i.*~. in :r
Oirteiwiw lm in the public iniotit. Any t»th mod.licf.'jn, Mtpermon. or rttocition th»ll bciomc ttlwOiv* 30 d.iyi »':»• -> *ci>cn *.N.th th^l tpecily t*-| l»en 01 eor.J« ct wiiriiiling um* unltit (II with'it '.*•» ZC-cit Mtiod
\'i l»l tK* »iitfcd v.eUllcn ol lK« U'mj »rvd tK* condiliont of triiicr- : Tdnet.irt
frfct. occur «' Ibl lix »l«pj«d »o'»nnn wtt KCid«e< with the itrrt r-S o-.d>t>orj
el ir*e peimit *»d i* •b't to P'twdt umlKtory tltunnctt tr-.tt fului* oPt'*t>ont th»ll b« in lull c»>nplitnct w.:* -.'+ :t— >l tne
cond-i>on» ol thit permit. O' 121 mir.m tH* «foi»M>d 30 d»r peribd. thi pirmitltt ritivtitt th»t » public rx«ti"| be ht s T S'IM^I O'«l
«»d *t,-r,;ttn txtfcnce concemin| t^t piopoitrl mp«.l>ciiion. twistM-en or rtvotttion. The conduct of (hit h«»ri«| »^s ft fstttfwiet
the C^»«t Of Enfedon th» mfeon tnddlU which tKe permiur* h»i p'O»» pcimn m*y be modified. t«tp«ndon. tutpention. er irvocttion ff {hit permit th*ll not be \ht b»il tor «ny d|Un lor d4-JH: *^>:nit |ho
United Stttti.
n. T»>*t th« permitiet ihjil nsuly |h* OrttiiCI Injintti *t w^t l-m* th* KtMty »uther««d herein ~'K be co-».-*'irt. »t fir in
•d«*ce e' thr t.m*ofcof».t>««etm»M»» theDnlnct En»>r>««i t>»» tptcily.tnd ot *ny tutpintign of work, if lortpt: 15 l' T«:» th«n
CO* t«*ek. retuntplion of work t>.A ill eomptrtion,
-------
to •*»««»« i»w »eii»iir rj»h»"wd »-«i»'B. umni tut* ttontf""**" A tun el
bv •»•»«•» !•»« P«'"»ititt rt irmUernng »«» HM«it»t» h»i»m to • llwtf p«ity pgrwim to Oe^K'*! Cone.non i l^ftn!. l.r
n> iNt
t t«»t ^ tU »e«»t*<« S**W Of tee»« Uw.
t»Hl Krm,1 »»ilh 1^ WrflrtlH Ot Ot«» 0< Ot»Wf
10 • th«rt i»n» witfwwi »r«f •unitm f»ci<« w f* Orittirt ln|>nt^. »ith« by the
•••«»« «« tnwi jnd ce«.• »»*fm.|. In •dj-tn/p. rf H
»;-*.U d hrvw *td Hi* *w«m.l »MI U- rtCWdtO *«wj •».!* lK» o**
-------
f
***^—
l-3^U4>T3
.<-\ £•-"•'- *--•;-->•
•^'2 . •—Jfi*—' yic'Ni'Tv ui.»
•i*" / ••"•>••-«*5- •"—. £?~~ •••• •—
• ••* . jt<>/ _• ••» f» - - r i
-------
IN on AFFECTING KAVIGABU WAT ens OF THE UNITED STATES:
FtdrrM P'0;«tt
t* m:«i Hi
»i.M>f #»
to* itjrr.«gc or injury to t*t u
t Uruitd Slltft in th» ptff* >
by or
ne >f itmpl fhjli b* m«* t»y »»» p*rm,ti*t 1C (>fK»«t the lutl 4nd (IN Mt by
'.3 \*i *Ji-»>-.> 3,i
IIM Uiwtrri Sum CMU Gutid Uvflbt miu(l*d«nd mkinui
lor by !*.•..
o'
iti
tf C
It the 9crmif.it
ol
ol
Of
it I
Th«l »*r(niltt« her fl>r r«C»«niiH thr POU't"l'l» «Wl <>>< H(xc»ur« p4>mitlttf h«rtifi nviy b* wb|KI to
r t>» vjt^c ««th fiom «MI*I*| vttitti. Tr>* «tw9nc* «> «M permit do*i net rf'cvt ir>r p»"«'il»t lie-ft l«ki->g «i! e>ef* » firm 19
i't initfiir »' tti« »irwc:u-tp*inn tnd |f>e Mitw »' bo* it m»or«d iKtftie horn tf*Ti*jf fe, n>*« «Jt A^.H Iht Oairttl Crt|bn*C( in MritKlur»t will fa* rttnra eul « chttM'e* **W eonriitt of tuitt^i m«ttri»i dec hftTt lent poiiuumt if ei*t< IK»« ir*c* qviv.*t:
c. Trui in« till cfMttd by \*n d K'j'S* will bt property m> Piiiftrf 10 pn>tM trot^on and eitw r.«n-p«int Muicn o> petiulion. »nd
C. TUt :rtt diichirff «n)( not occur to • ewnjwrwoi ol irn ha:ionj< WJef *nd Sonic Rp»*< Jyittm o» t*> » wrpontni r>! t SIJK m'tf
OUM?i*COr DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS
tip»d «n «OCFA 270 27J,
sci • CM>V ol ih» ptimil in i cenvp p
-------
APPENDIX C
Central Connecticut Expressway Permit
MCTCAtr a EDDV
-------
atr. Xn; CT-SZB »-8«-
nr o
f*f M&IS- Da'-* __ Anril 30. 1984
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
?*?.?.! IT
March 23, 1984
I ) Prrforat wrk 5n or «ff*ctinj Bivif«bl« wtun of tbt Untud StaUi. vpoa tbf momntndttioi of ta* CUtf el EnjtiaMrt.
vu* ud Harbor* A etc/ MarcbS. 1899 IU t/.iC. «ah
CD OJtchirjt £ridf *d or fill ntttrtal toto w«t»r» et tb» Unlud SuUi upon tht It IIUBM of • p*ralt from tki S*cr*Urr of U>»
.Viajr ertiof Uj/ou^b Ui« Cfcunf uf EafioMn pun u»»t U> S«ttioa 404 of tbt CUio Waur Act (U I'JLC. MMfc
4 I Tr»B»j»rt dredge! ntUrUI for ti» PCTPOM of dnxplnf It InUa oc«u> w»ur» upon th« btutsc* of t ptralt fran tin
S4rr»i*ry of tb« Army «etinf t^roufli the Chi»f of Ea|ltt*«n puriumt to S*ctiea 103 of li» Miriftt PioUctioa,
5 1 cetu«H*i Act of 1B72 (34 f^L J&Ji >.L. O-iJA
D«niel Coffoy, Chief of Design
CT Departnent of Irani port* t ion
P.O. Draver A
Wethers field, Connecticut 05109
t
10 place and ran in tain
n tain fill naterial contiatinj of eurtham fill, riprap And concrete
tha ordiiuir^/ high water line in riper Urook «nd 3is» Brook and their nr'.jaceat
•>.-«tiands la conjunction with tlie construction of a .7 nils section of th« Central
Cs.-::i5cticut -x?rt»ss'/fiy in U«w UritaLn end T.'auinstoni Consseticut as aho'./n en the
«- cached plan*. R saluted aetivitiea consist of the con «t ruction of o fully
ccutrollci acceR2 fti:jr«».»8«ny through the town of K*wington and Ifcti Britain, two
(continued on page 5)
fa Pipsr And Saia 3r
mi HjTJinston and ?Jaw Britain, Connecticut
Is occrrdtrc* with tit ptaai »cd ditwiaf * tittebtd btrtto wWth or* taeerponUd is sod nidi • put of tai* ptnalt (en
utmV«rwoi>^rrfr/iM'lv^fii» Umi tor! ccnditisnt oftMi ptrmit; tod
t sny •'.:ivl'.:«i not t^lficilly Idmlifitd ind »ytiiorii»d b»f«!n ihtll cenititvtt i violation ef th* Urmi tnd eoJxHtiaoi of
j ;^rmlt wW.:b aay r«i-iU in tt>« nodifieitica. •«»p«n»Ion cr rtvocitlon of this p*na!t. lo wbol« or fn p»rt, •} itl forth oor»
tiJ:c»lJ/ la C.t.-mil Coa-rtton* J or k btmo. anii Ju ib» Jnititxition of »uc)i l^itl prccttdleti 33 tbt Unit*d Suui Cov»n-
ut=*. -ty eor.tWfc/ apprpprUu, «»h«thtr o/ cot tiij ptr^Jt hit b«*a pnvIouM/ aodifitil, tuiptadfd or rivoVtd ia wholt or ia
pirt.
172:,SBp32 COITION OF tjuunnOBSOLETE IMJJM.WCW
1
-------
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
24 WOICCTT Hiu ROAD. P.O. DRAWI* A
WrnuKsmtD, CoNNtrricur D6109
_. (203) 566-4272
Phone -• •
An Equof Opportunity Employer
February 23, 1984
Ks. Janet O'Kelll
Project Manager
U.S. toey Corps of Engineers
42* Trapelio Road
Wiltham, Massachusetts 0215J
Dear
bject: Section 404 Permit for Central Connecticut
Expressway Project 188-98
The purpose of this letter Is to provide supplementary information
concerning wetland creation areas associated with the Central Connecticut Express-
vay construction projects. As you are aware, we field reviewed potential sites
for open water or marsh habitat creation along State Project Nos. B8-9B and 8B-1C5
on February 3. 1984. The enclosed table indicates the averages Involved for these
projects plus the two additional £C£ projects located between 1-91 and Route 15
(Project Nos. 33-103 and 33-1D4). As noted In the table, rights-of-way consider-
ations on Project Ho. 6S-1C5, may affect the u!tirate feasibility of wetland
creation in some locations on that project. This is due to the fact that ell rights
of way for this project haw not as yet been acquired.
Also, as requested, J tave enclosed plan sheets (scale: 1"*200'} showing
the preliminary location of wetland creation areas for Project Nos. 68-98. and
63-105. In addition to the sites shown, an additional 1.5 acres of stream course
will be created by the relocation of Piper Brook at the southern terminus of Project
to. 88-58.
It is presently anticipated that all of the 19.9 acres of wetland, which
will be encroached upon by the jjroject under the current permit application, will be
compensated by wetland creation. Similarly, it is felt that the designs for the
remaining projects can accommodate adequate wetland creation sites to offset the
overall CCE wetland irrpacts.
1 trust that this iTtfomation will assist you in finalizing the proc-
essing of the Section 404 permit for Project No. 88-98. Feel free to contact me
at the number listed above If you have any further questions on this matter.
,^^*i
Very
Edgar 7. Hiirle
Transportation Planner
Enclosure
cc: Mr. James J. Barakos, FHWA
-------
V Tkat ell attirititi antioriwd btrtta tbill, If tb«y iavolvt. dorinc titlr coBtiruciioa or eptretioa, eay dliebtrp* of
poIIuvaU Into «ur» oi lit Unlud Suui er ec*ta wturt. b« it alt limn caathUBt wita tppItttbU wtur quality *UBdtrd>.
aiflutat liiuiuu'oai *ed tUndtrdt of ptrfeivuc*. proeibitJoai, prtlreitatBt tUadudi ted miettitciDt praetittt •tublitK-
•4 punuutto tht CUtn W«ur Act (33 U.S.C. Wl.tbt Vfirioi ProUetioB. lUMVeb aad Stnctuarfet Act of 1972 [f.L. K-S33,
K St*L JOSH *i pvrtuut to tpplicablf Suu and local Uw.
e. Tbet wits ti* activity authored binis tavelvtt • dJtchut* durisj iu waitroetion er optrtUoa. er any peUuutt
«6vrf*iXf 4~4ft4or fill **urid). Itlo wtun of tat UaiUd SuUl. tbt •athcriud irtivity lt»U, if «pplie»W« *»Ur qu*)ity »ttn-
Ax?As ut wvi»*d er » tbt District EntJsMr at wbtt ttmt tbt activity tetberiod btrtta wtll B* conmtactd, it
far in tdviae* ef tbt tlmtef eomntBctmiat it tbt Diitriet Eaciattr »ty tpteify.asd of uy tu»p«Btio& ef work. U tor a period
ef toork Utta eat WMk.r*i«LmpUeB of work aad Iu eompUUoa. '
». mtim* activity B«tW{t»^.».tBt.«atMmpT«uJaaMUfer» JL* Aty *1 r*'C* ,1* "7
r>o«> iV tttt 9f inu**f* tf tUi ftrrnlt *»ltn eiKrrwb* tBrci.'M) tbit p*mit» if BOt prtvioutly revoked or tptcifictlly
•bt.ll aoleattleally expire.
px Tbat tbit ?»rmU do*r cot tuU-oritt or tpprovt tbt coattniction of ptrtlcvtu itnicturtt. tbt autboriitiloa er tj-pr-ovtl ef
• Url: rsty r»~uli. «vtBt,TiiiiIoi b t*.« C«ri»» et cU-».-*!;i-ri'»* tT:» t Ftdtrr ! (.•cxtrr.n : L
q. Tttt if tod «btB tat pirxltut dciirtt to atiudoa tie tctirity tutborittd hiriia. ualitt tutb kbtadonctut it pin of e
truufer proctdurt by »bi«)t tht p«n=Jtl*» J» lrtntfirrir.1 tli inUrtitiKeitin lo a third piny pctiunjt to CkD«»l Cotditioa t
btrtof, r.* BUU mlort tbt utt to a condition ttltiftctory Ut tht Diiuir
r. Tk»l if lit rtcordiBi ef tXii ptnait it po»«!l!t gndcr »p,Mietb!« S\ Ut cr local Uw, (he ptratatc tht!! uVe iuc!i tctif 5 **
«a»y V« r-eetf-^uy t« ttrord lift p«natl wt;h the IU fitter «J Dwdi or nllm aprtibiliiy
(or n.r.lE icinltj rtcordi of title to tt>d iaUrtst i ia rtal pro^rty.
