[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Connecticut Embayments Study Department of Environmental Protection State of Connecticut 'Phase II Problem Response Options 7 GC 97.8 C8 C66 1981 pt.2 (c) Anderson-Nichols Hartford/Boston CONNECTICUT EMBAY'MENTS STUDY PHASE II PROBLEM RESPONSE OPTIONS ISO Prepared for *0 44Z The State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Coastal Area Management Program Arthur J. Rocque, Jr., Director Coastal Area Management Program Ron Rozsa, Project Manager under Contract No. 81-563 by the Staff of Anderson-Nichols & Company,, Inc. Dr. Redmond Clark James M. Sempere Dana C. Rowan This publication was prepared through financial assistance provided by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program and the office of Coastal Zone Management, National Atmospheric Administra- tion, United States Department of Commerce. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I SUMMARY IV PHASE I REPORT 1-1 CHAPTER I PHASE I PROCEDURE AND SUMMARY 1-1 CHAPTER 2 STONINGTON ENBAYMENTS 2-1 weqquetequock Cove 2-3 Quiambog Cove 2-23 CHAPTER 3 GROTON EMBAYMENTS 3-1 West Cove 3-5 Palmer's Cove 3-20 CHAPTER 4 LEDYARD EMBAYMENTS 4-1 Mill Cove 4-4 Poquetanuck Cove 4-20 CHAPTER 5 WATERORD EMBAYMENTS 5-1 Smith Cove 5-4 Keeney Cove 5-25 CHAPTER 6 EAST LYME EMBAYMENTS 6-1 Smith's Cove 6-3 Niantic River 6-14 Fourmile River 6-27 CHAPTER 7 ESSEX EMBAYMENTS 7-1 Middle Cove 7-4 CHAPTER 8 CHESTER EMBAYMENTS 8-1 Pattaconk Creek 8-5 CHAPTER 9 OLD SAYBROOK EMBAYMENTS 9-1 Indiantown Harbor 9-4 CHAPTER 10 WESTBROOK EMBAYMENTS 10-1 Menunketesuck River 10-3 Ad TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page CHAPTER 11 GUILFORD EMBAYMENTS 11-1 West River 11-3 Little Harbor 11-19 CHAPTER 12 BRANFORD EMBAYMENTS (East Haven) 12-1 East Haven River 12-3 CHAPTER 13 NEW HAVEN EMBAYMENTS 13-1 Mill River 13-4 CHAPTER 14 MILFORD EMBAYMENTS 14-1 Gulf Pond 14-4 Wepawaug River 14-26 CHAPTER 15 STRATFORD EMBAYMENTS 15-1 Marine Basin 15-4 Lewis Gut 15-24 ?rash Pond 15-50 CHAPTER 16 FAIRFIELD EMBAYMENTS 16-q1 Ash Creek 16-4 Mill River/Pond 16-26 Horse River Tavern 16-46 CHAPTER 17 WESTPORT EMBAYMENTS 17-1 Bermuda Lagoon 17-4 Gray's Creek 17-20 CHAPTER IS NORWNLK EMBAYMENTS 18-1 Canfield Island 18-4 Mill Pond 18-20 Village Creek 14q8-37 CHAPTER 19 DARIEN EMBAYMENTS 19-1 Holly's Pond 19-4 Gorham's Pond 19-24 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page CHAPTER 20 GREENWICH EMBAYNENTS 20-1 Byram Harbor 20-4 CHAPTER 21 EMBAYMENT PROBLEM CATEGORIES AND DISTRIBUTION 21-1 PHASE II REPORT APPENDIX I STUDY CONTACTS LIST APPENDIX II SELECTION EMBAYMENTS FOR STUDY APPENDIX III TYPICAL STRUCTURE DESIGNS AND COSTS Summary SUM14ARY Under a contract to the Department of Environmental Protection, Anderson-Nichols was selected to perform an environmental reconnaissance study of the coastal embayments of the.state. A composite list of embayments was prepared by the Coastal Areas Management (CAM) Office. The list excluded embayments with known, well-documented problems, and focused on embayments with little or no existing documentation of problems. Each community bordering one of the problem embayments received a set of questionnaires concerning the current state and history of the embayment. Municipal officials were invited to identify and describe any known environmental problems in the area. The responses were supplemented with a literature review, visits to key federal and state agencies, and a historic air photo analysis. The air photo analysis extended from 1934 to the present, and was supplemented by our own oblique air photos of the coast. The information collected in these analyses was used to identify a number of embayments that,appeared to have serious environmental concerns. The state reviewed this list and added several sites, bringing the total number of embayments on the list to 35. Each of the communities containing one or more of the study embayments was contacted by staff from Anderson-Nichols. Meetings and field visits to each embayment were scheduled and executed, and involved most of the local planning, engineering, and environmental officials. Information on the problems, land use, local environment, and developmental history was reviewed and discussed. ?ield visits included key town officials, and focused on typical or critical problem sites around the embayment. All of the above information was compiled and presented by community and embayment in the appended report. Sections of the report for each embayment include such topics as basin environment, land use, problem identification, and problem analysis. Based on the project analysis, seven basic problem categories were established: siltation, erosion, eutrophication, wetlands loss, fish and shellfish loss, flow constriction,and water pollution. The severity, trend and causes of each problem were provided to express the overall environmental quality of each embayment (see Tables Sl and S2). 7ollowing this categorization of problems, various structural and non-structural solutions were discussed and evaluted in the Phase II Report. M MIS= Table S-1 EMBNYME'ST PROBLEM TYPE, SEVERITY, AND TREIND Name Problem Type Wetland ?in/Shellfish ?low Loss Loss Pollution Constriction Erosion Siltation rutroDhication Wequetequock - 2a 2b lb Quiambog - 2a 3b 3b West Cove - lb 2b Palmer's Cove - 3b 2b lb Mill Cove - 2b 2a 2b Poquetanuck - lb lc 2b Smith Cove 2b la - 2c lb Keeney Cove - 2b - - 2b Smith's Cove - 2a 3b - - 2c 2b Niantic River - 2a - - 2c 2b Tourmile River - 2a ':3b - - 2a 3b Middle Cove 2b 2b - - - 2b 2b 71ndiantown 3b 2b - - - 3b 3a Menunketesuck 2a 2a - - - 2a 3b West River la la - - - 2b la Little Harbor la - - - 2b E. Haven River 3b 2a - 2b - 2c 2c Pattaconk - lb - - - 3b lb Mill River - lb lb - - lb 2b Gulf Pond - 3a - - 2b lb Wepawaug - 2b - - 2b Marine Basin 3b - - 2a Lewis Gut - la - 2a 2b Trash Pond - 3b 2a 2b 3b lb Nsh Creek - 2b 2b Mill River - 2b lb 3b Horse Tavern - 2a la Table 9.1 (Continued) EM13AYW.-4T PR013LEM TYPE, SEVERITY, AND TREND "lame Problem Type Wetland ?in/Shellfish Vlow Erosion Siltation Eutrophication Loss Loss Pollution constriction Bermuda Lagoon 3a 2b 2b Gray's Creek 2a 2b .Canfield Island 2a 2a 2a Mill Pond 2a la lb 77illaqe Creek 2a la Holly's Pond 2a lb Gorham's Pond 2a 2b 13yram Harbor 2b 3b lc Table Symbols 1 = Severe 2 Moderate 3 Minor a = Conditions Worsening, b Conditions Stable, c Conditions Improving MOM M M M M M M.M M Table S. 2 EMBAYMENT PROBLEM CAUSES Embayment Problem Wetland Fin/Shellfish Flow Erosion Siltation Eutrophication Loss Loss Pollution Constriction Wequete .quock - 7,8 - 25,26,29 36 Quiambog - 8,10 20 25,26,29 - West Cove - 11 - - 38 Palmer's Cove - 8 25,26,30 36,37 Mill Cove - 7,8- - 25 36,37 Poquetanuck - 8 15 - 36 Smith Cove 2 9,8 - 25,28,32,33 36,37 Keeney Cove - 8 - 25,26,32 - Smiths Cove 8,12 15 25 44 liantic River 8,9 - 25,26,32 36,37 7ourmile River 11 115 32 36,37 Middle Cove 4,5,6 10 26 44 Indiantown 7. 5 7 25,26 45 Menunketesuck 2,4 11 25,26,31 37 West River 1 10,11 25,28 39 Little Harbor - 11 - - - 38 E. Haven River - 8,11 18 - 25,31,35 40 Pattaconk - 8,14 - 25,26 36,37 Mill River - 8,9 15 - 27,29,34 39,41 Gulf Pond - 7 - - 29 36,37 Wepawaug - 8 - - 26,29 - Marine Basin - 8,11 - 26,29,32 - Lewis Gut - - is 29,35 39 Table S.2 (continued) EMBAYMENT PROBLEM CAUSES Embayment Problem Wetland Fin/Shellfish Flow Eros ion Siltation Eutrophication Loss Loss Pollution Constriction Frash Pond 17 21,22 26 40 Ash Creek - 27,29,30 39,40 Mill River 21 25,29,34 36,37,42 Horse Tavern - - 40 9ermuda Lagoon - 16 23,24 25,26. - Grav's Creek 8,9,10,11 - - - 27 Canfield Island 10,11 - 17,20 - - Mill Pond 1,2,3 7 - - 43 Village Creek - 8111 - 17 - - Holly's Pond - - - - 26,29 42 Gorham's Pond - 8,9 - - - 42 Byram Harbor - 7,10 16,20 25,32 - mom WMIMMMMMM MMMMMMMMM Table S.2 (continued) Problem Cause Categories Erosion vin/Shellfish Losses 1. Wave Attack 21. Pollution 2. Bank Undermining; latural 22. Tide Gates 3. Bank Undermining; Man-caused 23. Septic ?ailure 4. 'Boat Wakes 24. gatural Conditions 5. Dredging Imnacts 6. Wave Reflection Pollution 25. Septic.?ailure Siltation 26. Residential Runoff 7. Constriction 27. Urban Runoff S. Upland Erosion 28. Agricultural Runoff 9. Bank Erosion 29. Point Discharge 10. Current Transport 30. Marina Spills 11. Wave Transport 31. Boat Discharges 12. Tiistoric Land Use 32. Leachate from Landfills 13. Development 33. ?ly Ash Erosion 14. Deteriorating 13ulkheads 34. Contaminated Bottom Sediment 35. Transport from Other Areas Sutrophication 15. Water Pollution '-'low Constriction 36. Railroad Causeway Wetland Loss 37. Bridge 16. Riverine Erosion 38. Jetty/Groin 17.. Tilling 39. 4atural Bar ?ormation 18. Tide Gates/Tidal Restrictions 40. Tide Gates 19. Wake Erosion 41. Marsh Tilling 20. Wave Attack 42. nam 43. Culvert 44. Iatural 45. Tilling Coastal Vmbayments Study Phase 11 Report T4TRODUCTtOl The Phase I Report of this project provided a comprehensive environmental review of 35 coastal embayments along the Connecticut coast. The report provided a review of hydrologic, soils, vegetation, and marined conditions in an around each of the embayments, analyzed past changes in land use and environmental characteristics, and provided an identification of significant environmental problems present at each site. X review of the various problems present allowed the identification of seven major problme categories': erosion, siltation, eutrophication, wetland loss, fin and shellfish loss, pollution, and 'flow) constriction. k1though these categories do not explicitly cover every problem oresent in the studied embayments, they provide a fairly complete synthesis of embayment conditions for an overview. Tables 1 and 2, which were also presented in the Phase I Report, provide a listing of the problems found in*each embayment, as well as the severity, trend, and suspected causes of each problem. The purpose of this report will be to provide one or more solutions to each embayment problem, as well as a preliminar overview of the environmental, aesthetic, and economic impacts of each option or set of oDtions. Unit costs and conceptual designs have been provided in an appendix !Xppendix 3), and these can be used for planning purposes where appropriate. The purpose of this is to identify practical and cost effective options which may be utilized to mitigate existing problems. These options are only a guide. In almost all cases, further analysis of specific problems, causes and solutions must be pursued before a final, enviromentally sound alternative, which is consistent with applicable, federal, state and-local regulatory programs can be selected. ENVIRO'4M8'4TNL MVqkGrMr_'4T RANGE 01.7 C401cr, Prior to the identification of potential problem solutions, the various problem cause categories listed in Table 2 were reviewed by planning and engineering staff. This review focusd on categorical problem solutions that were both structural and non-structural in nature. The staff review was supplemented by a literature review that spanned both the Phase I and Phase II Reports. Table 3 represents the results of that review. Solutions have been grouped into problem categories, and further grouped into structural and non-structural options. This listing is not intended to be a complete listing of all solutions that might be applied to a given problem, rather it was designed to identify feasible and cost effective solutions to the issues raised in the Phase I Report. WITRONMENTAL MX'4AG7V_ME4T RANGE 0? CTIOTCE -on' t) The listed options are also somewhat general in nature. ?or. example, there may be 15 types of seawalls that could be applied to a given problem, but the final selection will rely on site-specific factors. Land Use Planning refers to a wide range of potential planning, zoning, and regulatory options that may be utilized by the community. The direction of each recommendation, however, is clear when related to a specific problem cause. -or example, in an area where significant sedimentation is occurring due to development pressures, land use planning would imply planning and specification of suitable and unsuitable sites ,slopes, soil erodibility, etc.) for certain uses. PROPOSED R73SPONSE, OPTT04S TOR rEMBALYWENT PROT.MNS The following text uses the range of choices listed in Table 3 to develop potential solutions for the various embayment problems with a severity of ranking of moderate or severe. ?or each embayment, each problem category was reviewed, and one or more options were selected. In certain circumstances, more than one option was not feasibl'e,. Tor example, areas that are experiencing septic failures and are located on unsuitable soils cannot support septic systems, so some form of a sewage collection/treatment program has to be considered if the problem is to be solved. Tndividual systems can be operated, but only with a significant alteration of the soils around each residence. Since this is not cost-effective, a group system of some form would be required. In other situations, only one option was evidently practical under existing enviromental and/or economic constraints. ?or example, many of the embayments experience constriction of flow and tidal exchange due to the railroad or highway causeways. In this circumstance, there is no feasible and cost-effective way to alter the causeway form. Reconstruction of a trestle, placement of culverts under the rail bed, etc. would co st millions of dollars for each embayment. Therefore a no-action option was recommended as the only viable approach. ?inally, there are problems that can be solved by two very different aporoaches. Marina siltation might be solved by various upstream/upslope soil management practices, or it might be solved by continuous dredging of the affected areas. In some of these cases, a more preferable option (under environmental, aesthetic , and economic criteria) was indicated bv an asterisk. Because of their generally greater cost-effectiveness and applicability in the coastal zone, non-structural options were identified wherever possible. The following text considers each emba,7ment in general geographic order, starting in Stonington and moving west to Greenwich. 