[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
LOCAL REGULATION OF "INLAND WETLANDS" IN CONNECTICUT A PROTOTYPE "MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 @ NNo N F N AND I L C ICUT AGE ETNT PROGRAM" L ZONE MANAGEM ENT HT 393 .C8 L63 1975 LOCAL REGULATION OF "INLAND WETLANDS" IN CONNECTICUT A PROTOTYPE "MANAGEMENT PROGRAM" UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972? Russel*l L. Brenneman Copp, Brenneman, Tighe, Koletsky and Berall 60 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 LOCAL REGULATION OF "INLAND WETLANDS" IN CONNECTICUT A PROTOTYPE "MIAN""GEMENT PROGRAM" UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972? Introduction This study explores the history of the process of adopting local inland wetlands regulations in Connecticut, beginning with the regulatory situation as it existed prior to the adoption of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act. It explores the legislative history of that statute and examines the implementa- tion of the law by the Department of Environmental Protection and the process of adoption of local regulations by Connecticut municipal ities . It discusses the nature of state review of municipal regulations and permit actions and the techni- cal support provided by the Department of Environmental Protection. It attempts to analyze strengths and weaknesses of local regulations of inland wetlands and includes a general review of the inland wetlands as a prototype for a "management program" under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The study is divided into two parts. Part I discusses the regulation of inland wetlands in Connecticut from an historical perspective and explores the relationship, from a legal and practical standpoint, created by the statute between the Connecticut Department of Environ- mental Protection and local municipalities. Part II deals with the administration of the program by municipalities, including their perception of the state's role and the adequacy of past performance of that role. PART I LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF THE REGULATIONS OF INLAND WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES B.Y MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS AND THE RELATION- SHIP OF SUCH A PROTOTYPE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972. Legislative History of Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act Authority for the regulation of inland wetlands and water courses by Connecticut municipal agencies rests upon the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act, a statute enacted by the Connecticut General Assembly in 1972. 1 Prior to the enactment of this law, efforts by Connecticut towns to regulate the use and development of wetlands were founded upon the general zoning enabling act. 2 In two cases, the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down disapprovals by local zoning agencies of applications by property owners to develop wetlands on the ground that the zoning action constituted an unconstitutional taking of property without com- pensation; 3 however, in neither case did the Court conclude that the regulation of wetlands for the purpose of their preservation was beyond the statutory author- ity granted to local zoning commissions by the general zoning enabling act. Prior to the enactment of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act, the state exercised, as it does today, a number bf regulatory functions with respect to wetlands. The State Department of Environmental Protection, as successor to the Water Resources Commission, regulates the construction and modification of dams, 4 construction 5 within established channel encroachment lines, dredging, filling and construction within the tidal, coastal and navigable waters of the state, 6 and discharges into the waters of the state. 7 The constitutionality of the general regulatory author- ity of the state exercised in the subject areas was never successfully challenged in the courts and specific appl.ication of the police power to regulate coastal wetlands and flood-prone areas has been sustained by the Connecticut Supreme Court. 8 Enactment by the General Assembly of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act was preceded by the adoption, in 1969, of Public Act 169, regulating the tidal wetlands. 9 The tidal wetlands law, unlike the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act, comprehends direct regulation by the state of a narrow classification 2 of land defined by statute and depicted on maps prepared and filed after appro- priate procedures in the land records of the towns where the land is located. The permit process has been conducted by the state, initially by the Water Re- sources Commission, and, after the creation of the Department of Environmental Protection, by that agency.10 Municipa 1 involvement or action in the regulation of coastal wetlands is not comprehended by this statute, the constitutionality of which has been upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court. 11 The Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act is very different from the tidal wetlands law and the zoning enabling act. Whereas the coastal wetlands law creates a system of direct state participation in the permit granting process and establishes general state standards to govern that process, the inland wetlands law involves the municipality in the adoption of regulations and the perm it pro- cess itself. Whereas the municipal zoning enabling act gives Connecticut towns the opportunity, by adoption of the statute, to avail themselves of the power to regulate, which is expressed in the most general and all-inclusive terms, the inland wetlands law in effect required municipalities to adopt regulations for specified categories of land in a specific time frame or thereafter be subject to direct state regulation. A close analysis of the background of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act is required if we are to understand the history of the adop- tion of the inland wetland regulations by the towns. The immediate legislative precursor of the inland wetlands act was a bill introduced in the January, 1971, session of the General Assembly entitled "An Act Concerning the Establishment of a Scenic and Protected Rivers System for Connecticut." Rising largely out of the work and concern of a northwestern Connecticut group known as The Ecology League, this bill called for creation of a system of watersheds qualifying as "natural river areas," "pastoral river areas," 3 or "partially developed river areas," and specified those river systems which qualified for inclusion in each category. 12 A new body, to be known as the 'River Commission, was directed to establish the geographical limits of the land subject to the statute. Administration was to be by the "office" of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 13 The bill was reported out favorably by the 14" Joint Standing Committee on the Environment and passed the Senate on a voice vote. 15 However, the bill failed of passage in the House. The issues which this bill brought to the attention of the legislators, and the narr owness of its defeat, brought to light concerns which clearly demanded legislative action and resulted in the formation of an ad hoc technical committee to address questions which had been raised about the scenic rivers bill and which ultimately led to the bill which became 1972 Public Act 155. On January 11, 1972, the Joint Standing Committee on the Environment convened a hearing in regard to legislation on inland wetlands and heard from citizens demanding some form of regulation on the ground that there was no exist- ing governmental authority to protect inland wetlands and water courses. Support was heard for strengthened local regulation as well as for a step-by-step regula- tion of particular wetlands by the newly-formed Department of Environmental Pro- tection. While scientific information that was presented was of a general nature, there was testimony from ecologists, foresters and biologists regarding the role of wetlands within the natural system, particularly as related to water resources. Little was said about relating affirmative uses of wetlands to overall concepts of land use. The bill which became Public Act 155 was reported out favorably by 16 the Committee. 17 18 The bill passed the House and Senate with little difficulty. The only significant debate was on the floor of the House. Some legislators expressed 4 concern about the details of the Act, while favoring its general thrust and pur- pose. Some confusion centered on what the soil classifications mentioned in the legislation really meant and complained that the impact of the law was difficult to predict in the absence of complete soil maps. Concern was expressed about the degree of state participation in administering inland wetlands, and one legislator felt that the bill represented the first step toward state zoning. Concern was also expressed about the effect of a municipal permit denial the result of which would constitute an unconstitutional taking. Despite these reservations, the bill, as has been said, was enacted without legislative centering on such issues as: Providing funding for municipal participation in developing and administering regulations; creating a mechanism for a general analysis of the kinds of develop- ment and use which inland wetlands of various categories might support; the scope of judicial review of substantive decisions of wetland agencies (other than in regard to the "taking" issue); and encouragement of greater regional cooperation in regard to management of river basin systems. A more complete report of the legislative history of this bill is attached as Appendix A. The history of the adoption of inland wetlands regulations by Connecti- cut municipalities cannot be addressed without considering the specific provisions of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act. The basic design of the statute is to provide a process to balance the need for economic growth and land use against the need, declared by the Legislature, "to protect [the state's] environment and ecology ..." 19 The process envisions shared responsibilities by the state and local governments. Local governments are authorized to act through their legisla- tive bodies to establish a board or commission authorized to promulgate regulations to protect wetlands and water courses in conformity with regulations adopted by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. 20 The Act, as amended, went on to 5 provide that any municipality which had not so acted by June 30, 1974, should 21 be subject to regulation by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. From a legal perspective, two aspects of critical importance in the application of the police power, or regulatory authority, of government are the definition of the subject matter to be regulated and the substantive provisions of the rules which are to govern the future of the subject matter. Under the state zoning enabling act, both the identification of districts regulated and the substance of the regulations themselves are left to local zoning commissions, and towns are free to adopt zoning or not, as they see fit. 22 However, the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act comprehends no such broad latitude for the towns. The subject matter of the regulations is "wetlands" and "water courses" as defined in the statute. "Wetlands" are defined as land (other than that regulated by the coastal wetlands act) "which consists of any of the soil types designated as poorly drained, very poorly drained, alluvial, and flood plain by the National Cooperative Soils Survey, as may be amended from time to time, of the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture; ..."23 Water Courses" are defined as 11rivers, streams, brooks, waterways, lakes, ponds, marshes, swamps, bogs and all other bodies of water, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through or border upon this state or any portion thereof, which are not regulated under the coastal wetlands law. 24 The subject matter is thus defined by statute as land having certain physical characteristics; these characteristics exist as a matter of fact and not as the result of an administra- tive determination either by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection or the municipality, although the Commissioner of Environmental Protection is directed to prepare an inventory of wetlands and municipal inland wetlands agencies are directed by the statute to provide through regulation "for the manner in which" 6 - the boundaries of inland wetlands areas are to be established and changed.25 Furthermore, the substance of regulations adopted by municipal inland wetlands agencies is directed and circumscribed both by th.e statute itself and by rule-making actions by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection which are authorized by the law. The law specifically defines "regulated activities" as the sole uses for which a permit is required. It allows certain "operations and uses" as a matter of right and allows other "operations and uses" as a "non- regulated use" if they do not disturb the "natural and indigenous character of the land ..." 26 So, also, regulations adopted by municipal wetland agencies must be "in conformity with the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner" of Environ- mental Protection. 27 In adopting those regulations, the Commissioner himself is, of course, governed by the provisions of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act. The process which local inland wetlands agencies must follow in adopting regulations is prescribed by statute and includes 'provision for a public hearing on proposed regulations with appropriate notice. 28 However, it is clear that in adopting regulations and the designation of boundaries of inland wetlands districts, the municipal agency is acting in a legislative capacity for the municipality simi- lar to that of a zoning commission adopting zoning regulations. The key to the control which the inland wetlands act exerts over specif- ic property lies in the statutory directive that after the adoption of regulations, no regulated activity may be conducted on an in'land wetland without a permit. 29 Any person proposing to conduct a regulated activity on a wetland is required to file an application with the inland wetlands agency which contains such informa- tion as the agency may prescribe. The agency is required to hold a public hearing if in fact a regulated activity is involved (that is, if the activity is not a use permitted as of right or if it constitutes a "non-regulated use" which does not 7 disturb the natural character of the land; this initial determination is evidently to be made by the agency itself). Depending upon its findings, the agency may grant, deny or limit the permit, provided that, in so doing, it considers stipu- lated factors. These are: "(a) The environmental impact of the proposed action; (b) The alternatives to the proposed action; (c) The relationship between short-term uses of the environ- ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; (d) Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed activity; (e) The character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health or the reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened; and (f) The suitability or unsuitabil% of such activity to the area for which it is proposed." 0 Any "aggrieved" person may appeal from "any regulation, order, decision or action" within fifteen days after publication of the action to the Court of Common Pleas. 31 If upon appeal the court should find that the action appealed from constitutes the equivalent of a taking without compensation, the court is directed to set aside the action or to "modify the action so that it does not constitute a taking," in both of which instances the court is directed to remand the matter to the inland wetland agency for action consistent with the court's decision. 32 It is worthy of note that the Commissioner of Environmental Pro tection is required to receive no notice of the filing of an application for a permit, is not required to conduct any review of an application for a permit, and is not required to be notified of any action taken on a permit. Thus, the initial role of the Commissioner would appear to be confined to the period before regulations are adopted by the municipal wetlands agency, and it should be noted that his 8 duties include the prepartion of an "inventory or index of the wetlands and water courses in such form, including pictorial representations" as he might deem best to carry out the purposes of the statute. 