> 1^>t ptvnittr* h |in'errirv8 hit iflUrmt tortm to thtfd B*r|y purtuiM to C*ntfl Con|in 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 (. tht ptrmitm v>^ uk ue*> action v my b* otcrtwy *o rco>d t^it permit vrfth th RrgHicr ( Otedt othff approptUtt olficial cKrf*d with th* fnpentibiltty lo ncf J* ! ttlc to *td mttrMti in mf property. *. ?fc*t ihr 9>>n fet *o vATMteniM* jKM>lttnct w*r>. naviftatioA by V* fcttnct Of WM ot ihi Ktwitr wtKorlMtf hvrt'm. t. t>*t SVt **rfmi ny et b t>nTrfad to (Hird P*rty without pr'ior wrltttA Mofci to te 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 fCTMY 4fton of IhH ptrnWu In addition. M |ht ptrmitttt r*ofrr* .f) tot*ftt axntxxiitf **; by Cnv*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 rcd*d atong *wth iht o>*d with the Rtgiwtr of Dvtdt o> ottttr approp'iatt otlicia*. II. peiICoittfriw: ta h1 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 Sttn 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
      rd H9"*1* i miy b* pmcnbvd by lh Urxud Suiri Cowt Gvtrd *rii b* kttulttd nd mpnv el th*
    p*mft Of upon in pimioA btfort complttioA of th
ulri/*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 rpftlHvt my'dtnr 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 OtrrwM. ond rocovvr tht COM ttitrtof from tht ptrmitm.

   t. f iiwctwrn for Small loan: That ptrmitttt (wttey r*cognim tht potib| 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.pubfhed 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 *ysta.  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 CCP. 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?OYME,NT CO.
                                                STRATrC/D CX>?i!1.

-------
                    TIDE  GATE  TO REMAIN
                          > WHITE ROCK
                                                     USGS QUAD- SHEET
                                                     (BRIDGEPORT , CONN.').
                  BO  '-ICO
                  CCALE W FT
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=fiGVEtfNT CO.
SiT 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 RMAIH)
1' Y'{
t * 1 	 El_eJOO
SECTION AT CULVERT
HORIZONTAL
O tO tO pCv
VERTICAL
bdJbl 	 1 	 	 	 J
O 6 10
DCAi 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 SET3 8) -v
               MATCH  LINE

                                                     SALT  MARSH

                                                    TIDAL  V/E?LAND
              SHEET  6,7
                 4^fcitil-*** ' ^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 NZ
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 vnuinumztD ivry
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 SHEET3)
                H
                            b

                         25 CO
                                      NOTES

                                      II FEFERANCE SHEET3B 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.L4.95
                      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?^pfiovENT  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^ *'
                         ^wX^-..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?PLCATJCti  BY STRATFORD i Awa
            SiT  CO.
                                              .*KSEToril