11-2 Table 1 EMBAYMENT PROBLEM TYPE, SEVERITY, AND TREND Name Problem Type Wetland Fin/Shellfish Flow Erosion Siltation Eutrophication Loss Loss Pollution Constriction Wequetequock - 2a 2b lb Quiambog - 2a 3b 3b West cove - lb 2b Palmer's Cove - 3b 2b lb Mill Cove - 2b 2a- 2b Poquetanuck - lb lc 2b Smith Cove 2b la - 2c lb Keeney Cove - 2b - 2b Smith's Cove - 2a 3b - 2c 2b Niantic River - 2a - 2c 2b 4'ourmile River - 2a 3b - 2a 3b Middle Cove 2b 2b - 2b 2b Indiantown 3b 2b - 3b 3a Menunketesuck. 2a 2a - 2a 3b West River la la - 2b la Little Harbor la 2b E. Haven River 3b 2a 2b 2c 2c Pattaconck - lb 3b lb Mill River - lb lb lb 2b Gulf Pond - 3a 2b lb Wepawaug - 2b .2b Marine Basin - 3b 2a Lewis Gut - la 2a 2b ?rash Pond - 3b 2a 2b 3b lb Ash Creek - 2b 2b Mill River - 2b lb 3b Horse Tavern - 2a la Table 1 (Continued) EMBAYMENT PROBLEM TYPE, SEVERITY, AND TREND Name Problem Type Wetland. Fin/Shellfish. Flow Erosion Siltation Eutrophication Loss Loss Pollution Constriction Bermuda Lagoon 3a 2b 2b Gray's Creek 2a - 2b Canfield Island 2a 2a - 2a Mill Pond 2a la - lb Village Creek 2a - la Holly's Pond 2a lb Gorham's Pond 2a 2b Byram Harbor 2b 3b Ic Table Symbols I = Severe 2 Moderate 3 Minor a Conditions Worsening, b Conditions Stable, c Conditions Improving Table EMBAYME14T PROBLEM CAUSES Embayment Problem Wetland Fin/Shellfish Flow Erosion Siltation Eutrophication Loss Loss Pollution Constriction Wequetequock - 7,8 - 25,26,29 36 Quiamboq - 8,10 20 25,26,29 - West Cove - 11 - - 38 Palmer's Cove - 8 25,26,30 36,37 Mill Cove - 7,8- - 25 36,37 Poquetanuck - 8 15 - 36 Smith Cove 2 9,8 - - 25,28,32,33 36,37 Keeney Cove - 8 - - - .25,26,32 - Smith's Cove - 8,12 15 - - 25 44 Niantic River - 8,9 - - - 25,26,32 36,37 Fourmile River - 11 15 - - 32 36,37 Middle Cove 4,5,6 - - 10 - 26 44 Indiantown 6 7 - - - 25,26 45 Menunketesuck 2,4 11 - - - 25,26,31 31 West River 1 10,11 - - - 25,28 39 Little Harbor - 11 - 38 E. Haven River - 8,11 is - 25,31,35 40 Pattaconk - 4,14 - - 25,26 36,37 Mill River - 8,9 15 - 27,29,34 39,41 Gulf Pond - 7 - - 29 36,37 Wepawaug - 8 - 26,29 Marine Basin - 8,11 - 26,29,32 - Lewis Gut - - is - 29,35 39 Table 2 (continued) EMBAYMENT PROBLEM CAUSES Embayment Problem Wetland Fin/Shellfish Flow Erosion Siltation Eutrophication Loss Loss Pollution Constriction Trash Pond - 8 17 21,22 26 40 Ash Creek - - - 27,29,30 39,40 Mill River - - 21 25,29,34 36,37,42 Horse Tavern - - 18 - - 40 Bermuda Lagoon - - 16 23,24 25,26 - Gray's Creek - 8,9,10,11 - - - 27 Canfield Island 1 10,11 - 17,20 - - Mill Pond 1,2,3 7 - - 43 Village Creek - 8,11 - 17 - Holly's Pond - - - - 26,29 42 Gorham's Pond - 8,9 - - - 42 Byram Harbor - 7,10 - 16,20 25,32 - 01 110 man Table .2 (continued) Problem Cause Categories Erosion Fin/Shellfish Losses 1. Wave Attack 21. Pollution 2. Bank Undermining; Natural 22. Tide Gates 3. Bank Undermining; Man-caused 23. Septic Failure 4. Boat Wakes 24. Natural Conditions 5. Dredging Impacts 6. Wave Reflection Pollution 25. Septic Failure Siltation 26. Residential Runoff 7. Constriction 27. Urban Runoff a. Upland Erosion 28. Agricultural Runoff 9. Bank Erosion 29. Point Discharge 10. Current Transport 30. Marina Spills 11. Wave Transport 31. Boat Discharges 12. Earlier Land Use 32. Leachate from Landfills 13. Development 33. Fly Ash Erosion 14. Deteriorating Bulkheads 34. Contaminated Bottom Sediment 35. Transport from Other Areas Eutrophication 15. Water Pollution Flow Constriction 36. Rail Road Causeway Wetland Loss 37. Bridge 16. Riverine Erosion 38. Jetty/Groin 17. Filling 39. Natural Bar Formation 18. Tide Gates/?Iushing Restrictions 40. Tide Gates 19. Wake Erosion 41. Marsh Filling 20. Wave Attack 42. Dam 43. Culvert 44. Natural Form 45. Filling Table 3 Coastal Environmental Management Options The options listed be low represent a range of feasible responses to the range of problems identified in the Phase I Report. It is not intended to identify all options, but to identify those options that address the issues*and problems listed in the Phase I Report. Specific option selec- tion is reviewed in later text. Erosion Control Options Structural Non-Structural Sea Walls Establishing Vegetation in Affected Art: Rip Rap Beach/Shoreline Replenishment Offshore Breakwaters Boat-Wake Control Groins Dredging Regulation Bulkheads Shoreline Construction Regulation Shoreline Land Use Management Siltation Control Options Structural Non-Structural Dredging Tide Gate Management Removal of Tidal Restrictions. Land Use Management Modification of Tidal Restrictions Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Dams Construction Practice Control Desilting Basins Conservation/Education Programs Surface Runoff Collection On-Site Sediment Control Flow Constriction of River Dis- charge Groins Wetland Loss Structural Non-Structural Rip Rap Access Control Bulkheads Boat-Wake Control Boardwalks, Fencing Regulatory Enforcement Fill Removal/Revegetation Revegetation Tide Gate Removal Tide Gate management Fin/Shellfish Losses Structural Non-Structural Control Point Discharges Regulate Point Discharges Septic System Improvement Improve Enforcement/Monitoring Water Treatment System Improvement Zoning/Enforcement Water Aeration Septic System Management Removal of Tide Gates Land Use Management Self-Requlatinq Tide Gates Tide Gate Management Note- Control septic failure and non-point runoff to minimize shellfish bed damage 11-8 Table 3 continued Pollution Structural Non.-7Structurdl New Septic/Cesspool Systems Water Conservation Sewer System Septic System Management Treatment Plant Septic System Installation Control Upgrade Existing Systems Zoning Outfall Relocation Land Use Conversion Control Discharge Modification Discharge Monitoring and Enforcement Runoff Collection and Diversion Building Regulations Sewer System Separation Spill Contingency Plans Landfill Capping Water Resources Protection Plan Leachate Collection/Treatment Site Plan Review Marina Pump-Out Facility Landfill Closure Dredging operational Guidelines for Landfills Sealing Embayment Bottom Boat Discharge Enforcement Public Education Setback Limits Agricultural Activity Restrictions Eutrophication (combination of polldtion and siltation usually) Structural Non-Structural Dredging Pollution Control (see above) Pollution Control (see above) Constrictions (Tidal Flow) Structural Non-Structural Modify or Remove Causeways Tide Gate Management Dredging Culvert Maintenance Erosion Control to Restrict Bar Formation Remove or Upgrade Tide Gates Culvert Redesign 11-9 Embayment Wequetequock Cove Community Stonington Problems Severity Trend Cause Sedimentation moderate increasing constriction, upland erosion Constriction severe stable RR causeway Pollution moderate stable septic failures, point discharge, non-point discharge Problem: Sedimentation Solutions: landuse control enforcement construction practice regulation Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced sedimentation, reduced.-erosion, reduce non-point pollutant impacts Aesthetic improved residential landscape Economic greater construction costs Problem: Constriction Solutions: no apparent cost effective solutions Problem: Pollution Solutions: for most area soils, septic tanks should be replaced with a sewer system,-(poor soil suitability) community or cluster sanitary systems (offsite) Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - construction impacts, improved water quality Aesthetic construction impacts, enhanced water recreation potential Economic system cost to individuals and/or the community II-10 Embayment Quiambog Cove Community Stonington Problems Severity Trend Cause Sedimentation moderate increasing upland erosion, longshore transport Wetland loss minor stable wave erosion Pollution minor stable septic tanks, non-point runoff, filter backwash Problem: Sedimentation Solutions: longshore transport is not mitigated in any cost-effective manner that is environmentally sound - no action recommended revegetation of disturbed areas where possible Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced siltation (somewhat), improved shellfish resources are possible Aesthetic enhanced landscape quality, enhanced water clarity Economic minor Embayment West Cove Community Groton Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction moderate stable jetty construction Sedimentation serious stable wave transport Problem: Constriction-7impacts a limited portion of the embayment Solutions: no cost effective.options apparent Problem: Sedimentation Solutions: dredging - the only apparent option other than no action Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - spoil disposal issues, disruption of shellfish beds, benthic organism disruption, pollutant release, potential greater boat impacts Aesthetic improved water u!@@ potentials Economic improved recreational traffic, continued maintenance dredging costs, continued marina operations 11-12 Embayment Palmers Cove Community Groton Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction severe stable RR causeway, bridge Sedimentation moderate stable constriction, upstream erosion Pollution moderate stable septic tools, marina runoff, non-point residential runoff Problem: Constriction no apparent cost effective solutions 3 bridge/causeway systems reduce tidal exchange Problem: Sedimentation Solutions: land use management revegetation of disturbed areas construction practice controls Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced erosion, sedimentation, improved water quality Aesthetic improved water recreation opportunities, improved landscaping Economic reductions in road undermining, reduced topsoil loss, increased developmental costs Problem: Pollution Solutions: local septic or sewage system construction discharge monitoring and enforcement septic systems installation control Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, improved shellfish quality Aesthetic improved water recreation potentials Economic referendum/bond costs to raise money, disruption of local traffic/revenue flows 11-13 Embayment Mill Cove Community Ledyard Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction moderate stable RR causeway, bridge Sedimentation moderate stable constriction, upstream erosion Pollution moderate increasing septic tank failure Problem: Constriction .No cost effective solution found Problem: Sedimentation - primarily from natural causes Solutions: revegetation of ex posed soil slopes soil conservation practices dredging Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - revegetation/conservation; improved water quality, reduced erosion dredging; spoil disposal impacts Aesthetics - improved recreational potential Economic - improved marina traffic, cost of maintenance dredging Problem: Pollution Solutions: sewage collection/treatment (or small scale package treatment systems) septic system installation and management controls Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, reduced eutrophic conditions Aesthetics - reduced odors from leachate breakout and anaerobic sediments, improved visual quality of water, enhanced water recreation potential Economic - systems cost to individuals and/or community, enhanced waterfront property value 11-14 Embayment Poquetanuck Cove Community Ledyard Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction moderate stable RR causeway Sedimentation minor stable upstream erosion Eutrophication minor improving non-point runoff Problem: Constriction No cost effective'options apparent railroad bridge/causeway reduces tidal flow 11-15 Embayment Smith Cove Community Waterford