33 The permit proc 'ess, as we have seen, is primarily the responsibility of the local wetlands agency. However, the Commis- sioner also has significant ongoing responsibilities which, it would seem, would include an overview of the effectiveness of the permit granting process itself. He is, for example, required to "exercise general supervision of the administra- 34 tion and enforcement" of the statute. .He is also charged to "promulgate such regulations as are necessary to protect the wetlands or water courses or any of .35 them individually or collectively ... Furthermore, the Commissioner is charged with the responsibility of advising, consulting and cooperating with municipali- ties, and others, in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 36 Before proceeding to discuss the implementation of the Inland Wetlands and I-later Courses Act by the Department of Environmental Protection and, in due course, by municipal inland wetlands agencies, several facts might be pointed out which provide a context for the administration of the new, complex and innovative legislation, some of which are obvious and others of which may seem not quite so self-evident: Connecticut is composed, Dolitically, of 169 towns embracing 0J)proximately 3,000,000 acres of land and containing about the same number of inhabitants. The towns are notably diverse in their resources, attitudes, and governmental proficiency. They range in sophistication from what might be expected of wealthy suburban communities oriented toward New York City to rural villages 1-r-oted in old New England. The process of land use regulation, conducted by !:oards and commissions of a volunteer lay membership, has been no more (and prob- @MY no less) effecti-ve than classical zoning as practiced in any other state, and 9 in many communities, if not most, functions without the benefit of professional staff. Concepts of inland wetlands regulation thus came to towns not notably well prepared to deal with the new challenge. -- At the time of the enactment of the inland wetlands law, the Department of Environmental Protection of the State of Connecticut was newly formed. It was the result of an extensive reorganization of state government involving the elimination of numerous boards and commissions which had theretofore dealt with the regulation of water and air pollution, the management of state-owned recreational resources and like subjects. Authority was concentrated in the hands of a Commissioner appointed by the Governor. The organization increased accounta- bility while at the same time weakening the citizen contact which the old advisory boards and commissions had supplied. The Department of Environmental Protection had no experience in the regulation of land use as such and found the comprehensive inland wetlands program somewhat anomalous in the context of its other responsibilities. It had, through its predecessor component, the Water Resources Commission, experience in the permit process relating to dredging and construction in tidal waters, and 'the functions of the former Commissioner of Agriculture and Natural Resources in respect to the coastal wetlands act devolved upon the new Commissioner of Environmental Protection. The land use aspects of the water and air pollution control programs had not yet been well perceived, it may fairly be said, by administrators preoccu- 1)ied with keeping up with fast-moving federal programs, and land use policy in jr,neral was seen to be the responsibility of the-local municipalities, assisted by jional planning agencies and the Office of State Planning. The inland wetlands Ir*c)gram thus found itself to be something of an orphan, or at least an anomaly, in "'t':Js of the busy, ongoing, newly organized Department of Environmental Protection. 10 - For their part, Connecticut towns by and large were not accus- tomed to organizing land use control strategies around particular natural resources. Perceptions of land use policy proceeded from the basis of classical Euclidian zoning and not, for the most part, from more contemporary notions that such poli- cies should proceed from an awareness of, if not be totally determined by, capa- cities of natural-systems. The legislative action thus, it may be said, preceded a general "grass roots" awareness of the importance of safeguarding wetlands and water courses for the benefit of the general welfare. Funding and staff support for the responsibilities of the Depart- ment of Environmental Protection and those of the municipalities were (and are) extremely limited. The Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act carried with it no appropriation enabling its administration and, indeed, there was no formal fiscal analysis of its effect either upon state government or upon towns who would be called upon to administer it. No funds were provided for technical aid to munici- palities and there was seemingly no awareness of the offloading by the state of administrative costs upon the towns. As will be pointed out, technical and legal support to the municipalities in the early starting up stages of the program was difficult to come by and new agencies, composed entirely of inexperienced citizens, understandably found the going hard. Response by the Department of Environmental Protection. and Adoption of Local Inland Wetlands Regulations Signature by Governor Thomas J. Mieskill of Public Act 155, May 19, 1972, set in motion efforts by the Department of Environmental Protection to deal with its responsibilities under the statute. These were seen at the outset principally as the preparation of regulations to govern the conduct of the Department and guide the towns and preparation of the technical information, in the form of maps, needed to delineate wetland boundaries. The task was assigned to a unit respon- sible for water (other than pollution control and discharge permits) and water- related land resources. This unit was also responsible for the administration of a coastal wetlands program, stream encroachment lines, dam construction and replacement5 and like diverse responsibilities. The newly organized Department, ..!iich was struggling to catch up with its duties in many areas, was initially @,nable to address with existing staff the task of evolving regulations and turned -o in outside consultant for baseline work. Initially, the thought was to develop :nformal "guidelines" for municipalities, a concept which was later abandoned in f.@vor of the adoption of specific regulations. The prepartion of these regulations !it on for a period of months. A first draft was not completed until Spring of N13, and a final draft was not promulgated until March of 1974. 37 Development .f the regulations primarily was an "in house" operation with minimal formal public 111."lit. Staff members included an environmental analyst and a number of lawyers who 38 ..'rIed with the assistance of the outside consultant. However, on an informal rJs, staff received a great deal of citizen comment during the drafting period i;j%e of frequent presentations before municipal bodies wishing to be informed At the new law and how to comply with it. In the course of this experience, rns and problems experienced by municipalities were made known to DEP staff. J'e this exercise resulted in some infusion of public viewpoints, the development rt,gulations, as has been noted, can scarcely be viewed as an upwelling from con- v!.f*11 con-@;iuni ties but rather is properly seen as an attempt by the towns to comply '*h 4ireLtives imposed by the General Assembly and the DEP. Initial contact between the municipalities and the Department of Environ- Pr,jt,(-ction, at least on a formal basis, typically occurred after the action 12 by the town legislative body creating the inland wetland agency and the formation of that agency. Upon request, DEP staff would make a presentation which included a slide presentation on the importance of wetlands-centered land regulation, a discussion of the legal implications of the new statute and a presentation of infor- mation relating to soil surveys and the technical aspects of how to adopt r1egula- tions. During this process at least three full time DEP employees were involved in these meetings, which occurred several times a week, and these staff members would "borrow" resources from other state employees to fulfill this large commit- ment of time, knowledge and energy. After this contact, those towns minded to do so would proceed to draft regulations; for the most part regulations followed models suggested by the Depart- ment or by the Connecticut Inland Wetlands Project, a foundation-funded private effort supportive of municipal efforts to deal constructively with the new legis- lation. The model regulation suggested by DEP is set forth as Appendix B. A few municipalities drafted their own regulations without reference to models. Proposed regulations were submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection, and its review required the attention of one attorney and one administrative staff person. DLP comments ranged from nothing (in the case of a previously approved model) to tvl,enty or more specific points requiring further attention by the municipality. Mie perception of this process was that municipalities eager to escape state regu- lotions were quick to adopt regulations with little consideration of specific town VI'lUirements or administrative implications of the action that was being taken. 39 .;ither DEP staff participation occurred at the public hearing required prior to ;,I%ption of regulations, at which legal and administrative questions raised by t"rs of the general public were dealt with. As part of the adoption of regulations by local inland wetlands agencies, 13 - in the great majority of cases maps constituting an inventory of regulated wetlands were included in the regulations themselves. These maps were supplied by the Commis- sioner of Environmental Protection in the exercise of his responsibility to "inven- 40 tory or index" the wetlands and water courses. The DEP inventory maps were based upon data supplied by the National Cooperative Soil Survey of the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, as prescribed by statute. 41 At the time of the preparation of this inventory, detailed soil surveys had been prepared for only about seventy (70) percent of the state, and the surveys them- selves at best constitute what has been called a "generalization of data." 42 The Town of East Lyme was the first Connecticut municipality to adopt inland wetlands regulations, and by the time the deadline of July 1, 1974 (as extended by one statutory amendment) had been reached, all but 54 of the 169 towns had adopted regulations. Subsequent to that time, additional towns have adopted regulations, so that as of December 3, 1975, only 28 towns still have not adopted municipal regulations and thus are subject to direct state control. Of th e inland wetlands agencies which have been designated, twelve a:r'e town planning and zoning commissions or town zoning commissions, three are local legislative bodies; about one-half of the remainder is compos.ed of conservation commissions, and the remain- ing fifty (50) percent is made up of newly created agencies. According to one informant, at least some towns, having adopted regulations, have inquired whether they can repeal them in order to become subject to state regulation. 43 Administrative regulations adopted by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection refine and articulate the relationship between the DEP and the inland wetland agencies in towns adopting regulations and set out the substantive and procedural requirements applicable to the permit process conducted by the Commis- sioner of Environmental Protection for towns not adopting regulations.44 The 14 - text of the regulations is set forth as Appendix C. Tracking the statute, 45 the regulations provide that local inlands wetlands agencies (or the Commissioner, in the case of towns whicfi@ have not adopted regulations) shall regulate only those activities which remove material from, deposit material in, obstruct, "construct" (evidently meaning include construction within), alter or-pollute inland wetlands and water courses. 46 The definition of permitted uses and non-regulated uses fol- lows the statutory language, but the regulations do contain a definition of what is meant by disturbance of the "natural and indigenous character of the land" in the case of permitted non-regulated uses: "Disturbing the natural and indigenous character of the land" means that the activity will significantly disturb the inland wet- land or water course by reason of removal or deposition of material, will cause the alteration or obstruction of water flow, or will result in the pollution of the*wetland or water course." 47 The regulations also make clear a statutory interpretation by the Commissioner that the inland wetlands law was not intended to override jurisdictions previously exer- cised by him in certain areas. Regulatory matters excluded from consideration by the inland wetlands agency are: "(1) Construction or modification of any dam, pursuant to Sections 25-110 and 25-112 of the General Statutes, as amended; (2) Construction or placement of any obstruction within channel encroachment lines, pursuant to Sections 26-4a to g of the General Statutes, as amended; (3) Construction or placement of any structure or obstruc- tion within tidal, coastal and navigable waters, pursuant to Sections 25-7b to e of the General Statutes, as amended; (4) Diversion of water for public and domestic use, pur- suant to Sections 25-8a to e of the General Statutes, as amended; (5) Discharges into waters of the state, pursuant to Sec- Lion 25-54i of the General Statutes, as amended."48 15 - Since the statute provides that the Commissioner, in regulating, licens- ing and enforcing the provisions of the inland wetlands law, shall ta-ke into con- sideration certain specified factors, the regulations provide an extensive defini- tion of each of those factors which reaches well beyond the specific statutory language. These factors include: 11 (i) The environmental impact of the proposed action, including the effects of the inland wetland's and water course's natural capa- city to support desirable biological life, to prevent flooding, to supply water, to control sediment, to facilitate drainage, and to promote public health and safety. (ii) The alternatives to the proposed action including a con- sideration of alternatives which might enhance environmental quality or have a less detrimental effect, and which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the activity. This should include but is not limited to the alternative of taking no action, or postponing action pending further study; the alternative of requiring actions of different nature which would provide similar benefits with differ- ent environmental impacts, such as using a different location for the activity. (iii) The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term produc- tivity, including consideration of the extent to which the proposed activity involves trade-offs between short-term environmental gains at the expense of long-term losses, or vice versa, and consideration of the extent to which.the proposed action forecloses future options. Ov) Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed activity. This requires recognition that the inland wetlands and water courses of the State of Connecticut are an indispensable and irreplaceable but fragile natural resource, and that these areas may be irreversibly destroyed by deposition, filling, and removal of material, by the diversion or obstruction of waterflow, and by the erection of structures and other Uses. (v) The character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health, or the reasonable use of property which would be (.aused or threatened. This includes recognition of potential damage from erosion, turbidity, or siltation, loss of fish and other bene- ficial aquatic organisms, wildlife and vegetation; the dangers of flooding and pollution; and destruction of the economic, aesthetic, recreational and other public and private uses and values of wetlands ,rid V13ter courses. 