-------
tK«n ab*H a* M «nr*a*«sabU l*Urftr*ae* wltK Mvigttioa by tit* •kiiUsc* or u»t of tht activity a>j»J»omtd
i. T%it tbi* ptrnU Buy vtt tw trtathmd to • tblrd party whbaut prior written Mtlci to lb« Diitriel Eajizw. aititr by
ttit tructferM'* writua afrtmta: to cotaply whb all Urraa and ceaditloai of tail ptralt or by tat tr»ai!»rr»« »ub»cribia| to
tbi* p*rn>U ia lk» (pact prcridtt! btfcw a*4 tatrtby a^miei to comply wlta all Umt and eonditica* of tbl» ptrait. la addi-
tiea. U tbi ptra'.UM trmaifvr* UM leUrvtti autberUad kartia by coevtyuc* of natty. tk» d»td iball rtfartan taU ptreli aad
tb« unni aad e»ndiOea» «p^eir»»d b«raia and tbit ptratl »aall b* mwd«d alea« vitb tk» d»«d «itb tbi **tf**i el D*«di or
•tbtr ay orvprial* olflciaL
^w of ih« wsri auttyrstd t«r»iB, •ie
«r x>1« ier
U.
a. All «et£vitie> author iztJ by thit penit shall b« consistent uith cafe
eoastruetion practices and in keeping vith the Occupational Health and Safety
Act of 1970. The Division Engineer oay require codifications to the nethod of
construction or etjuipoent used in order to coaply vith adequate safety standards.
b. All areas of wetlands uhich are disturbed during construction by excavation
and/or temporary fill shall be restored to their approximate original elevation
(but not higher) *r.d condition by careful protection, and/or removal, and raplaceneat
of existing soil and vegetation.
c. Adequate sedinentation and erosion control devices, such as hay bales or
other devices capable of filtering the fines involved, shall be iopieoented and
properly caintained to minimize inpacts 'during construction. These devices oust
be removed vhen no longer needed.
d. !Io temporary fill (i.e. access roads and/or cofferdaxs) aay be placed in
waters or vetliinda unless specifically authorised by this pernit. Vhen tecporary
fill is authorised, it shall be disposed of at an upland site and suitably contained
to prevent run-off frota re-entering a waterway or vetland* and th« area restored to
its approxinat* original contours. During use it must be stabilized to prevent
erosion.
e. The permittee will create 23.3 acres of wetland by excavating upland in
the 5 parcels referenced for State Project Ko. 83-98 in a letter fron Ned Hurle,
c*tod February 23, 1984. These parcels are shown on two copies of 1""200* scale
plans entitled "Central Connecticut Expressway Fhoto^raaaetry, Crasuell to
F-mington,*1 as altered by Mr. Hurle to aeconpany that letter. One copy of these
plans is in the Corps of Engineers pernit file for this project, the other is in
the Connecticut DC7*s file. Prior to beginning work on these areas, the Corps
vill neet vith representatives of the Connecticut DOT to discuss the final dssign
o* these proposed v-stlanda, including the Piper Broolc relocation. The Corps will
coordinate with concerned Fedsral agencies. The Connecticut DOT will coordinate
vith the Connecticut Dapartncnt of Environmental Protection for tbair approval.
-------
Tk« foll««lac Special CoadiUoat will »• applicant wbta appropriate:
STtUCTVK: IN 01 AFriCTING. NAVtGAtlt WAtlKS Of TMI UNHID STATUt
•_ TfcatthJa permit o"o*» not authoriM lit iaUrf*r«aet with aay tiiatlag or prepoatd Ftdaral project aad that tat ptrasiu**
•ball not b* milled to eomptBtatira (or daaagt or Injury to tat ttrueturee or work tutbori*«d hwala which Bay be cauatd by
or rtiuh boas «xft tia* or futurt optratioai uadtrttkta by tat Uciud Suut In U»* public iatertat.
b. Tkat »o attempt aUU be taadt by tat permit** to pmoat th« fuU aad Im vat by th« public of all eavipbte w»ur» *t or
«4j«c«Bt 10 tk« uUvit/ •vtborUodb? iki» ptmit.
e, t»a if lit dlipUy «J UjlU ud •Ifeali on uy itrectort or work «oihorU*«5 btrtla Ii aot otb«rwl»« provi4«d for by Uw.
net Ugbu ud ilcnUi M n.y b« pt«»crib«d by thi Vslud Suut Cw»t Guard tkaU b« biullad tad ntlsUUtd by tad »t tbt
4. Tk*t lit pvratltuc, spcs r*c«!pt of • »otic* of nvocit1o« of Oil ptrait or epos tu •zpinrJoa before compLUon of tbt
•«laori»t4 •tnictur* or work, ibill, »itiout tip«aM to tikt Ualud 5uu« tad in auto tiat ted B inner ti tat StcrtUry of tbt
Amy «r bJt tsllcriMd rtprtMoUUvt »ty dii»et. rttUrt U>t vaUrwty to it* fotaw eoaditloai. If tat p«nnltt«« fallt to earn-
yly witft tit dirvcUob «f tat Stcntuy of tat Amy or al« outhoriMd nprtHBUttvt. taa Stcrtuiy or bit dtiipMt may ratter*
tbt w«Ur»«7 to iu (cnctr ectdiUoa, by caatrkct or otAtrwItt. ud ncovtt tat coat tairtof from lit ptnaltu*.
m. Stnwtum tor Sm»\\ Bo*U: That ptrmitUt atnby rtcocnlzta taa potitbtllty Uat tat ttnartort ptnsltud btrtln may U
•nbj*ct to dust|t by w»va waaa froa ptitlaf v»«nla. Tit haatect of talt ptmlt dota not rtlia vt tat ptnnitUt fr«m Ukis j all
prop«r »fcep» to iniur* tin toUtrity of tat itructurt ptmitud atrain tad tat ttftty of botU aoor»d tbtnto fr«a d4aic« by
w»vt w»aa *ad tat pcmltUc abaJl art bold laa Uejud Suttt liabU for any auc
AUFNTtNANCt OUDOINGt
a. Tbat wata tat work tnttoriitd itraln Ineludta ptHodic Bttatntac* drtdjlBf . it aty bt pcrferatd oadar tali ptrmit
b. Tbat tat ptraittM will tdviw tat DUtrkt Eaeiattr ia writini at Wait two wt«Va Ufort Bt inund* to udtrukt aay
Baalnuaaac* drtdfiaj;
orscKAkca o* ottDoto ot *iu MAT«IAI IHTO WATIU or THI UNTTID HATUI
•- Tftat ti« diicbart* »U1 bt eanitd oat la coofomUy with tai foal* and ebjtctivtt of tai EPA GaidtUa«f tiUbliabtd pur-
•B«at to S»ctJcB 404[b) of tat Ciaaa WaUr Act and publiabid ia 40 CFK 230;
b. Tbaitbt diaeaartt will toatiat of auiUbU aatcria! frta frea t«sic polluUBt* la toiie aaouau.
c. Tbat tltflUmaud by tat d»aebut«wiUbtpwp«rIyaa5BUiatdt«BTtvtat»rottea«adotAtrBOB-poiat»oa«taof poll«-
tioa.
OtSJOJ At Of OKEOCCO MAntl At INTO OCCAM WATtttj
a. Tbat li« diipcul will b* earriad out ID conformity with tht jotla. obJ*eUvu. aad rt^uirtatau of Uvt EPA criteria
•«uWi»S»d punua&t to Stctioa 103 of tht Marina ProUUioa, RtMirch tod Staetotrita Act of 1972, publiibtd U 40 CFR ZZ>
228.
b. That tht ptrailttM iball place a copy of tail ptrmlt ia B eoaaplwoua plaet IB th» vtaaal to bt oaid for ta« traaaporutioa
•ad/or diipoaal of tht drtdf td aattrial aa aothorittd btrtla.
Tbli p«ra!t aaall b«eoa'« tfftetivt e« tat daU of tat DUtrtct Eaciattr't al
Ptmftt*«h«rtby «ce«pU aad ifntt to comply with tht Umi and coadilloat of thJi permit.
•s • i
Fcbert W. Gubsla, transportation Chief Engineer DAT£
»Y Ainhotrn or TKI JICHTAM OF TMI A«Mft
DATE
VS. *.rj/.V. COIM OF INGIKrtCS
Trtnir».r»t Ltrcby apHi to ccaply with th* Une« asd eonditioci of tila p*raSt.
TT'KSVEREE
4
O.E. "•VLK::;;T :,T ivjr:ri:v; rrr:c: : jji) c
-------
• Y•;.' " "•
f.Ic '• - - •
-------
CENTRAL CONNECTICUT EXPRESSWAY
WETLANDS SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
33-103 Wetlands impacted
33-104
Wetlands to be created
within ROW
BB-9B Wetlands impacted
Ket
Wetlands to be created In
original 3 detention areas -*13.4 —}«•*- 3 v
Vetlands to be created by
p]per Brook reiocatlon 41.5**
Wetlands to be created
in additional areas 4B.4 -»» H-
- 3
Net +3.4
83-105 Wetlands impacted -15.0
Wetlands to be created within
existing ConnDOT ROW 43.6 !•*
2..0
Wetlands to be created within
areas of likely future ROM 44.7
Total wetlands impacted for CCE -41.9
Total wetlands to be created for CCE 4<3.6
Ket 41.7
*PLANS MOT INCLUDED WITH TRANSHITTAL
**WT SHOVIN ON ATTACHED PLANS
-------
APPENDIX D
S. L. I. C. Permit and Amendment
ft coov
-------
:.ff«,lve
of Applicant StTHtford T^nnd & Tnprf»vf>n«i>t_ Co?»T»nny. Tr>r> ,
12 January 1983
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PERMIT
August 26, 19S1
tf*t*d
IX! f •rfo"» •^'V Wt O' •( f*ctin) n»»i>jblf toattrt of tfM Unlttd SutH.
«• Union 10 »»lh« Riv*r» *nd H«rlKK» Act O( Mjreh 9. 1 W» 03 U.S.C. 403);
!>:/ C'ttcK««C* tf't«f • p»rm1t from th» $*c*»Uiy el 1h» Army
»ctw«| inrdi»th th* O»i»t »t Enyin««f* punuvtt to Ctct'ion 404 o( tht Ftdtrtt W«Ur Pollution Control Act 156 SwuBlft, f^,92>SOO);
I I Tnmaon *«Ji»c} m*l*rUd for th» pur^OM of tfjmplnft It Into oct»n v»»Ur» upon tSt htei»nc« et • permit from tS» Sttr»t»ry ot tht
Army tct'.ny tNrough tht ChUI et EnglnMrt pwnuMtt to S«ctlon 101 of tht bUrin* Frotoetiot. RrtcMch and Sanc&MriM Act c« 1972
IS6 StM. 10&3; P.L. V2-S32);
Mr. Kartin Syan
Etratford Land & Inprovencnt Co., Inc.