Problems Severity Trend Cause Siltation severe increasing bank erosion, upland erosion Erosion moderate stable bank erosion Constriction severe stable RR causeway, bridge Pollution moderate decreasing failing septic systems, fly ash, agricultural runoff Problem: Siltation - primarily due to natural bank erosion, erosion of silt loams in drainage basin and soil loss from agriculture; sewer construction along banks. Solutions: erosion control techniques (below) dredging Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - erosion control impacts, reduced erosion (below); dredge spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic improved recreation potential Economic cost of maintenance dredging, enhanced residential land values Problem:Erosion primarily due to development-related impacts and natural bank erosion Solutions: bulkhead areas of chronic high erosion'where possible revegetate soil slopes where not oversteepened land use management construction practice control Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced sediment loading, environmentally compatible natural soil loss controls, reduced water turbidity Aesthetic improved residential landscape, minimical visual impacts Economic maintenance of valuable agricultural lands, cost of structural improvements Problem: Constriction No cost-effective options apparent: bridges reduce tidal exchange 11-16 Problem: Pollution Solutions: sewer construction (underway) control leachate from fly ash land fills regulation of agricultural.activities (feed lots, chemical wastes) land use control construction practice regulation revegetation of disturbed areas Smith Cove, Waterford (continued) Benefits/Impacts: Environmental improved water quality, sewer construction impacts Aesthetic enhanced water recreation potential, construction impacts Economic system cost of individuals and/or the community, fly ash leachate control costs 11-17 Embayment Keeney Cove Community Waterford Problems Severi@y Trend Cause Siltation moderate stable upstream erosion Pollution moderate stable landfill leachate, septic failure, surface runoff Problem: Siltation erosion from natural slopes, minor human disturbance Solutions: continued land use management revegetation of disturbed areas avoid encroachment of fill in the floodplain Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced erosion and siltation; less turbid aquatic environment may impact Niantic shellfish beds Aesthetic greater water clarity for recreation, less chance of obnoxious odors from anaerobic sediments Economic reduced loss of valuable top soils, reduced potential impact to valuable shellfish beds Problem: Pollution Solutions: install sanitary waste collection/treatment system. landfill managament program partial landfill capping install swale drainage systems and retention basins where feasible Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, sewer construction impacts Aesthetic sewer construction impacts, enhanced water recreation potential Economic system cost to individuals and/or the community, landfill capping costs, potential increased landfilling costs for users/community, swale and retention basin construction costs 11-18 Embayment Smith's Cove Community East Lyme Problems Severity Trend Cause Sedimentation moderate increasing earlier upstream development, upslope erosion* Pollution moderate improving failing septic systems Constriction moderate stable natural mouth configuration Eutrophication. minor stable Problem: Sedimentation sediment transport from Niantic system; erosion Solutions: from upland construction activities dredging on-site sediment control construction practice control Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced erosion, improved@, tidal exchange, water quality dredging spoil disposal impacts Aesthetics - improved land 'cover appearance, improved water recreation potential Economic - dredging costs, construction costs for land stabilization, improve navigation and mooring space roblem: Pollution - from non-point sources Solutions: Summer homes converted to year-round use should have adequate waste disposal facilities; poor soil conditions and high-density development indicate a need for sewer system or community waste treatment facility; boat pump-out facilities should be available at local marina Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, shellfish resources; sewer construction impacts Aesthetic construction impacts; improved recreational potential Economic system improvement costs to individual homeowner/boaters and/or the community Problem: Constri.ction (natural origin) Solutions: No apparent cost effective solutions 11-19 Embayment Niantic River Community, East Lyme Problems Severity Trend Cause Siltation moderate increasing upland erosion, bank erosion Pollution moderate improving septic failure, residential runoff Eutrophication minor stable see pollution Constriction moderate stable RR Causeway, bridge Problem: Siltation - upland erosion, sediment transport Solutions: surface run-off collection dredging may be the only practical solution, but may be prohibitively expensive Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - dredge spoil disposal; disruption of shellfish beds; limited improvement of flushing and circulation Aesthetic - improve recreationhl boating opportunities; beach replenishment from clean dredge spoils Economic - dredging costs Problem: Pollution - from non-point sources Solutions: sewer system or local wastewater collection system for areas with soils poorly suited for individual septic systems; town sewer system management or replacement of failing systemsAn areas of soils with adequate renovation capabilities; increase system setback distance from river (zoning); provide boat pump-out facilities at local marina Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, shellfish resources; sewer system construction impacts Aesthetic construction impacts, improved recreational potential Economic wastewater collection and/or treatment improvement costs to individual home owners, boaters, marina operators, and/or the community 11-20 Niantic River, East Lyme (Continued) Problem: Circulation Solutions: no apparent cost-effective solutions. Embayment constrictions are fixed by a manmade causeway, railroad bridge and highway bridge. The causeway was constructed on a barrier spit that created some restriction of flow exchange. 11-21 Embayment Fourmile River Community East Lyme Problems Severity Trend Cause Siltation moderate in-creasina Long Island Sound Transport Pollution moderate increasing landfill leachate Constriction moderate increasing Problem: Siltation source is Long Island Sound Solutions: dredging is the only apparent (althouth not necessarily cost effective) solution railroad bridge creates settling basin for sediment Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - dredge spoil disposal/construction impacts; improve tidal flushing and circulation; loss of shellfish resources Aesthetic improved navigation for recreational boaters Economic dredging costs Problem:, Pollution Solutions: eliminate sewage treatment plant located outside embayment (Bride Brook) which is source of shellfish contamination problem; eliminate upstream pollution from residential development and landfill leachate. Further study is needed of impacts associated with the landfill. Problem: Constriction Solutions: no apparent cost effective solution for the problem which is caused by a railroad causeway and bridge 11-22 Embayment Middle Cove Community Essex Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction moderate stable natural configuration Sedimentation moderate stable transport from the Connecticut River Erosion moderate stable boat wakes, dredging impacts, wave reflection Pollution moderate stable sto= sewer outfall, possible sani- tary sewage outfalls pollution impacts magnified by restricted flushing Problem: Constriction No cost effective solution found other than the periodic maintenance dredging as currently practiced (see "Sedimentation" below) Problem: Sedimentation --,I deposition of Connecticut River sediment Solution: *Continue maintenance dredging program Benefits /Impacts: Environmental - some improvement in flushing and circulation, dredcre spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic improved capacity to boating recreation.- Economic continued viability of marina site; dredging costs Problem: Erosion Solution: reduce boat wakes avoid dredging navigational channels close to eroding, unstabilized shorelines stabilize shorelines where channels must be located in close proximity Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced turbidity and increased aquatic pro- ductivity, potential loss of intertidal. habitat where shore stabilization conducted, reduced loss of sensitive coastal habitat Aesthetic increased water clarity, enhanced recreational potential Economic stabilization costs, reduced costs from reduced demand for dredging 11-23 Middle Cove (continued) Problem: Pollution may be caused, in part, by.old sanitary-sewage outfalls and leachate contamination Solution: *'sewage collection/tr-eatment or innovative off-site cluster septic systems septic system installation/ management controls Benefits/Impacts: Environmental improved water quality, sewer construction impacts Aesthetic enhanced.water recreation potential Economic system costs to individuals and/or community 11-24 Embayment Pattaconk Creek Community Chester Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction major stable R.R. causeway, bridge Siltation. major stable upland erosion, riverine deposits deteriorating bulkheads Pol lution minor stable septic failures, stormwater runoff Problem: Constriction No cost effective solution found Problem: Siltation Solutions: revegetate exposed soil slopes *repair deteriorating bulkheads stabilize excavated boat slip lagoons *dredging develop soil conservation management program reduce boat wakes Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - shore stabilization eliminates valuable intertidal habitat, dredge spoil disposal impacts, reduced turbidity enhances aquatic productivity, reduced BOD and nutrient loading, improved mixing and water circulation Aesthetic increased water clarity, reduced opportunity for obnoxious odors form anaerobic sediments, enhanced recreational boating potential, improved residential landscape Economic dredging costs, shore stabilization costs, continued viability of marina site, reduced loss of valuable topsoil 11-25 Embayment Indiantown Harbor Community Old Saybrook Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction minor increasing breakwater construction, filling Sedimentation moderate stable constriction Erosion minor stable caused by breakwater, natural process Pollution minor stable residential runoff, septic failure Problem: Sedimentation Solution: monitor impacts of 1981 jetty extension on sedimentation rates and patterns dredge marina channel if necessary Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - potential for improved tidal flushing, dredge spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic enhanced opportunity for boating recreation, clean dredge spoil of appropriate grain size may be used to nourish eroding beaches Economic dredging costs 11-26 Embayment Menunketesuck Community, Westbrook Problems Severity Trend Cause Erosion moderate increasing bank erosion, boat wakes Siltation moderate increasing Long Island Sound transport Pollution moderate increasing septic failures, boat discharges, residential runoff Constriction minor stable Problem: Erosion Solutions: control boat wakes no solution to erosion of bank due to natural change of river channel no cost effective structural solutions Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduction of marsh loss due to boat control Aesthetic improvement of marshland quality, wildlife habitat Economic cost of enforcement of boat speed controls Problem: Siltation - (maintenance of marinas) maintenance dredging of marina areas is most effective solution; on-site sediment control for dredge spoil containment areas Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - dredging impacts; dredge spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic - dredge spoil impacts; improved recreational boating opportunities Economic - dredging costs; spoil containment costs Problem: Pollution Solutions: control housing conversions septic system improvements/maintenance sewer or off-site cluster system Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality; sewer and/or septic system construction impacts Aesthetic little significant impact Economic costs associated with boat pump-out facilities to boat owner and marina operators; costs of sewer and/or septic system improvements 11-27 Embayment West River Community Guilford d Problems Severity Trend Cause Erosion severe increasing