16 (vi The suitability of such action to the area for which it is proposed. This requires the agency to balance the need for the economic growth of the state and the use of its land, with the need to protect its environment and ecology for the people of the state and the benefit of generations yet unborn L-149 While the section of the regulations quoted applies to permit actions by the Commissioner, the language supplies a useful gloss for the application of the- defined phrases by local inland wetlands agencies. Other provisions of the regu- lations applicable to the permit procedures by the Commissioner in towns which have not adopted regulations include a listing of the types of information which shall be included in a permit application deemed to be complete, which again, pro- vides useful guidance to local inland wetlands agencies creating their own proced- ures. 50 As has been pointed out, the role of the Department of Environmental Protection during the period prior to June 30, 1974, primarily involved assistance to municipalities in the adoption of inland wetlands regulations, including the preparation of a wetlands inventory mandated by the statute. After that date, the effort of DEP personnel assigned to inland wetlands shifted to three areas: Pro- viding technical support to towns administering their own inland wetlands programs; conducting DEP's own permit program for towns which had not adopted regulations; and reviewing regulations for towns which had not made the June 30, 1974, deadline 51 and subsequently wished to adopt them. It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the permit process conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection for towns without their own regulations, but an enlightening report describing this program is attached as Appendix D. There has been a very active call upon the DEP for assistance in connection with the inland wetlands program. 52 It should again be noted that the statute requires the Commissioner not only to exercise general supervision of administration and enforcement but also to: 17 - "Advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the state, the federal government, other states and with persons and municipalities in furtherance of the purposes of said section;" and Encourage, participate in or conduct studies, investigations, research and demonstrations, and collect and disseminate informa- tion, relating to the purposes of said sections; ..."53 Typical town requests have involved the analysis of applications in order to determine the type of information that should be required by an agency, but towns have also requested inspection of specific sites and reactions to specific pro- posals. Towns uncertain about legal technicalities of the regulations or the statute and reluctant to call upon town counsel, for fiscal or other reasons, have also sought general legal advice from the Department of Environmental Protection. To meet these demands, the small inland wetlands staff presently consists of an acting chief with a designation of environmental analyst, two other environ- mental analysts, one of whom has a background in biology, a fourth person with a designation of Flaintainer I and a secretary. To the extent that experts assigned to other areas of the Department have been available when specifically needed (for example, hydrologists or geologists), they have been borrowed for specific tasks. The small in-house legal capability which the Department possessed at the outset of 'the administration of the inland wetlands act was of great assistance, not only in drafting departmental and model regulations, but also in responding to specific requests from towns. This staff has now been eliminated. Other staff reductions resulting from the present fiscal situation in the state have further curtailed the ability of the Department to respond to municipal needs. In connection with the municipal program, it is of great importance to 18 - stress that the Department of Environmental Protection, despite the statutory re- quirement that the Commissioner "exercise general supervision of the administration and enforcement" of the act 54 does not review the granting, conditional granting or denial of permits by the municipal agencies in specific cases. Indeed, the statute does not require that the inland wetlands agency provide notice to the Commissioner of such actions; the permit process is entirely within the control of th- town once regulations have been adopted. Moreover, the Department of Environ- mental Protection has not conducted, and does not conduct, any ongoing audit of the effectiveness of the municipal programs in carrying out the purposes of the statute. The Commissi.oner is required to receive by reports from the municipality notice of all "enforcement activities undertaken" by the municipality and all 11appeals involving" the municipality. 55 Presumably, in the event that the Commis- sioner were "aggrieved" by any reported action, he could appeal to the Court of Common Pleas under Section 22a-43 of the statutes or, perhaps, under other sections of the statutes as well; however, to date no such appeal has been taken. It seems unnecessary to add that to the extent the capacity of the Department of Environmental Protection to provide technical advice and assistance to local inland wetlands agencies is curtailed, for fiscal, policy or any other reasons, the ability of the local agencies, particularly those with limited staff and funds, effectively to administer the provisions of the inland wetlands act is limited. If the supervising state agency cannot or will not carry out its respon- sibilities, an essential component evidently envisioned by the Leg-islature is removed from the regulatory system, and to the extent that the towns are unable to fill the gap administration of the law suffers. Local Inland Wetlands and Coastal Zone Management'Act Does the Connecticut Inland 'Wetlands and Water Courses Act provide a 19 prototype for coastal management under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972? 56 To return to fundamentals, the application of the police power to the regulation of land use entails establishing the subject matter to be regulated, I adopting the rules which are to determine the future of the subject matter and providing for the administration of the regulations, since no law or administrative rule is self-executing. These components can be supplied by the legislature, by administrative action authorized by the legislature, or by action by a governmental unit below the state level after appropriate delegation of the police power by the legislature, as in the case of zoning enabling acts. As we have seen, the Connecticut inland wetlands law includes a legis- lative determination, which is highly precise, identifying the subject matter to be regulated ("inland wetlands" and "water courses"); left to the administrator, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, is only the non-discretionary act of depicting the subject matter on the "inventory." The precise provisions of the rules which are to determine the future of the subject matter are not spelled out exactly in the Connecticut legislation, but there is a degree of circumscription around rulemaking in the sense that specific activities (and only these) are con- sidered "regulated activities," specific uses are permitted by statute as a matter of right, and certain other uses are not subject to regulation if a preliminary finding is made that they "do not disturb the natural and indigenous character of 57 the land The legislature made these determinations, it is important to note, rather than leaving them to the discretion of the Commissioner of Environmental Protection or the municipalities which were to adopt inland wetlands regulations. The latitude of administering municipalities was further limited by the requirement that local regulations be adopted only in conformity wit h regulations of the A 20 Commissioner of Environmental Protection. In fact, municipalities, as has been seen, by and large adopted regulations following models -supplied by DEP. The importance of this lies in the fact that in no sense does the inland wetlands law provide a prototype for a process which might prudently be followed in the development of a "management program" for the coastal zone under the federal statute. A fair reading of the federal law suggests that the process of evolving the management plan is of critical importance to its approval by the Secretary of Commerce and that this process requires a great deal of participation with the federal, state, regional and local governments and organizations and individuals who are part of the general public. (Indeed, this participation may provide its primary authentication.) There is no evidence in the legislative history of the inland wetlands law that suggests that such a process was followed, at least con- sciously, by any public or private organization, although, as has been seen, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources was instrumental in pushing toward regulations in this area, and the statute was ultimately strongly supported by the first Commissioner of Environmental Protection. Perhaps gratuitously, it might be observed that the absence of a "grass roots" genesis made the law less accepted and understood in Connecticut's municipalities than might otherwise have been the case and that this lack of understanding has contributed to difficulties in administer- ing the law. The inland wetlands law can, however, be looked at as a possible proto- type for the execution. of a coastal management program in that it seems to have many of the components which are required by the federal law. These federal re- quirements include the necessity that the state, either by itself or acting through 58 regional or local governments, have "authority for the management" of the coastal zone, including the power to: 21 "(1) administer land and water use regulations, control development in order to ensure compliance with the management program, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses; and (2) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple inter- ests in lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the management program." 59 Furthermore, for a management program to be approved, the Secretary must find to be in existence one or more of the following techniques to control land and water uses: "(A) State establishment of criteria and standards fo r local implementation, subject to administrative review and enforcement of compliance; (B) Direct state land and water use planning and regulations; or (C) State administrative review for consistency with the manage- ment program of all development plans, projects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any state or local authority or private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for hearings."60 The Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act has many of these characteristics. With respect to its subject matter, it does provide a mechanism to administer land and water use regu lations in which the municipalities are tightly controlled by state policies (which can be likened to the "management program"); it does authorize municipalities to acquire interests in land which constitute "wetlands" and "water courses" (and municipalities and state agencies 22 - are elsewhere authorized to acquire interests in land for conservation and preser- vation purposes); it does provide for "state establishment of criteria and stan- dards for local implementation"; it does provide for review at the state level of local ordinances and regulations. However, it is less clear that the inland wetlands law provides specif- ically for the kind of state review of local enforcement which is contemplated by Section 306(e)(1)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as interpreted by regulations adopted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which, in pertinent part, will be quoted in their entirety: "(1) Section 307(e)(1)(A) "State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject to administrative review and enforcement of compliance." This option requires the State to establish general criteria and standards within the framework of the coastal zone program for implementation by local government.. Such criteria and standards would provide for application of criteria and standards to specific local conditions. Implementation by a local unit of government would consist of adoption of a suitable local zon- ing ordinance or regulation, and enforcement on a continuing basis. Administrative review at the State level requires provision for review of local ordinances and regulations and local enforcement activity for consistency with the criteria and standards as well as programs, not review of specific cases on the merits.. In the event of deficiencies either in regulation or local enforcement, State enforcement of com- pliance would require either appropriate chan es in local regulation or enforcement or direct State intervention."91 it is clear that under the Connecticut statute neither the Commissioner of Environ- i;iental Protection nor any other state agency has authority to conduct a "review of specific cases upon the merits." The Commissioner does have the power to conduct 11 general supervision of the administration and enforcement" of the statute and ,viould obviously have the authority to inspect all records of local inland wetlands agencies for the purpose of a performance assessment. However, the statute con- tains no authority for the Commissioner to take action in the event that an inland ,wetlands agency is not properly performing its functions (other than to appeal an 23 - action in a particular case). Thus, to return to the language of the federal regulation, in the event deficiencies are found in local enforcement, there is no way on the face of the inland wetlands statute for the Commissioner to require "appropriate changes" in regulations or "enforcement" or to intervene directly other than to appeal a specific permit action to the Court of Common Pleas as an 11aggrieved" party. The inland wetlands law, as presently constituted, would not, it would appear, as a legal matter meet the requirements of the federal regulations. Apart from these legal considerations, some practical observations are pertinent. The thrust of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 appears to be the requirement that a state have a "management program" that in fact will function. The statute, to be sure, can be read narrowly as one demanding only ritualistic conformity with arbitrary criteria; however, obviously, it was not the intention of the Congress in enacting this law to require of the coastal states such an empty exercise. A program meeting all of the formal legal requirements may fail because of the sheer inability of the components to perform assigned functions. Establish- mt2nt of a policy which no governmental agency has the will or resources to carry out is meaningless. Creating a state policy for coastal zone management which is to be admin- i,Aered by local agencies lacking the expertise, experience or resources needed for U.,it administration results in chaos, not "management." 4-9 the state 4tsoelf---:v, al. re@a s@ed, or V_ry-,04t AAtek -duties -earr brerk It is not meant to cast a shadow on the administration of the inland wet- 1,.@nds law in Connecticut, since it is not the purpose of this study to:evaluate thdt program. A dedicated DEP staff has in fact done more than might be expected Ac@r the circumstances. However, conscientiousness requires this report to flash 24 - a warning signal based not so much on the technical characteristics of the law and the regulations but on the practical capabilities of the institutions and people involved. This warning is more meaningful if considered in the context o f land use policies affecting the entire coastal zone, not just a narrow category of land identified as "wetlands" and "water courses." Not only the natural resources but the competing uses are infinitely more varied in Connecticut's 11coastal zone" than they are in the land embraced by the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act. Administration of a coastal "management program" thus will be even more complex and demanding of all its components. 25 Footnotes 1. 1972 P.A. 155; 22a-36 -- 22a-45, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev..of 1958, as amended. 2. � 8-1 et. seq., Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 3. Dooley v. Town Planning and_Zoning_Commission of Fairfield, 151 Conn. 304, 197 A.@d //U kl9b-4@; Bartlett v. Zoning Commission of Old-Lyme, 161 Conn. 24, 282 A.2d 907 (1971). 4. �� 25-110 and 25-112, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 5. �� 25-4a 25-4g, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 6. �g 25-7b 25-7c, 25-10 -- 25-18, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 7. � 25-54i, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 8. Vartelas v. Water Resources Commission, 146 Conn. 650, 153 A.2d 822 (1959); t-recciaroli v. Comi@issioner of Environmental Protection, 36 Conn. L.J. 42, @fkl@ded Apr. 15, 1975. 