-------
          // -
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?*
                                                          2i^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 ELlJD
                                                                                .-.
                                                \4cdieh, Sliec.4 V  
                                                                              .
                                                        i CLEVATIONS KSJ_ DATUM
                                                          1929
                 SCALE w FErr
                                            BETAfe  '
                                         BREACH  N2
                                        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, rpJicnt :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.vi;. 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. cxcvi: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~.alo: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 PISPOE6 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, it ROACAY, 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
    ELINO 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
                                                                       troct 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. Tht 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 iur>ct *f * permit ur.l*tl et**rmw tpC.I*d! Ihil p*m.t. il
    Thi IM ptrmit *m rot awthorin o op'ovt  cemtruction of wrtiewif MrwctwfM, t* uiNoiitiof>  PB*I cl A.ch
                  by ft* CTti! > >"*' fitneitt ol t* f t*fl Govtrnmtnt.
                          tfmrtt te
                               nrvj hn mitrtiu fwrtm to  IhM pft\r pur*unt to Crnrri
  r, TM( if ihr *nr0rf)t *f Ihrt permit h pouib>t wndrr *ppl<*Wt Xutl  toul I*M, tlM prmitt*t thn uki wet. ei^r. *i m*v
       te m0r0 ttut ptrmit nth the Kf *tr et D*tdl Or ether oo'0pf iti cllieii C*ur|*d with IN mpOMibililr tor R
  , Tlwt l*** (fMtl tot no tm>Min*b<( mltrlttncr with M*i(*tion by tN trtttnct or MM ( Ih* Ktwtty wlhe>i(t0lrtin.
  1. Th*l 1*1* pmrt m* net t t'tn(rrttf tc  thirrf pi'ty without rir tvritwn ntief t the Ontfict E|ifr. ilhf fry ttte
r*nilrrfc'( srr.tivrt )rt(mAt lo CO"W>V wnTh *II t*rmi *n0 eendi|>nt f Ihii ptrm>| or by trt trnlfrf K *uUirtbm| IS Ihrt ptfrrtil in
the |pce P'evK)r0 ficionv (0 l>trrby *(>Kmg to comply with ll uimt intf caitiDni e< Ih4 pt'mn. In ddnion, rf tKt ptrmittrr
       N- mirrr>l vlhofirr l't>n  by COv>y*nct c' Tt*ltr, th dtttf ihll rl*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.tllv to ttM fOOttf 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>PAM to tne United Sum *nd m tuCh time and rrnnr at the Secreury of th Army or
hit awihond rtprtteniattve may direct, rcitore the waterway to hi turner conditiont.  tf tht permittee la ill to comply with the
*icio ol IN Scret*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.  Tjat 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*ctn 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>ictivei, 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

  Mm of Applicant .Commonwealth  of Massachusetts,  PprfmTU- 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 tclton 404 of 0* F*dcrt 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 pwru*nt to Ctction 103 Ot tht Mrint 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 drwlngr |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|hoiltd hcrtin Ihill COr.lUlutC  violltion Of th ttrmt tnd tonditieni of thu ptrrr.il which
 mv rtluM n tne modificilion. utptniion or revocation of thil ptrmll. in wholt Of in ptrt, II Ml forth morf lpeifeHy 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 ht bttn pitvioully nodifitd, tulptndtd or ttvoktd in whott Or in prt.
 NC  '""   "^    tOiTlONOF 1 APR74ISOMOLITI.                                  JE114i2.30JI

-------
    b. Trt * 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 ettblihed pursuant to the Federal Vitt
  9uncn 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 appiat>fe $wt* an*: leeai law.

    C. That when tK *Ctrn1v wlHDge during itt COflftructton O Operation, Of any pollutant (including
 kedgtd or Ml materte'), "Up waten i the  ln>ted Stattf. the avthorited activity halt, if applicable water Quality Mandartf.* it reviled
 ,i modified during the term t hi permit.  be modi!**. if necettary, to conform with Mich reviled or modified wt*r Qutlhy n*ndMdi
 nlhin  mentM ' Uw t'lKit C^lt O< nv rrnlion Of modi>ic*1in o' wattr qulliry iund'd>.  or t* d>rt*(l by n impltmtniti on
 >ln cont*>rw0  twCti *rf or mstf.1*fl itnd*rtft. or within luch lonstr period of timt M tNl Ddtrict Engintr, in contwlunon wit*
 lilt Regional ASmiftUTtWo f tfht Snr tht End*nftrd Spci 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  mnnT | W to rnmtmuc &>* 0f| impact O fun. wildli't. and naiwral anviroAfflontai MtuC*.

   I. That tK D*n>tit arw iftsi^wn preicctftt tfw comtrwction or worli Mtterimtf hrtin It  mtnncr to at to mrnimiM Any
   I  That  IN* pcrmittM inail rmjt  Vw Otft  ing>nt*r or ha authoriftd rapr*intit>(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 tnt permit doe* not convey any property n/>. tnhtt in reat ttttt* or rrvitttitl. or any tucViin priiltt: and that it doet
CI aulhoriit any injury to property or >nv*lnon 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 thn  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 dtmd necttury bY the Ditfict Engineer la ebeti
KTtm.ntnt h*irtfi to Ih< grner*) pwblic i run til. Trx ptfmttr* Kll 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* >sptnio 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 vO'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-dy 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 hi 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 COtiplinca with the termt and
(Onditiont ef thii permit: or t?l within tht a'O'ttdd 30-day pt'iod.  tht permititl touim 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 pemnt 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 hrtin 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 -cians  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 SKSET3 D RT ,
                    O  25  SO     KX>         200