2742 Slain Street
Stratford, CT 06497
fc t>*rcby »vt*otlt*C by tht S*ir»t»ry »Tth» Azmy:
*» retain, nnd ncintain the following vork and fill In the vaters and adjacent
vctlan<2s of^Lct^ic Cut,' at Stratford, Connecticut as shown on the attached plans
and described as follows: •
n. An existing dike section consisting of approximately 550 cubic yards of
fill placed seauard of the mean high vater line and an existing 24"
i..C..T. culvert, vith a tide gate on the seaward end, that runs through
(DESCRIPTION OF V030C CONTINUED OS *ACE 1A - IB)
*» vaters and adjacent vetl&nds of Lewis Gut
«t Stratford, Connecticut
In wcortfwic* %>ith l>>* ptanikntftfrtwlnst Muctit^ krrtlo xfcUfc tit IncwrportUJ U •"< m»tf« • p*rt
That at) KtVttin IdtntffiMJ and avitho'tttd f»t»t>" »h»H bt eont!»:»«t with tht ttrmt and condition* of tfiii pttnlt; and tS»t any
^ ___, not iptcificaly Went>f«td and atilhOfiJtd htrtln »h»fl conttitu't a vl»t»l!ofl o( lh« Urmi and conditiont o'th'n ptrrn*t which
rn»y mull in tht m»d>fkiiion. tutptniion or ttvocttion of thli ptrmii. IA ».ho»t »r In p»*t M Mt forth mort «^««:fic»My In G»n*r»t
Condition J o» k htrtio. and It tht initiwt>on of »uch ftgtt procttdmj» n th« Umud St»t»t Govtrnnunt may coniiiV ip^rop/U'r.
> or not thi» ptrmit hat b»t« prtv'iovity modif.td. »o«>K»d«l or »tvok«4 in wh«ta o» fc» pxt,
tOlTlON OP 1 APH 74 l> 0»>OLITS. |CH H4J3403)
1
-------
u. i n*l •« e«u»Mi«» mntftm «w»"i »..«...» «"*r •«•»•••.••••••••<»••«» ku"tt'wtimn p> vprreiion, «ny pitcrvaig* 01 poiiuta*>IS into
•vatm »f She United Staff* o» ocean waters. be at *H limes consistent w.th appi«egle water quality standards. cMlweni hrmteiions end '
ftandardt of performance. prohio.t«aa. P»eireatmen| li*nd*'d» and management practices cstlblilhed pu»suant to |h« Federal VV^ttr
•>oiiwt>on COM.OI Act el 1972 P.L. ft2-SOO. 16 Sui.Bl6l.th* Marine Protection. Research and Sencruxiet Act el 19721P.L.92 532.
EG Stat. 1D52J. or pursuant 10 app!«a&lcr State and local law.
C. That when the activity outhorited herein involves • discharge during in conitruCtion »f operation. of any poHuOnt Unelv*ng
e>et)*fd v Ml materiel*. into wete* 0f th« United States, she authorized activity shall. If applicable warn quality standards ere revised
o* modified during tKe turn of this p«/mit, b* modified. if neceuary. to conform with such levited or med>l>«d watfr quttity tt»nd»?d»
Wtrtin Crn«Atru of tKe cff«et>vt Am tf any rtvitien Of modification el water OMlity tuntftrdi, v at diraettd by an impl«in«nuT on
plan conulncd in «uch rtvi»»d O» modiKtd Itandjrdt. Of withir" auth longir period of tim* at tH» OiMriet Engirwtr, in contutution Mith
the Regional Adminimaiof of the Ciwironmtntal »rot«tion A0tncy. «uy d«(armint to bt rt atonabt* wndar tha circvrmiaiKM.
a. TMI tSt dhchatga •»*! not dwtiey a ttvatuned «r otidanotrad ap*ci«t M Wtntifiad under *a Endanottad Sotciat Act. o*
•ndJnfrcr t>4 critieai hatful O* MCt> Iptcit*.
t. Tfiat Ihf 9am»M«t «or«n to ma%i tvtry fta«ona«(e ttfort to p«ot*twti ittt connrwaJon or opar»tloA «t ttw wor
in a nxawMf •« *» to «rriou?iiM«ny advtiM jmoact «n lith. wildMe, a^td naiwral tfwiro>vn«fttal waK***.
f. T*m i*w ««>fn«tttf *ort«> iha»h»t^ bain| performed under authority of thfe permit • in
occordanc* amtft tho tejmt ond *p«d.to«» prncribed herein.
tt. Thai the pvrmktee
drawnngs attached berate.
L Thai thit p«r mil don not convey any property right*, cither In real «ute or material, or any tick*** prrvtleget; and that h doe*
wot awtho«in any injury to prop** TT or «n«*»«on of right i or ony infrinptmtnt of Federal. Cute, or local laws or regulation* nor doei it
•bviata the requirement to obtain Sou* o> lo«al auent requ'md by law tor ihe activity awthoriaed hen'm.
|. That thh peimlt may be »ummarily iwspended. in vnhoU or In part, wpon a findinf by the District Engine** that Immediate
omp«n*(ion of tht actmty awthortted fterein would be in ttte general public tettrett. iVch *utpen*t»n than be effective vpon receipt by
the p*rmi\tt« of • wriurn notice ihrreoT **h*«h thai! ind»n thill become tff Ktrve 30 tfey* after receipt by the
permittee of written notice of H»c* action whi«h ihall ipecify the facts or conduct warrinting umtunleu(l) within the 2->day period
the permittee tt able to uiiifxtority demonstrate thai U) the tJltfttd viotalion of the termt »nd the conditions of this permii did net. an
tact, occur or to) the atltfied vio'jtioo w»i accidental, and the p«rmitte< hu bttn operating In compn*nc* with the termt and condttlont
•f the permit and i* able to provide Miitfect»ry atturancet th«t future operations shall be (n twit compliance with the terms ond
Conditions of this permit: or (2) within the a'e»»i»''d 30-diy ptriod. Oil pirmiiteere^mt thtt I public hearing be hild to present oral
and written evidence concerning the propoted'modif'icition. tuipeniion or revocation. The conduct of this heiring and Ihi procedures
for making a final decision either U modify, suspend or 'revoke this permit In whole or in part shall be pursuant to procedures pretc/ibed
by s>e Chief ef Engineers.
L That tn Issuing this permit, the Government has relied on the information and data which the permittee het provided in connection
**ith his permit epplicetion. If. suber^uent to the hiusnce of this permit, such inlormation and d«u prove to be false, incomplete or
inaccurate, this permit may be mediried, suspended or revoked. In whole or in pert, and/or tht Government may. In addition. institute
•pprnprieti legal procetd'tAgv
en. That any enodificalion. tuspention. ax revocation of *it permit shall not be the batit for any claim for damages against. the1
Lmite dStalM.
ti. That the permhte* thall notify the District Engineer tt what time the activity authorized herein will be commenced. M tar bi
•dvance of the time of commencement at the District Engineermevtpeciry.sndofenysujperijfonofwwk.il for a period of more than
one week, resumption of work and ia completion.
-------
r» not
and h net tomptc
. 19 ft5 (tnrte v«a»t Irpm it* d*tr of ntuanct of
. That tKit permit fen Met Mthonrt •* wo»t t*w torn t UK Ho* of ptMfeulw ttnKhirei. Hie MtNxU«iion or approval
rrquKt aath»«irat«on by th« Cony rn or i»!hff agtncwi of th« Ftdtra* C»vtfnm«ni.
. Tl»M if *^d wtkrn «h* p^imittr* detect to •b*nilon tte »Clf»i«V »utliorit*d ^rtin, unlrii tuc*> •tuntlonmeAl I* 'part of a tr»»t> 1^>t ptvnittr* h |i»n»'errirv8 hit iflUrmt tortm to • thtfd B*r|y purtuiM to C*ntf»l Con|i»n t toreef. h« mutt
fMt wc» to • condtiton uthf*ciO'y to thr DiMrict Engineer.
». ThM M «*« ftcortf^i Bt thh »tt mit h pottiVf wrxltr »pp<«ibU Suit •« toc*> (•««. tht ptrmitm v>»^ uk« «ue*> action »v m»y b*
otcrtwy *o »rco>d t^it permit vrfth th« RrgHicr •( Otedt •« othff approptUtt olficial cK»rf*d with th* fnpentibiltty lo«
nc«f «J* •! t»tlc to *«td mttrMti in mf property.
*. ?fc*t ihr« 9>>»n fet *o vATMteniM* jKM>l»ttnct w*r>. naviftatioA by V* ••fcttnct Of WM ot ihi Ktwitr »wtKorlMtf hvrt'm.
t. t>*t SVt **rfmi «n»y «et b« t>»n»T«rfad to • (Hird P*rty without pr'ior wrltttA Mofci to t»«e Drttrtet Cnginttr. tilh*t by th*
^««nl*r*«*i *wrttttA «f/t*w>*f>l to c*T^>y «»i!t) •" tttmt «ntf cond>t>OAi Ol thj» ptrmii 01 by tht trafiitrm tubieribing to thit ptritNt '*>
•*<« M>K« f»CTMY 4ft«on» of IhH ptrnWu In addition. M |ht ptrmitttt
«r*o»frr* .f)« tot*f«tt» axntxxii»tf **»»;« by C»nv*y*nct of rt»)tv. *H« d*«d th*1t rtftrKtet tr>H p«*mh and tK» ttrrm and conddioni
WMOfwd **r»*i *ntf |H* p*tnwt »h*0 M r«c»«d*d atong *wth iht o>*d with the Rtgiwtr of Dvtdt o> ottttr approp'iatt otlicia*.
II. «p»ei»ICoittfri»w: ««t»a h»1 condnwm ntatini ictciticalry to iht propoMd ttmcturt or work Mthorlrrtf by #Wt pormit):
The following actions will be taken to ninitdze adverse esvircmsental affects:
a. The applicant vill construct a 1-1/2 acre fresh-to %rax&ish pond northwest
of the 690 foot dike ty sloping from shallow to deep vater (no deeper than 3 feet)
as shown on the attached tdtigation plans. Be vould preserve 1-1/2 acres of the
existing mixed upland and vetlend habitat around the pond. The applicant vill
dispose of the material f rom this sctivity oy spreading on the north fsce of the
railroad eehanknent icoediately to the north of th» pond.
1>. The applicant vill leave undisturbed the existing narsh vegetation on
approximately one acre located Approximately 150 feet southeast of the 690 foot
dike. In addition, approximately one acre located adjacent to the southeast side
of the 690 foot dike vill be re graded by dragline vorking froa the dike to a final
elevation of 2.5 to 3.5 sasl to encourage carch vegetation.
c. The applicant vill increase the hydraulic radius of the conal irsediately
north of Breach Ko. 1 to ease hydraulic pressure as shovn on the attached citigation
plan. Be vill provide check dams as shown on the attached tdtigation plan vith
top elevations of 0.5 nsl to retain vater in the ditches, creeks, and marsh during
low tide.
d. The applicant vill viden Breaches Ko. 1 and 2 another 100 feet by excavating
the dike to the level of the adjacent icarsh surface. In the case of Breach Ko. 2,
this would be accocplished by reooving the dike around the corner inaediately
north and east of the existing breach. Two check dams vould be installed in the
ditch at Breach Ko. 2 (vith tope elevations of 0.5* nsl)»
*u The applicant vill remove 250 feet of the dike to the level of the adjacent
narsh surface at Breach Ko. 3, starting at the existing breach end around the
comer in a westerly direction. This should promote sheet flow of tidal vaters
to the vetlands within the dikes. The dike st Breach Ko. 4 vill be widened another
100 feet in the saoe manner. See attached plans for above citigation. The material
TfcEOved fron the Hike at Breach f.2Lvill be placed In the drainage channel between ..
Breach t 2 and Breach ( 3 st a uniform elevation of between 2.5 and 3.0 esl to
encourage carsh vegetation. Material icay also be pieced on the top of the existing
dike, but not on the seaward face.
(SPECIAL CONDITIONS CONTIKUED ON *ACE f 3A)
-------
(SPECIAL CONDITION'S CONTITOED FROM PAGE 3)
f . The applicant vlll divert runoff through a sedimentation "basin or other-
avoid the direct discharge of contaninant-laden runoff to ditches, tide crceV.s
^T retention ponds. The Corps of Engineers vlll tevicv his plans for runoff control
prior to the applicant Beginning vork.
£. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control devices* such ae hay tales or
other devices capable of filtering the fines involved, shall be Isplctatnted and
properly maintained to niuimize inpacts during construction. These device* bust be
r moved vhen no longer needed*
h. Ko tecporary fill {i.e. access roads and/or cofferdams) may be placed la
vaters or vetl&nds unless specifically authoritad by this pemit.
i.. The appliccnt vlll obtain all secessary State and 3Lr>ril approvals before
s any additional slag as fill on alee.
J. The applicant vlll renove and properly dispose of »11 trash, tlrea and
ether debris scattered throughout the property. The applicant vlll remove the
temporary fill described In Item 11 of the perait at the conclusion of the
mitigation vork.
3A
-------
The following Spec*! Condittom wrfl be applicable when appropriate:
STRUCTURES IN OR AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES:
• That thit permit doei not authorize the interference with ony (lilting or propoted Federal project end that the permittee thall not
be entitled 10 eompenuiion fo' demegt or injury IB the ttructvrei Of work authoriied herein which may be cauted by or mult Iron*
ing v future operation! undertaken by the United St»tn in the public interett.
to. Thai no attempt then IM made by the permittee to prevent tht full and fr*« utt by the public of efl navigable waten tt or adiicrnt
10 the activity awthorued by Ihn permit.
e. That it the driplay of light* and tie/iali *n tny ttrweturt or ««erh Mttiorittd hcrtln b not whrrwht provided for by Uw, tuch
r«d H9"*1* «i miy b* pmcnbvd by lh« Urxud Suiri Cowt Gvtrd *r«»ii b* kttulttd »nd m»p«nv« el th*
» p*mft Of upon in ••pimioA btfort complttioA of th»
•ul»»ri/*d Miwctwit Or work, (htll, without iKptftM 10 |h« Urulttf SutM ind in luch tim* »nd manner M th* S*crit*ry ol tht Army or
Art »glNx.»d r»p«««ftl»Hvt m«y'd«t»nr ol iNl Arrrn o« h< MthOriltd rtprrtenuttvt. th« Stcrtltry o* hit dttigntt m*y rttlort thi VMUrwty to Hi
4*»m*r conation, by contract or Otr«rw«M. ond rocovvr tht COM ttitrtof from tht ptrmitm.
t. f iiwctwrn for Small loan: That ptrmitttt (wttey r*cognim tht po«tib| «n proper itept to
hc ntto/ity ol Iht ttruciuni permuted herein ond the ufity of boau moored thereto fcom eVtv*^* by «we w**h ond the
•crmiiie* tMt MI hoU the United Sum liable for orty tuch damage.
MAINTENANCE DREDGING:
•». Th« M^en tht »»ork authorized herein inctudei' periodic maintenance dredging.-* may be performed Ofide* th«» permit for
, yean from the date ol fewancf ot ihn permit ften year* unl«*t otnerMHe Ind^ated);
b. That the permittee wHI advUe the Dat/tel Engineer >n writing at toMt two week* Ufore'he Inundi to undertake any maintenance
DISCHARGES OF DREDGEOORFILL MATERIAL INTOWATERSOF THE UNITED STATES:
a. That the det:
c.*Thn the tin cmted by the ditcherge wfll be properly maintained to prevent etotion and other non-point KHKCW of pollution; and
d. That the ditcnerge will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rwer Syitem or in a component of a State wild
»«d tcenk river syttem.
DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS:
a. Thai the dumping will be carried out in conformity with the eceh. objective!, and requirementx ot the ff A cri
purtwant to Section 10^ of the' Marine Protection. Ren arch and Sanctuariet Act of 1972.pubf«hed in4OCFR J7O-728.
b. That the permittee thall place a copy of thli permit In • conipkuom place in the veuel to be u*ed to/ tht trantporiation and/or
dumping of the dredgtd material at authorised herein.
Th4 permit tKfrtl become effective on the date Of the Ortvict Engineer'* tignatut*.
ith the ttrrm andconditioni'of (ha permit
sc
HOniT.Y OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ABMY:
j SCIPLE ' DATE
Colonel,'Corps of Engineer!
Trtntttrti nertby ayen lo comply with tSe teirm and conditioni of thu permit.
TRANSFEREE DATE
-------
(DESCRIPTION OF KOSK CONTINUED FROM PACE 1A>
Thic dike section, as shown en sheet 1 and 2 of 11 of the attached plans, this
dike section, culvert and tide *ato vere installed seaward of the »ean high water
line subsequent to December 1963 but prior to 1972.
fit
^ 2. A portion of an existing rallraod embankment, approximately 515 feet in
length, consisting of approxinately 17,000 cubic yards of fill placed seaward of
the original nean high water line and a 30" R.C.P. culvert through this embank-
»ent, as shown on sheet 2 of 11 of the attached plans. The railroad embankment
and the 30 culvert through it vere placed seaward of the *ean Ugh water line in
the summer of 1969. On top of the enbanknent is approximately 515 linear feet
of railroad track and approxliaately 230 cubic yards of crushed stone fill for
railroad Ballast waterial. The fill was placed £* install the railroad spur to
allow rail access to develop the remaining property owned by Stratford Land 6
Improvement Company, Inc.. (S.L.l.C,).
3. An existing earth fill dike 690 feet in length (shown as Proposed Dike
Under Construction on sheets 3 and 4 of 11) consisting of approximately 2 250
cubic yards of fill placed on approximately 24,000 square feet of wetlands under
Corps jurisdiction. Extending through this dike is a 48" A.C.C.K.P. culvert
35 feet in length with a tide gate on the seaward end (shown as Proposed Culvert
'and Cote on .sheets 3 and 4 of 11 of the attached plans). The culvert, tide rate
and portions of the earthen dike were constructed in 1982 seaward of the man
high water line at the request of the Corps of Engineers, to mitigate the impacts
of other unauthorised activities that had been previously perfomed at the site.
4. An existing drainage ditch approximately 1900 feet in length, extending
from the southern- terminus of long Beach Boulevard to Breach number" 1 (See index
sheet and sheets number 3, 4, and 5 of 11 of the attached plans). This drainage
d< tch was excavated in 1969 and would extend the reach of &ean high water if opened
f] the waters of Lewis Cut. It is approximately 15 feet wide throughout its length.
Along this ditch, approximately halfway between the southern end of Long Beach
Boulevard and the east end of the drainage ditch, is a drainage basin excavated
below the ttean high water line in 1969. The basin is approximately 200 feet by
50 feet and was excavated to a depth of approximately .8* Bean sea level.
5. Tour existing breaches in the existing dike system at locations shown as
breach number 1, (See sheets number 3 and 5 of 11 of the attached plans), breach
number 2 (See sheets number 3 and 9 of 11 of the attached plans), breach number 3
(See sheets number 7 and 10 of 11 of the attached plans) and breach number 4 (see
sheets 7 and 11 of 11 of the attached plans). The breaches were constructed seaward
of the -oean high water line by S.L.I.C. in 1982 at the request of the Corps of
Engineers to mitigate the impacts of other unauthorized activities that bad been
previously performed at the site.
.(. "Existing series of "drainage ditches approxicately 10-20 feet vide and
excavated to an elevation of approximately 1.0' ire an sea level on the land side
of the existing dike system in 1980-1981. The total length of drainage ditches
excavated is approximately 7,660 linear feet. All of these ditches would be subject
to inundation by mean high waters if connected, without obstructions, directly to
Lewis Cut. However, tidal waters will be prevented fron Inunflating nuch of the
existing drainage ditch system by a tide gate and 48" A.C.C.H.P. culvert itoediately
1A
-------
vest *of breach number 2 (See sheets number 8 and 9 of 11 of the attached plans).
ditches arc a part cf the proposed Interior drainage system* and arc to be incorporated
in the development of the project site. They serve to reduce interior flooding. For
details of these drainage ditches see sheets numbered 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and'll of
11 of the attached plans. The specific itcns of work that vill be constructed nlonz
the drainoge ditches vill not be specifically designed until final development plans
have bacn completed.
7. Approximately 6.000 cubic yards of existing fill on approximately 30.2AO square
feet of wetlands tinder Corps of Engineers' Jurisdication to viden the existing
exterior like *yst«a. The widening of the base of the existing dike system vas
necessary to »aint*in an adequate vidth on the top of the dike to accommodate equip-
ment necessary to perform saintensnce on and provide access to all portions of the
existing exterior ilk* system. This fill to viden the existing exterior dike system
vas pieced im vet lands nadar Corps of Engineers' Jurisdiction in December 1980 and
January 1981 (See sheet* numbered 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and U of 11 of the attached
plans).
S. Approximately 21,000 cubic yards-of fill on approximately 121,600 square feet
of vetlands to construct an interior roadvay and dike system. All of this fill vas
placed on vetlands under Corps -of Engineers' jurisdiction subsequent to the svmner of
1976. The roadway and interior dike system is. necessary to provide access to the
various parcels and to provide additional flood control for the adjoining, already
developed, properties as veil as additional flood control for the proposed industrial
development (See sheets numbered 3, 6, 7, and 8 of 11 of the attached plans).
9. Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of slag material placed on approximately 32,000
square feet of vetlands under Corps of Engineers* Jurisdiction. This material vas
placed on these vetlands subsequent to July 1978 and vas placed on the northerly
boundary of the property along lordship Boulevard across froa Vood End Road. Detailed
test results of this material are available. This slag is to be used as fill material
throughout the property. This fill area is also necessary to allow access to the
upland parcels that are surrounded by vetlands (See sheet auaber 6 of 11 of the
attached plans).
10. The applicant is also authorized to place and maintain approximately 72,000
cubic yards of fill to an elevation of 8.0* mean sea level on approximately 895,000
square feet of vetlands for industrial/commercial development that is consistent
vith existing zoning on the property (See sheets 6 and 7 of 11 of the attached plans).
The exact location, design and dimensions of the buildings on the property have not
been determined but all structures vill comply vith local zoning requirements as to
maximum size of buildings, necessary parking, and open space, etc.
. 11* The applicant Is authorized to place approximately 250-300 cubic yards of clean,
temporary fill at one location approximately 100 feet east of Breach Number 2 to allow
access to the dike between Breach Number 2 and Breach Kumber 3 for the purpose of
carrying out the conditions specified in this permit, location of this temporary fill
is shown on Sheet 9 of 11 of the attached plans and on the attached Sheet 4 of A of
the mitigation plan.
IB
-------
Land and Xmproveaent Co.
_*»&a» Conn.
KTS Date: 3/1/82
Tide Gate and pike
In White Rock Creek
at Stratford
County Of Fair field State of Conn.
Application py Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 1 "of 11 Bate: 12/07/81
Xailvay Babankaent and Culvert
In White Bock Creek
at Stratford.
County of Foirfield State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 2 of 11 Date: 12/07/81.
Dike and Culvert Relocation
at Stratford
County of Fair field State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 3 of 11 Date: 12/17/81
Detail
Dike, Culvert and Tide Gate Relocation
-------
L1STIKC OF FI.AKS AND DRAWINGS CONTINUED FROM PACE 3C
Dike Breachwnys - Tide Gate - Culvert -
Triiln Ditches - fill
at Stratford
County of Fair Held State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 5 of 11 Date: 12/21/81
Dike Breachways — Tide Cate — Culvert —
Train Ditches - Till
at Stratford
County of Fairfield State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 6 of 11 Date: 12/21/81
Dike Breachvays - Tide Cate - Culvert -
Drnin Ditches - Fill
at Stratford
County of Fairfield State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 7 of 11 Date: 12/21/81
Detail
Culvert Replacement and Tide Cate
(see sheet 93 and #7)
at Stratford
County of Fairfield State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 8 of 11 Date: 12/21/81
Detail
Breach No. 2
(see sheet I 3)
at Stratford
County of Fairfield State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 9 of 11 Date 12/21/81
Detail
Breach Ko. 3
(Ref. Sheet Ko. 7)
at Stratford
County of Fairfield State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 10 of 11 Date: 12/21/81
Detail
Breach T7o. A
(Ref. Sheet No.7)
at Stratford
Counr.y of Fairfield State of Conn.
Application by Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Sheet 11 of 11 Date: 12/21/81
-------
LIST!KG OF PLANS AND DRAKIKGS CONTINUED TROM FACE ID
Plan Sheet 1 of 4
ratford Land and Improvement Co.