9. �� 22a-28 -- 22a-35, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 10. 1971 P.A. 872; �� 22a-1 et seq., Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 11. Brecciaroli v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, supra fn. 8. 12. 1971 SB 298. 13. Id. � 7. 14. Jour. of the Senate, June 4, 1971, p. 1957. 15. The vote was 86 to 75 against, with sixteen absent and not voting. Jour. of the House, June 9, 1971, p. 2387. 16. 1972 Com. Sub. Bill 5257. 17. Jour. of the House, Apr. 10, 1971, p. 411; voice vote. 18. Jour. of the Senate, Apr. 13, 1971; p. 535; voice vote. 19. � 22a-36, Conn. Gen. Stars., Rev. of 1958, as amlended. 20. � 22a-42(c), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. � 22a-42(f)(2), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. t 1 d et seq., Conn. Gen.,Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amendea. Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. @1 .1,1-412a(a), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. ,@j_,',O(a) and (b), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. -`a-42(c), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. j2a-42a(b), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 22---42a(c), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 22a-41, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. ?2a-43, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 22a-43a(a), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. � 22a-39(g), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. � 22a-39(a), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. � 22a-39(f), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. -,6. � 22a-39(c), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. il- "Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Regulations of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection," 35 Conn. L.J. No. 39,, p. 1-A, Mar. 26, 1974. R. Information supplied by (Mrs.) Cynthia M. Ivey, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. `9. Id. 1110. 22a-3.9(g), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 41. 22a-38(15). Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 42. statement of (Mrs.) Cynthia M. Ivey, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 43. Id. 44. "Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Regulations of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection," 25 Conn. L.J. No. 39, p. I-A, dated March 26, 1974. Footnotes, cont' d 45. � 22a-38(13), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. @@ra, fn.44, �_22a-39-4.2. 47. Supra, fn.44, � 22a-39-3.2. -8. Supra, fn.44, � 22a-39-4.3.a. '9. SUpra, fn.44, � 22a-39-6.1.d. 5o. Supr , fn.44, � 22a-39-5.2. 51. The regulations explicitly permit towns to designate a local wetlands agency subsequent to the cut-off date and adopt regulations. Upon approval of the regulations by the Commissioner, the local inland wetlands agency has juris- diction over regulated activities. 22a-39-11.7. @2. For the most part, information in this section was supplied by (Mrs.) Cynthia M. Ivey, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 3. � 22a-39(c) and (d), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. � 22a-39(a), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. -,5. Regs., � 22a-39-11.8. 6. Pub.L. 92-583, 16 U.S.C.A., �� 1451 -- 1464. 7. � 22a-40(b), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. See, for example, 16 U.S.C.A., � 1455(c)(1). 16 U.S.C.A., �� 1455(e)(1) and (2). 16 U.S.C.A., �� 1455(e)(1)(A), (B) and (C). Fed. Reg., Vol. 40, No. 6, Jan. 9, 1975, Tit. 15, ch. IX, part 923, � 923.26(b)(1). LOCAL REGULATION OF "INLAND WETLANDS" IN CONNECTICUT A PROTOTYPE "MANAGEMENT PROGRAM" UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972? PART II Adoption of Regulations and Administration of Permit Process by Connecticut Municipalities Russell L. Brenneman Copp, Brenneman, Tighe, Koletsky and Berall 60 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 LOCAL REGULATION OF "INLAND WETLANDS" IN CONNECTICUT A PROTOTYPE "MANAGEMENT PROGRAM" UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972? PART II Adoption of Regulations and Administration of Permit Process by Connecticut Municipalities INTRODUCTION Part I of this study discussed the adoption of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act by the Connecticut General Assembly in 1972 and considered the relationship thereby created between the state Department of Environmental Pro- tection and Connecticut mun icipalities, as well as exploring the relationship of this "management" system to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This Part II deals with the administration of the program by Connecticut municipalities, includ- ing the process of adoption of inland wetlands regulations and administration oil the permit system. The methodology followed included interviews by the writer with a knowledgeable representative or representatives of the agencies administering the inland wetlands program in fifteen Connecticut municipalities. The interview was conducted personally in twelve instances and in the other three instances by tele- phone. It was preceded by a letter of introduction which appears as Appendix A. t t A questionnaire was prepared which was used as Lhe basis of the inLerview but which was not shared with the interviewee prior to the interview. The questionnaire appears as Appendix B. Several cautions should be offered at the outset: The study does not represent, obviously, an examination of the administration oil the program by all of the Connecticut towns which have adopted regulations. Nor is it based upon a scientifically selected sample of all such towns. The towns which were selected were chosen on the basis of a more or less subjective judgment con- cerning which communities might be able to offer insightful information which would be useful to this study.. Ranging in population from 3000 persons to 67,800 (esti- mated), in'size from 15.9 square miles to 60.38 square miles, in location from Fairfield County commuter towns to small rural communities in northeastern Connec- ticut, the commun ities selected do appear to represent something of a cross section. Another caution relates to the time in which these interviews were conducted. They- were all.conducted in December of 1975 and roughly cover experiences encountered during the period beginning with the adoption of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act by the Connecticut General' Assembly and ending at the time of the in- terviews. During that span of time it is reasonable to suspect that the pressure on land for devel opment purposes in most communities was not intensive and that this pressure was particularly light in 1975, during which year the*towns had adopted regulations that were a part of the permit process. A final caution is that a survey such as this one is difficult to quantify in any convenient numerical terms, and although much of the data is objective, some of the material which ap- pears herein necessarily must rest upon the subjective judgment of the person being interviewed and the subjective reaction of the writer. Therefore, one should be cautious in arriving at generalizations on the basis of this survey. Administering Agencies The Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act authorizes municipalities, act- ing through their legislative bodies, to authorize "any board or commission, as may be by law authorized-to act, or [may establish] a new board or commission" to pro- mulgate inland wetlands regulations.1 Thus, towns were authorized to designate as the administering agency conservation commissions, planning and zoning commissions, other boards or commissions authorized to act, or to create an entirely new agency. 2 In the fifteen towns interviewed, six chose to create new agencies, five chose to designate their conservation commissions, and four chose to designate their exist- ing planning and zoning commissions. The table on the following page presents this and other pertinent information. It may be noteworthy that all of those towns selecting the planning and zoning commission to perform the inland wetlands admin- istration have professional staff available. The number of members on the administering board varies from five to nine, excluding alternates, and they are either appointed by the Board of Select- men, appointed by the Town Council, or, in some cases, elected. It is interesting to note that in some communities membership on the agency is derived through cer- tain primary associations. In the town of Woodbridge, for example, three members of the Inland Wetlands Agency are from the Conservation Commission and two are from the Planning and Zoning Commission. In New Canaan, the five-member agency is com- posed of one member from the Flood and Erosion Control Board, two from the Conser- vation Commission and two from the Planning and Zoning Commission. And in the city of Norwich, which also has an independent Inlands Wetlands Agency, the chairman of the Wetlands Agency is also chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In that City one member of the five-man commission is from the Conservation Commission and the three remaining members are "at large." The qualifications of the members of inland wetlands agencies in the towns under consideration, whether conservation commissions, planning and zoning commissions or newly created agencies, are varied. While some members bring par- ticular useful expertise to their service, by and large the members represent a cross section of citizens interested in public service of this kind who are not experts on any subject matter relevant to the regulation of inland wetlands. The tendency has been, evidently, to elect or appoint to these bodies the same type of 3 Table 1 Town County Population Area Date of Adoption Type of Agency Professional Staff of Inland Wetland Regulations Avon Hartford 9,400 23.5 sq. mi. June, 1974 Inland Wetlands Agency Yes Brooklyn Windham 5,400 28.7 June, 1974 Conservation Commission No Canton Hartford 7,100 25.0 June, 1974 Inland Wetlands Agency No Chester Middlesex 3,000 15.9 April, 1974 Conservation Commission No Coventry Tolland 8,300 37.3 11 If June, 1974 Planning & Zoning Yes Easton Fairfield 5,800 28.8 Dec., 1973 Conservation Commission No Enfield Hartford 45,000 33.8 Sept., 1974 Planning & Zoning Yes Glastonbury Hartford 23,000 52.5 July, 1974 Conservation Commission Yes New Canaan Fairfield 19,300 23.3 '1 June, 1974 Inland Wetlands Agency Yes Newtown Fairfield 16,700 60.38 Aug., 1974 Conservation Commission No Norwich New London 44,500 27.1 July, 1974 Inland Wetlands Agency. Yes Southbury New Haven 10,000 40.9 11 If June, 1974 Inland Wetlands Agency No West Hartford Hartford 67,800 22.2 June, 1974 Planning & Zoning Yes Wilton Fairfield 16,500 26.8 If If Dec., 1973 Planning & Zoning Yes Woodbridge New Haven 8,300 19.3 April, 1974 Inland Wetlands Agency No citizen decision makers who might be appointed to any other municipal bodies, although in the case of towns whose conservation commissions are serving as inland wetlands agencies it may be supposed that membership is primarily conser- vation oriented. Despite this generalization, it should also be said that a number of members in the towns interviewed do have knowledge of particular useful- ness to inland wetlands regulations. These include attorneys, engineers, land- scapers, a resource economist, geologists, arborists, forestors, students of en- vironmental science, a nationally known expert on wildlife management, teachers, and the like. One of the greatest variables revealed by the survey is in the level of available regular staff support from municipal employees. This varies from no such support in smaller towns having no professional planning staff to substantial support from the planning staffs in the larger towns and cities. In the Town of Wilton, for example, the Inland Wetlands Agency, which is also the Planning and Zoning Commission, has available to it a full-time town planner as well as his assistant. The Assistant Planning Director of the City of Norwich spends a sub- stantial amount of his time with the Inland Wetlands Agency, an independent body. In the Town of Enfield, where the Planning and Zoning Commission is the Inland Wetlands Agency, the Planning Director, the Public Works Director and the Building Inspector all play a role in a highly integrated system. The Town of Glastonbury employs an environmental planner, who spends twenty-five per cent of his, time with the Conservation Commission on inland wetlands matters. However, in other towns, 'Such as Chester, Canton, Brooklyn, Newtown and Easton, the Inland Wetlands Agency has no assigned professional staff whatsoever. These towns in some instances have hired consultants or part-time employees for particular tasks. For example, the Town of Easton employs a student of the Yale School of Forestry, who works for the Inland Wetlands Agency, which is the Conservation Commission, for one-half day a 5 week. Agencies lacking internal staff have turned to outsid e resources, such as the State Department of Environmental Protection and the Soil Conservation Service, who-se contributions will be discussed in more detail in the material which follows. All of the agencies interviewed rely on Town Counsel for formal legal advice, although those agencies having lawyers as members assuredly turn to them for inform- al advice,,particularly on procedural matters. Adoption of Town Regulations The Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act authorizes municipalities, acting through their Inland Wetlands Agencies, to promulgate regulations "to pro- tect the wetlands and water courses within [the] territorial,limits" in conformity with regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. 2 The agencies are also authorized to establish by regulation the "manner in which the boundaries of inland wetland areas ... shall be established and amended or changed."3 Procedural requirements with respect to the adoption of regulations and the establishing of boundaries of inland wetland areas demand a public hearing "at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard." 4 Beyond the requirement that specified public notice of the public hearing shall be given, the statute does not specify the procedural steps to be followed by Inland Wetlands Agencies in the adoption of regulations. All of the interviewed towns have adopted inland wetlands regulations. T-he first in the sample were Wi lton and Easton, which acted in December of 1973, and the latest in the sample, Glastonbury and Norwich, acted in July of 1974. With one exception, all of the towns designated inland wetlands boundaries at the same time that they adopted regulations. Some towns adhered in the text of their regulations very closely to the model suggested by the Department of Environmental Protection (Part I Appendix B), or the model suggested by the Connecticut Inland 6 Wetlands Project. Other towns made significant modifications to meet what were seen as special local needs, and some municipalities went to extensive and creative lengths to establish regulations totally adapted to local needs. An example of the latter is the regulations adopted by the Town of Glastonbury which appear as Appen- dix C. For the most part this process did not involve significant citizen input and typically included only the single public hearing required by statute. In most municipalities the regulations thus represented work of the Inland Wetlands Agency itself performed to meet the technical requirements of the statute without formal consultation or involvement with citizen groups or other town agencies. In many towns the process was begun by a visit to the agency by a representative of the state Department of Environmental Protection who described the reason for the stat- ute, the process prescribed by law for the adoption of regulations and the licens- ing activities by the agency which would follow it, suggested ways in which the agency could proceed, left certain written materials with the agency for use in the drafting of regulations and indicated the role of DEP in providing further assist- ance and ultimately acting upon the regulations themselves. In many towns, a repre- sentative of DEP also returned at the time of the public hearing on the formal adop- tion of the regulations in order to provide answers to questions arising at the fiearing, both substantive and procedural. Towns requiring this type of assistance typically were