                             SCALE IX FET
 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=Jr7l.D   STATIT
                                                                                CC
                                                 APPL^2ATlC^f  SY  STRATFORD LXSD
                                                                  CO.
                                                  9 or u

-------

  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  *Hun  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 Efkwfl
     "Final St Plan Northmnt Boulvrd. 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
MIN * \
    /  V t^
                                              .\  /v
//
       FIG. 7 LOCATION OF BOl'RNF. MARINA DEVELOPMENT, DOURNE, MA
               (ala|)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 Dt* _ 16 November  19B2
               (tf pplic*bJ),
                                   DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                                               PERMIT

                             1 Deceajber 19C1
        to written rrqum BwS _ - _**  ptrmit to:
 (  ) Prrlorri work in or Hrc*>) ntvipblt wt*rt f thf Unitttf futri, wpcn ih rtctwnmtndition f tfc* Chitl o' Enpyt*tff,pvriur>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* ittwnct of  pcrmh from tM S*rr*!jry ef Ht A>my
 ct>n 1wwg*t th Ct*{ f Cn^nr( pv'M*"! I* Sccton 404 of lS f*tt^i Wtt/ Pollut.oo Cniro An 186 tui. tiff. fO.. W-SOO).
 t  ) Tmiori rikttfgrtf nuttri*} for (Ht purpMt of dwmpinf * '"to oettfl uwrt wport tft iuunc Bt  pftnii f to
 Army !">> tt>fOt>ph ih Chuf ol Ehflntin puftucnl to KoctiOA 103 of th* *A(in frot*ciin, ftiirti end (netuwiot Act ol JB75
 tM Sui. 1 052. P.L. 97 S37);
                                Byfeld - Keene A?ct
                                Suite I01-C
                                6701  Sunset Drive
    plee 93,660 cubic  yard* of bankfun gravel on a 13 ncre  it at of vhich
Is alxed uoody. eaergent wetland  t the nortKeast  comer of Jta; lianpshire
Rt. 12 and Wet 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 idrfitin ifttH b comitvm with t** tnmt nd pntfO< tp*CitiC**l'0n ol iht itm 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 pr, M HT forth mtvi !*>*'fitlI Mi Cn/l
       irn | 8' * twtio, nd in  tN* 
-------
    t>   >*njl !' *etiil'ts *ut*>iffl herein heM. if they involve. during their cont|ruci,on or ocf '-on. *"v d.tcluo Of pollutants into
 \.v* o' t< Unites Su:*i or ocean waters, be 41 i'l  f^-ei conusteni wth applicable water quality iua<>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 Mim fi emuon. Research and Sanctuaries Act el 197HM..9? 53J.
 16 Sui 1052>. O> i>ursuant le applicant Sect* and lota' law.

    C  That hn Iht Ctivily autho ired h*tin involves t discharge during its construction Or OPtritiOn. el rty pollutant (including
 frtajrU  D>  I'll m*lriH. inte waters o( the United Sltl, 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'lttiy dm  ^ *ny rrvi>0n O/ modification O' Mtttr quality ttanda/dt. Or M dirtcttd by n wrttm*ntat en
                               r med>lf*<) ti*ndids. 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  1W 0.tc**r vntt  not dnirov  thtattntd 0> tntfangtrtd ttCi  id*Mifi*d nd*r tHt  CndaAftttd totem Act. or
          I*** t"!**1 habitat of twch prc>.
    . T*t rS rrm *rmfmit ih Dtri Cn^ntcf or l>4 outnritd rapmtntatnvU) or dr*i*ntU) to malm
            ! onr tim dwnd ntc*mry m ordtr  to (tiurt  that the activity btinf pf(exm*d umJtr outhority of t*u p*mit  in
                    trrrn and COAdjlationinor dot! it
        tht rtqutrtment to obiam Sutt en locl 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
 i permit epv'-ettio*. If. subsequent to the tstuanci ol thrt permit, such information nd dst*  prov to be lalst, mcemplete or
 iicej'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. tuspenson. 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 ptrd of more than
 "e week, resumption ol work atd it! completion.