wave erosion Siltation severe increasing Long Island Sound transport Pollution moderate stable septic tank failures, agricultural fj Constriction moderate increasing natural bar formation A Problem: Erosion Solutions: beach/shoreline replenishment (temporary action) no cost effective structural option apparent Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduction in erosion of silty material; loss of shellfish beds; stabilize wetland areas Aesthetic little visual impact; improve recreational opportunities Economic cost of construction may be possible to tie-in with nearby dredging if clean material available Problem: Siltation - predominant source Long Island Sound sediment Solutions: dredging removal of flow constrictions (oyster bar, large rocks) channelize river flow to improve flushing dredge spoil containment Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved circulation/flushing; loss of shellfish beds; dredging impacts; wetland loss Aesthetic alteration of riverbank; improve navigation recreation potential; dredging/spoil disposal impacts; possible beach replenishment if clean material Economic increased commerical coating revenues, costs of dredging and/or channel improvements 11-28 West River, Guilford (continued) Problem: Pollution - bacterial contamination Solutions: boat pump-out facilities agricultural practice control/guidelines (wastes, fertilizers, pesticides)- septic system maintenance/improvements off-site community wastewater collection systems sewer system Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality; septic system improvement and/or sewer system construction impacts improve shellfish resources Aesthetic little visual impact; some recreational improvement; construction impacts Economic costs of septic system improvements, sewer system or community system; loss of agricultural (orchard) crops; costs associated with boat pump-out facilities to boat owners/marina operators Problem: Constriction Solutions: dredging (bar formation) remove rock obstruction in channel Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved tidal flushing, sediment control; loss of shellfish resources; dredging impacts Aesthetic improved water quality, less turbidity better flushing; improved navigation recreation potential Economic costs of dredging and obstruction removal; increased revenues from increased boat traffic at marinas 11-29 Embayment Little Harbor Community Guilford Problems Severity Trend Cause Siltation severe increasing wave transport over groins Constriction moderate stable groin construction Problem: Siltation Solutions: dredging remove rock groins floating tire breakwater failed, other structural measures deemed not cost effective Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - dredging and dredge spoil disposal impacts; improved shellfish habitat; reduction in turbidity; improved flushing Aesthetic improved water quality; improved recreational opportunities Economic dredging costs; construction costs Problem: Constriction (due to groin construction) Solutions: No apparent solution 11-30 Embayment East Haven River Community Branford Problems Severity Trend Cause Siltation moderate increasing land development, wave transport Pollution moderate decreasing septic failure, boat discharge, transport from other harbors Marsh Loss moderate stable conversion, tide gates Constriction moderate decreasing tide gates Problem: Siltation Solutions: construction practice controls land cover management tide gate removal surface run-off collection dredging (selective areas only) Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - decrease in sedimentation; improved water quality; improved shellfish habitat/marshland; dredging and dredging spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic improved marshland; improved recreational opportunities; construction impacts Economic construction/dredging costs; costs of surface run-off collection/detention facilities Problem: Pollution Solutions: elimination of sewage discharges from treatment plants located outside of river system; improve septic systems; boat pump-out facilities; Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality; construction impacts; improved shellfish resources Aesthetic little visual change Economic construction costs; cost of pump facilities to boat owners/marina operators; revenues from shellfish harvests, especially oysters Problem: Wetlands Loss Solutions: tide gate removal 11-31 East Haven River, Branford (continued) Benefits/Impacts: Environmental improved flushing, tidal circulation; increased flood hazard; reduction in fire hazard; improved shellfish resources Aesthetic improved saltmarsh habitat; improved recreational opportunities; visual enhancement Economic costs of regulatory enforcement; increased flood risks; shellfish revenues Problem: Constriction Solutions: remove tide gates no solution for highway (Rt. 146) bridge Benefits/Tmpacts: (See wetlands loss) 11-32 Embayment Mill River Community New Haven Problems Severity Trend Cause constriction moderate stable marsh filling, sedimentation* Sedimentation severe stable upstream erosion, bank erosion Pollution severe stable point, non-point urban discharge, contaminated sediments Eutrophication severe stable point, non-point urban discharge, contaminated sediments Problem: Constriction No cost effective solution found Problem: Sedimentation Solutions: *maintenance dredging upstream soil erosion control stormwater runoff retention basins revegetate exposed soil slopes Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - dredging and spoil disposal impacts from toxic sediments, improved circulation and tidal flushing, reduced siltation, improved water quality from reduced BOD and nutrient loading . Aesthetic long term reduction in obnoxious odors from anaerobic sediments improvement in visual appearance of sediment basin Economic enhance the commercial viability of water-dependent water- front uses, provides for unimpeded use of cooling water at United Illuminating power plant, reduced loss of valuable top soils Problem: Pollution Solutions: upgrade sewage collection and treatment enforce NPDES Effluent Limitation Standards implement industrial pretreatment program develop stormwater detention standards for new development provide stormwater detention basins for problem areas where feasible inventory and phase out all illegal outfalls in the embayment basin Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, reduced degredation of New Haven Harbor, increased aquatic productivity 11-33 Mill River (continued) Aesthetic visual improvement in water quality, reduced odors from anaerobic bottom conditions Economic sewer system costs to users and/or city, costs of up- graded treatment to meet NPDES standards, costs for industrial pretreatment program, retention basin land acquisition and maintenance costs Problem: Eutrophication Solutions: reduce BOD loading through upgraded industrial effluent standards develop stormwater management program upgrade existing sewer system Bene fits /Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, increased biological productivity dFedge spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic reduced potential for obnoxious odors, improvement in visual characteristics of water Economic dredging costs, land acquisition costs for detention basins, upgraded sewer system costs to users and/or community, cost to industry to upgrade BOD effluent standards 11-34 Embayment Gulf Pond Community Milford Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction severe stable bridge Sedimentation minor increasing constriction Pollution moderate stable point discharge (wastewater treatment) Problem: Constriction No cost effective solution found Problem: Pollution Solutions: upgrade existing sewer plant on Gulf Pond consider relocating the existing sewer outfall outside embayment expand sewer service area to include west shore of Gulf Pond develop stormwater runoff management program. Benefits/Impacts: Environmental improved water quality, increased biological productivity Aesthetic enhanced water recreation, potential opportunity for shellfishing with improved water quality conditions Economic upgraded sewer system costs to users/community, costs to expand sewer system into state-recoqnized problem areas, costs to upgrade industrial treatment, costs to relocate sewer outfall outside the embayment, enhanced property value, commercial value of reintroduced shellfishing 11-35 Embayment Wepawaug Community Milford Problems Severi@y Trend Cause Siltation moderate stable construction-related erosion, upland development Pollution moderate stable point/non-point discharges Problem: Siltation Solutions: develop sail loss construction standards land use control enforcement revegetate exposed slopes stabilize erosion-prone embayment and stream banks dredging Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced sedimentation, reduced erosion, reduced n9n-point pollution impacts, reduced turbidity, reduced biological oxygen demand, increased biological pro- ductivity, increased circulation and tidal flushing, dredge spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic improved visual appearance, reduced odors, enhanced opportunity for water recreation, improved residential landscape Economic dredging costs, stabilization costs, reduced loss of valuable top soils Problem: Pollution Solutions: upgrade or phase out sewer plant on Wepawang River/Milford Harbor reduce soil erosion (see "Siltation" above) Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, increased aquatic productivity dredge spoil disposal impacts, increased circulation and flushing Aesthetic reduced odors, more pleasant visual appearance, enhanced water recreation potential Economic sewer system upgrading costs to users and community, dredging costs 11-36 Embayment Marine Basin CoTmunity Stratford Problems Severity Trend Cause Siltation minor stable landfill erosion, wave/current transport Pollution moderate increasing point, non-point runoff, landfill leachate Problem: Pollution Solutions: review NPDES permits of upstream industries *landfill management program partial landfill capping B ene fi ts /Impac ts - Environmental - improved water quality, increased aquatic productivity, reduced hazard of serious contamination Aesthetic enhanced recreational use, improved visual appearance Economic costs of upgrading industrial treatment, costs of capping and properly managing landfill 11-37 Errbayment Lewis Gut Community Stratford Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction moderate stable natural deposition Pollution moderate increasing transport from other harbors, fuel Spills Wetland Loss severe increasing tidal gates Problem: Constriction Solutions: implement tide gate management program Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water circulation and tidal flushing, in- creased aquatic productivity, decreased impact of Bridgeport Harbor's degraded water quality on embayment Aesthetic - separates part of Long Beach Park from mainland thus reducing some beich recreation potential, enhanced water recreation potential, increased potential to reestablish shellfishing Economic - cost of excavation, reverses federal commitment to share stabilization along Long Beach using groins, increased value of commercial shellfishin4' Problem: Pollution Solutions: improve circulation and tidal flushing (see "Constriction" above) oil and qasoline -spill prevention plan for Johnson Creek review NPDES effleunt standards of Bridgeport and Stratford industries discourage disposal of contaminated dredge/spoils in embayment Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, increased aquatic productivity Aesthetic enhanced water recreation use Economic excavation costs, increased value as commercial shellfishing 11-38 Lewis Gut (continued) Problem: Wetland Loss Solutions: discourage mosquito ditching of wetlands to preserve unique quality of.marsh implement tide gate management program control-roadway runoff and embankment erosion Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - maintains valuable wildlife habitat, provides flood storage capacity, helps maintain biological productivity of embayment, maintains estuarine water quality Aesthetic maintains recreational opportunities, protects visual beauty of marsh Economic provides inexpensive water quality maintenance, enhances local property value, provides low cost recreational' opportunities to community, deprives industry of access to inexpensive land for industrial development, provides inexpensive flood buffer system 16 11-39 Embayment Frash Pond Cormunity Stratford Problems Severity Trend Cause Tidal Constriction severe stable tidal gates Fish Kills moderate stable constriction, pollution inputs Siltation minor increasing upland erosion Water Pollution minor stable surface