those without professional planning staffs, and several interviewees stated that the town could not have moved ahead without such help. Another source of outside support during the period when regulations were adopted and boundaries were delineated was the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, which was, of course, the source of the basic soils information upon which the DEP "inventory" rested. In certain towns SCS proved very helpful, and the towns which received help at this 7 stage from that source tended to continue to look to that resource for future assistance when problems arose. While in many of the municipalities the preparation of inland wetlands regulations and their adoption appears to have been an isolated act of the agency itself, with minimum involvement from citizens and other public bodies, in some towns this was not the case. For example, the City of Norwich formed a special citizen task force composed of representatives of the general citizenry, the Plan- ning Commission, the Conservation Commission and attorneys. Starting with the model provided by the state, this body eventually made recommendations which were adopted (originally by the Conservation Commission, which was designated as the Inland Wetlands Agency in that city at the outset and which later has been sup- planted by a specially formed Inland Wetlands Agency). Action in the Town of Woodbridge was also preceded by consideration of the matter by a citizen task force. After the Inland Wetlands Agency had been formed, frequent meetings were held, some of them jointly with the Planning and Zoning Commission. While no pub- lic hearings were held as such, other than the one required by statute, it was com- mon for a number of observers to attend the meetings of the Inland Wetlands Agency so that there was a greater degree of public involvement than was the case in many other towns. An infusion of "public" input was.also naturally part of the process when the regulations were adopted by an Inland Wetlands Agency which was also a @lanning and Zoning Commission. For example, in the Town of Coventry, the regula- tion of inland wetlands is closely integrated with the entire land use regulation process, and adoption of inland wetlands regulations was seen as an extension of other land use regulations. This is true also in the City of West Hartford, where initial regulations were prepared by the Conservation Commission and then submitted for comment to Corporation Counsel. The product was then submitted to the Planning 8 and Zoning Commission, which further revised it. The Town of Enfield, which also has a highly integrated system, also adopted its inland wetlands regulations as a compatible extension of existing comprehensive land use regulations. However they went about their tasks, it is apparent that the interviewed agencies performed them well. Despite the complexity of the statute, the novelty of the relationship created between the state and towns and fears expressed in the General Assembly by those who saw the Inland Wetlands Act as a beginning of "state zoning," when it came down to adopting regulations there was very little specific opposition in the towns themselves. A number of reasons come to mind, which neces- sarily must be speculative, including: Apathy based upon lack of information; the feeling that whatever was being done was the result of a state mandate about which towns could do little; basic support for inland wetlands regulation as a means of limiting growth; growing support for the idea of land use regulation centered upon natural resources which rested, in turn, on a general environmental awareness and concern; and the fact that inland wetlands regulations are general in nature and do not elicit a specific response based upon a particular proposal involving par- ticular property. All of these reasons are in the background, but it is at least arguable that in many instances one reason for the smooth sailing was that the agencies themselves had done a good job, that the statute is in fact well conceived, that towns are better able to handle these new responsibilities than their own legislators imagined and that personnel in the Department of Environmental Protec- fion and the Soil Conservation Service did an outstanding job in educating citizen decision makers in a very short time. In any event, there were few difficulties when it came down to the public hearing. Questions were raised at some of the hear- ings by developers and property owners, many of them centering on the adequacy, or lack of it, of the wetland maps. Some concern was expressed about the possibility 9 that the state might simply close down development. However, many towns reported poor attendance at the public hearing, and the majority of them indicated that there simply was no opposition at the time the regulations were adopted. In summary it might be said that the towns moved rather smoothly through the adoption of regulations. There was relatively little citizen contribution to the process. Towns which did not have available professional staff received neces- sary assistance from the Department of Environmental Protection and the Soil Conser-. vation Service. Opposition at the local level was not notably present. The adop- tion of regulations prepared the towns for entering on the next stage, regulating activities within the inland wetlands. Functioning of Permit Process As was discussed extensively in Part I of this study, following the adoption of municipal regulations, no "regulated activity" may take place within an inland wetland without permit issued by the Inland Wetlands Agency. 5 However, not all activities in the inland wetlands area are regulated. Certain uses are permitted "as a right," evidently without regard to their impact upon the inland wetlands. These are: (1) Grazing, farming, nurseries, gardening and harvesting of crops and farm ponds of three acres or less; (2) A residential home (i) for which a building permit has been issued or (ii) on a subdivision lot, provided the permit has been issued or the subdivision has been approved as of the effec- tive date of promulgation of the municipal regulations pursuant to subsection (b) of section 22a-42a; (3) Boat anchorage or mooring; (4) Uses incidental for the enjoyment and maintenance of residential property, such property defined as the largest mini- mum residential lot site permitted anywhere in the municipality, provided in any town, where there are no zoning regulations estab- lishing minimum residential lot sites, the 1 argest minimum lot site shall be two acres; and 10 - (5) Construction and operation, by water cofiipanies as defined in section 16-1 or by municipal water supply systems as provided for in chapter 102, of dams, reservoirs and other facilities necessary to the impounding, storage and withdrawal of water in connection with public_water supplies except as provided in sections 25-110 and 25 112.6 Furthermore, certain uses are permitted as "non-regulated" uses "provided they do not disturb the natural and indigenous character of the land." These are: (1) Conservation of soil, vegetation, water, fish, shell- fish and wildlife and (2) Outdoor recreation including play and sporting areas, golf courses, field trails, nature study, hiking, horseback riding, swimming, skin diving, camping, boating, water skiing, trapping, hunting, fishing and s@ell fishing where otherwise legally permitted and regulated. A logical implementation of this statu te, then, would involve a process whereby (a) the Inland Wetlands Agency would receive notification, in the regular course, of proposed operations, activities and uses in the inland wetlands area; and (b) the agency would make an initial administrative determination that the proposed operation, activity or use constitutes a use permitted as of right, a "non-regu- lated" use or a regulated activity. In the case of a "non-regulated" use, an evaluation of the environmental effect of the proposal would be needed. If a regulated activity is involved, it is necessary to invoke the stat- utory process for the issuance of a permit. An application must be filed with whatever information is required by the Inland Wetlands Agency. The agency "may" hold a hearing, with appropriate public notice not sooner than thirty days nor later than sixty days after receipt of the application. Final action must be taken within forty-five days after the public hearing, if one is held, or within sixty days of the receipt of the application if no public hearing is held. 8 In acting on the application the agency "shall" consider all "relevant facts and circumstances, including": (a) The environmental impact of the proposed action; (b) The alternatives to the proposed action; (c) The relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; (d) Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of re- sources which would be involved in the proposed activity; (e) The character and degree of injury to, or inter- ference with, safety, health or the reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened; and M The suitability or unsuitability of such activity to the area for which it is proposed.9 The agency is specifically authorized to "impose conditions or limitations" applic- able to any permit which is issued, and it is also authorized to suspend or revoke a permit if the permittee does not comply with those conditions or limitations or if the activity, operation or use exceeds the scope of the authorization granted by the agency. 10 The agency's role, as seen by the legislation, thus is not one of simply granting or denying a permit in accordance with an application as pre- sented. By attaching conditions or limitations to the permit, the agency effec- tively can modify the proposal. Furthermore, its authority extends beyond its action in granting the permit in that it has authority to insure that work which is done in fact is in compliance with the permit. The "model" regulations promulgated by the Department of Environmental Protection, which appear as Appendix B of Part I of this study, establish a pro- cedure for "declaratory," "summary," and "plenary" rulings by Inland Wetlands Agencies. The initial step in the process is filing an application with the clerk of the Inland Wetlands Agency which contains only a modest amount of information, including the geographical location of the property and the description of the proposed activity or use. 11 On the basis of this application alone, the agency 12 - may make a "declaratory" ruling 'that the proposed activity or use does not involve a regulated activity, and that is the end of the matter. 12 Also on the basis of the application, the agency may find that a proposed activity or use does not in- volve a significant impact or major effect on the inland wetland and thus should be allowed as a "non-regulated" activity; this decision is reflected in what DEP terms a "summary" ruling. 13 However, if neither of these rulings is made on the basis of the initial application, the agency, under the scheme suggested in the model regulations, will make a "plenary" ruling finding that the proposed activity or use constitutes a "regulated" activity under the statute and setting in motion the formal permit-granting process.14 This process, as suggested by the model regulations, should include a request by the agency for information which is much more elaborate than that required in the initial application, including data with respect to soils, site plan, a biological evaluation, hydrological data and the like. The receipt of this information sets in motion the statutory process which is described above. As has been noted, many towns did not slavishly adopt the model regula- tions or procedures recommended by the Department of Environmental Protection but considered other alternatives based upon their reading of the statute. The Inland Wetland and Water Course regulations of the Town of Glastonbury, which appears as Appendix C of this study, for example, envisions two types of permits, a "Class A" permit and a "Class B" permit. The Class A permit is issued for activities found, on the basis of a review of the initial application, to be regulated uses "not 15 having a significant impact or major effect" on the wetland. However, if the Commission finds that the activity is a regulated activity which "will or may" have a significant impact or major effect, then the applicant is required to furnish a great deal of further information, including an elaborate site plan containing, 13 among other things, elevations at two-foot contour intervals, identification of soils, delineation of vegetative cover and location of aquifers. In addition the applicant is required to file a "supplemental report," including an analysis of existing water quality and anticipated effects, detailed information on soil sta- bility, geologic information, an evaluation of plant species and wildlife in the area and the effect of the proposed use on those resources, detailed engineering and other architectural information and the like. The regulations of the City of Norwish also depart from the DEP model, but they also establish a two-step process whereby a relatively simple application is presented at the outset. The applica- tion presently in use by the City of Norwich is attached as Appendix D for general information purposes. The review and background just concluded provide a setting for consider- ing how this system is actually working. It is obvious that the regulatory scheme is a relatively elaborate one in regard to the procedure to be followed, the infor- mation which is required and the type of analysis that is needed. Furthermore, it should be noted that the restraints on land use represented by this system are in addition to all other restraints on land use, such as those required by local zon- ing regulations. Moreover, we have noted that most of the interviewed towns do not have full time planning staffs, and the members of the decision making agencies are, by and large, neither more, nor less, expert than the citizens who might normally serve on any other boards and commissions. How has this system been working? The answer is that in most of the interviewed towns the system seems to be working better than one might have predicted. At least in these towns, the legislative intuition that municipalities are in fact ready to implement a sophis- ticated regulatory scheme centered on inland wetlands seems to be proving out. Having said that, it must immediately be stated that it is difficult to justify 14 that generalization (or any other in regard to inland wetlands administration) on any reliable statistical basis. As will be noted from an examination of Appendix B of this Part II, it was hoped that the interviews would quantify in a fairly clear-cut way actions on applications under categories such as those which had been granted, those which had been granted with conditions, those which had been denied, etc. Because of the flexible and, one submits, creative way in which the agencies are managing their responsibilities, any such clear-cut division is mean- ingless. For example, in many instances, applications have been submitted and, after an informal discussion, withdrawn. Some applicants have been asked to pro- vide further information and simply have not done so. In many cases, on the basis of informal discussions with the agency, work has been modified so that it does not intrude upon the wetland, and thus no application is submitted, although the work as originally designed would have required one. Also, there are many instances of amendments or modifications of applications during the process so that permits which might have been granted with a condition or a limitation attached have been issued without such provisions because of the prior modification of the proposal. Any effort to reduce the data to numbers also becomes difficult when the inland wetlands evaluation is part of a larger "impact" analysis of a proposal in a town having sophisticated land use regulations wherein the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion is also the Inland Wetlands Agency. In the light of these ambiguities, the most useful development of the information supplied by the interviews would appear to be a discussion of what has happened in a number of the towns, by way of example. As might be expected, activity has been least in small towns which at the time of the interviews had not been under extreme development pressure. The three smallest towns in the sample, Easton, Brooklyn and Chester, none of which is has a population exceeding 6000, had between them received twenty-four applica- tions in all, and Easton, a Fairfield