Dated: 8/26/82
lliti&aticm Plan Sheet 2 of 4
Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Dated: 8/26/82
Mitigation Tlan Sheet 3 of 4
Stratford Land and Improvement Co.
Dated: 8/26/82
Mitigation Sheet 4 of 4
Detail Breach Ho. 2
(aee aheet "*3>
at Stratford
County of Fairfield State of Conn
Application by Stratford Land and loprovement Co.
Sheet 9 of 11 Date: 12/21/81
IE
-------
WETLAND LOCATION PLAN
(PS* ARMY CC«P. Or ENGINEERS )
APPLICATION BY
STRA7rOF>0 LAND AWD WPOv'ErJiENT CO."
STf>ATFCRD CONN.
DATE vi/E2:
-------
r.
H>"
s p O 0
I - - ' • *«• •.J-'*
"Ha
^'o^TSPv^i11
dsls^krfbl ®} wf
to 3 ?<£$} s&" i
!D6ki^
INDEX TO .
DETTA1L PERMIT DRAWINGS
APPLICATION BY
STPATFCSD LAND AND IM?OY£ME,NT CO.
STRATrC/»D CX>?i!1.
-------
TIDE GATE TO REMAIN
> WHITE ROCK
USGS QUAD- SHEET
(BRIDGEPORT , CONN.').
BO '-ICO
CCALE W F££T
200
O;KE TO
WETAL TIDE GATE
.«
EL* 9.5
GP.AH)LAR FILL
24" A.CCM.P
-0.5*
NOTES:
SECTION
DXE CCHTM^ 550 CYDS. OF GRANULAR
FILL KLOW HtL.
) © LAND OF STRATFORD LAND
AM) IMPROVEMENT CO.
ELEVATIONS W.SL. DATUM 1929
6JC3TIDALNYATERS I9B9
HORIZONTAL
1-1 H H 1
O 50 100
VERTICAL
HUM 1
0 ft K>
*CAUt IN FEET
i
ZOO
— — i
20
TIDE GATE AND DIKE
IS V/HJTE ROCK CREEK
AT STRATFORD
COUNTY CF FAIHF1ELO STATE
APPLICATION DY STRATFORD
AM) l?jy=fiGVEtf£NT CO.
S»i££T 1 Cf 11 t>A7r
CF CCm
LAND
-------
:TCE or
SHEET
{BRIDGEPORTt: CONH )
WETLAND
RAILROAD TRACX
M
TOE OF SLOPE .B
(!9S9)H)Grt TIDELWE
EXIST. DIKE AWD
TIDE GATE
EE SHEET »l
-ELMO.O*
— GRANULAR FILL
3.) (3
.4)@
sod
6)(f
EMSANJCJENT CCNTAWS 8,200-
CYDS, GRANULAR FILL BELOW
© ELEVATION fASJL. DATUM 1929
I.UJA CORP
T DEVITO -
FOVEPLY WHITE ROCK
PENM CENTRAL P.R.-
L_
rArvri. «A i ^
r*i > l *X\
•
f V R£MAIH)
1' Y'{
t * 1 El_eJOO
SECTION AT CULVERT
HORIZONTAL
O tO tO pCv
VERTICAL
—bdJbl 1 J
O 6 10
DCA«i IN ff.tr
a I' i i ik^wrr/"*! t_no IV^>7 ;
9) V/ETLA>E> LIMITS SEEWETLAWDUXAP, S
R.AN
RAILWAY ENCASHMENT B CU.VER "
IN \YHlTE ROCX CREEK . • .
AT STRATFORD . ,
COJSTY CF FA1RRELD STATE OF CO ",l
APPL^CATl^O^BY STPATFORO LA>.-0
^ j T t" Y ^ f\ y ti
-------
.\
.v.
\
\\VSTLAMD
PROPOSED CULVERT AXD
CAT£ X5EE S«£ET3 8) -v
MATCH LINE
SALT MARSH
TIDAL V/E?LAND
SHEET 6,7
»»»4»«^»fc»»»itil-***«•» ' ^f**t*i*\
*»»rt.A^ %«*••>«• *"*••
8.0 tf*
RETAIN UNAUTHORIZED
FILL AND DITCH
HETAJN AUTHORIZED DIKE
PETAW EXIST. V^DENED D5XE\|
RETAIN
DITCH- LENGTH 1630**
f
V/ETLAND
UNDER CON5TR
>EE SHEET
PROPOSED
METAL
TIDE DATE
5z FROM: US as. QUAD.
SHEET (BRIDGEPORT
CONN. )
-3*L
BREACH N2 2
ISEE SHEET
• RETAIN AUTHORIZED
DIKE.
BREACH «>l
CXI ST. «9" A.C.C.M.P. AND
TIDE GATE TO BE
-REMOVED-DREACH DIKE
TO 10'V/IDTH AT EL.
1.0 M.S.U (SEE SHEET4*5)
TYPICAL WIDENED DIKE
."SECTION & DHTCH
NOTES
STRATFORD LAND AND
IMPROVEMENT CO.
VVETLAND LIMITS SEE
WETLAND LOCATION PLAfl
PLAN
i i |- — ^ ^ ... _ f _j
o u> ioo 200 rco *oo >co
1 . ^ULI*m7
DIKE AND CULVERT
RELOCATION
AT STRATFORD
COfNTy OF FA1RRELD STATE
APPHCATICN_DY STRAT FOFJO
OF CONN.
LAND
12/17/51
-------
r
' ,,. i P-M*"^"- *v **v EL SO (VAP1~S1
— : — : - 5 — ^'.
-»5' • \
• TYPICAL SECTION . ' I
PROPOSED DIKE
I
WETAL TIDE
• GATE i
. FLOW
REPOSED CULVERT a GATE
HOTES
t LENGTH OF DIKE » 690
2. OUANTITY OF FILU « 2,250* CYDS.
3. ELEVATIONS N.S.L. DATUM 1529
HORIZONTAL
n1 1 f ii 1 J
O ft K) *0
•
VERTICAL
H H H [ J
SCALE IN 7*ET
DETAIL
DIKE. CULVERT AND TIDE GATE' '
RELOCATION
tREF. SHEET N*3)
AT STRATFORD
CCUNTt OF FAIRFIELD STATE OF CON
SHEET 4 OF tl WTC ,2^,7/5
-------
M*8 ;:
EXISTING
•APTKOX. HTL.
•
WETLAND
TO REMAIN 56**
EXISTING DITCH DRAIN .
FROM LONG BEACH BLVD]
(1969) TO REMAIN
EXIST. 43*AC£.M.f» B
TIDE GATE TO BE RENXJVED '
BOTTOM OF
CUT
TOP CF CUT
•
WETLAND
PLAN
.NOTE:
1.) DIKE FILI-'AND MATERIAL TO
^E EXCAVATED-SILT/MUCK
21 WETLAND LIMITS SEE WETLAND
LOCATION PLAN
SX>
FILL PLACED 1981 TO REMAIN
TOP DIKE EL.«9.ot
~M B GATE TO
DE REMOVED , '
BTM.CUT EL>1.0
DITCH EXCAVATED
1981 TO REMAIN
SECTION C CUT
/—TOP DIKE EL. 9.0*
BTM. BREACH
EL.Bl.0
'SECTION . DIKE
IH TEET
DETAIL
BRE;ACH
CREK SHEET H« 3)
AT STRATFORD
COUNTY OF FAIBFVELD STATE OF CONN.
APPLICATION &T STP.ATFOHD LAHD
MD l^rffCVLMENT CO. .
SHEET 5 orn ovn 12/^1/t»
-------
BLVD. \\ fj
APPKOX jj LIMIT UPLAND-*<^n;
U&G.S. QUAD SHE2T ' 1
WETLAND LJMnrs SEE
•WETLANDS LOCATION PLAN
2)(T) BfilDCEPORT FITTINGS1
JR.
3) STRATFORD LAND AND'
IMPROVEMENT CO.
E3 WETLAND AHEA TO
EE FILLED TO EL.C.O*
PROPOSCD
• • *r r *m f t,
CYOS. GRANULAR
UATERIAL -'.
ExisTms FILL TO
REMAIN-APP.70X. 5»,ouo
CYDS. SLAG AND SANDY !
SILT
RETAIN EXIST •
UNAUTHOPJ2ED
DITCH B FILL
-V PLAN
a TIDE GATE
»
BREACH N»Z
0 £O CO 200 ZOO
sc*i£
SO>
DIKE BRE^£HY#re-TO£ GATE-
CULVERT-DRA5^ DiTCHES - FILL.
AT STRATFORD '
COUi^Tt Or FAWF^LD STATE CF CO
STRATFORD LAKK)
CO.
II
-------
?•* .•-'* iz-. ' f •««'-. ••^.••••.r .
s&?S :• :•:':•'•'V-A...
—-
LD??DSH1P
BLVD.
PROPOSED BREACH
(UNDER CONSTR
SEE SHEET*)
RETAIN EXBT.
UNAUTHORIZED DITCH
WIDEN DJKE L= 1850
UNAUTHORIZED DITCH,
WETLAND
PROPOSED
PROPOSED 43
SALT MARSH
1KQTES . ' : '?;
•^^* • «
•H0 EXIST. DIKE MISC.
RUBBLE AND SILT.-''
FILL 7,300 CYDS.
WETLAND LIMITS SEE ':-
WETLAND LOCATION PLAN
•
V) SHEETS 8,9,10,11 Fprt .' •
TYP. DIKE SECTION
PROPOSED BREACH N^3
(UNDER CONSTR.)
SEE SHEET* 10
200 3OO 4CO 5DO
SCALE IN FEET
DIKE BRE^CHWAYS-TIDE GATE- *
CULVERT-DP.AIN DITCHES-FILL
AT STRATK5RD
courfrr OF FAIRRELD STATE OF CONS.
APPUCATION BY* STRATFORD LAND
AND IMPROVEMENT CO.
svfiSTT orn
-------
•TOP CF DIKE AM) Fit-''
ZETLAND
EXIST. DITCH TO RE
TOP OF
V/ETLAND
EXIST. UNAUTHORIZED
DITCH TO REMAN
(SEE SHEET* 7)
SEESHEEt*9
EXIST. 35" AC.C.M.R
I7EPLACE V/JTH 48" AOCLM-J?
AND !4cTAL T.DE -GATE-; -
•• .SALT .WAfSH.
,>xr.'_ -->t . . .>.] f •
WETLAND
1
PLAN
L) REFERANCE SHEETS3 ANDHT !
FOR LOCATION OF AUTHORIZED
i 1 i 1 . , . i *^u vn«uinumztD ivr»y
0 25 SO KC
SCALE H FEET
GHANULAR-— v ^ 2Of
r^ \! I *,«
F4s" AJC.CMP. (p-
EL.« LI3f 1
1
^ _ . »^
SECTION ^ PIPE
HORIZONTAL A VERTICAL
y~i l-i 1— i 1 • — '•— H
0 5 10 2O
200
2J WETLAND LIMITS SEE
WETLAND LOCATION F-LAN
D
y — Wstol Tide Gote
^/TOB »LT.L^-135
MKW=i79 EB3 ^
FLOW
1
1
I
(
1
i
DtiAIL \
CULVERT REPLACEMENT AND .
TIDE GATE (SEE SHEET 1>S &.*T)f
AT STRATFORD S
CO*JNTY OF FAftFlELD STATE CF CONN i
APPLICATION BT STFJATFORD LAND
fH^CT 8 C* II fc>TE 12/21/01
-------
EXIST. WIDENED -
DIKE TO REMAIN
TOP OF CUT
em OF on
•Jl f.. " .l.fc
SALT MARSH
HT.L.
V/ETLAND
EXIST. UNAUTHORIZED
DITCH TO REN AW
( SEE SHEET«3)
H
b
25 CO
NOTES
II FEFERANCE SHEET«3B 87
FOR LOCATION OF AUTHORIZED]
& UNAUTHORIZED WORK
2.) WETLAND UMJTS SEE
RLL PLACED I9B1TO REMAIN WETLAND LOCATION PLAN
TOP DIKE EL.«I1.5* 30 FOR H.TL. SEE SHEET 3
100 200"
M FITT
BTM. BHEACH EL.«I.O
SECTION B CUT
• APPOX. GRADE «5.0*
NOTE:
I ELEVATIONS WSX. DATUM
SECTION a
MOR12CK73M. ft VERTICAL
>
0 & »
50
M rtrr
DETAIL
BREACH
f SEE SHEET*
AT STRATFORD
COUNTY CF FAJRRELD STATE CF CCNN
APPLICATION BY STRATFORD LAND
AND IMPfiCVEMENT CO.