-------
          |tt CIdl                             . _
An ot   r>>--S*r . fi ^S       Ithrtf yttrt from |hc 04tt Ot rthiritt el tttii ptrmn urticti othtiit lp*con *t
        if *tf **> |h p*rm/rtr 0wir*t to (e^tdon |h etwity w|SriMd hrtm, vfil*** tufti t*nOe*rr>tnl it p'l Of *
       bv *** I*W Ptf*mi W |ffUfrnn| Hn mwrwtt tarm to  I*** p*li Sttit or lec*l Uw.ttn prmittt thM ttkf ach oeiion (t m*y bx
                                  e>
               4M no vw*MOobt* nttr<*rftc* int*. *^ion by t* *t*nc* or tM of th* Ktwilr fcrthorntd htrtin.
  t. Tr>M tlM* *rmii mr MM b* trfniltrrrtf to  ftirtf p*rty witHout |Ptby *tffttpn| to comply with #11 Mrrm K>d conoMiom of tM pm.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 l9ropritl Of li*l.
  II.
                  )MT lai contfiiiom l(iin| tprciltotiy le ttf p'OPt*d structure or work outrorit4 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 wter and the future growth of
   wetland species.  The  precise location of the cross-hatched  area will be
   finalized after the New Knphire 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
   excovtion 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 u0*'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 fiavrfb* wwn t
o t*< >f !>
   c  TI,J . lvr doe>v o< i*t*in d tr> 9tr/ntltt. MOO" f*c*t 0'  * A9K* of rtvOC1>O* 0' tha pttrriit or WOO* itl Itpi'ttion btfo- Comptttion el tl*
AwfaHi/rd i'wi. N. MrsOv/I trd Sui >ntf in tuch tim (td m*nnr M t>>t S^C'tl^y el tht Army Of
>> >1lO'./td r)C'if*-Mu my tf"tCI. 'CttO't thf Mkllfri*y to ill  tQ"T*i Cond SCitl*'v r hit Oevgn** my rttior* lh vMUnwy  its
fO"nv condition. by *0'ei r OlKt'M. and 'ICOvtr |h eot
                (or *m* lo*lt: Thtt p*'"Mlre htrtby rKO}niit Iht POft'Oititv tKil (ttt llrvtturt ptrmitttd nrtin m*y bt tubr+CI to
        by Hvt rv^ 4rm tint vrilt. TrVt iwnc ol ir p'm/l do*l not nl-v*l trt prmiut from ULmg *>l proper tivw to
       (K tAiw^rty f l# itrwcrurprm,UM> Nr*in nd tht Mn**  by M*M*rd Nrrtin ineluoVt Pfriod'C m*inttnnct dftdj.nj. it my b* p*>forrnt<( unoV trui prmMunct of thn pttmit (ttn yf *? wnlru othtrtmit ti
      Tfvii tS evrmintt vJI ooVnM tht D|rici Enf inttt in writing *t ltit two wttk* bf fO'f Kt irittnd* to vndrruVt any
DISCHARGES Of DREDGED OA FILL MATERIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES:
   . TKt the dncnrgt will b* carried out in conformity with Iht olt nd ObtKlrmn of th* EfA CwioVintt tttblithd purwn{ rd
        4O4tb) of th FATCA and pubfih*d in 40 CF R 330:
   to. That tht dttchargt will eoniitt of iuit*b>t mjltrial fr fiom toic 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* ddtd mattrial at authorittd h*rtm.
Thit permit thll 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
 Tafet hereby af tei to comply wth 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
         rCV*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** Mvm and HarboM Act of M*reh 3. 1M? iSi L.' S.C. 403J:
             la* a permit to:
                     om*nrfji:or.
                                                                                fr, .
 tC I O*cfc-j o-rtf^erf w liTI ni*ru! Wuo wr ot it* C'n-ttS $-.i:rt vynn jvi rtiance '  permit lom 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 vtlct.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?fttlnd 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 ni^'tfi. tfii.e*-  - .,. .
tun.to'ilt o p'lobiii><  pretr*tm*ni tunot'dt t^O wn*otmeM ptctict)~r.iVni>ta purivtit 19 t *i/.,
Pa"""*" Contro' A;i el  1973 UVU. 9? SOO. < Stit. 1161. the Mtrint froteciion. Ftetttrch tntf Snciwr*i Aei et 197}  .k  9J.JJ2.
1C Sut 10421. c> purtutM le pp4ictt>ti Stai* nd loci Uw.
   r  Thti VHA ihe octwily twtnoiiied lf tin Mvo'vtl  *' during it tontuwtlion o< epeition. ol ny PC ,:i-t  -s'ya.nj
0>f 09*0 e> '" rr.jumtl. into wf ttit 41 the Unilttf $il. 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*uen o> mtfiliC*tiOA of iwtiti quilily tttndkidt. or  dtrtcud by in -; t-i-.:i on
9>n (onu.Aed in fwch rtnMd r md>)it() tl*nd'0t, < within Wth longer ptriod cf tm n lh| Oitt'ict Cnjinttf. "tf. tf 9-
                                                                       rmint to U
      Ttvl 1*H >x>i*fftt will not  tftttfoy o 1hrtt*n*d O< tftdiir*d ! M M*nl>tMd under tht Endin*ti*a tc-t-: *1 Act. or
          *> t'w wripxl on lit>>, >/id'>ft. nd raluf*< *ntrnmtil vlut.