County town, had received sixteen of them. All of the applications received were granted, except for those still pending, in each of the three towns, often on the basis of a summary disposition by the agency and without public hearing. However, a number of the applications had been modi- fied, and conditions were attached to permits, particularly with reference to. anticipated erosion problems. For the most part, these applications have involved individual residential construction, typical problems being a driveway crossing a wetland or a septic system designed in or near a wetland area. None of these three towns has a professional planning staff. Easton has relied extensively on outside experts for the analysis of specific projects. Extensive assistance has been ren- dered in Easton by David Emerson, of the Department of Environmental Protection, and David Thomson, of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. Brooklyn also has re- lied on representatives of the Soil Conservation Service, which is contacted in the case of every application and which has frequently suggested design changes and conditions to be attached to the permit; SCS also has conducted some on-site anal- yses. In connection with a proposal involving a bridge, the Department of Environ- mental Protection supplied a geologist for an application in Chester. In each of these small towns a Conservation Commission is the Inland Wetlands Agency. The feed into the system in each case is through the building inspector. Glastonbury is an example of a larger community which has designated its Conservation Commission as the Inland Wetlands Agency. This relatively affluent Hartford Suburb, which operates under a City Manager-Council form of government, has a full-time planner who is assisted by an "environmental planner," also full time. The environmental planner assists the Conservation Commission in its role as the Inland Wetlands Agency and in other respects. The feed into the system is 16 - through the Office of Community Development, which refers to the Inland Wetlands Agency all proposals involving wetlands. Glastonbury considers it important to conduct a great deal of dialogue with project proposers long before final plans take shape; in addition to the review which is part of the inland wetlands program, the Conservation Commission is involved in a larger environmental impact review which is considered a model of its kind among Connecticut municipalities. The review of wetlands thus becomes enmeshed in a larger perspective. At the time the interview was conducted, thirty applications had been received. These involved residential subdivisions, commercial developments, some single family residences and town roads. Again, all of the applications, except for two which are pending, have been granted, but this statement is deceptive. First, many applications were modified to the satisfaction of the Inland Wetlands Agency before they ever were presented to it, a feature considered important to the Glastonbury system. Second, many applications were granted subject to conditions or limitations related to the relocation of certain proposed facilities, cluster development, sedimentation and erosion control, preservation of wildlife habitat, site restoration after construc- tion disturbance, flood control and the like. Despite the rather high level of staffing within the community, Glastonbury has also turned for assistance to re- sources outside the town. These have included requests for technical assistance to the Department of Environmental Protection and also assistance from the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. New Canaan is a town comparable in size to Glastonbury which is under the development pressures common to Fairfield County. An Inland Wetlands Agency com- posed of two representatives of the Conservation Commission, two from the Planning and Zoning Commission and one from the Flood and Erosion Control Board is presided over by a Chairman who also heads the Conservation Commission and who is an attorney. The feed into the Inland Wetlands Agency is through the Town Planner, who screens 17 - every application for development. Ten applications have been received, including proposals to "clean out" ponds, to enlarge ponds, to alter stream channels and to fill for residential development. All but one of these has been granted, the one being denied being a proposal for a residential subdivision. The staff of the Department of Environmental Protection has been helpful in regard to one proposal for dam construction, and the U. S. Soil Conservation Service has been an important source of information concerning precise delineation of wetland boundaries in par- ticular cases. Wilton, another Fairfield County town, chose to designate its Planning and Zoning Commission as its Inland Wetlands Agency. The inland wetland review thus becomes an integral part of the analysis of all projects by a commission ad- ministering all local land use regulations. The town employs a town planner and an assistant, both of whom are full time. As in the case of Glastonbury, it is quite common for proposers of projects to consult extensively the town planning office prior to making an application for a specific project. This has resulted in the modification of projects so that development has not occurred in wetlands. There have been only two specific inland wetland violations, both of which involved driveways crossing wetland areas. Both applications were granted, but a design requirement for culverts was imposed in order to minimize anticipated erosion. In connection with the permit process, no specific help has been sought from any out- side source, such as the Department of Environmental Protection. West Hartford, a suburban Hartford community with a population estimated at 67,000, provides another example of a municipality which chose to designate its Planning and Zoning Commission as its Inland Wetlands Agency and thus "fold in" inland wetlands considerations as part of a total process. As might be expected, West Hartford employs a director of Planning, who also has a staff. Again, it is 18 very common for project proposers to conduct extensive discussions with the staff prior to the submission of any specific proposals. Approximately six applications have been filed, two of them by the town itself for municipal purposes. All of them were granted but not before the Inland Wetlands Agency had imposed conditions relating to grading, retaining walls, flood control and the like. In West Hartford, site plan approval is required for all development projects other than single or two-family homes. The feed into the inland wetland regulatory process is through the building inspector, who examines all such proposals. The towns of Coventry and Enfield have also elected to make inland wetlands review part of the total regulatory system administered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In Coventry the feed into the system is through the building inspector, who makes an initial determination that an inland wetland problem may be involved. He then refers the project to the person who is the "agent" for both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the wetlands agency. If sanitary facilities are involved, the project is immediately referred to the sanitarian so that any design problems in that respect can be worked out prior to the project's reaching the wet- lands agency itself. Only after the sanitarian has issued his approval does the matter reach the wetlands agency. In addition to the "agent" the town employs a full-time planner. A large number of design changes have been made after initial contact with this system and prior to any hearing. Other changes have been made after preliminary hearings before the wetlands agency, which are encouraged. The agency strongly prefers to see a design change before the permit is granted rather than attaching a condition to the permit without seeing the design. Fifteen appli- cations have been received, involving single family residential, small commercial, and recreational uses, as well as subdivisions. All have been granted after appro- priate design changes have been made. The agency makes a regular practice of 19 inspecting the work which is actually done after a permit has been grant 'ed. The Coventry agency received a great deal of help from the Department of Environmental Protection in the early stages and now needs assistance only occasionally. How- ever, it does rely heavily on the U. S. Soil Conservation Service for soil analysis of specific sites and suggestions concerning appropriate design changes. The Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, as the town's Inland Wetlands Agency, also has the assistance of a full-time Planning Director. Feeds into the inland wetlands system are through the Director. It is very common for project proposers to hold extensive discussions with town staff and incorporate suggested design changes so that money may not be wasted on a project which is not likely to be approved. Twelve applications have been received, one-third of them for municipal uses, and the remainder including commercial, light industry and heavy industry uses. Many of these applications have been modified voluntarily prior to issuance of the permit, and all have been granted. In administering the inland wetlands program, the benefit of this type of review to developers is stressed since oftentimes, it is pointed out, building in wetland areas is simply inadvisable from the economic point of view. In connection with the permit process, the town has required no assistance from the Department of Environmental Protection but has used the Soil Conservation Service in connection with one proposal. In contrast to some towns of comparable size, the Southbury Inland Wetlands Agency has experienced a great deal of permit activity. The agency has rece-ived at least sixty-five applications and presents a picture of why it is hard to statistically analyze programs such as these. The sixty-five applications have included residential, commercial, light industry and school projects, among others. In a number of instances, the applicant has been asked for further information and has simply not returned with what is needed, while, on the other hand, not withdraw- 20 - ing the application. Approximately seventy-five percent of the applications have been granted, typically with conditions relating to the maintenance of water flow under driveways and minimizing soil erosion. Twelve applications were pending as of December, 1975. One application was denied, and this denial was reversed by the Court of Common Pleas. The agency, which does not have the benefit of a town plan- ning staff, has used an outside consultant on one occasion and has also extensively turned to the Department of Environmental Protection and, to a lesser degree, to the Soil Conservation Service. The City of Norwich, which has an independent Inland Wetlands Agency, allocates more than thirty percent of the time of the assistant planning director to inland wetlands work. The feed into the system is through the building inspector or the Planning Commission, in the case of subdivision approvals. Fifteen applications have been received involving single family residential, small commercial and sub- division activities. Eighty-five percent of these were granted on the basis of the preliminary application -- that is, on a determination that the impact on the wetland was not "significant." No applications have been denied. However, it is very common for the assistant planning director to discuss proposals with property owners prior to the submission of a formal application so that many changes are made prior to the matter reaching the Inland Wetlands Agency. Major problems have involved a correction of drainage difficulties. In connection with the permit process the city has consulted by telephone with the Department of Environmental Protection and has frequently called on the services of the Soil Conservation Service. The towns of Avon and Canton are comparably sized satellite munici- palities to the City of Hartford. Both have independent Inland Wetlands Agencies. Informal discussion with a representative of the agency is common in both towns prior to the submission of a formal application. Avon has received twenty-two 21 - applications, the majority involving filling of some kind. Applications have in- cluded driveways, residential subdivisions, sewers, a golf course and an office building. All applications have been granted, but conditions have been imposed to control wetlands, stipulate the type of fill and the like. Canton also has received twenty-two applications, mostly for subdivision approvals. Two-thirds of these have been granted, often with limiting conditions, and one-third of them have been denied. Avon has used staff of the Department of Environmental Protection for specific project analysis and has also utilized the Soil Conservation Service. Canton has required assistance from neither agency in connection with the permit process. The Town of Newtown has received twenty-five applications for inland wetlands permits and has granted approximately eighty percent of them. These have included a school, residential subdivisions, two shopping centers, and commercial development. Commonly restrictions have been attached to the permits which have been granted with regard to sediment and erosion control and in some,cases facili- ties have been moved from wetlands entirely and redesigned. A number of applica- tions have been turned down at the preliminary stage with the indication that fur- ther consideration would be given when more information is supplied. The town has not required assistance from the Department of Environmental Protection in the per- mit process but has used the services of the Soil Conservation Service extensively. In the Town of Woodbridge eight applications have been received, mostly in connection with single family homes. Most have been granted, although in some cases the agency has found "major impact" and requested further information, where- upon the applicants have withdrawn. While the foregoing describes in general terms what in fact is occurring in the several towns interviewed, the effect of these operations is much more diffi- cult to assess. The stated purpose of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act is: 22 to protect the citizens of the state by making provisions for the protection, preservation, maintenance and use of the inland wetlands and water courses by minimizing their disturbance and pollution; main- taining and improving wa-ter quality in accordance with the highest standards set by federal, state or local authority; preventing damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation; preventing loss of fish and other beneficial organisms, wildlife and vegetation and the destruction of the natural habitats thereof; deterring and inhibiting the danger of flood and pollution; protecting the quality of wetlands and water courses for their conservation, economic, aesthetic, recreational and other public and private uses and values; and protecting the state's potable fresh water supplies from the dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution, misuse and mismanagement by providing an orderly process to balance the need for the economic growth of the state and the use of its land with the need to protect its environment and ecology in order to forever guarantee to the people of the state, the safety of such natural re- sources for their benefit and eniqment and for the benefit and enjoy- ment of generations yet unborn." 