-------
EXISTING UNAUTHORIZED
DJTCH TORtMAl
PLAN
UOTE:
"O K> .20 20 40 SO
SCALC w
HT.L«4.95
J
100
FILL PLACED
TCP DIKE
SECTION ^ CUT
BTM BREACH EL.-I.O
•
•
TOP BKE EL*
I. ELEVATIONS
DATUM 1929 . .' -
. •
Z. PCR HJ.L. SEE SHEET
3. "WETLAND LIMITS SEE
ZETLAND LOCATION
Vr/SSs/S^Sf*
p£_.r
SECTION (L DIKE
BTM. BREACH
EL,*).0
K>
SCXE IN
DETAl L
BREACH N*3
(REF. SHEET N*7
AT STr*ATK)F3D
CO^TYCJF
STATE CF
APPLICATION BY STPATFOrlD LAM>
A>JD l.VPftCVEr^ENT CO.
SHFTT K>CT1I
-------
BTtM. OF CUT
XL.
WETLAND
EXISTING UNAUTHORIZED
. DITCH TO REMAIN
B
0 D 29 S3 O 90
KALE W FEET
PLACED issi TO REMAIN
TOP CF WKEMLO*
-TOP OF CUT.
NOTE
I.ELEVATION 'WS.L,
DATUM 1929
EK)RHTL SEE SHEET
CO
SAVETLAND LIMITS
SEE V/ETLAND
LOCATION PLAN
BTM. BREACH * 1.0* .
SECTON Q. CUT
TOP OF DJXE
APROX. GRADE
XVETLAHD
SECTION Q. DIKE
K>KIZO*1TAL B VERTICAL
0 5 10
23
w Fin
DETAIL
BREACH
IREF. SHEET
AT STRATFOFD
COUNTY CF FAJRFIELD STATE CF COMH.
APPLCATJON BY STRATFORD
tea i?^pfiov£«ENT ca
SHZTT n cru
-------
Construct "I
Freshwater
ams At
Existing
Culverland
"" • •• »
S h own"
Mitigation Plan Sheet 1 of
STRATFORD LAND AND
IMPROVEMENT co.
-------
; . Jvi'>7 "«i O4" c .€»5»-»v* —•• •." .~£3> •• t • -••••*••.. ..-,.; vT^r-t"-^
-j t.ri.-v% ;, ~s*l. r-\ y. •&•£• i «*••• -».'.«-•-•••••• • •*-• «•—-«-r—••- -. -««^>ir..——?i
i^^^y?4 i?OA^>V^^,^;^^^ !?.
x^>• ••:«VM V/ : ?^-:*.V%^^S^ *'
^w£X^-..v>/4vCH-? •••••••4 -• •.-*••:•:..-•• >••••—--=z*^
^zz£\X v; • 3 T.
No. 3 -XM^9T\\VV ^
Aft * * ^^ • .'^^•^•^ * X » ^
O 60* 100
Mitigation Plan Sheet 2 oT
» ^
STRATFORD LAND AND
IMPROVEMENT CO.
DATP. r./2G/CZ
-------
X*
• *.-« *
•:',\
_,.. ._.„. _j- ••?•* ••:•*•••••.»:> f.«k
."•" *^*< •'*«••.-» T*. ^•^•'yf • rrv^***?y^st'-^ft'^ *•'
:.^vy,
'*'. ••///
\
:X!r
-V/fwen Breach
WO»-4 lo 100J
J&s Shov;n
^OSU
I
N.
IS
s
5PMII
r-*\
i
€*%$
/
/
• •*
-- \
X
«h
/•.»
«i
411
•• »-« • ~ . • ~ •
' ?.•*» — -j.%.^.-. ...-.•
. 1—. r T-TJ.V-,1
• *-•• * *
•-<,••»%.••-
/^
BO ICO
« «
I
litigation Plan Sheet 3 of
STRATFORD LAND AND
IMPROVEMENT CO.
DATE a/zc/sz
-------
% m.~ J . .' ».
V—- MHW.
a
HT.L.
WETLAND
EXIST. UNAUTHORIZED
, DITCH TO REMAIN
(SEE SHEET S3).
PLAN
SO ..100
CCAVE w Fsrr
200
PLACED I9BI TO REMAIN
TOP DIKE
I) REFEFIANCE
FOS LOCATION OFAUTHOR12E
& UNAUTHORIZED v/ORK
V/ETLAMD UM1TS SEE
WETLAND LCCATIOM
FOR RTL.SEE SHEc
BTM. BREACH EL.«i.O
SECTION. '&
_,- . ... _ ! •
•TOP CXE
APPOX.
K2EACH
SECTION Q. OKE
e VERTICAL
Jr
. 23
SCALE w rcrr
DETAIL
BREACH
AT STRATA ****
JIQL?STY CF FAlr^rlELD STATE CF CCMK t
A?PL»CATJCti BY STRATFORD i Awa
SiT CO.
.*KSET»oril
-------
// -
o-
-------
AVTP"!) S?KCIAI. CGIIDmC-;!: 7T? CUSPS
FEn::iT SO. Cl-A*SO-S3H?13
III* SPECIAL CONO.T7IOKS
Th* following actions will be taken to minimize advert* environmental effects:
t".'* t->0 «"c. Ol'.us by aioj>i;jj fran jhaliov to dctji vjter (no copper than 2 i;.
froa existing water elevation) as shown on the attached mitigation plans. To
construct the ponds. It will be necessary to place temporary roads from which a
dragline can be worked. These roads will be clean sand/gravel fill, will
extend southward and perpendicular to the existing rail embankment, and be 20
ft* wide by a aaxlvua of 170 ft; long, as indicated on the oitigatlon plan.
They will be removed as the pond is completed. One and one-half acres of
existing vlxed upland and wetland habitat .around the pond will be preserved.
The applicant will dispose of the staterlal excavated to create the pond on the
north face of the railroad eobankaent. This area will extend froo the eastern
and of the railroad west 750 ft., and no naterlal will be disposed at a
distance greater than 70 ft. froo .the top of .the* enbanknwnt. >. Any aaterial not
disposed within the cone. .shown* on .the mitigation plan, -will be placed on
upland .areas (area with an elevation above-7 .ft. ;
b. The applicant will leave, tin disturb ad,- the existing Mrsh. vegetation on
approximately one acre located approxiaately 150 ft. southeast of--the 690 ft.
dike. .In addition, approximately one" acre located adjacent.-to the southeast
aide of the 690 f t.: dike will be regraded.-.by dragline working frott the dike to
a final elevation of 2.5 to 3.5 a>sl to encourage icsrah vegetation. The
•aaterial from regradlng, estimated at 2,000 to 3,00 yd3, will be placed
alongside the 690 ft* dike, providing it does not extend the existing toe of
slope no re than 10 ft* and providing that the material can. be stabilized
alternatively, the naterial will be disposed bnslte at a location where-
existing elevations are greater than 7 ft. «sl. Applicant shall have the
option of either placing the material alongside the dike, subject to the
conditions described above, or of disposing of the ta ate rial onslte at a
location where existing elevations arc greater than 7 ft. nsl.
If the material is placed alongside the dike, it shall be vegetated by seeding.
Until vegetation is established, temporary erosion control measures, such as
the use of Jute cloth.-will, be employed as necessary.^- •*: * > •-;{ ,i.-.
c. The applicant will Increase the hydraulic radius of the canal immediately.
north of Breach Ko.;;i to ease hydraulic pressure- as.shown*on the)'-attached•• :
nitigatlon. planer He will provide chsck dans as shown on the attached
nitlgatlon plan with top elevations of 0.5 nsl to retain water in the ditched,
creeks, and marsh during.low tide.
-------
:rfe^1M*M?*
™2£«i^y&±&-
TD 1931 ±''2J'.S-:
.-VY)DEHED'": '•'•••
DIKE TO REMAIN
KT.L.
WETLAND
EXIST. UNAUTHORIZED
DITCH TD REMAIN
SEE SHEET JO).
MWXV.s3.79
HT.Lt4.95
REFERANCE SHEET**3 & 07
25 50 100 200 FD* LOCATION OF AUTHORIZED
SCALE W FETT & UNAUTHORIZED WORK
Z) WETLAND LIMITS SEE
FILL PLACED I9BI TO REMAIN WETLAND LOCATION R.AN
TOP DIKE EL.«II.5* 3J FOR RTU SEE SHEET 3.
BTM BREACH EL.«I.O
SECTION. i& CXJt-
«!?
•TOP DXE EL.»lt5*
M^i
SECTION Q. DKE
APPOX. GRADE
BTM. BREACH EL«lJD
.-.
\4cdieh, Sliec.4 V •
.
i CLEVATIONS KSJ_ DATUM
1929
SCALE w FErr
BETAfe '
BREACH N«2
CSEE' SHEET *3)
AT STOATTORO
CF FA1RFJELD STATE CF CCMN.
APPLlCATlCti BY STRATFORD
AM) l,koPfiCVEME>n" CO.
SH.ETT » or n WTE
-------
."or purposes of construction access, «rpJic«nt «:oy temporarily p.'.ice t'll I in
tie vicinity of th? rnn.ils nrj Trench f'n. J, it nocc;;snry. V.'cs irop.v«i;.« fjli
inr.-»tic:: is sl-nvit ou tl*e r-.l cij;.ision ulan. 1-11 J' utlJi^'J vlli U- clrjnn
»ard/^rnvci. As construction j u conplctifi! all nrf«* «>f t'jr.nnr-iry fill vril] '.:...
r«.— cxc«v«i:i:d to t*ii.' level of t'.vj adjneont r.nrr.h. T^:: {tpplicant '.111 :ir-
Kedinentotion controls up nix' dovnstrcrn of tl:c tr::c.ivnticn area.
r-rcuch Ko. 1 will he widened by 100 ft. by excavation down to the lev»;l of die
e::istln£ narsh.
• .-.t-rl^; r«::~.we- placed In- the. :..
drainage channel "be tvee'n Breach"No." 2 and Breach No.-' 3 at' a uniform elevation
of between 2;5 and 3;0 efti -to -encourage oarsh -vegetation/. Material: stay~.al»o:be
placed on 'the top of 'the "existing- -dike , "but nor on the 'seaward- face .1. This
eonditlonftnust be 'satisfied before 'June 30, "1987.
f. The applicant will- divert runoff through a Sedimentation has In or otherwise
avoid the direct discharge or -contaninant-laden runoff to ditches*. tide creeks,
or retention ponds. '-"Th« 'Corps of -Engineers will .review applicant's plans for
runoff control'prlor to the applicant's beginning -work j,
p. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control devices,' such as hay bales or
other devices capable of filtering the fines involved, shall be implemented and
properly naintained-to fcinimlze '.Impacts during construction. These devices
rust be removed when" n6- longer .needed.'
h. Only that temporary fill specifically authorized by this permit (i.e.
access roads- and/or cof ferd*as):»sy be.-placedrin .waters-oc wetland.s^^
i. The applicant wUl* obtain .all --necessary State andjoctl approvals before
using- any additional: slagiss^f 111 -on sits.=.<. ~.z r?:^ir. v.trvr in ire
J. The applicant, fron tine to as applicant deeos appropriate, will renove and
properly dispose of all trash, tires, and other debris scattered throughout the
property. The applicant will remove the temporary fill decrlbed In the permit
as the consluslon of the nltlgatlon work.
-2-
-------
»UftPOSC : TO CONSTRUCT A Ml SLIP PuiUC MUNICIPAL RECREATIONAL MAMlNA.
DATUM • «VO
HOT! i APPRO^MAULT HO. 100 Ct OF 6«**UL»» MATERIAL TO It
' TO tLfVATlON -RON6.VD Of WHICH 110,000 CY WILL •( TRUCKED
AMD PISPO«E6 AT THE SOUftNC LANDFILL SITE. 10,100 C.T. WILL 1C
utts> OH snt row PILL or »A*KIHS AHIA AMD st*vtci SUH.OINC
LOCUS MAP TAKEN FROM USGS
QUAD. SMfET
PROPERTY OWNERS
• cm m »UT
REAL (STATES OEPT..T44 SUMO STREET,SUITE 4II.MVARK, M.J.