   I. Th| thr p^mui** *rn tMttwwill protMtftl 1M UM|ri,ct>on or work utho'ind hrtm bl  nvAn*r to *t ;; -- -.M tr>y
            t>t  P*'MIIM **H ptrmil  IK*  0t'CI tnft 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. ihr in rt*l lltt Of mlnttt or oy tkClwliot pfitrilttfi:  r ^-*t is dn
not wl^O'i/f *TV injwy to p'OiX'ly o> irtvt>on of rtgMl O< "y tntnngcm*nt ol Fcckrjl, Suit, er tool Itffrt or ref^U'.-Z-t > tiott it
        th >re>rni to bbinn Sw.f o> locl utni rtquittd by U tor in* Ktivily *uthorutd n*rtin.
    I  Tri |h^ p'n1 nvy be mn-...ty utocnd*d.  Blt O in pMI. upon  findinj by tht Oittriet
tjvpf ni.on el tlx ciivnv -.>tNotcd hcr n nould be m |N gem'< pub'< inltfttt. Jwch tut^cniien thill be (flrei:t .:; *:t 'p: by
the permittee ol * rciuer> noi::>oxnd
(31 f.y xr*Ufi which '< drcmrd n*mury by the Dnmf. !< -Mr :o*&au
tmntinent KviJt to tt>e omtrit public inirittt. The prmilt(t |n'l Ukt immed<4!t tctien to comply with |h proiie-i :'.-! *etrc.
%V.ihm tm dr toilynn( >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'.:jnee
I  IN. KrUMnnan rta* to t>* p*n p*rmii will iithtr be rtirnuir-tf, mo (kind or rtir
    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 hi brcn  vtolanun ol *ny of ht term* or cooditiu*! ol thii petm'rt or |ht i.*~. in :r
 Oirteiwiw lm in the public iniotit. Any tth mod.licf.'jn, Mtpermon. or rttocition thll bciomc ttlwOiv* 30 d.iyi ': -> *ci>cn *.N.th th^l tpecily t*-| len 01 eor.J ct wiiriiiling um* unltit (II with'it '.* ZC-cit Mtiod
 \'i ll tK* iitfcd v.eUllcn ol lK U'mj rvd tK* condiliont of triiicr- : Tdnet.irt
 frfct. occur ' Ibl lix lpjd o'nnn wtt KCide< 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 thll b in  lull  c>nplitnct  w.:* -.'+ :t >l tne
 cond-i>on ol thit permit. O' 121 mir.m tH* foiM>d 30 dr peribd. thi pirmitltt ritivtitt tht  public rxti"| 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 hri| ^s ft fstttfwiet
  the C^t Of Enfedon th mfeon tnddlU which tKe permiur* hi p'O pcimn m*y be modified. ttpndon. tutpention. er irvocttion ff {hit permit th*ll not be \ht bil 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 utherd herein ~'K be co-.-*'irt. t fir in
 d*ce e' thr t.m*ofcof.t>etmM theDnlnct En>r>i t> tptcily.tnd ot *ny tutpintign of work, if lortpt: 15 l' T: thn
 CO* t*ek. retuntplion of work t>.A ill eomptrtion,