runoff, constriction Problem: Tidal Constriction Solution: tide gate management program or replace with self regulating tide gates Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, enhanced value as a spawning area, additional increased aquatic productivity, improved tidal flushing Aesthetic enhanced water recreation use Economic possible replacement of existing tide gates (depends on management flexibility permitted by existing design) Problem; Fish Kills Solutions: tide gate management (,see "Tidal Constriction" above 11-40 Embayment Ash Creek Community Fairfield Problems Severity. Trend Cause Constriction moderate stable natural bar formation, tide gates Pollution moderate stable point, non-point discharge, marina runoff Problem: Constriction Solutions: dredging Benefits/Impacts: Environmental improved tidal flushing, improved water quality, improved aquatic productivity, dredge spoil disposal impacts potential increased soil erosion and wetland loss Aesthetic enhanced water recreation use, improved boating access Economic continued viability of town marina Problem: Pollution Solutions: develop stormwater management program emphasizing use of swales and retention basins for surface runoff ,develop tide gate management encouraging gates that will enhance flushing or removal developfu4l discharge monitoring and enforcement program for public marina construct boat holding tank pump-out facility for marina Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, increased aquatic productivity potential reopening of condemned shellfish beds Aesthetic enhanced water recreation use, improved visual character of water Economic enhanced waterfront property value, potential increased commercial value of shellfishery 11-41 Embayment Mill River. Community Fairfield Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction minor stable dam, bridge, R.R. causeway Pollution severe stable septic failure, point discharge, bottom contamination Shell/Fin Fish Losses moderate stable point discharge Problem: Pollution Solutions: develop management program for lead contaminated sediment monitor effluent from ESB industrial outfalls *expan d sewer service area to include state-recognized problem areas (or rely on small-scale innovative alternatives) upgrade existing sewage treatment facilities *develop stormwater management program emphasizing use of swales and retention ponds for surface runoff where feasible Benefits/Impacts: e Environemntal eventual containment and mitigation of lead con- tamination, restoration of aquatic ecosystem Aesthetic enhanced water recreation use and enjoyment reduced anxiety about fate of lead contamination Economic significant cleanup and containment costs, costs of sewer service area expansion to users and community Problem: Shellfish/Fin Fish Losses Solutions: construct fish ladders on existing dams and mill ponds expand sewage treatment service area and develop program for stormwater management (see "Pollution" above) Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved fisheries resourcesi improved water quality? enhanced aquatic productivity Aesthetic restored recreational shellfishing, improved water recreation opprotunities Economic cost of fish ladder construction, commercial value of restored shellfishery and fin fishery 11-42 Embayment Horse Tavern Creek Community Fairfield Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction severe increasing tidal gates Wetland Loss moderate increasing tidal gates Problem: Constriction Solutions: develop tide gate management program Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved tidal flushing and circulation, improved aquatic productivity Aesthetic - enhanced recreational value Economic - possible cost of tide gate replacement Problem: Wetland L-os-s (Degradation) Solutions: develop tide gate management program (see "Constriction" above) 11-43 Eirbayment Bermuda Lagoon Community Westport Problems Severity Trend Cause Wetland Loss minor increasing natural erosion Pollution moderate st4ble septic leakage, stormwater runoff Fin/Shellfish Losses moderate stable low D.O., constriction, water temperature Problem: Pollution Solutions: sewage collection/treatment (or small-scale innovative alternative) septic system installation and management controls develop stormwater management program Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality Aesthetic improved water recreational potential Economic cost of u-prgradedtreatment systems to users and community Problem: Finfish/Shellfish Loss Solutions: minimize septic tank leachate and surface runoff contamination by upgrading existing systems and controlling runoff (see "Pollution" above). 11-44 Embayment Gray Is Creek Community Westport Problems Severity Trend Cause Siltation minor stable bank erosion, stormwater.runoff Pollution moderate stable stormwater outfall Problem: Pollution. Solutions: Develop stormwater management program, encouraging use of swales and surface runoff retention ponds. Develop construction standards that encourage on-site infiltration of stormwater Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, increased biological productivity Aesthetic reduced opportunity for odors, increased water recreation opportunities . Economic land acquisition costs for stormwater detention ponds 11-45 Embayment Canfield Island Community Norwalk Problems Severity Trend Cause Sedimentation moderate increasing Natural deposition of eroded marsh sediments Erosion moderate increasing wave erosion of marsh, boating Wetland Loss moderate increasing wave erosion, waste dumping, boat wakes, heavy marsh use by pedestriansj hunters Problem: Sedimentation Solutions: erosion control (see below), dredging (for navigation only) most likely not cost effective Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - dredging and dredge spoil disposal impacts; shellfish loss; bottom disturbance Aesthetic construction impacts; dredge spoil disposal Economic dredging costs Problem: Erosion Solutions: boat wake control/enforcement no cost-effective structural option is apparent to eliminate erosion from wave action Benefits/Impacts: Environmental improved wetland habitat; reduction of marsh loss Aesthetic improved marshland; wildlife habitat; visual improvement Economic cost of boat wake control/enforcement actions Problem: Wetland Loss Solutions: access control boat wake (erosion) control Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved wetlands habitat; reduced erosion and siltation Aesthetic improved marshland; enhanced visual quality; improved wildlife habitat Economic costs of fill removal/marsh restoration; regulatory control costs 11-46 Errbayment Mill Pond Community Norwalk Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction severe stable culvert design Siltation severe increasing culvert design Erosion moderate increasing bank erosion Problem: Constriction Solutions:. Increase dimensions of Seaview Avenue culvert Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved tidal flushing, improved water quality, increased aquatic productivity, improved wildlife habitat Aesthetic reduced odors from anaerobic sediments, increased water recreation opportunities Economic costs of installing new culvert Problem: Siltation Solutions: control erosion of banks revegetate exposed soil slopes develop stormwater management plan emphasizing use o f swales and ratention basins for runoff dredging Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, decreased siltation, increased aquatic productivity, reduced erosion, dredge spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic reduced odors from sediments, increased water recreation opportunities, increased water clarity Economic acquisition costs for detention basins, minimize loss of Problem: Erosion valuable topsoils, cost of dredging Solutions: develop stormwater management program (see "Siltation" above) control erosion of embayment banks revegetate exposed soil slopes develop soil conservation program for upstream section of drainage basin 11-47 .Mill Pond (continued) Benefits/Impacts: Environmental reduced erosion, reduced siltation, reduced turbidity in embayment, increased aquatic productivity Aesthetic increased water clarity, improved water recreation potential Economic reduced loss of valuable topsoil 11-48 Embayment Village Creek Community Norwalk Problems Severity Trend Cause Siltation moderate increasing upland erosion, transport from Long Island Sound Wetland Loss severe increasing historic and recent filling Problem: Siltation Solutions: Periodic maintenance dredging Benefits/Impacts: Environmental dredge spoil disposal Aesthetic improved boating access Economic cost of dredging, enhanced property value Problem: Wetland Loss Solutions: regular monitoring of illegal encroachment and filling of wetlands Benefits /Impacts: Environmental - maintenance of wildlife habitat, natural flood storage areas and natural water quality buffer system Aesthetic maintain visual quality of estuarine landscape Economic inexpensive natural buffer for water quality maintenance and aquatic productivity, reduced opportunity for industrial, commerical and residential'development of wetlands 11-49 Embayment Holly Pond Community -Darien Problems SeveritV Trend Cause Pollution moderate increasing non-point runoff, point discharges Constriction severe stable dam Problem: Pollution Solutions: develop stormwater management program emphasizing use of swales and retention ponds for surface runoff develop construction performance standards to minimize areal coverage of impervious surfaces expand sewer system to includerecognized problem areas review compliance of upstream industries with their NPDES permit conditions upgrade sewer overflow systems where feasible Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved water quality, increased aquatic productivity, reduced erosion, reduced siltation Aesthetic improved water recreation potential, restoration of recreational shellfishery, reduced potential for obnoxious odors Economic land acquisition costs for detention ponds'l sewer system upgrading costs to users and community, costs of,qpgrading sewer overflow systems Problem: Constriction No cost effective solution found 11-50 Embayment Gorhams Pond Community Darien Problems Severity Trend Cause Constriction moderate stable dam Sedimentation moderate increasing upland/bank erosion Problem: Constriction No cost effective solution found Problem: Sedimentation Solutions: develop soil conservation program for drainage basin dredge dammed millponds encourage use of swales and surface runoff detention ponds where appropriate soil stabilization performance standards as part of City construction code Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - reduced soil,erosion, reduced sedimentation, improved aquatic productivity, improved water quality dredge disposal impacts Aesthetic improved landscape design, increased pond clarity, reduced incidence of obnoxious odors, improved water recreation potential Economic land acquisition costs for retention ponds, dredging costs 11-51 Embayment Byram Harbor Community Greenwich Problems Severity Trend Cause Pollution moderate improving septic tank failure (sewer con- struction underway) Wetland Loss minor st@ble erosion, mostly natural Siltation moderate stable constriction Problem: Pollution Solutions: expand sewer service to include identified problem areas (currently underway) septic tank siting and develop performance standards develop septic tank monitoring program develop stormwater management program, emphasizing use of swales and detention ponds for surface runoff monitor Toms Brook for potential landfill leachate contamination Benefits/Impacts:, Environmental - improved water quality, reduced erosion and sedimentation Aesthetic reduced incidence of beach closings from bacterial contamina- tion Economic sewer system costs to users and community, land acquisition costs for detention ponds, septic tanks upgrading costs, enhanced waterfront land values Problem: Siltation Solutions: develop stormwater management program (see "Pollution" above) periodic maintenance dredging Benefits/Impacts: Environmental - improved tidal circulation and flushing, some reduction in siltation, dredge spoil disposal impacts Aesthetic improved boating access, enhanced water recreation potential Economic dredging costs, land acquisition costs for detention ponds 11-52 I b I I APPENDIX I STUDY CONTACTS LIST I I I I I F I I I I I I 10 .1 AI-1 I CONTACT LIST CT EMBAYMENTS STUDY Dr. David 0. Cook Peter Sanko Raytheon, Ocean Systems Company Marine Specialist P.O. Box 360 Sea Grant/Suny Portsmouth, Rhode Island Stoney Brook,'New York Erin O'Hare Ken Morris Env. Planner Head Librarian S.C.C.RPA National Sea Grant Depository New Haven, Connecticut Pell Library - URI Narragansett, Rhode Island Malcom Shoot Environmental Health Div. Bob White State Health Department Connecticut Natural Resources Center Karen Haywood Dave Manke Water Compliance Sr. Env. Analyst/Biologist Water Resources - DEP Robert DeSanto East Lyme Dick Clifford/Stan Bates Recreation Planners DEP - Parks & Recreation Clinton Brown East Lyme Town Engineer Daniel R. Kenney Sr. Associate Seth Wakeman Sasaki Assoc. Chairman Watertown, MA Groton Shellfish Commission C.H.W. Foster M. William McAvoy, Jr. Dean Zoning Enforcement Officer -Yale School of F & ES Guilford New Haven, Connecticut Bennet Boeschenstein Norman Bender Planning and Zoning Commission Economist Norwalk Marine Advisory Service Avery Pts, Connecticut Robert C. Nangle Darien Harbor Master AI-2 Bill McCann Jack Kelly, Chrmn. Waterfront Commission 20 Hillside Avenue Groton, CT 06340 James G. Sandy Town Planner James A. Portley Town Hall, Box 1249 Town Engineer Field Point Road Town Hall, Park Street Greenwich, CT 068-30 Guilford, CT 06437 Kevin Tierney, Chrmn. M. William McAvoy, Jr. Flood & Erosion Control Board Zoning Enforcement Officer Town Hall, Box 1249 Town Hall, Park Street Field Point Road Guilford, CT 06437 Greenwich, CT 06830 Almon Nickerson, Chrmn. Raymond J. Veillette Harbor Improvement Agency Town Engineer Davis Drive Box 1249, Town Hall Guilford, CT 06437 Field Point Road Greenwich, CT 06830 Herbert Noyes, Chrmn. Greater Harbor Dev. Comm. Frank Keegan 201 Water Street Harbor Master Guilford, CT 06437 P.O. Box 929 Greenwich, CT 06830 Shirley Gonzales Town Planner Edward D. Sitty Memorial Town Hall Town Engineer 2372 Whitney Avenue Town Hall, 45 Fort-Hill Rd. Hamden, CT 06514 Groton, CT 06340 Dr. William Doheny, Chrmn. Howard Weiss, Chrmn. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Comm. Conservation Commission 220 Mountain Road 17 Godfrey Street Hamden, CT 06514 Mystic, CT 06355 John Kurtz, Chrmn. James O'Bunkley, Jr. Planning & Zoning Commission Flood & Erosion Control Bd. 144 Willow Crest Drive Town Hall, 45 Fort Hill Road Hamden, CT 06514 Groton, CT 06340 Naomi Howe, Acting Chrmn. Seth Wakeman, Chrm. Planning Commission Shellfish Commission 741 Col. Ledyard Highway P.O. Box 152 Ledyard, CT 06339 Mystic, CT 06355 Donald Cameron, Chrmn. Conservation Commission 187 Center Groton Road T-A--A I-M nalla Timothy Chaucer, Chrmn. David Rossiter, Chrmn. Conservation Commission Harbor Improvement Agency 15 Manor Drive. 62 Reburn Street Milford, CT 06460 New London, CT 06320 Robert Green, Chrmn. Andrew Sims East Shore Preservation Comm. City Engineer City Hall, River Street 181 Captain's Walk Milford, CT 06460 New London, CT 06320 Ernest Bontya James Butler, Chrm. City Engineer Conservation Commission City Hall, River Street 28 Pacific Street Milford, CT 06460 New London, CT 06320 Charles A. Stra nge Dominic M..-Palumbo, Chrmn. Acting Chairman - Flood and Planning and Zoning Commision Erosion Control Board Town Hall, 18 Church Street 2 Rock Road North Haven, CT 06473 Milford, CT 06460 Norman Greist, Chrmn. Kenneth Neff, Chrmn. Conservation Commission Harbor Commission 4000 Ridge Road 34 Robert Treat Parkway North Haven, CT 06473 Milford, CT 06460 - David Holmes Richard Gillen, Director Environmental Protection Director of Planning Town Hall, 18 Church Street 157 Church Street North Haven, CT 06473 New Haven, CT 06510 Salvatore Fazzino Carmine DiBattista Town Engineer Chief Environmental Analyst Town Hall, 18 Church Street 157 Church Street North Haven, CT 06473 New Haven, CT 06510 Joseph Tamsky John J. Iovene Planning Director Harbor Master Roger Ludlow School, Roger Sq. 127 Foxon Hill Road Norwalk, CT 06855 New Haven, CT 06518 Rosemary Howland, Chrmn. Waldo Clarke, Chrmn. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Comm. Planning Commission 35 France Street P.O. Box 343 Norwalk, CT 06850 New London, CT 06320 AI-4 Vincent J. Romano, Chrmn. Richard Ferraguto, Chrm. Shellfish Commission Planning Commission 6 Stonehedge Road 5 Hilltop Drive Norwalk, CT 06851 01 d Saybrook, CT 06475 Richard Weisheit Paul M. Jacobson, Chrm. City Engineer Conservation Commission Dept. of Public Works 6 Dwayne Road West Avenue Old Saybrook, CT 06475 Norwalk, CT. 06854 Frank Osak, Chrm. Antonio Longo, III, Chrm. Planning and Zoning Comm. Planning Commission Windy Acres Drive 7 Woodmansce Avenue Shelton, CT 06484 Norwich, CT 06360 Robert Nager, Chrm. Bernard Enright, Chrm. Conservation Commission Inland Wetlands, Watercourses 184 River Road and Conservation Commission Shelton, CT 06484 373 Scotland Road Norwich, CT 06360 Andrew Gazsi City Engineer Patrick Lafayette 54 Hill Street City Engineer Shelton, CT 06484 City Hall Norwich, CT 06360 Robert Birmingham Town Planner Barbara Deitrick, Chrm. Town Hall, Elm Street Planning Commission Stonington, CT 06378 Mem. Town Hall, 52 Lyme St. Old Lyme, CT 06371 Leo Fanning, Chrm. Flood & Erosion Control Bd. Douglas Tolderland, Chrm. Town Hall, Elm Street Conservation and Inland Wetlands Stonington, CT 06378 Commission 11 Sill Lane Old Lyme, CT 06371 Louis Bayer, Chrm. Shellfish Commission Town Hall, Elm Street John C. Roach, Chrm. Stonington, CT 06378 Flood & Erosion Control Board Mem. Town Hall, 52 Lyme St. Old Lyme, CT 06371 Robert Tabor Lord's Point Harbor Master Box 664, RFD 1 David Schuck, Chrm. Stonington, CT 06378 Waterfront Commission Town Hall, 302 Main St. Old Saybrook, CT 06475 Richard A. Gross, Chrmn. Waterfront Commission Town Hall, Elm Street Stonington, CT 06378 Lloyd M. Wilson, Chrmn. George E. Showalter, Chrm. Conservation Commission PlanningCommission c/o Planning and Zoning .10*8 Pennsylvania Avenue Town Hall, 719 Boston Post Rd. Niantic, CT 06357 Darien, CT 06820 Richard Porter, Chrmn. Ralph Passaro, Chrmn. Shellfish Commission Flood & Erosion Control Board 108 Pennsylvania Avenue 719 Boston Post Road Niantic, CT 06357 Darien, CT 06820 Loren F. Kahle, Chrmn. Robert C. Nangle Planning Commission Harbor Master Essex Town Hall, West Avenue 4 Concord Lane Essex, CT 06426 Darien, CT 06820 Ms. Leslie,,Barlow, Chrmn. Jerry Camarota Conservation Commission Town Engineer Main Street 250 Main Street Ivoryton, CT 06442 .East Haven, CT 06512 Frederick A. Radcliff Pasquale Romano, Chrmn. Town Engineer Planning & Zoning Comm. P.O. Box 113 250 Main Street Centerbrook, CT 06409 East Haven, CT 06512 James W. Milne, Jr., Chrmn. Richard Crook, Chrmn. Flood & Erosion Control Bd. Flood & Erosion Control Bd. Town Hall, 1019 Main Street 250 Main Street Bradford, CT 06405 East Haven, CT 06512 Dana Blanchard, Jr., Chrmn. Frank Piergrossi Conservation Commission Harbor Master 19 School Street 24 Maplevale Road Branford, CT 06405 East Haven, CT 06512 Donald Ellis Thomas Connelly Town Engineer Flood & Erosion Control Bd Town Hall, 1019 Main Street 108 Pennsylvania Avenue Branford, CT 06405 Niantic, CT 06357 Flanders Smith, Chrmn. James C. Spencer Shellfish Commission Town Engineer Town Hall, 1019 Main Street. 108 Pennsylvania Avenue Branford, CT 06405 Niantic, CT 06357 4p Planning and Zoning Comm. P.O. Box 269 Chester, CT 06412 AT-A Lance Parker Chairman Harbor Master Flood & Erosion Control Bd. 7 Prospect Street C/o Council Clerk Chester, CT 06412 Town Hall, 2725 Main Street Straliford, CT 06497 Michael Prisloe, Chrmn. Conservation/Inland Wetlands Michael Spivak Commission Town Engineer 16 High Street Town Hall, 2725 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Stratford, CT 06497 oseph J. Kelsey, Jr. Calvin Fordham, Chrm. Town Engineer Shellfish Commission Town Hall, 54 E. Main Street 40 Boswell Street Clinton, CT 06413 Stratford, CT 06497 Joseph Carpentiere, Chrmn. Clinton Brown Planning & Zoning Commission Town Planner 118 Kelseytown Road Hall of Records Clinton, CT 06413 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, CT 06385 Edward P. Lang Shellfish Commission Greg Murrin, Chrm. Town Hall, 54 E. Main Street Shellfish Commission Clinton, CT 06413 198 Niantic River-Road Waterford, CT 06j85 Edward Killiam, Chrmn. Harbor Commission Anthony Nassetta 173 Glenwood Road Flood and Erosion Control Bd. Clinton, CT 06413 30.Fog Plain Road Waterford, CT 06385 Barry Michelson Town Planner John P. Riggio Town Hall, 611 Old Post Road Flood and Erosion Control Bd. Fairfield, CT 06430 Essex Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Charles Wheeler, Chrmn. Flood & Erosion Control Bd. David Mylchreest Town Hall, 611 Old Post Rd. Town Engineer Fairfield, CT 06430 Hall of Records Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Thomas Steinke Conservation Director Town Hall, 611 Old Post Road Robert H. Post, Chrm. Fairfield, CT 06430 Shellfish Commission Hall of Records Boston Post Road Wayne Theraiult, Chrm. Westbrook, CT 06498 Conservation Commission Town Hall, 2725 Main Street AI-7 OM naAG7 Thomas M. Odell, Chrm. Conservation Commission Old Horse Hill Rd., Rt. 145 Westbrook, CT 06498. Ms. Barbara Helander Comm. on Long-Term Dredging and Dumping of Spoils Hall of Records - Boston Post Rd. Westbrook, CT 06498 Melvin Barr Town Planner Town Hall, 110 Myrtle Avenue Westport, CT 06880 Russell Slayback, Chrm. Flood and Erosion Control Bd. 4 Increase Lane Greens Farms, CT 06436 Lester Nasi Town Engineer Town Hall, 110 Myrtle Avenue Westport, CT 06880 AI-8 I b I I APPENDIX II SELECTION OF EMBAYMENTS FOR STUDY I I I I I f I I I I I .I po I AII-1 I APPENDIX II This Appendix reviews the embayments surveyed during the detailed screening outlined in Chapter I. Each embdyment falls into one of two groups: those embayments selected for detailed study, and those embayments deleted. A third category was included for state modification of the existing lists. A more detailed explanation of categories follows: Category I - Areas which warrant further study These embayments include areas with significant singular problems such as direct source pollution or areas which are experiencing a noticeable deterioration of environ- mental quality in a number of problem areas; i.e. poor circulation, recent fish kills or noticeable recent increase in sedimentation or erosion rates.; This category also includes those areas where town responses were vague and our review suggested significant problems do, or may exist. Category II - Areas to be deleted from further study The 34 embayments in this category were deleted for a variety of reasons which are listed below. a) Town response indicated no problems exist. b) Town and our review indicated only minor or no significant problems exist. c) Problems which exist relate to historical, long-term, or naturally existing conditions or actions. d) Singular problems which are under study by the town, or for which corrective actions have been instigated. Each embayment decision is reviewed in the following pages. AII-2 CATEGORY I EMBAYMENTS SUMMARY LIST OF EMBAYMENTS WHICH WARRANT FURTHER STUDY LOCATION EMBAYMENT NAME COMMENT A. STONINGTON 1. Wequetequock Cove Moderate to severe problems in all problem areas; poor circulation; pollution from various sources; siltation; erosion and fish losses. B. GROTON 2. West Cove - Severe siltation and circulation problems, eutrophication reported. Heavy marina use. 3. Palmer's Cove - Moderate problems in several areas. Significant sedimentation problems at mouth and turnover problems. Open shellfish harvest area. D. WATERFORD 1. Smith's Cove - Severe siltation, pollution and circulation problems identified. Pollution problem from landfill is recent occurrence. H. ESSEX 1. Middle Cove - Areas of new construction located on highly-developed shoreline. Marina development. Poorer circulation than in North and South Coves. Potential problem area. I. OLD SAYBROOK 1. Indiantown Harbor - Significant sedimentation problems, poor circula- tion and eutrophication reported. Heavy marine use. J. WESTBROOK 1. Patchogue River - Newly occurring problems of pollution and sedimenta- tion. New marina development. Possible problem area. 2. Menunketesuck River - New areas of major dredging 1970-1980. Newly developed problems relating to siltation erosion and pollution reported. K. GUILFORD 3. West River - Mixture of problems exist. Severe siltation, erosion as well as pollution and circulation problems reported. 4. Little Harbor - Severe siltation and extreme wave action due to long southerly fetch. Town constructed floating tire breakwater, which failed. AII-3 L. BRANFORD 2. East Haven River Moderate siltation and pollution problems. Agri- cultural runoff, shellfish harvestareas. M. CHESTER 1. Pattaconk Creek Siltation problems in newly-dredged areas. Pollution problem from marinas and road salts. Unknown problems in several areas. N. NEW HAVEN 1. Mill River - Severe pollution problems due to multiple industrial outfalls. Fully-urbanized area. R. MILFORD 1., Gulf Pond - Severe siltation and poor circulation in pond. Moderate erosion and pollution problems reported. Land use is a mix of residential/industrial. 