LEO SALHAMT, i»t R«OAC«AY, PAWTUCHT. R.t.
[l) MANUtL J. ROSE . «< tUTTERWILK »*T . •UIZARCS SAT. MA
V) MAURICE fORO. ll WORLEY STREET,*. RQKSURT. MA
TMQWAI re*», T MAMROR'PLACE.»U2Z*»DI RAT, MA
V&'V VEHRIER, M WKICMT LANE . •uXHRC
»*IAN SULLIVAN » JOSEPH SILVIA.M« CROSS
ELI«NO« k. »OD(RIC«. RROLANDS, UPTON, MA
THEHESE LOISEAU.KO. 101 sso.i VRICHT I*NI
JOSEPH OI6IOVANNI. St NOMUAN AVENUE . PAttTUCKET . M.l.
suu.tvx,* • JOSEPM SILVIA, 144 CROSS STREET,
PROPOSED BOURNE MARINA
AT TALYORS POINT
IN BOURNE,MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF BARN5TABLE STATE OF
APPLICATION BY MASSACHUSETTS fEFARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING-DIVISION Of
LAND AND WATER USE
SHEET I OF I
DATE'
IS90
-------
o
>
Lu
1
I
0
-I
• -1
—>
•ELECT FILL
NJITC EXCAVATION
TEMPORARY DIKE,
SECTION A-A
HQTtS-
If ILL
COSJ-AJ:T>ON or
itLO* "H* 6*
-------
UJ
SO' CNANHCL
X
X
i'
\
ANCMOII
BOCK
/
J
II
It
n
t«roct TO »OTTOM
CIPTM or -i o MIL
l-t.I ML* )
TYPICAL SECTION
SCALES IN FEET
SHEET 2 OF 2
-------
MITIGATION GUIDELINES
The permittee must transplant 5892 square feet (1/7 acre) of high marsh
and 9528 square feet (1/5 acre) of lev marsh at the proposed marina site.
There is a total of 14,829 square feet (1/3 acre) available if properly
regraded for receiving transplanted material along the north shore of the
inlet.
The permittee vill also compensate for destruction of the reed marah at
the proposed marina site by planting low and high marsh species along the
shoreline of Cohasset Harrovs, between the Dolphin Inn and the Massachusetts
Maritime Academy. This shoreline can provide about 32,000 square feet (3/4
acre) of transplant area for low marsh, and about 17,500 square feet (slightly
more than 1/3 acre) for high marsh species. The permittee vill use a source
of tranplant material designated by the Division Engineer. The following
suggestions should insure success:
a) Kegrade where advised by the Division Engineer, and line and fertilize.
proposed transplant sites immediately prior to planting. Low marsh should be
planted at low tide.
b) For areas to be transplanted within the inlet, at the proposed
remove the source material in the form of sods or cluaps, with sufficient soil
depth to include the root system (about 4-6") and plant that same day in the
designated transplant site. Stockpile materials in the intertidal zone to pre-
vent root desiccation.
c) TaVe source materials for the Cohasset Narrows site from a source
designated by the Division Engineer. These materials will be sprigs or plugs
from a nearby aaltmarsh. Plant these materials within the first two weeks of
April, 1982. Plant those species designated in the attached photos, or as
recommended by the Division Engineer.
d) Plant materials deep enough so that the roots are belov the ground
surface, and stems are above the ground surface.
e) Construct a fence around the marsh transplanted to the north shore of the
proposed site to protect it during construction'. Also, during construction' when
the inlet is deuatered, the permittee's contractor should thoroughly hose down and
saturate the transplanted and natural narsh areas within the inlet, with fresh or
brackish water.
f) Construct a fence or barrier along easily accessible portions of the marsh
to be planted at Cohasset Narrows to prevent pedestrian and motor vehicle access.
g) If necessary, anchor transplanted materials with wire netting to prevent
erosion before the marsh- has had time to establish. Vii recotmaend this treatment
for the north shore of the inlet which will be planted during the fall or winter,
and other portions of the Cohasset Narrows marsh placed waterward of the existing
marsh.
-------
•DESCRIPTION OF VORK COKTINUEP FROM PAGE 1
to fee devatered to facilitate marina construction. 2000 cubic yards of riprap
and bedding material vill be used for cofferdam construction. Approximately
120,500 cubic yards of granular material will be excavated for the project,
50,000 cubic yards of vhich vill be dredged belov vean high water. 10,500 cubic
yards of this material vill be used in conjunction with the construction of a
160 car-capacity parking lot and service building, and the balance of the material
vill be trucked to the Bourne Landfill. Approximately one .acre of vetlands bordering
the southerly and easterly portions of the cove vill be transplanted to two areas,
ore immediately north of the proposed basin, and the other between the Dolphin Ir.n
and the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.
"b. Install 1065 linear feet of 6' vide pile-secured floating docks vithin the
tvevly created basin consisting of nine main floats varying in length from 40' to
230'. Access ranps and 93-3' vide finger floats varying in length from. 14' to 50'
vill be attached to the main floats. A 106' x 8' fuel deck vill be provided at the
inlet side of the marina. Also, a 115* x 30' concrete boat ranp vith provisions
for 40 auto/trailer parking spaces vill be constructed at the northeast corner of
the basin. Approximately 150 cubic yards of concrete and bedding material vill be
placed belov high tide line for the ramp. Pedestrian valkvays vill be constructed
around the southern periphery of the basin.
-------
0. Th»t il th« Klivily •ulhorilta Kfrt.n rt fi«| ITtntd O" «* b*leKt V/t - jdlv 0'
i /
d*y «t _*>£IO1BER . 1 9 64 (thrw y«|f< If em IS* *«»e Of i«ur>ct *f *»•« permit ur.l*tl et**rmw tp»C.I*d! Ihil p*»m.t. il
Th»i IM ptrmit *m r»ot awthorin o» •op'ovt »»« cemtruction of wrtiewi»f MrwctwfM, t*« »uiNo»i«itiof> •» «P»»B»*I cl «A.ch
by ft* C»Tti! »> «>"*«' •fitneitt ol t*« f t*f«l Govtrnmtnt.
tfmrtt te
nrvj hn mitrtiu fwrtm to • IhM p«ft\r pur*u«nt to Crnrr»i
r, TM( if ihr *n«r0rf)t *f Ihrt permit h pouib>t wndrr *ppl<*Wt Xutl •« toul I*M, tlM p«rmitt*t th»n uki wet. •ei^r. *i m*v
te m0r0 ttut ptrmit «nth the K«f *t»r et D*tdl Or ether «oo'0pf i«ti clliei»i C*ur|*d with IN mpOMibililr tor R
», Tlwt l**«* (fMtl tot no tm>Mi«n*b<( mltrlttncr with M*i(*tion by tN trtttnct or MM »( Ih* Ktwtty •wlhe>i(t0l««rtin.
1. Th*l 1*1* p»»mrt m*» net t« t'tn»(rrttf tc • thirrf pi'ty without »ri»r tvritwn n«tief t» the Ontfict E«|i»»»fr. «ilh«f fry ttte
«r*nilrrfc'( •srr.tivrt «)rt(m«At lo CO"W>V wnTh *II t*rmi *n0 eendi|>»nt »f Ihii ptrm>| or by tr«t tr»nlfrf K *uUirtbm| IS Ihrt ptfrrtil in
the |p«ce P'evK)r0 ficionv (»0 l>»trrby *(>Kmg to comply with «ll uimt intf c»«aitiDni e< Ih4 pt'mn. In •ddnion, rf tKt ptrmittrr
N- mirrr>l» »vlhofirr« l«'t>n by CO»v>«y*nct c' Tt*ltr, th« dtttf ih«ll r«l*rinct Ihil M'mrt end th* ttrim
«ftirt »nd this permit »h*M b( TltO'Ord •ift^l w>lh Ihf Otid writh IK* Rrjilltr »l Dttdl O> Othtf ipprapriiti
It. SpyiUCcndrliorn; IHff« Ul totidi licit «!»t"»»tptc.t«»llv to ttM »fOO«t»tf llruetUH or work
1. The permittee IB responsible for successfully establishing Bjrsh areas designate
en the attached photographs In accordance with the attached mitigation guidelines.
The Division EnsJntDr vill provide technical advise and supervision. The transplant
sites will be Inspected by the Division Engineer at the end of two groving seasons
•nd the permittee must replant any of the transplanted marsh area vhich way have
been damaged by erosion, pedestrians, motor vehicles, devouring, etc.
2. The permittee must Tiotify the Bourne shellfish warden 30 days prior to the start
of construction, so that shellfish can be harvested fron the inlet.
3. Use sedlnent «nd turbidity controls such as hay bales to filter the dewaterinj
effluent before it enters Cohssset Narrows.
4. Houre effluent fron stockpiled dredged neterial back into the basin, not to
Cohasset Narrows.
5. Henove the cofferdam as soon as possible to restore tidal inundation to the inle
marsh.
6. The permittee oust erect a sign on both sides of the railroad bridge to warn
boaters of increased traffic at the mouth of the inlet.
7. This permit authorizes periodic maintenance dredging of the Jcsvrii.ed area not
to exceed ten years fron the date of issuance; except that the permittee is required
to notify this office, in writing, 90 days in advance of the intendeJ date of any
maintenance work. Vork may not begin until written authorization is received fron
the Corps of Engineers. If the permittee desires to continue maintenance dredging
beyond the ten year period, he must request a revalidation of that portion of his .
permit vhich authorized the maintenance dredging.
-------
The 1oed »nd mtintiined by and it tn« e&penw ol the
permittee.
d. Ttuji tn« pvrmmte. vpen receipt of a notpir>tion beforf conyittion of tne
td ttftfCturf Of work, (htll, wnthovt e>P«AM to tne United Sum *nd m tuCh time and rr«nn«r at the Secreury of th« Army or
hit awihon«»d rtprtteniattve may direct, rcitore the waterway to hi turner conditiont. tf tht permittee la ill to comply with the
*i»ci»o« ol IN S«cret*ry of tne A/my or ha autnonttd reprttantaiivt. the S*eriury or hu deiianee may rettore trwj waterway to in
former condition, by contract or oiherwut. and recover the cost thereof from the petmutte.
t . Structure* fo< **^**« Beau: Trtet permittee hereby racofiim the possibility that the itriictvre permitted herein may be wbject to
damage by wavt watft Irom pati>nf veueii. Th« iMuance ol thit parmii.deet not.relievt the permittef from uk!n| all P/oper iitw to
imvrt tha integMy of the itrwcturt permitted harem and the* Hfety'of boatt moored therito from damage by wevi'wMh and the
IMrmittae ihail not hold th« United States liable tor any tuch damaoe.
MAINTENANCE DREDGING:
a. T»jat w*nn th« work •uthoriietf herein include* periodic maintenanct dredjinj. It may be performed unoV tni» permit for
- ID - vtan from the datr of issuance of th* permit (ten years unttu otherwise indicated );
b. That the perminee wilt advise the Oauiet Entineer in writing at toast two weeks before he intends to undertake any maintenance
checking.
DISCHARGES OF DRE.DGED OR F JLL MATERIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES:
a. That |ht discharge w.ilj.be ca'ned out in confotmity with the goals and obiectrves of the EPA Guidelines estibiished pursuant to
S*ct«n 4f>4 to) ol U* P WK * a^d (Swished i'n 40 CF R 230;
b. That the discharge win consist of twitabie mate/isi free from,tokic poliuunts in other than trace ouintitie*:
c. That the fid created by me discharge will be properly maintained to prevent erosion and other non-point source* of pollution: and
d. That the discharge will not occur in a component of the Nationa! Wild and Sccnx River System or irt a component of a State wild
•nd Kenic river system. '
DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS:
a. That th* dumping will be cirritd out in conlormny with the go*it. ot>i»ctivei, and requirementi of the EPA crimia etttbiohtd
pursuant to Section 102 of the Ma>m« Protection. ReMarch and Sanctuaries Aci of 1972. published m40CFR 22O-328.
b. That the permittee shall plsct a copy of this permit in a conspicuous place in the vessel to be used for the transportation and/or
dumping of the d>edged maieriai a> authorited herein.
This per TV i shall become effective on the date'of the District Engineer's signature.
Permittee hereby accepts and agrees to comply with the terms and cortditioni of this permit.
PERMITTEE DATE
• Y AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.