-------
                               to * iw eiiiir rjh"wd -i'B. umni tut* ttontf""**" A tun el
       bv  ! P'"ititt rt irmUernng  HMitt him to  llwtf pity pgrwim to Oe^K'*! Cone.non i l^ftn!. l.r
                             n> iNt
  t tt ^ tU et*< S**W Of tee Uw.
              tHl Krm,1 ilh 1^ WrflrtlH Ot Ot 0< OtWf
                                 10  thrt in witfwwi rf unitm fci< w f* Orittirt ln|>nt^. ith by the
                               tnwi jnd ce. *fm.|. In dj-tn/p. rf H
;-*.U d hrvw *td Hi* *wm.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* ty  p*rm,ti*t 1C (>fKt the lutl 4nd (IN Mt by
'.3 \*i *Ji->-.> 3,i
                                   IIM Uiwtrri Sum CMU Gutid Uvflbt miu(l*dnd mkinui
                                                                                              lor by !*...
                                                        o'
                                                                          iti
                                                                          tf C
                                                                        It the 9crmif.it
                                                                                                      ol
                                                                                               ol
                                Of
                                                                                                         it I
                            Thl *r(niltt her fl>r rCniiH thr POU't"l'l Wl <>>< H(xcur p4>mitlttf hrtifi 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"'ilt lie-ft lki->g i! e>ef*  firm 19
      i't initfiir ' tti irwc:u-tp*inn tnd |f>e Mitw ' bo* it mord iKtftie horn tf*Ti*jf fe, n>* Jt A^.H Iht Oairttl Crt|bn*C( in MritKlurt will fa* rttnra eul  chttM'e* **W eonriitt of tuitt^i mttrii 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-pint 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
               tipd 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 Bivifbl 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 wtr 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 ut U> Sttioa 404 of tbt CUio Waur Act (U I'JLC. MMfc
4 I TrBjrt dredge! ntUrUI for ti PCTPOM of dnxplnf It InUa ocu> wur upon th btutsc* of t ptralt fran tin
S4rri*ry of tb Army etinf t^roufli the Chif of Ea|ltt*n puriumt to S*ctiea 103 of li Miriftt PioUctioa,
5 1 cetuH*i Act of 1B72 (34 f^L J&Ji >.L. O-iJA
                                   Dniel 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?rtss'/fiy in Uw 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.8ny 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
 utmVrwoi>^rrfr/iM'lv^fii Umi tor! ccnditisnt oftMi ptrmit; tod
   t sny '.:ivl'.:i not t^lficilly Idmlifitd ind ytiioriid bf!n ihtll cenititvtt i violation ef th* Urmi tnd eoJxHtiaoi of
   j ;^rmlt wW.:b aay ri-iU in tt> nodifieitica. pnIon cr rtvocitlon of this p*na!t. lo wbol or fn prt, } itl forth oor
    tiJ:clJ/ 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 Covn-
 ut=*. -ty eor.tWfc/ apprpprUu, hthtr 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 tby 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 Wur 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 ltU, if pplieW *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 tupBtio& ef work. U tor a period
ef toork Utta eat WMk.r*iLmpUeB of work aad Iu eompUUoa.                       '
    . mtim* activity BtW{t^..tBt.atMmpTuJaaMUfer   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*. Cri 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 pn=Jtl* J lrtntfirrir.1 tli inUrtitiKeitin lo a third piny pctiunjt to CkDl Cotditioa t
 btrtof, r.* BUU mlort tbt utt to a condition ttltiftctory Ut tht Diiuir
    r.  Tkl 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 **
 ay V r-eetf-^uy t ttrord lift pnatl 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.