2. Wepawaug River - Severe siltation and pollution problems identified Agricultural runoff and industrial pollution. Several unknown problem areas. S. STRATFORD 1. Marine Basin - Severe siltation, pollution and shellfish losses reported. Landfill and dumping in area. 2. Lewis Gut - Flow restrictions and severe pollution.problems evident. Eutrophication and shellfish/finfish losses reported. U. FAIRFIELD 1. Ash Creek. Major pollution,problems exist, poor tidal flushing. 2. Mill River Major pollution problems' (lead) exist. Area is silting up, some filling. 4. Mill Pond - Severe circulation and fish loss problems of recent occurrence. 5. Horse Tavern Creek - Severe circulation, fish and saltmarsh losses of recent occurrence. V. WESTPORT 1. Bermuda Lagoon - Problems in several areas of recent occurrence reported (some confusion as to location and physical description of lagoon by town). 2. Gray Creek - A mixture of problems from minor to severe. Recent severe siltation problem. AII-4 W. NORWALK 1. Canfield Island Moderate to severe problems reporte d in several areas. LOSS of saltmarsh due to dumping and filling. 4. Mill Pond - Mixture of moderate problems in several areas. Recent siltation problems. 5. Village Creek Significant water pollution problems. Extensive urban runoff impacts (junk yard). Moderate problems in other areas. X. DARIEN 2. Holly Pond - Severe pollution problems, poor circulation. Shellfish losses and saltmarsh losses. 3. Gorham's Pond - Severe siltation problem and non-point pollution from.agricultural lands reported. Town wants dredging. AII-5 30- 73. 10, 12, MA S SA CH U S.E T S' CANAAN _4Z. ORFOLK COLEbAOO HARTLAND SUFFIELD ENriEL SOMERS STAFFORD UNION 42 CANAAN N GRANBY CAST WOODSTOCK THOMPSON ARKHAMSTIED GRAmay WINDSOR LLI"GTO INCHESTER LOC-$ EAST EAST- PUTNAM IMSBURIWINDSOR WIF40SOR TOLL06NO WILLING SHFOR FDA POMFRET NEW CANTOtt B 5HASIO04 GOS) I LOOM- TON TORRING- HARTFORD ELD W I NDH AM KILLINGLY I OANWALL F Osok %ilE TON SOUTH -, "ON TOLLAND C. A HA00RD "N MANSFIELU LI HAMP_ OOKLYN LITCHFIE AVON WEST IHAR - EAST MAN- R URLING_ HART_ OL- COVENTRY TON ORD IFORD HART CHESTER TON KE PIT WARREN LITCHFIELD ARWINYO TON FORD AM- FARMINGIO NE.-WETH DOVER 31OT ANTEP LA N OLUMBIA qO4DHAM LAND 'PLAINFIF IENS- OLAS ONSURY BURY MORRIS RISTOL LAIN- N IN-6.1 F IE L 0 JA S PLY- Al ASHINGTON I ON MOUTH iLLE A rioc x Y EaRom PRAGU IN" NEW SE4"LE WATER NJ ARLO LEBANON MILrofZD. E, - - 4., ROMWEt PORT- OUGH RANK TOWN Dc, 0.- OUTMING- BERLI LAND EASr IN iSooo ORISWOLD YOLUN WOODBURY TON HA.PTO COI LCHE57ER NOFIW11 TOWN $MAN Oxavoy MIDDL, WATERBURY mEANDE 0' __ 0( 11,110,11, DOZAAM, - l,f PAESTON 4. C SHIRE FI L NEW LONDON :34 _30* 1 NEW R." HE EAST SALEM NORTH EW HAVEN MON IFA04FIEL SOUTHS Ay ll.U.A- IPECT N MIDDLESEX HADDAM TVILLE STONINGTON BFiEotOK SOU'Na L WALLINGFOR DURHAM iIADDAM LEDYARO BEACON OXFO 07LLS ANY I@AIA- HES! ATERFO DANBURY NEWTOWN DEN NORT LYME EA S7 STONINGTON 00 .0::". MADISO -1+ EEP LY ME SROTON L. SEYMOU W HAVEN a All IVR FAIRFIELD -ONk E ,A FOF40 ESS OLD Al@ III E-1 N W.. tAe_ L"nan LINT ST, LYME I \,.:r REODmO SHELTON " To EN" - OC K AV Ot@t L. ORANGE BRANFOR __.,J WE$ EASTON RUMSUL ViA0 ESTON STRA D ILTOW AIRFIELD 00 FOR Al NEW.- - 11@ @ - .. I "I CANAA14 EST- ORW PORT TA "FORD \GREENWICH ARIEN Li -41- apt .05 s10, F1r3URE 1. DrSTRIBUTION OF :STUDY'-AREAS AII- 6 CATEGORY II EMBAYMENTS SUMMARY LIST OF EMBAYMENTS DELETED FROM FURTHER STUDY LOCATION EMBAYMENT NAME COMMENT A. STONINGTON 2.. Lord's Point Cove - Minor visible problems; singular moderate problem relating to septic system failures which town is aware of, good flushing and circulation characteristics. 3. Quiambog Cove - Minor erosion and pollution problems indicated; natural siltation problem, town wants dredging, recreational fishing, no marinas. B. GROTON 1. Bebe Cove - Moderate problems relate to historical conditions, poor circulation due to railroad. Closed to shellfishing since 1948. No change in problems unless a major'land change is made, such as removal of railway embankment. 4. Bennett's Cove - Long-term historical problems (100+ years) very small area classified by shellfish commissioner as "dead area". 5. Pine island Bay - Significant levels of sedimentati6n due to natural process. Breech of barrier spit in 1938 hurricane and subsequent storms in 1954, 1960. Town reports DEP is currently involved in beach dune restoration for the area. Extensive shellfish beds., 6. Poquonnock Cove - See B.5 above. Part of same marine complex. Temporary pollution problem due to sewer pump station shutdown (town is correcting). Extensive shellfish beds. 7. Baker's Cove - See B.5 above. Closed to shellfishing since 1971 due to sewage discharge from airport. Town has proposal for airport to hook into new sewer lines. D. WATERFORD 2. Goshen Cove - No problems were identified by town sedimenation problems at mouth due to natural process. Town has applied for funding to do a dredging study. 3. Keeney Cove - Severe pollution problems.evident from septic tank leachate. Town is currently under study to eliminate the problem. E. NORWICH 1. Yantic River - only minor pollution problem indicated; problem has not changed in 10+ years. AIi-7 EAST LYME 1. Smith's Cove 2. Niantic River Town response indicated no problems 3. 4-Mile River exist at this time. 4. Pataquanset River H. ESSEX 2. North Cove Only moderate siltation and erosion problems are indicated. Town reports that it is responding to problem through regulatory process. No structural measures are planned. Minor problems relating to high concentration of pleasure craft in marinas. 3. South Cove - See H.2 above. Only minor problems indicated. K. GUILFORD 1. East River - Severe siltation and erosion problems indicated, but due solely to natural processes. Mouth was dredged by Army Corps of Engineers in 1958. Minor pollution (non-point) problem indicated. 2. Grass Island - See K.1 above% Part of same marine system. L. BRANFORD 1. Stony Creek - Only problem indicated was pollution due to sewage discharge. Closed to shellfishing 1966. 3. Pages 4. Lamphier No significant problem apparent and reported by town. 5. Linsey 0. HAMDEN 1. Mill River - No response from town forthcoming, area will be included in study of Mill River in New Haven. R. MILFORD 3. Beard's Creek - Historical problems relating to pollution and sedi- mentation. Area is surrounded by residential development, no marinas, small waterbody. S. STRATFORD 3. Mac's Harbor - No problems reported by town. T. SHELTON 1. Far Mill River No response from town forthcoming. No problems apparent. AII- 8, U. FAIRFIELD 3. Pine Creek Severe problems indicated for circulation, fish and saltmarsh losses. Town reports recently completed (1/81) $265,00-0 project to correct problems. 5. Turney Creek -Severe prablems indicated for circulation, fish and saltmarsh losses. Town reports installation of self-regulating tide gates to correct the problems. W. NORWALK 2. Charles Creek - Minor or no problems indicated. Minor problems relating to residential runoff and marina development. Good circulation. 3. Harbor View Wetlands - only minor problems indicated, some filling (dumping) on wetlands. Town is aware of situation. 6. Wilson Cove - Only minor problems indicated, natural shoreline erosion occurring. 7. Five mile River Natural siltation and erosion occurring. River dredged in 1894, town wants to redredge. Good circulation, tidal flow. 8, Farm Creek - Only minor problems indicated for siltation and salt- marsh encroachment. No mooring areas. Open space acquisition has been proposed to protect area. X. DARIEN 1. Scott Cove - No significant problems; some natural filling occurring. High productive saltmarsh in area. Y. GREENWICH 1. Byram Harbor - Town reports no significant problems exist with the exception of loss of saltmax'sh due to conversion to other uses. Urban runoff is major concern. 2. Greenwich Cove - minor shoreline erosion problems, extensive tide flats. Pollution relating to sewage outfall and urban runoff reported existing for 70+ years. 3. Tomac Cove - Singular problem identified by town relates to urban runoff which reportedly has not changed for 25+ years. AII-9 CATEGORY III EMBAYMENTS STATE REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS TO CATEGORIES I AND II STONINGTON - Quiambog Cove WATERFORD - Keeney Cove EAST LYME - Smiths Cove - Niantic River - 4 Mile River - Pataquanset River GREENWICH - Byram Harbor LEDYARD, - Mill Cove - Poquetarmuck Cove STATE REQUESTED DELETION WESTBROOK Patchogue River AII-10 APPENDIX III TYPICAL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS AND COSTS AIII-1 APPENDIX III TYPICAL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS Introduction Breakwaters Figure III-1 Rubble-Mound Figure 111-2 Perforated Cassion Figure 111-3 Cellular Steel Sheet Pile Figure 111-4 Stone Asphalt Figure 111-5 Tribar Rubble-Mound Figure 111-6 Tetrapod Rubble-Mound Jetties and Groins Figure 111-7 Cellular Sheet Steel Pile Figure 111-8 Dolos Rubble-Mound Figure 111-9 Quadripod Rubble-Mound Figure III-10 Rubble-Mound Groin Figure III-11 Prestressed Concrete Sheet-Pile Groin Figure 111-12 Cellular Steel Sheet-Pile Groin Figure 111-13 Cantilever Steel Sheet-Pile Groin, Figure 111-14 Timber-Steel Sheet-Pile Groin Figure 111-15 Timber Sheet-Pile Groin Revetments Figure 111-16 Interlocking Concrete Block I Figure 111-17 Interlocking Concrete Block II Figure 111-18 Interlocking Concrete Block III Figure 111-19 Rip-Rap Figure 111-20 Concrete Bulkheads Figure 111-21 Timber Sheet-Pile Figure 111-22 Sheet Steel-Pile Figure 111-23 Concrete Slab and King-Pile Seawalls Figure 111-24 Concrete Combination Stepped and Curved Face Figure 111-25 Concrete Curved Face Figure 111-26 Concrete Stepped Face Figure 111-27 Rubble Mound I Figure 111-28 Rubble Mound II Figure 111-29 Desilting Basin Tidal Gates Figure 111-30 Slide Gates, Medium Duty Figure 111-31 Slide Gates, Light Duty Figure 111-32 Flap Gates Septic Systems Figure 111-33 Group Leaching System, Trench Type Figure 111-34 Group Leaching Beds Unit Price Data (where appropriate) AIII-2 Introduction The following text represents a collection of conceptual or "typical', struc- tural designs for the various structural options considered in the report. These designs are appropriate for general reference, but will vary on a site by site basis. The dimensions should be used as relative measures only, as requirements will vary. General unit cost data have also been provided. These data'are for general planning purposes, as costs may vary by an order of magnitude depending on site-specific conditions. More accurate data would require a design study. AIII-3 HARBOR SIDE OCEAN SIDE +22' 1.25' to' to' + 1.5, Af. L. L. W 'r" M.L L-W El A-4" Stone -10' -15, 10, 12' "A-2 -22' "B" Stone "C' Stone Stone_@'@r'ol _2" "B" SIC 'A' Stone 16 tons or greater. "A - I" Stone 13 tons or greater. "A-2" Stone 8 tons or greater. "A-3" Stone 6 tons or greater, A-4" Stone 500 tbs. to 8 tons, "B" Stone Core stone varies from quarry -run stone to pieces of I ton to 4 tons. "C" Stone Core stone varie s from quarry-waste to pieces of 1,500 tbs. to 4 tons. Figure III-1. Rubble-Mound Breakwater 601-01 relief how EL 25D @@17_0 Wo no Ft. 26.0 P=W slow El.25.31 EL25.0 4' 4, cuppr./ 4_3j "F-,--@ 3 0 16 W. LOST. Steel grating air relief We Freo water EEL 15,0 4' #Air relief pope -1 V-0" Wall wave ',Chamber '.L:' Run Fill to 12" ubber LW.L=T. fil fender 3,-Or 0 Hales@ 1* dwrifer 'A all around 4 4 4 4*Hoft 4 0 Drain holes 0 6 2!r 'a 17L. EL -30.0' I t 3!-e - 26'-4 13'-3 - ----- 13'- 59- T Figure 111-2. Perforated Caisson Breakwater FF. heM LW-L T E= Lk AIII-4 4. -.m_ 't TYPE'A' TYPE'B' LANE SIDE LAKES10f ,CNN TYPE *D' TYPE'C* TYPICAL SECTIONS OF BREAKWAXER SCALE (FEET) 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 f Figure 111-3. Cellular Steel Sheet-Pile and Sheet-Pile Breakwater AWNT-CONCRM CROWN ELEMENT STOW ASPHALT D RUBBLE ABOVIE WATER FIRST PROTECTION OF STORE CORE WITH MEAN WATER LEM A RELATIVELY THIN LAYER OF SWNE ASPHALT QWO%q STOW ASPHALT LINDER WATER V. STORE 30011000ko)l SA SCALE IOIWETR0 lb Figure 111-4. Stone Asphalt Breakwater AIII-5 Reinforced concrete post 1.8 ft. dia. by 5 feet high at 5 feet centers 18-ton tribors uniformly placed) E 1. 13.0 1.5 Min Concrete cap E 1. 3D Concrete arout E1.0.0 MLLW ton stone 42'- Figure 111-5. Tribar-Rubble-Mound Breakwater SEAWARD SIDE HARBOR SIDE .8..* Stone Chinked Concrete Cap 2. B.,%** Concrete Stone Grout EL. :t 25.0' B Stone 2-3 Ton EL. * 20.0' 1-1/2 + 18.0' 10'-0' E L. + 10.0' C- E L. + 4.0' M.L.L.W. EL. 0.0, S 6" 0 ,,a "C" Stone "b 100 Lbs. - I Ton EL.- 10.0' .1b Z EL-16.0' E L. - 30.0 D" Stone 1-1/2 EL-32.0' (Quarry Run Stone S"3**Stone 1000-200OLbs. "A" Stone Min. 7 Ton , Avg. 12 Ton B'j - One ton variation to 7 ton may 8;- 1/2 ton to I ton min. - 7 ton max. as available. 8" 1 ton to 7 tons or to suit depth conditions at seaward toe. Figure 111-6. Tetrapod-Rubble-Mound Breakwater AIII-6 Type I Cells 58.89'Dia. 14 Type l[Cells=46-15' Dia.