16 It is to be noted that most of the applications which have been presented to Inland Wetlands Agencies in the interviewed towns have been granted, in one form or another. A great many proposals evidently have been modified to conform to inland wetlands standards prior to their formal submission as a result of informal conferences with municipal officials. Furthermore, applications have been commonly conditioned upon provision for safeguards against erosion, flood control and the like. However, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection in fact does not conduct an ongoing audit of the performance of the towns and thus there is in existence no statistical sum- mary, or other report, which would indicate how in fact the towns are performing. And, as has been pointed out, neither the Commissioner of Environmental Protection nor any other state agency within the Executive Branch is a body to which persons -aggrieved by Inland Wetlands Agency decisions can appeal; the only appeal lies to the Court of Common Pleas, 17 and, as has been pointed out, the interview sample revealed only one such appeal. Furthermore, the detection of violations appears to occur in a somewhat random fashion. In some instances, members of the Inland Wetlands Agency, the inland wetlands "agent" or the building inspector have personally observed viola- 23 tions, which have then been brought to the attention of the agency in a formal way. It is very common for ordinary citizens who observe what they regard as violations of the regulations to notify the authorities themselves. A typical agency action in some towns would be for the chairman, or a member of the staff, simply to call the property owner involved, find out what is going on and instruct him to file an application if it is warranted. It is also common for the agency to write letters to the landowners believed to be in vi6lation informing them of the provisions of the inland wetlands regulations and the apparent need for a permit. In a number of instances this has resulted in the required application and has brought the pro- ject within the cognizance of the Inland Wetlands Agency. Some agencies, notably the one in Coventry, have found it necessary to go to further lengths to insure enforcement, including the issuance of cease and desist orders, and at least one arrest by the inland wetlands "agent," who has been deputized as a special constable. Administrative Cost of Permit System On the basis of the interviews, it was very difficult to quantify the administrative cost of the permit and enforcement system as presently in place in the towns. It was particularly difficult to do this in the case of agencies rely- ing on staff which also had other duties. In the case of wetlands agencies also serving as Planning and Zoning Commissions, arriving at the amount of time which the Commission members spend on "inland wetland" matters presents obvious difficul- ties. Furthermore, there are fluctuations in the rate of agency activities from time to time. It is very clear, however, that any assessment of administrative costs must take into account not only the cost of salaried staff time but also the value of the time contributed by the many volunteer decision makers.taking part. Furthermore, the services contributed by outside governmental agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Protection and the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, 24 - must be taken into account. Some indication of the amount of time which is being spent on inland wetlands matters in these municipalities is suggested by Table 2 on the following page. Budgeting for these activities varies a great deal from town to town. The "inland wetland" component of a budget for an Inland Wetlands Agency that is also a Planning and Zoning Agency disappears within the general budget for the Planning and Zoning Commission and is not separately segregated. Conservation Commissions which also serve as Inland Wetlands Agencies also have a combined budget which does not sever out the inland wetlands component. For those agencies which are separate, the following recent annual budget figures were available: Woodbridge - $300 - $500 Avon - $ 91090 Canton - $ 1,150 Southbury - $15,900 New Canaan - $ 1,000 Norwich - $ 2,000 The most recent budgets for Conservation Commissions which are serving as Inland Wetlands Agencies are as follows:* Brooklyn - $ 500 Chester - $ 275 Easton - $ 2,000 Glastonbury - $ 2,500 - $3,000 Newtown - $ 2,000 No effort has been made in this study to quantify the contribution made to the performance of municipal responsibilities by the Department of Environmental 25 - Tabl e 2 Town Type of Agency Number Average hours per month Paid Staff of contributed by members Members Avon Inland Wetlands Agency 9 Chairman 10 hours Town Planning Administrator Members 3 4 hours Brooklyn Conservation Commission 7 Chairman & Sec'y - 10 None Members - 2 Canton Inland Wetlands Agency 5 3 Town Engineer 6 hours per month Chester Conservation Commission 7 1 None Coventry Planning & Zoning Commission 5 Chairman 60 - 80 Town Planner & Zoning & Wetlands Members 10 Agent Easton Conservation Commission 7 10 Part-time Forestry Student N) Cn Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission 7 Cannot quantify Planning Director & Secretary (50/0') Glastonbury Conservation Commission 7 3 Environmental Planner (25-30%) Secretary (50%) New Canaan Inland Wetlands Agency 5 Not quantified Town Planner Newtown Conservation Commission 7 10 - (90% on wetlands) Recording Secretary Norwich Inland Wetlands Agency 5 Chairman 10 Assistant Planning Director (30- Members 5 35%) - Part-time Secretary Southbury Inland Wetlands Agency 6 10 - 12 Part-time Clerk West Hartford Planning & Zoning Commission 5 Not quantified Director of Planning & Staff Wilton Planning & Zoning Commission 9 2 Town Planner & Assistant Woodbridge Inland Wetlands Agency 5 2 - 3 Building Inspector (10%) Protection and the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. A description of DEP's organi- zation to meet town needs appears in Part I of the study. It is clear that this contribution as well as that of the Soil Conservation Service has been very sig- nificant in the administration of this program. If it is essential to the program, as it appears to be, the cost of this extra-municipal contribution must be included in a quantification of the total cost of the decision making system. Attitude toward Program The attitude toward the Inland Wetlands Program in the towns which were interviewed appeared to be essentially positive. As has been noted, the process of adopting regulations went much more smoothly in many towns than had been antici- pated by members of the agencies. Support has been very general, including not only members of land conservation and "environmental" constituencies, but also those individuals who see the inland wetlands program as yet another method of limiting development. Land developers, builders and realtors have understandably formed the most significant block in opposition. In some towns the inland wetlands program has been seen as an adjunct to sensible planning, with benefits to the developer as well as the town, since the economic cost of building in some inland wetland areas may not make much sense from the builder's point of view. In some municipalities, general support was seen to be the product of a deliberate effort on the part of the Inland Wetlands Agency not to create the image of a regulatory amthority trying to "push people around." Other towns indicated a general indif- ference, which may be more a reflection of the lack of development pressure than anything else. Support in one town was ascribed to the fact that citizens have seen too much unfortunate development elsewhere and wished to keep it out of their own town. The new look at resource management which the inland wetlands law induces was seen as leading toward the adoption of cluster zoning. 27 - As has been noted iw-t -discussion--.of tg_ I _the specific town programs, a great many of them have felt the need of technical assistance from resources not available from regular municipal employees. This assistance has been provided by the Department of Environmental Protection, the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, and, in a few instances, by outside consultants. Selection seems to have been based primarily on what was conveniently available at the time of need more than on any other factor. Some towns, because of their geographical location or because of personal relationships involving members of Inland Wetlands Agencies or their staffs, have been most comfortable turning to the Soil Conservation Service, which has provided in many instances analyses of specific projects, soil types and like concerns and has often suggested design criteria for projects relating primarily to the control of erosion and sedimentation. Other towns have relied upon the staff of the Department of Environmental Protection. There was heavy reliance, as has been noted, on that staff during the period when regulations were being adopted, and some towns have also turned to the Department for the analysis of specific pro- posals in the course of administering the per mit process. While communities with full-time planning staffs have understandably had to rely to a lesser extent on "outside" expertise, even some of these towns (for example, Glastonbury, Norwich and New Canaan) have turned to both the Soil Conservation Service and to the Depart- ment of Environmental Protection for assistance with specific problems. Consulting services have ranged from part-time help in the Town of Easton to an extensive environmental impact analysis performed by a consultant for the Southbury wetlands agency. The type of assistance requir ed in the surveyed towns has largely been technical in nature. Once towns have adopted regulations, they seem not to have required much assistance from sources outside the municipality in regard to the 28 - legal interpretation of the statute or the regulations or advice in the general category of public administration. For legal advice the towns are relying on town counsel, and none of the agencies ir-Rdicated any dissatisfaction with this arrange- ment. Organization leading to the effective administration of the law seems to have been provided during the orientation period when regulations were being adopted. Technical assistance required in the course of the permit process seems to have con- sisted generally of three types: First, technical analysis of the conditions actu- ally existing at a particular site (soils, hydrology, etc.); second, analysis of the effect of a proposed use upon those conditions; and, third, criteria to be fol- lowed to eliminate or ameliorate adverse impacts which have been noted. As has been noted, the towns have not seemed to care particularly where the help has come from, but several of them insisted that they could not operate without some such assistance (for example, Newtown, Easton and New Canaan). On the other hand, all of the munici- palities indicated an ability to deal with a great many routine problems relying solely on their own resources. This suggests the need for an available resource to be used on an "as needed" basis to provide technical information and analysis but does not answer the question of whether that need may best be satisfied by a system organized by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Soil Conservation Ser- vice, regional planning agencies or perhaps some entirely different entity. Conclusion The foregoing suggests that Connecticut towns, if provided with adequate technical support when needed, may be capable of managing the land use decision making system represented by the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act more com- fortably than is implied by the abstract analysis set forth in Part 1. Since this survey hardly is based on a scientific sample or data, general conclusions must be made with caution. The towns surveyed have, obviously, managed to comply with the 29 - terms of the state inland wetlands law and have adopted regulations and have pro- ceeded to administer them with the help of a varying amount of outside assistance. However, a study such as this cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of town administration; the absence of on-going supervision and oversight of munici- pal inland wetlands agencies by regional or state agencies interested in insuring compliance with the state policy means that towns may simply be going through the motions without really effectively administering the state policy. Thus, no judg- ment is made on this point. It is suggested that there would be value in conducting an in depth survey in the Connecticut towns which actually might be expected to be impacted by policies adopted under the Coastal Zone Management Act. This survey could perhaps be con- ducted by the regional planning agencies within which the various towns are located and would assess the institutional ability of those municipalities to administer "coastal" policies adopted on a*pattern similar to that of the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act. Such a survey should particularly note the types of technical assistance which the municipalities would be in need of so that recommendations could be made to provide for the needed help. This study suggests that the tech- nical help may not be required on an ongoing basis once the system is in place. There will be, however, an ongoing need for analysis and assistance in particular cases. The reports from the various regional planning agencies can be collated to p.rovide a basis for moving ahead. Does local regulation of inland wetlands in Connecticut provide a proto- type "management" program under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972? My conclu- sion is that in a general sense, it does. Clearly identified state policies can be administered by municipalities if they understand them and are provided with the resources for that administration. However, it must be recognized that management 30 - of the coastal zone is even more complex than management of inland wetlands and water courses. Furthermore, if local decision makers are to be relied upon pri- marily for particular permit actions they must be provided with the tools to do the job. The lay decision makers must be educated to a full awareness of the nature of the system which they are called upon to administer and their role within that system. The costs of the administration to the municipality must be realistic- ally recognized and provided for in some manner rather than simply ignored. Techni- cal resources for sophisticated analysis on an "as needed" basis must also be pro- vided for the local decision makers. Finally, unlike the situation under the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act, provision should be made for an ongoing and effec- tive review of town actions so that in fact the state policy is faithfully adminis- tered. Russell L. Brenneman Glastonbury, Connecticut. 31 Footnotes 1. Sec. 22a-42(c), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 2. Sec. 22a-42(c), Conn. Gen. Stats-.;, Rev.-of 1958, as amended. 3. Sec. 22a-42a(a), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 4. Sec. 22a-42a(b), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 5. Sec. 22a-42a(c), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 6. Sec. 22a-40(a), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 7. Sec. 22a-40(b), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 8. Sec. 22a-42a(c), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 9. Secs. 22a-41 and 22a-42a(d), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 10. Sec. 22a-42(b), Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. 11. "Model municipal regulations implementing the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Act," Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, March, 1974, revised October, 1975. Part I, Appendix B, Sec. 5.2. 12. Id. Sec. 5.3. 13. Id. Sec. 5.4. 14. Id. Sec. 5.5. 15. "Inland Wetland and Water Course Regulations," Town of Glastonbury, Connecticut, Part II, Appendix C, Sec. 5.2. 16. Sec. 22a-36, Conn. Gen. Stats.,Rev. of 1958, as amended. 