-------
        tKn ab*H a* M nr*a*sabU l*Urftr*ae* wltK Mvigttioa by tit* kiiUsc* or ut of tht activity a>jJomtd
  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 trai!rr ubcribia| 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 dtd iball rtfartan taU ptreli aad
tb unni aad endiOea p^eird braia and tbit ptratl aall b* mwdd alea vitb tk dd itb tbi **tf**i el D*di or
tbtr ay orvprial* olflciaL
                               ^w of ih wsri auttyrstd triB, ie
                                              r x>1 ier
U.
      a.  All  etvitie> 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 folllac Special CoadiUoat will  applicant wbta appropriate:

 STtUCTVK: IN 01 AFriCTING. NAVtGAtlt WAtlKS Of TMI UNHID STATUt
    _ TfcatthJa permit o"o* not authoriM lit iaUrf*raet 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 wur *t or
 4jcBt 10 tk uUvit/ vtborUodb? iki ptmit.

    e, ta if lit dlipUy J UjlU ud Ifeali on uy itrectort or work oihorU*5 btrtla Ii aot otbrwl provi4d for by Uw.
 net Ugbu ud ilcnUi M n.y b ptcribd by thi Vslud Suut Cwt 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
 laorit4 tnictur* or work, ibill, itiout tipaM to tikt Ualud 5uu tad in auto tiat ted B inner ti tat StcrtUry of tbt
 Amy r bJt tsllcriMd rtprtMoUUvt ty diiet. rttUrt U>t vaUrwty to it* fotaw eoaditloai. If tat pnnltt 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 wUr7 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 wva waaa froa ptitlaf vnla. Tit haatect of talt ptmlt dota not rtlia vt tat ptnnitUt frm Ukis j all
 propr fcep to iniur* tin toUtrity of tat itructurt ptmitud atrain tad tat ttftty of botU aoord tbtnto fra d4aic by
 wvt waa *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 wtVa Ufort Bt inund* to udtrukt aay
 Baalnuaaac* drtdfiaj;

 orscKAkca o* ottDoto ot *iu MATIAI IHTO WATIU or THI UNTTID HATUI
    - Tftat ti diicbart* U1 bt eanitd oat la coofomUy with tai foal* and ebjtctivtt of tai EPA GaidtUaf tiUbliabtd pur-
 Bat to SctJcB 404[b) of tat Ciaaa WaUr Act and publiabid ia 40 CFK 230;

    b. Tbaitbt diaeaartt will toatiat of auiUbU aatcria! frta frea tsic polluUBt* la toiie aaouau.

    c. Tbat tltflUmaud by tat daebutwiUbtpwprIyaa5BUiatdtBTtvtatrotteaadotAtrBOB-poiatoataof 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
 uWiSd 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 pra!t aaall beoa' tfftetivt e tat daU of tat DUtrtct Eaciattr't al

 Ptmftt*hrtby cepU 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 AMft
                                                                                DATE
   VS. *.rj/.V. COIM OF INGIKrtCS
   Trtnir.rt 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  & Tnprfvf>ni>t_ Co?Tnny. Tr>r> ,

                           12 January 1983
                                  DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                                             PERMIT

                            August  26, 19S1
                     tf*t*d
IX! f rfo" ^'V Wt O' ( f*ctin) ni>jblf toattrt of tfM Unlttd SutH.
 Union 10 lh Riv*r *nd HrlKK Act O( Mjreh 9. 1 W 03 U.S.C. 403);
 !>:/ C'ttcKC* tf'tf  prm1t from th $*c*Uiy el 1h Army
 ctw| inrdith th* Oit t Enyinf* punuvtt to Ctct'ion 404 o( tht Ftdtrtt WUr Pollution Control Act 156 SwuBlft, f^,92>SOO);