C. £. EDGAR, III
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Division Engineer
Transferee he'eby ayett to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
TRANSFEREE DATE
-------
APPENDIX E
Bourne Marina Permit
MCtCAir * toor
-------
Application No __ 16-BO-17S TVrfflft Kn. K
M»m» of Applicant .Commonwealth of Massachusetts, P»p«rfm»TU- of Environmental Quality
'iff**. D«. 10 November 1981 _ Engineering
Expiration Date tit •ppiii'.hui
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PERMIT
•telmmg to wrimn r*n| ntvigi bit w*1tr* of the United Suttl. upon the recommendation Of the Chiaf Of Engineer*. puriwant
to Stcnon 10 of tht Rtvtrt and Karbon Act of March 3. KM 133 U.S.C. 403);
DC ) Diich*rge dredotd or tilt material into weitrt of tt>» United Jlltri wpon the iuuinct ot • ptrmit Ifpm Iht CtertUry of th« Army
through the Oi*t of Cnflnttn ourMtni to t«clton 404 of 0* F*dcr«t Wtttr Pollution Control Act (*6 Sut.S16. P.L. 8J-WO);
( ) Tnntpoft 0>»dfttO' mcttritl for tht purpoM of Ovimping tt into OCMfi wattrt upon th« iMutrtct Of • ptrmit from tht Ctcrttcry o' the
Army (ding through the Chitf of Enginttn pwr«u*nt to Ctction 103 Ot tht M»rint ProttClion. Rtutrch and &TMtU*ritt Act o( 197?
tt£ Sut. 1052; f.L. 92-5321;
Comonvealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environanental Quality Engineering
Division of Land and Water Use
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02110
tt h*rct>> •uthoriif d »r <>•* tccrrltty of |N( Army:
•" perform the following vork to create * municipal recreational marina:
a. Dredge the two-acre cove and its peripheral wetlands to -6' mean low water, to
create a 5.4 acre boat basin. The northerly face of the basin vill be finished to a
3:1 slope and the remainder of the embankment area, approximately 1800 linear feet,
vill be faced with riprap. Approximately 5000 cubic yards of riprap and bedding
material vill be placed below the high tide line. A temporary cofferdam will be con-
structed lit the inlet side of the cove to prevent sedimentation and to allow the area
*, Buttermilk Bay (CONTINUED ON PACE 4a)
* Bourne, Massachusetts
*i irt«>tdvficr with lh« plinj mil dr*w|n|i iimhcd turtle whUh trt lacurpwitrd in md mtdt • pvl of this ptrmll (on dr»wlngr |ivt
file *umlvr or til her definite Utniifictlion nurk*.)
entitled, "Proposed Bourne Marina at Tsylnrs Point in
Bourne, Xassachusetts, Countj- of Barnstable, State of KH*£H. in 3 shtsettt, dated
"July, 19SO".
•wbjvrt to Ifcr fotlixkinf contfition*:
I.
a. Thit aK activitfet iOniifitrJ (ntf •ulhorijtcj ht'tin |K«» bt COniiiltnt with the trrmi antf eond.tionl of thil ptrmit; »nd that »ny
attivititt not tptcifically idtntidttf f>d «u|ho«iltd hcrtin Ihill COr.lUlutC • violltion Of th« ttrmt tnd tonditieni of thu ptrrr.il which
m»v rtluM «n tne modificilion. utptniion or revocation of thil ptrmll. in wholt Of in ptrt, II Ml forth morf lp»eif»e»Hy «n Central
ConO-tiCKM i D' k htrtio. »«d in the init.tulion o> luch Itgtt piocttdingi at the Umttd Suttt Co«*rnmtnt may conKOV «pproprittt.
not thil ptrmit h«t bttn pitvioully nodifitd, tulptndtd or ttvoktd in whott Or in p»rt.
£NC '"" "^ tOiTlONOF 1 APR74ISOMOLITI. JE«114i2.30JI
-------
b. Tr»t •*• viivitiM eutheriied herein ahe'1. if they involve. during Their construction or operation. any diicha'g* o' pollutant! into
itt r» of the United Sum Of actan water*. be at a» timet eontmtnt with applicable water Quality nandarOl. tlllwtm limitation! and
itndartfi Of performance. Prohibition!, pretrtttment fltnderdl and management prKlictl ett»bli»hed pursuant to the Federal V»»itt
9»uncn Centre' Act d 1972 WM.. 93-500. 86 Slot 816). the Marine Prouction, Rtwarchand Senctuariet Act o< 1973 (P.L.93 M2,
S Sut. 1 052). o* pwrwant to appi«at>fe $wt* an*: leeai law.
C. That when t»K *Ctrn1v »wlHDge during itt COflftructton O» Operation, Of any pollutant (including
kedgtd or Ml materte'), "Up waten «i the l»n>ted Stattf. the avthorited activity »halt, if applicable water Quality Mandartf.* it reviled
,i modified during the term «t «h«i permit. be modi!**. if necettary, to conform with Mich reviled or modified «wt*r Qutlhy n*ndMdi
•nlhin € mentM «' Uw t'lKi«»t C^lt O< «nv rrnlion Of modi>ic*1i»n o' wattr qulliry iund«'d>. or t* d>r««t*(l by »n impltmtniti on
>l«n cont*>rw0 •» twCti *rf or mstf.1*fl it»nd*rtft. or within luch lonstr period of timt M tNl Ddtrict Engin»tr, in contwlunon wit*
lilt Regional ASmiftUTtWo «f tfht Sn»r tht End*nftr»d Sp«ci« Act, or
I. Tlw i»« p*tmiriin •gr*t« » mahv tmry cvv>on»«)t •Hort lo prpatcutt iftt conttrvciion Of operation el trw work •utnorittd
Ittrttn m • m«nn«T |« W to rnmtmuc &>* »0««f|« impact O« fun. wildli't. and naiwral anviroAfflontai MtuC*.
I. That tK D*«n>tit« arw» iftsi^wn preicctftt tfw comtrwction or worli Mtterimtf h«rtin It • mtnncr to at to mrnimiM Any
I That IN* pcrmittM inail »«rmjt Vw O«tf«t ing>nt*r or ha authoriftd rapr*i«ntit>««(i) or drtignnUl W inakt periodic
i 11 «ny nm« o>tmrd nrctnaty m order to eitwrt tMt the acthnly B^irt( pcrlorrmd under •ulnoriTy Of tha permit « in
•CCOfa*->c« with tht Itrmt and cond. Th*t trvt permittM th*n rrumtain th« Mructur* or work «glho>ittd Nrtin in food condition and in accordance with tK« plant and
0r« 11 IK Sed Ker« to.
i. Trut t»nt permit doe* not convey any property n/>». tnhtt in reat ttttt* or rrvitttitl. or any tucViin pri«ilt»»t: and that it doet
«CI aulhoriit any injury to property or >nv*l«n»on of ihc activity authonrtd h*r*m wowtd b* m t*« arntrt1 pub>>c inttrrti. S^ch fcrtptntion thatl be effective upon receipt by
th* permittee O* a wottR notitt thertef which th»n mdicttt (tl th« eittnt el th* iwtptMien. (Jl the rteton* lor thii action, and
(31 any corrective or prtvenitiivt mttiurrt to b« H^tn by the ptrmittr* which «rt dt«m«d necttury bY the Ditfict Engineer la ebeti
KTtm.ntnt h*i»rtfi to Ih< grner*) pwblic i run til. Trx ptfmttr* »K«ll ukt >mmtdi|tl action to Comply with Irx provHioni Of 1h« notice.
Within ten eUyt lollowtg tect.pt of thrt notice of tusptMtO*. tht pe'mitttt may reftuett a hetrint in oroV to pretfht inlermatien
ttievant to a decition at to whtthtt hit ptimit trtouid be itmimtd. modified or rtvelctd. It a hearing H rtqutntd, h thatl be conducted
pvhiart lo p» octdurei prnc'tbtd by tht Chitf of Enginctri. Afttr complf tion of tht hearing, or within a rtttonjbll time attar Muance
»f th* »»>sptn»io« neiict to the pttmiittt if no hearing » ttCMtttt d, tht permit will a>the< tw reinitattd, modified or revoked.
k. That thit permit may be *iihai modified. wtoeKded or rtvokrd in whoit or in part If the Secretary of the Army e* rVa authorised
Tep'titntttive dettimmti th«| thert h*i been a v«O'il-cm of any of tht ttrmi o< condition! of thit permit or that auch action would
be in the pubic init'ttt. Any iwch mod'fication. tuiptniion. or revocation ihtli become af'tctive 30 diyt after receipt by the
of wntltn notice of *uch Ktion which than iptcfy the factt 6' conduct wlrranting umt unlttt II ) within tht 30-d»y period
the permitite u at>it to Miiifxtoniy demonttritt that (*l tht t'ltyd violation of the Mtmt md the condition! of thii permit did hot. in
fact, occur or (b) |ht a'ltfltd violation wtt *cc>dtr>til. and Ihf pttmitttt h«i bctn optrtting in compl>«nct with tht ttrmi and condition*
Cl th* permit and it ab>t to prc-»'t!t UMfactory atlurancit thtl futurt OOtrttioni |h«!l be in Ml COtipli»nca with the termt and
(Onditiont ef thii permit: or t?l within tht a'O'ttdd 30-day pt'iod. tht permititl t»ouim that a public hearing bt held to preitnt oral
and written ffvidenct concerting tht proooiftf moditicatioi. lutpennon or rtvOcition. Tht conduct of thii hearing and tnt procedure!
for rr.akmg a Imal decHion either tomod.fy.tutptnd Or revoke thu permit in wholt or in part (hall bt pwrHiant toproctduret pretcribed .
by the Chief of Engineers.
1. That m rnjirvg thii permi*. the Ccneinment hat relied on tht information and dila which the permittee hat provided in ronrMfiion
with Kit pem«nt may. in edd.t<.d. inttitulf
•Dproixutt leg<> proceedings.
m. Thai any motfi'ication. tuipennon. or revocation of (hit permit thall not be the batit for any e'aJn lor damagti against the
United Sut«».
ft. That the permittee thatl notify the Oitvict Enginetr at what time the activity authored h«rtin will be commenced, aa far in
acVunct of the t>mt of commenctmtnt at tht D.itritt Er.g>nter may ipecify. and of any lutptniion of work. If for a period of mori than
One w.tk, retumption of work »nfl itt complttion.
-------
\.&s\ j N)
**$r V X
-
i
!?
end
. Radiu.s
as Showh
>*l%
. /
Mitigation Plan Sheet 1 of 4
STRATFORD LAND AND
IMPROVEMENT CO.
-------
O 50
UJ—
100
J
litigation Flan Ehest 2 of
STRATFORD LAND AND
IMPROVEMENT CO.
IJATT r/2C/cr
-------
* • ~»r*- .
;~:• /r& v v • :• --^ • yz&sr•-if:-
' ^HY^^t^^lA'^L *'^vV:S:
Shown
&v .
.. . i ^
" ""
Mitigation Plan Sheet 3 of
STRATFORD LAND AND
1WPROVEWENT CO.
-------
ck -cia»ns tu / -ka 2
* . - • • t • • ••• . *...
V .V
V
TO? CF CUT
BT?>L Or CUT
L
MRW.
D
KT.L.
\VETLAND
EXIST. UNAUTHORIZED
v DITCH 70 REMAIN
( SEE SHEETS3).
PLAN
1
J
NOTES
•
1) REFERANCE SKSET«3 D RT ,
O 25 SO KX> 200
SCALE IX F£ET
S r-WWiY.
o
r* LOCATION O.'
B UNAUrrrDRirtO \VOP.JC
V/ETLAND U
W.«3.79 -s-FlLl. PLACED 1981 TO REMAIN WETLAND LOCATION
-.L.=4.9j^/ Top D,KE g^, K5£ ^ FjOR RTi^ SEE SHS__T ^. ^
BTM. BREACH
SECTION. Bl.Orf
TOP -D
— '• - APPOX. GRADE = 5.O
BT.M. BREACH EL.M.O
SECTIOiN Q. DIKE
& VERT.-CAl.
L ELEVATIONS MSL_
1329 ^
SCALE J* F2ST
*/
- DETAIL •
BREACH N*2
C SEE* SMEET^Sl
AT ST7JATFOHD
CF l>;i=Jr7£l.D STATIT
CC
APPL^2ATlC^f SY STRATFORD LXSD
CO.
9 or u
------- |