@ I -Cover Stone (3 Ton Min) Bedding Layer of :- @18' for all Cells zQ2pZCQ2 Type S-28 Steel Sheet Piling Quarry Spoils 600.0,__ i,-Dredged.: 0/2 Riprop 11/2 Riprop >0 5L*q Stone Mattress 4wzIone Mattress Existing Bottom Figure 111-7. Cellular Steel Sheet-Pile Jetty Existing Concrete Cap 240' 42 Tons Dolos 12 Loyersl @45 El. 26' 14 0 0-32',o - 40' 'A" El. I V - 20, 13.2' MW MH Z:-@MLLW 15 _cEi. 17' -49w- Head South Jetty + 10! 0. on 10-14 Ton Stone 4' Thick Bedding Existing Structure Layer Figure 111-8. Dolos-Rubble -Mound Jetty Tye p 0 eS 0,0-2 T_ ipr,@ 5L R p 5 2 5-@ 'S AIII-7 CHANNEL SIDE SEAWARD SIDE Concrete Cap B-Stone Concrete Filled EL.+15.0' 2 10 EL.- 6.0' 8 - Stone 'e, M.L.L.W. EL.00' 10. EL.0 0' Single Row B-Stone Chinked slole 25-Ton Ouodripods EL 8.0' C-Stone Core Existing Ground A-Stone Avg. 10ton, Min.7ton B-Stone 50%>60004,min.4000* C - Slone 4000 # to 4" 501/6 > 500 Figure 111-9. Quadripod-Rubble-Mound JettY Variable Water Level Datu PROFILE NOTE: Dimensions and details to be Varies determined by particular site conditions. Armor Stone Core Stone (Ouorry Run) CROSS-SECTION Figure III-10.' Rubble-Mound Groin AIII-8 -3 0 ar Clear Pier Dock 4'. W 4 bar G Ira4 A N N N N N N 6- 4 Continuous W. 12* all bars into 3/4 chaffife lide cap as showrt 11% to', El. Varies Concrete Shoot P CONCRETE PILE CAP Pas Cap I V Butt Piles 12', 12' 10 Ex "14kin Aaete Sheet Piles Nut 1'0 soil Cost Iran CLO.Washer t It 1. 1/4" steel plate I V- 12' Slot for bolt in oft It I Pile length varied fr.. TIMBER WALE it 22'-0' to 44' -0" I Alternative Design) V-0. it1 3 Ties 2 4 1 4 r 1 14' 2 V2' 2 Y4- V/4 4 L 4' 3' Clear W Chamter I CONCRETE PILE SECTION 12a pile dimension varied from 9" to I'-10" depending LJ on a.fterential lood,ngs. Figure III-11. Prestresse5i Concrete Sheet-Pile Groin Shoreline Concrete, rock, or asphalt cell cop may be used to cover sand or rock filled cells Steel sheet piles PLAN Varies Note: Dimensions and details to be determined by particular site conditions. Water level;;p 77777"- PROFILE Figure 111-12. Cellular Steel Sheet-Pile Groin AIII-9 Riprop Along North Face of Groin Steel Cap Riprop Along South Face of Groin A L.WV. Existing Lake Bottom Assumed Cloy Line Type Z-27 Piles @@Type Z-38 Piles- Type V32 Piles -3 -33' @.j A op 15 C 33.9 "-Sand Fill I to 3 Ton Stone Assumed Cloy Line Placed Pell Mell Steel She et Piling SECTION A-A Figure 111-13. Cantilever Steel Sheet-Pile Groin Tl@ GLOCK VARIABLE VARIABLE VARIABLE OA MY WATER LEVEL DATUM LEVEL TEEL 8 ET STRAIGHT WES PILE P I LE r; PROFILE ARCH WES PILE r. 1. *OLT PILING N4 %#, TMKft -ALE Dbra,alwo ad dotwis to be TMKR GLOCK -WASHERS deftrmbod by Wlawkir sift Z PILL PLAN Figure 111-14. Timber-Steel Sheet-Pile Groin ..- 7S.EET ST EEL LE S T_ AIII-10 Planks staggered 6.1. ball "e"ob," Variable Vorloble wo a Water Level Dates 'a' 'eee d Timber wait Tim or hof It '-Timber sheet piling NOTE: Dimensions and details to be VIEW-AA determined by particular site PROFILE conditions. Round Clinched nails Clinched nails a., pilot- 'a (&A _7 --Vale Planks "'f" 2"ke" 2"x 8 toggered --f\M71 L\ k A Timber wofe "\WoSherst" SHIPLAP TONGUE AND GROOVE WAKEFIELD PLAN Figure 111-15. Timber Sheet Pile Groin AIII-11 10'- 04" @-4-6 Elev. 4.0 4 Finished Conc. -Elov.+3.13 Grade Tongue and Groove joint 1-4"3@ 24" Interlocking Concrete 3"Cl. all faces \11@c_ 4-04 as shown Blocks Discontinuous at Joints MSL Beach Profile Place I Man Stone Toe- 6"of 1 to I" Crushed Stone (M.S.R.C. '31 Protection as Directocd by Engineer. Plastic Filter Cloth Average Min. Weight Elev-2.0 of Stone Placed Shall be 300 lbs. per Linear Foot of Revetment. 3/4 X 5' Golv. Rods db 5' Oft 6!,x B"Timbeir Liner. Figure 111-16. Interlocking Concrete-Block Revetment Wood railing Concrete sidewalk N-C X. 6@'thjck -7 ------ z V- original ground line Ship-lop Joint Concrete Block Details Woven plastic filter cloth MLW 6" Layer to i stone zf-Stonetoe proteciion--7, Hardpan 2" x 6" Timber Toe cutoff wall would be required id Tor a sand beach. Figure 111-17. Interlocking Concrete-Block Revetment AIII-12 +1101t. Reinforced concrete wave en Asphalt groutin V + 10.0ft 5@: Plastic filter cloth interlocking block* 0 5* to 1.0"GravelonPlOStil- filter cloth, . ReKoone-cap WIP 8* thick 2 tWo - st + 1. 14' 5n K.s.l.,a 0-oft plan View 1: Plastic filter cloth as for down as Possible. i prestressed concrete piling 7" Section. A -A id'block L10-1t. Ship-lapw_@'t Joint -m Section A -A i o 1 2 3 4 5tt 14" block Figure 111-18. Interlocking Concrete-Block Revetment 4'-6" Rounding Topsoil and Seed 1'- 6" min. Elev. 9.00' 1- 0' m in Stone Rip.- Rap 2 Ft. Thick (25% ':,a, 300 lbs., 25 %ac 30lbs. oured Concrete 50% wt. 2--150 lbs. 2 (Contraction Jt. every 10' Existing Beach Grovel Blanket I -Ft. Thick (200 Sieve to 3', 50% :al-1/2" Elev. 0.00' M.S.L. Over Regraded Bonk E I ev. 1.00 Figure 111-19. Riprap Revetment AIII-13 ILo, 4 expansion joint calked _,Slobs, E 1. 9. 00, 2" E 1. 7.40' 311 G I.dowel. 12 SECTION AT JOINT' arth 4 fill 4" Flo p valve 4" Ti le H.Woter El. 4.60' CD M. HA E 1. 3.6 8 Original beach line iL 11. 4 0' 3"T.Sk G. sheet-piling 3LO" long. Ficjure 111-20. Concrete Revetment AIII-14 Top Elevation of BWkheod Average Height of r Highest Yearly Storm ides Flus Wow Runup. Tie Rod Waie Pile Pile Sheeting Riprop eeting .060. EDP _F- Water Anchor Pile SECTION ELEVATION wolen A A, Pile Sheet V NOTE: Tee Rod Dimensions Details To se Determined ey Particular Site Conditions. Wole TAnchor Pilesvv PLAN Figure 111-21. Timber Sheet-Pile Bulkhead A splash apron m ay be added Dimensions and details to be next to coping channel to determined by particular site -reduce damage due to overtopping c 0 nditions Coping chan Top of bulkhead Sand f i I I--,& Former ground surface Tie'rqo Timber block Tide Range 1, Timber wale ,_@Round timber pile Dredge bottom Steel sheet piles Figure 111-22. Steel Sheet-Pile Bulkhead T"'E' _ie' of IIWI,@ _'Y Star ad Ai;* r '60, ro de " 9M nu d Pile Sheeting Anchor P.,. P' le g -J@ W.@ lie Rod d er AIII-15 20'- 0" 5" Concrete walkway Headwall cost in place Cap cost in place Access Stairs Precast iro e'r I le, L 30' Pile 2 ltI Weephole A L _J Mean Sea Level Precast slab SECTION A-A Precast king pile 30 Pile 15'- 6 10'-7- Figure 111-23. Concrete slab and King-Pile Bulkhead AIII-16 1 H- beams 20'*O'O.c. 1 20' 0" 26" 3'3" , i Top of all Promenade -@l F Scupper Fj I 21' 0" 0 H-beams 20'0"o.c. V- 4@j r-1 -6" 5' W 5,0, A 3 3 1 1' 7"squore pedestal pile SECTION A -A 24`6"Iong Beach line to" Extreme high tide A r- Cross.olls 1. -O"concrete r- ..It between I sheetailling i r Mean sea level and beorn -7 in 8"under ro and outlet Cross walls are to stop at C C SECTION B-B this line. - 1 to Two b ulb piles replace L5: ,4-0 7 pedestal pile hen sheetailes conflict with pedestal pile. 0 6" tubing ILT" l:=_ 8 B z0 0 -41 Interlockin9 L SECTION -tE6,@ 0 sreetp,les D - 0 3' L___1 SE CTION C-C I- L -A Figure 111-24. Concrete Combination Stepped and Curved-Face Seawall Varies El. 17.00' 9L6"R. Backf i 11 .0 Beach j@z. ., 0 - '0" 0 20,-0" 27'-0" 4 1- 0:1 4 Original 0 ground surface p Lo 2L 2LO`-%@,- M.L.Woter 0 12.. El. 1.00' Foundation piles- Sheet piles 'Figure 111-25. Concrete Curved-Face Seawall 9L6@R* - X a 0 2 _0. 01 2 , OT6.1 AIII-17 5 0" 014 9 Tre ads @18"=13 ._6 26 Hydraulic v cio -cc @h Section of .1 24 4 e, Rib A-A CY Fill 10" 0 .1z 0 iginol Ground .6.1, U) LL Surtace(Variable) N, CID Al 2" r-1. Sol I -0 Pipe Weep Mean Gulf Level Holes Detai of Sheet 'Pile Figure 111-26. Concrete Stepped-Face Seawall Ocean Beach Cop stone 200 tbs- to 1500 tbs. 5.0 If the existing beach surface is Elevation varies according higher than El. 5.0' M-L-W excavation EL. 11.0' M.L to beach surface. shall be required to place the ocean 2.0, 1 2.0' side toe at El. 5011AL.W. 2 L5 2.0' 10' _M 2 L5 each surface 1.0" L i.o, Core material 200 tbs. to chips min. 25%>50 tbs. Note Where walls exist modify section by omitting rock on land side. Figure 111-27. Rubble-Mound Seawall rface is 'W' excovat Lleva to "on varies sur be on 'MLW oc @h fo, fL 2 0 ce he ocean @2 rT@ 'a I 2 5 AIII-18 Note: Dimensions and details to be determined by particular site conditions. Large Riprap Stone Small Stone St Water Level I, Fi I. Figure 111-28. Rubble-Mound'Seawall (Typical-Stage Placed) AIII-19 minimum 8' Riser- perforated CMP top width water level during star emergency spillway 000 sediment storage 0 filter- .000 minimum 2!4:1 oarse gravel 0a0 slopes or 000 f latter t. 0 ronciete base earth dam anti-seep ollar CMP outlet pipe CROSS SECTION Ficjure 111-29., Resilting Basin AIII-20 10-Foot Seating Heads FILLER BAR No Unseating Heads � Square or Rectangular m Pedestal Lift Opening n Flat or Spigot Back � Rising Stem, Not m No Wedges Self-Contained � Standard or Flush Bottom Closure P',SPIGOT Al@ STEM A1__STOP NUT FRAME C= COVERBAR SLIDE HP B LIFT__@@ SPIGOT BACK WALL BRACKET FRAME .E FULLYADJ. STEM GUIDE SLIDE FULLY OPENED POSITION SLIDE D I COVERBAR FLAT BACK SLIDE RUBBER SIDE SEAL -@GUIDE SLIDE FRAME GROUT B STEM /CONNECTION r4 I B RETAINER RuBBERSEAL E 7- STOPA GLE t A FLUSH BOTTOM SPIGOT BACK 'JION Figure 111-30. Slide Gates, Medium Duty AIII-21 5-Foot Seating Heads FILLER BAR No Unseating Head's � Square or Rectangular m Handwheel or Handcrank Opening Operation � Rising Stem, Self- m Flat or Spigot Back Contained n No Wedges � Standard'or Flush Bottom Closure T FRAME COVERBAR SLIDE HEADANGLE STOP NUT SPIGOT BACK- HANDWHEEL LIFT FRAME FRAME ANCHOR -STEM /"BOLT SLIDE COVERBAR LU 2 CINCH FLAT BACK D- ANCHOR (TOPONLY SLIDE AS REOD.) RUBBER - - - - - - SEAL FRAME STEMI I B CONNECTION GROUT B "T. ------- RETAINER AL RUBBERSE .4 --- STOPANGLE STD. BOTTOM FLUSH BOTTOM SPIGOT BAC V LI F Figure 111-31. Slide Gates, Light Duty AIII-22 0 0 0 0 0 c cl #9 0 0 IA -10 Ix m co 0 LL CL U) Figure 111-32. Flap Tidal Gate AIII-23 PIPING ARRANGEMENT TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION Notes BOX (DO-11 Plan denotes Leoching TYPICAL Trench dimensions for trench depth of 4' precast C.4amber ( I @,?"HJ 6olleries 4H) rrenches 'to 4H) z .......... PUMPING STATION w OR cr_ 12 UN'ITS 96' SEPTIC DOSING to, TANK SIPHON EFFECTIVE LENGTH - ge, PLAN NOT TO SCALE PAVEMENT OR NON-PAVEMENT (C) PROPOSED FINAL GRADE 2% SLOPE A DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 4' (SOME CASES 5') T@PICAL CROSS SECTION NOT To SCALE .TYPICAL LEACHING SYSTEM TRENCH TYPE Figure 111-33. Trench Type Leaching System 72'- 0" .............. 'D8 D BOX IC 13 A TYP w PUMPING SEPTIC TANK STATION 4'PERFORATED PIPE 6"VENT TYPICAL TYPICAL /0, 000 GPD system o=vmlng .. ... Im than 2 minates per ... perc. ... .. . PLAN MTT TO S CA[E PROPOSED GRADE 12" MIN. FILL 2 -74 STONE 4"PERFORATE i 4 __J@ PIPE-TYPICAL -O"TYP. f2" () ONE 4"STONE 6' ST AF UJ 0 GROUNDWATER TYPICAL CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE Figure 111-34. Leaching Bed Septic system AIli-25 APPROXIMATE COST DATA Breakwaters Costs Figure III-1 Rubble-Mound Figure 111-2 Perforated Cassion $400-800/70 ft.cassion Figure'III-3 Cellular Steel Sheet Pile $65-100/cell 2 Figure 111-4 Stone Asphalt $0.4-0.6 yd Figure 111-5 Tribar Rubble-Mound $75-120/ft2 Figure 111-6 Tet:--apod Rubble-Mound $90-160/ft2 Jetties and Groins Figure 111-7 Cellular Sheet Steel Pile $150-250/cell 2 Figure 111-8 Dolos,Rubble-Mound .$100-180/1000 ft Figure 111-9 Quadripod Rubble-Mound $85-140/1000 ft 2 Figure III-10 Rubble-Mound Groin Figure III-11 Prestressed Concrete Sheet-Pile Groin $0.5-0.7/25 ft pile Figure 111-12 Cellular Steel Sheet-Pile Groin $65-100/cell .Figure 111-13 Cantilever Steel Sheet-Pile Groin $0.9-1.2/linear foot Figure 111-14 Timber-Steel Sheet-Pile Groin $0.35-0.5/linear foot Figure III-@15 Timber Sheet-Pile Groin $0.25-0.35/linear foot Revetments Figure 111-16 Interlocking Concrete Block I .$0.03-0.06/ft2 Figure 111-17 Interlocking Concrete Block II $0.03-0.06/ft 2 Figure 111-18 Interlocking Concrete Block III $0.03-0.06/ft 2 Figure 111-19 Rip-Rap $0.15-0.3/yd 3 Figure 111-20 Concrete $0.01-0.3/yd Bulkheads Figure 111-21 Timber Sheet-Pile. $0.6-0.9/linear foot Figure 111-22 Sheet Steel-Pile $0.85-1.2/linear foot Figure 111-23 Concrete Slab and King-Pile $0.25-0.5/linear foot Seawalls Figure 111-24 Concrete Combination Stepped and Curved Face $0.25-0.5/linear foo Figure 111-25 Concrete Curved Fa6e $0.4-0.7/linear foot Figure 111-26 Concrete Stepped Face $0.25-0.5/linear foot Figure 111-27 Rubble Mound I $0.2-0.4/yd 2 Figure 111-28 Rubble Mound II $0.3-0.7/yd 3 Figure 111-29 Desilting Basin $0.02-0.06/yd 3 for fill Tidal Gates Figure 111-30 Slide Gates, Medium Duty $5-10 each Figure 111-31 Slide Gates, Light Duty $5-10 each Figure 111-32 Flap Gates $5-10 each .. Septic Systems Figure 111-33 Group Leaching System, Trench Type variable Figure 111-34 Group Leaching Beds variable Individual Se]#ic Systems $2-$20,000 Municipal Sewer Systems variable Dredging $7/cu yd thousands of dollars AIII-26 V 11111] IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 E 3