 I  I Tnmaon *Jic} m*l*rUd for th pur^OM of tfjmplnft It Into octn vUr upon tSt hteinc et  permit from tS Sttrtry ot tht
 Army tct'.ny tNrough tht ChUI et EnglnMrt pwnuMtt to Sctlon 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*irtry 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 "< mtf  p*rt
       That at) KtVttin IdtntffiMJ and avitho'tttd ftt>" hH bt eont!:t with tht ttrmt and condition* of tfiii pttnlt; and tSt any
  ^	___, not iptcificaly Went>ftd and atilhOfiJtd htrtln hfl conttitu't a vltl!ofl o( lh Urmi and conditiont o'th'n ptrrn*t which
  rny mull in tht md>fkiiion. tutptniion or ttvocttion of thli ptrmii. IA .hot r In p*t M Mt forth mort ^:ficMy In Gn*rt
  Condition J o k htrtio. and It tht initiwt>on of uch ftgtt procttdmj n th Umud Sttt Govtrnnunt may coniiiV ip^rop/U'r.
        > or not thi ptrmit hat bt prtv'iovity modif.td. o>Kdl or tvok4 in whta o fc pxt,

                         tOlTlON OP 1 APH 74 l> 0>OLITS.                                   |CH  H4J3403)


                                                   1

-------
   u.  i n*l  euMi 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 appiegle water quality standards. cMlweni hrmteiions end  '
ftandardt of performance. prohio.taa. Peireatmen| li*nd*'d and management practices cstlblilhed pusuant 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 ttnd?d
Wtrtin CrnAtru of tKe cffet>vt Am tf any rtvitien Of modification el water OMlity tuntftrdi, v at diraettd by an implinnuT on
plan conulncd in uch rtvid O modiKtd Itandjrdt. Of withir" auth longir period of tim* at tH OiMriet Engirwtr, in contutution Mith
the Regional Adminimaiof of the Ciwironmtntal rottion A0tncy. uy d(armint to bt rt atonabt* wndar tha circvrmiaiKM.

   a.  TMI tSt  dhchatga *! not dwtiey  a ttvatuned r otidanotrad ap*cit M Wtntifiad under *a Endanottad Sotciat Act. o*
ndJnfrcr t>4 critieai hatful O* MCt> Iptcit*.
   t. Tfiat Ihf 9amMt orn to ma%i tvtry ftaona(e ttfort to pot*twti ittt connrwaJon or opartloA t ttw wor
       in a nxawMf  * to rriou?iiMny advtiM jmoact n lith. wildMe, a^td naiwral tfwiro>vnfttal waK***.
    f. T*m i*w >fntttf *ort> ihaht^ bain| performed under authority of thfe permit  in
 occordanc* amtft tho tejmt ond *pd.to prncribed herein.
    tt. Thai the pvrmktee
 drawnngs attached berate.

    L  Thai thit pr mil don not convey any property right*, cither In real ute or material, or any tick*** prrvtleget; and that h doe*
 wot awthoin 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> loal 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
 ompn*(ion of tht actmty awthortted fterein would be in ttte general public tettrett. iVch *utpen*tn than be effective vpon receipt by
 the p*rmi\tt of  wriurn notice ihrreoT **h*h thai!  indn thill become tff Ktrve  30 tfey* after receipt by the
 permittee of written notice of Hc* action whih 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 wi accidental, and the  prmitte<  hu bttn operating In compn*nc* with the termt and condttlont
 f the  permit and i* able to provide Miitfectry atturancet tht future operations shall  be (n twit compliance with the terms ond
 Conditions of this permit: or  (2) within the a'ei''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 du  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 vat Irpm it* d*tr of ntuanct of
   . That tKit permit fen Met Mthonrt * wot t*w torn t UK Ho* of ptMfeulw ttnKhirei. Hie MtNxUiion or approval
   rrquKt aathiraton by th Cony rn or i!hff agtncwi of th Ftdtra* Cvtfnmni.

   . TlM if *^d wtkrn h* p^imittr* detect to b*nilon tte ClfiV utliorit*d ^rtin, unlrii tuc*> tuntlonmeAl I* 'part of a trt