17. Sec. 22a-43, Conn. Gen. Stats., Rev. of 1958, as amended. I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I I I I I I I I I 44i" COPP, BRENNEMAN, TIGHE, KOLETSKY & BERALL 60 WASHINGTON 5TREE HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061.06. TELEPHONE 249-S261 rRANK S. "FRALL AREA CODE 203 302 STATE STREET RUSSELL L. BRENNEMAN NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320 BELTON ^.COPP MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. BOX 670 EDMUND T. DELANEY November 10, 1975 TELEPHONE: 442-4491 JOSEPH 0, KOLETSKY CHARLES M. TIGHE ESSEX. CONNECTICUT 06426 71 MAIN STREET FRANK N.EPPINGER TELEPHONE 767-8342 The Coastal Area Management Project of the Connecticut Depart- ment of Environmental Protection has asked me to prepare a report, as a consultant, on the feasibility of applying state inland wetlands law as a model for management of the coastal zone. The Coastal Area Management Project is charged with carrying out the state's responsibilities under the federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act. Essentially this requires the evolution of long-term policy strategies for the coastal zone after very thorough exploration of what might be involved and ample discussion with communities along the shore. This process is only in its beginning stages and not even tentative con- clusions have been reached. My project is but a very small part of the whole effort to arrive at a better understanding of what roles various levels of govern- ment should play. Specifically, it arises out of recommendations by several planning agencies that the state inland wetlands law might pro- vide a model for an infusion of state policy without removing the oppor- tunity for basic decision making from the local community. One aspect of my study will be to try to find out how the inland wetlands law is actually working. I shall be talking to representatives of the Department of Environmental Protection, but certainly the best source of information on this subject is the local inland wetland agency itself. Since I shall not be able to obtain this information from every community, I have selected, with the help of personnel in the Department of Environ- mental Protection, a sample of communities believed to represent a cross- section of inland wetland agencies statewide. Since my inquiry deals with the administration of the inland wetlands law generally, and not as related to shoreline towns, I have included in my sample towns which are not within the "coastal zone." Your town and your agency can provide, in my judgment, some useful insights into how this law is working. I would appreciate an opportunity -A- I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I I I I I I I I I I I COPP, BRENNEMAN, TIGHE, KOLETSKY & BERALL Page 2 November 10, 1975 to interview an informed person from your agency in the near future. No great time commitment will be involved. I should stress that the purpose of my study is not to-Waluately'Cur program or the inland wetlands law as such but rather to gain information which may be helpful in arriving at a judgment concerning whether or not that law would be useful if extended into another area. You may expect to hear from either me or my secretary, Margaret Murphy, to set up a time when I can visit with you at a mutually convenient time. Sincerely yours, RLB/mhm Russell L. Brenneman Coastal Area Management Project Inland Wetlands Analysis Interview Sheet Town of Date: Interviewer Interviewee Resource Commitments 1. What is the Inlands Wetlands Agency in your town? 2. Of k.,,hat is its membership composed? 3. How are these members selected? 4. What amount of time on a man hours per month basis is contributed by these members? 5. What are the professional or other qualifications of members which appear to make them suitable for membership? 6. How frequently have you experienced a change in membership? 7. Do you have a budget? If so, v.,hat is your present budget on an annual basis? 8. Do you employ or have available to you paid staff? 9. On a man hour per month basis, how much paid staff time do you estimate is required for the operations of your agency? 10. 1,.1hat is the nature of your staff support? 11. Do you have available regular legal staff? Adoption of_Regulations 1. When did you adopt your inland wetlands regulations? 2. Were these regulations taken from a model found elsewhere or were they designed specifically to meet the needs of your town? 3. Describe the process by which these regulations were drafted and adopted. 4. Describe any citizen involvement that was part of the process. 5. Did you receive outside legal or technical assistance in the preparations of your regulations? 6. Did you receive or require any assistance from the State Department of Environmental Protection in the adoption of your regulations? 7. Did you receive or require any assistance from any other local agency in connection with the adoption of your regulations? Desiqnation of Wetlands 1. Have you completed the designation and mapping of your wetland areas? 2. 1,.Iould you describe the procedures which you followed in designating your wetland areas? 3 3. With respect to designated wetland areas A. How many acres have been designated as wetlands? B. What percent of the town does this area represent? C. Would you describe the citizen support for, or opposition to, the designation process? 4. Did you receive, or require, any assistance from the Department of Environ- mental Protection in connection with this process? 5. Did you receive, or require, any assistance from any other government agencies in connection with this process? Permit Process 1. At what point in the permit process are you first likely to have contact @qith an owner/developer? 2. Does a developer frequently seek a permit prior to final purchase of the property? 3. Niust the developer invest funds on detailed plans before approaching the agency? 4. Iv,'hat informal discussion of development proposals takes place? 5. 1,,ho is notified? 6. Who attends? 7. liow are decisions reached? 1,Iho participates? Are written decisions provided? 8. What are the workloads at each point in the process? D. Were alternatives presented and conside@ed? 15. How many applications have been denied? How many acres were involved? 16. How many applications are pending? What is their status? 17. How many appeals have been taken? Results? 18. What are the costs to developers, e.g. fees, time delays, costs of meeting conditions? 19. Hojq many violations have occurred? A. What action was taken? B. 1,,Ihat result? 20. How many requests for regulation or boundary changes have been made? W'hat result? 21. To what extent is it common for an owner/property owner to modify his plans in response to "jav,,boning" with the agency? 22. Is it common for the agency to issue a conditional permit which allows some aspect of the development proposal but disallows other components? 23. Do you have legal assistance in connection with the permit process? 24. Do you receive, or require, any assistance from the Department of Environ- mental Protection in connection with the process? 25. Do you receive, or require, any assistance from any other government agency in connection with the permit process? 4 A Who does the work? B. How much time elapses between points in the process? C. What are the administrative costs? 9. How have workloads and time dimensions changed since the beginning of the program? A. How have personnel requirements changed? B. How have administrative costs changed? C. Has there been any agency morale change? 10. Is there any provision for monitoring the system? 11. Where, if at all, do "political" considerations enter into decision making? 12. How are violations of the permit system treated? 13. How many applications have been received? A. How many acres of wetlands do they involve? B. 14hat type of project is involved, e.g. single family residential, parking lot, multi-family housing, small commercial, large commercial, light industry, heavy industry? Agricultural or recreational uses? Schools? 14. How many applications have been granted? A. How many acres? B. '..:hat type of activity? C. What conditions %,,,ere imposed? 6 General 1. What is the attitude of your town, if you can make a generalization, toward your agency and its activities? 2. From what sector does the greatest support for your activities appear to come? 3. From what sector does the greatest dissatisfaction with your activities come? 4. Do you feel that the way that the state inland wetlands law has been con- structed and managed has been helpful to your town in the'management of your inland wetlands resources? 5. Do you feel that your agency has adequate resources to make sound decisions in the area which has been entrusted to it? JO I APPENDIX C. - I ~0 ~ ~T ~~~ A I ~R~R ~100qm~qn ~~qM~1~1~~4~1~~~~qD ~~qU~qX ~qU' r~ C~C~~J~r~~S~qZ ~qR~qM~qT~1~q4~7~7~q9~q2S ~qW~~~:~A~~ OF ~qG~qU~~S~qM~qU~qL~qMY~ ~6qm~6qm~-~4qw~4qr~@ 1.1 ~4q7n~2qm~8qe ~qsh~-~a~-~1~4q2 be ~6qh~qr~-~q:~q;~u~r~0qa as t~hh~qo :-Inland ~qI~-~q1~0q0~b~4ql~4qa~4qnd and We~,-= Course Reg~L~qk~- l~2qe~t~6qt~qe~4qrz~i~. T~qr~,~,~:~2qM~L of G1~qa~qr~8qA~qc~2qz~8qb~2q=~4qY~, ~qC~qo~qr~4qm~-~qnct~8qi~qc~-~4qat~-~1~7~q9 ~4qa~4qnd a~qi~-a h~qer~qa~q:~q@~4qn r~4qe~Lcrr~qed to a-, ~r-~qt~6qh~qese ~0qR~qe~8qz~qo~0qlat~4qio~4qns~"~o 1~,2 ~"~0qM~qes~0qc R~qa~6q3~q7~qj~4q1~qat~0q1~4qc~0qn~q,- are a~6qr.~.~qb~q@~6qr~4ql~q;ed by ord~qi~qr~8qm~ce of the Glastonbury Town C~8qa~4qx~4qw~4qi~0ql an ~6qS~.~, 1973~qj~, ~0q=~4qd aro a~qd~4qq-~.~.~q)t~-~.d by~'th~qe Gl~qas~0qt~qon~ql~2q=~A~qry Cons~8qwvat~ql~8qa~8qn ~4qG~qo~r~8qw~qis3~qlo~8qn ~5~-~-~q1 a~qcc~qo~qi~4qd~qa~4qn~qc~4qe w~q1~0qth p~qr~i~q:~;~-~.~q2~-~s~4qlo~4qn~s o~1~L Sc~r~-t~0qio~qn~4qw~. ~2q2~4q2a~q-~3~36 to 2~q2~.~4qa~q-45 of the Con~0qnoct~q. ~8ql~8qa~qe~4qt-G~6q=~qoral St~4qa~qt~8qut~qc~4qa~qv ~6qR~qc~-~,~q;~qZ~qc~q;~qC~-~4qn of 195~4q8,~r as a~qn~qc~8qad~qe~qd.. 1~*3 ~q1~-~1h~qe ~8qf~8qtland wet~0ql~qo~x~0q=d~qs a~8qnd ~4qwa~qt~-~qa~8qr ~qe~qsur~3e~-~- of the ~r~8qR~qo~u~r~8qn o~qf Gla~qz~4qt~8qo~qr~4qf~4qt~qi~0qr~0qy are an ~4qind~8qi~qs~q- p~qe~4qm~qs~4qa~6qb~4ql~qe and ~4qI~4qr~8qr~qi~6qp~4ql~qa~qc~c~q-~qabl~8qog bust f~qra~0qe~0ql~qe~. ~4qnat~4qr~4qx~q-~a~qL ~4qr~qa~qs~8qo~4qurco with w~qb~q:~q:~.~,~qch the citi. zen~qs of the Town h~-~qa~qt~8qo bee-- en~qd~2qv~qae~0qd. ~4qT~0qt~qe ~0qw~8qe~'~qLla~x~8qad~qs a.-nd w~2qe~ver courses are an UP~. A. ~Z~qe~0qr~q-r~qo~"~6qD~qa~0qt~qed web of natu~-r~qa ~qes~qs~qi~q=~qt~0qda~2ql to an ad~qe~c~r~qC~4qa~2qV~u~qe ~s~qi~0qn~,~.ply of surface and ~4qw~6qde~0qr~q. ~4qg~8qn~m~qand ~4qw~6qe~4cr~q; to ~q@~0qq~4qd~2q=~8qI~8qc~0qE~4qi~qca~4ql ~qst~-~,~0q0~q5~q3~qJ~8qA~by and ~qco~8qn~'~.rol of ~0qfl~qo~qod~qi~4qn~,~q3 and ~0qer~8qw~2qi~qon; to ~qzb~4qe r~qc-~c~4qh~0qar~q&-~qt~4qn~6qg and ~0qp~i~qa~qr~4qi~qf~8qi~qe~0qa~qi~,~q5~-~qo~4qn~- of ~q@~qr~qc~qi~4qu~ld ~qu~ra~ql~qa~qar~q; and to th~qo ~qo~4qx~8qistcn~qe~2qo of many fo~qz~qirs of animal., a~0qm~.~,~4qA~qt~-~6ql~qe ~qE~qj~4qv~ql pla~8q=~q@ ~4qMf~qe. ~4qM~8qw~4qy inland ~4qv~qatlands ~qa~8qad ~4qw~i~qat~qer course ha~8qv~8qo ~4qb~.~-~,~-~-~;~qi d~qe~-~qat~qr~-~ayed or are ~qi~8qa danger of d~qest~4qr~0qM~8qao~4qn b~qc~qoau~-~s~qe of u~4qn~0qr~qe~-~0qSu~ql~8qAt~qed ~8qu~-~qa by ~8qr~%~-~.~-~q"~"~q3o~8qn of d~qe~0qpo~qs~4qit~qd~6q= ~. ~2qV~.11~8qi~8qn~0qg or ~-~.-~qL~q-~qz~2qw~.~,al of ~4qL~qat~qe~8qn~q-~'a~4ql~qj the ~0q&~L~Ivers~8qio~4qn or ~qob- ~4qM ~4qx fl~6qc~-~,~g the ~qcr~qc~.~,~0q@~4qUc~s~qa o~f ~qstr~4qu~qst~4qb~2qa~-~.-~es and other uses,, a~ql~0ql ~8qof ~J~u~qr~2qu~qa~ql~q-~qe~8qn of ~qvr~4qat~qc ~L ~2qt~4qe~qi ~qba~6qv~qe d~qe~qsp~qo~0qi~4ql~qad~, p~qd~-~8qU~.~4qW~.~q@~q@~-~4q*~q; and ~4qQ~8qL~4qW~qA~q-~0qn~4qs~qt~qs~0qd ~4qwC.~'~V~-~4qiand~qe and wa~qt~-~qer courses, ~o~4qh Such ~qt~r~qa~-~4qr~-~,~8q3~qL~,~4q1a~0qtc~4qd a~qct~8qi~8qv~8qit~4qq has ~8qh~qad~v~, ~qc~qr~qad ~qw~-~4qM ~qccr~i~qt~ql~8qm~qa to ~0qh~qa~-v~qe~, a ~qs~4qi~qS~qr-~4ql~8qa~qcant ad.- ~8qv~qe~qx~4qs~qe ~qf~qx~*p~4qa~qe~" on ~qC~-~-~8qx~2q!~qr~2q=~.~qe~4qn~qt and ecology of the ~8q7~-~2qc~a~2qm ~qcu~"~. C~r~qla~qs~qt~6qo~2qm~8qb~2qw~q:y Cal has ~8qu~q5~8qXL to ~2qim~- ~q3~q-~q1~1~"~8qM~0qy of t ~qv ~qa~8qn-~2qA~qr~8qm~qi~qr~qs-~.4~qi~q; t~0qh~-~qas ~qa~qd~8qw~qr~qsel~0qy a~0qf~q. and p~qe~qr~q1~4ql. the, ~2qq~qr~, ~X ~t~4qh~. f~qc~qa~' ~8qv~4q3~- ~1~4~-~r~4qh~qo ~qc~qe~qo~qi~n~qz~2ql~qc~qa~-~qL~qs s~qoc~qc~qi~8ql~qe~qv ~qh~-~q5~-~qa~-~qL~8qa~8qn~4qi~qc and r~qo~2qm~-~qe~4qa~q%~,~6qi~qo~8qn~qa~8ql values b~qr~2qz~.~-~,~q)~qf~8q1t~qs of t~4q1~qs ~8qT~qc~qu~8qn for its ~8qn~q-~4qW and ~6qf~qo~2qr~8qa~qv~qer mores. The pros e~8qr~qv~q-~q-~qt~6qi~qo~4qn and p~qw~2qo~q- ~4qt~'~-~4qe~l~-~4qI~qC~q4~q1 of the ~T~.~.~'~qe~qt~-~q3~-~qa~4qn~qd~qs ~qa~4qn~0qd ~q1~-~-~,~qC~qA~qC~qr ~qC~.~.~.~.~.~-~I~qr~qses, ~0qf~qr~4qu~qn ~q1~-~qj~qr~0qd~qC~.~-~q3~9 ~6qU~4q=~qC~-~-~8qw~-~q5~qa~r~6q7~,~j ~-~,~-~4qn~4qd~qC~qS~-~-~*~k~qra~q1~qj~.a and ~8q=~8qw.~-~4qq~,~8q;~-~-~2qC~qL~2qe~4qw~w~-d ~4qu~qs~6qs~qs~,~. ~2qw.~- ~4qd~qc --~qt ~4qr~8qac~qt~8qi~qo~8qn ~q1~qs ~qTn the ~0qp~r~.~.~"~qD~L~q1.~q1~qc a~qnd Is e~q!~qF~qs~r~8qe~-~-~2q&~qal to ~1~1~q2~qc~4qa~4ql~qt~4qh~qs ~0qw~-~.~;~qI~0qfar~qe and s~qaf~-~s~qt~.~Py -of the ~qe~J~T~-~q!~4~4qA~zc~qz~qs of It, ~0q%~Ss~r~, ~8qt~8qL~qe~0qr~qe~qd~"~qO~qre~qs the ~0qF~4qu~ql~0qp~-~qO~qz~qe of the-no ~0qR~-~-~:~j~0qO~0qAa~-~4qW.~q*~8qw to p~qr~-~J~-~j~U~'~-~qe-~.~1~V ~i~qb~ql~qie c~i~'~-~-~'~L~.~.~!~.z~qc~rs of ~qi~;~0qh~4q* ~4qT~2qV~.~-~6qM by mal~qc~q@~4qn~c- ~8qp~4qr~qo~-~qi-~8qI s~q5~8qa~0qn~qs for the pr~4qu~qt~qe~z~-~0qV~I~-~L~qo~qr~ql~qs p~qr~q&~r~*~?~qc~4qr~,~q7~qa~2q4~,~1~j~1~.~r.~:n~; and u~qe~qe ~8qcf the ~q5~2qx~4qla~4qnd ~4qwe~qLl~qan~qds a~qn~qr~0ql cruises by th, ~i ~V ~.. ~, ~V ~qr~4qA~r ~4qU~.~qA~C~4qN~qZ~L~-~:~@~qr~&~z~qe a~4qm~4qd p~q*~8qUu~qt~8qi~l~4qo~4qn; ~0qc~qa~qin~l~qa~qa~2q&~8q&~4qn~0qg and i~0qm~n~. wat~qor ~2qg~qoa.~4qBi-~-y Sr. ac~qc~qor~qd~qs~4qn~-~.~qe ~qvi~qth the ~8qW~.~qS~4qh~qe~r~qs~4qt ~6qe~uen~qdards set by F~qe~6qa~qer~qel~,, State or lo~qaal ~4qa~qf~e~.~1~-~Lo~0qe~lt~-~6qy~-~, p~0qr~c~.~-v~r~-~-~qi~t~-~0qd~0qm~0qZ damage ~6qfr~qa~-m e~qr~4qo~qs~qi~qc~n~j~. tu~0qe~4qUd~qLty or ~qs~qiltat~0qio~8qn~qj pr~qe~qr~qent~8q1~4qr~q,- loss of ~0qUsh ~qe~r~0qJ~, ether b~q3n~qe~q- ~q1~4q1f~qe and v~qc~6qg~qe~q(~qcat~6qio~4qa a~qnd *,he d~qe~-st~0qr~0qa~-~a~-~0qM~qC~.~4qM~. of ~6qtbe f~q1~qc~8qlal aquatic ~t~6qe~qL~6ql~0q& ~J. n~qe~8qt~qi~6qmal h~qab~ql-tat~qs t~0qh~qs~2qx~-~qa~-~.~qif; d~qa~qt~i~qe~qr~8qr~qi~4qur~r -and ~q!~8qx~8qU~8qb~8qU~qt~-~qin~g ~0qV~qa~r~q) ~4qd~2q=~8qn~g~g~qar of ~qi~4qlo~qod ~qa~4qn~qi pol~q- ~qI~6qV~;~-~qI~qc~-~0qn~l ~0qP~8qr~qc~qt~qe~qe~qt~0qd~qa~4qg the ~6qq~-~qj~-~,~;~2q0~,~4qU~-y of w~r~q4~-~,~q1~qa~qn~q:-~4qz and ~qr~qa~*~,~qc~4qr c~c~-~-~ars~qss for ~qI~-~2qL~qe~?~ql~0qr ~qC~.~qC~qM~s~qe~0qr- ~-~wa~4qt~4qi~qo~4q% ~qe~-~-~-~qc~zw~,'~L~c~9 r~qe~-~-~qr~qc~3t~qlo~n~qal ~qa~qnd ~qo~@~%~q-~2qh~qsr pu~6qb~6ql~6qi~e and p~r~qi~0qv~qa~6qt~qe ~qr~q,~-~-~qe~3 and ~0qva~6qluc~qs; pr~qc~0qt~qo~qa~-~q@~q:~qT~4qx~6qg the ~qSt~ca~l~w~qe~vs p~qo~0qtahle f~.-~F~l~sh ~qwa~r~qb~qer ~qs~qu~qpp~8ql~4qi~qa3 from the da~qn~6qa~ar~qs of O~qv~qard~ql~oaft~q d~0qr~-~qT~qa~l~g~2qh~2qt~y p~qb~4qU~4qr~q-~1~-~4qion~s, misuse and pro~7~qo~6qid~qin~0qg an or~qd~qorl~6qy process to ~4qba~qla~0qD~qc~qo th~qo n~qc~4qv~l for the ~qe~qc~qa~qn~qo~qn~qf-~qc ~0qg~qr~8qu~ith of ~t~6qh~qs Town and th~qo use of ~4qV~qk~-s 3.~qe~4qmd ~qw~qd~4qi~qth the n~F~qc~q:~ql to ~6qpr~qo~qt~qcct it~qa, ~qc~-~qx~qr~q4~*r~qc~qD~0qx~,~q-~0qn~4qt and ~qc~q.~q-~-~q:~qLo~0qMr ~q.~4~q.~8qa ~qord~cr to for- ~0qe-~q.~q,~0q@r ~44qG~qi~0qia~8qra~0qx~6qt~04qe~8qe to the p~8qc~48q%~q.~qL~q1~q-~q-~q. of the T~0qo~qn~6qn~04qa~q.. the ~qL~0q:~q.~00qa~2qfE~0q!~q.y ~0qc~q-~6qf ~qs~00qw~q-~q,h ~08qw~4qa~ql~qvural r~8qe~0qs~0qe-~8qar~0qc~0qc~4qo for ~ql~0qt~q-~36qh~8qc~44qir b~4qc~04qa~0qsf~44qlt and cnj~qz~6qy~q-~q-~q,c~0qLt ~0qE~4qL~00qn~40qd for ~2qf~q-~40qh~4qe b~qn~00qn~4q:~q-~2qf~44qi~ql~q. ~qz~0qa~6qn~0qd ~08qC~0qa~6qL~q.~4qO~q.~qr~0qi~0qc~4qe~04qn~0qt of ~40q&~8qe~4qx~08qa~8qcr~0qat~4qi~4qc yet, ~08qu~04qn~8qbora. ~0 ~L~; 7 ~q16. ~r~-~.=~-~qn~-~q!~-~L~qL~2qU~z~c C~t ~qMIC by ~r~-~qf ~4qm~c~o~qg~L~6qIzcd Cc boa of C~qE ~V~L~T~A~qI~C~l~qd ~qI~qf~6qU~ql~qc~a~qd L~@~I~qf~qf- ~qC~,~-~-2r~. ~-~-~q~-~-~q@~c~u-t ~q(1~'~. ~2qy~, .~q19 ~q1~q3~q) . ~7~.~q!.2 ~"C ~q9 ~n~qm~-~c~s~qm~u ~0qC~l~a ~4qc~i~j~qa~qc~c~-~z ~C~qr ~qt~.~'~L~;~-~. ~q-~L~u~,~.~:~qI~i ~C~; ~qf ~6qc~qi~a~r~0qa~c~-~a~- ~L~o~v~0qr~ql~, ~ql~z~@~L~:~-~qt~z~@~qd ~L~n ~6qU~1~2 ~8qO~qI~Z~qI~qQ~I~@ ~qU~-~1~7 C~qb~qm~qa~t~-~n~0qni~qt~2qy D~qa~v~qa~qlo~qp- mats 2. ~qI~qL. 3 ~qbu~t~z~- ~qC~ql~0qm~ql~ql ~i~qr~j~qt ~qb~u ~q!~qS~i~L~4~&~.t~,~q:d ~'~qZ~0qop fill, Clamp, 0~q9 ~qU~l~qit. ~qt~n~qb~c~; ~c~qa~6q2~qc~q:~2ql~c~0qa ~qo~qi ~i~qn.t~c-~&~, ~qZ~.~-~a~l~b~-~i~q"L~l~qn~-~A~i~t~e ~0qv~r m~2qa~qcr~qi~qa~ql ~q$~q=~^~L~o of ~l~0ql~0qw~q:~q@ of Or not ~r~u~6qb~qz~;~*~,~qL~r~L~r~-~c ~qc~0qa~u~qd~-~qc~a ~qlu~qt ~q1~0:~2~. ~qi~0qn~ql~c~qn~qd ~qV~"~8qA~qx~0qc~qn~qd ~U~-~A ~4qv~qa~qt~qa~r ~qc~q:~l~l~.~:~qT~q:~q:~f. ~qt~8qy ~4qv:~:~q?~qc~qc~q2 ~c~qf or ~qd~a~4qp~qi~qc~qi~qt~ql~qa~qn ~r~qf ~qr-~-~qc~e~qr~ql~q-~a~ql~, ~qc~qh~u ~C~-~qI~qt ~c a,- A~-~r~.~-~-~-~.~t (,I-' ~qc~6qS ~%~-~0q=`~qZ ~qf~qi~c~i~0qa~, ~qt~:~-~qr ~qw~qI~ql~ql ~C~qi ~6qCL~a ~'~7~4qr ~0qV~-~'~qt.C~qr A-~A -t~" ~r~-~-~!~, ,.- ~-~i ~A~qa US L~.- of ~0q"~.~qF o~q2 ~%~.-~q:~i~qi~qch ~qt~o~x~qp~'~-~z~0qa~q"~qU~qr~qc ~qi~r ~qI~0qM~-~1~q1~q-~1 t~qO ~C~;~3~a~L~- ~1~-~:~.~@~qt~4q%~8qX~qV ~qdLL- ~.~@~4~6~0qm~i~:~-~.~,~,~,~.~0q&I or ~i~:~qn~qi~2qa~6q" ~c~i~qr ~ql~4q%~.~ql~q;~-~*~&~,~-~-~.~-~,~L~- ~, ~0qu~qr to ~qe~qa~m~0qn~-~qa~q- ~.~qx~0qa~l~i~c ~qu~4qm~qc, ~-~vr to wild ~q&~-~-~6qd~4qw~0qal~qs, bl~8qv~qd~qa, ~qf~qi~vb ~qc~-~8qr A ~a~l~ql~acr life. ~2.~q1.7 "L~ql~ec~r~qc~a~" t~qh~-~q2 ~qw~2qh~qolc~m or ~qa~D~qy p~c~qrt ~c~4ql a ~r~-~c~-~,t~qi~0qf~0qt~c~.~-~qte of ~r-~2qp~- ~qP~-~.~.u~%~qe~ql or ~qz~:~q1~.m~qi~ql~i~er ~e~h~4qv~8qm of ~0qr~-~qI~qx~qg~0ql~qu~ql~a~4qa u~9~qh~q:~qEL~4q% m~qc~.7 be ~qr~q:q~u~0qf~0qt~4qe~qd of ~0qcuy p~a~qi~qz~o~4qn by ~-~%~'~qI~!~qc-~. of ~qr~qv~-~qS~v~qI~n~2qU~c~a~qu~qc ~"~qr ~qSc~c~ct~ql~o~qa~r 2~q2~.~c.-3~q6 ~qVo, ~q2.2~c.-4~q5 ~o~qC~- ~qLb~qa C~qu~0qm~r~,~.~8qv~qt~qi~a~ut G~qa~0qn~qc~-~4qn~a~ql ~qS~qL~0qc~6qV~z~'~L~qc~qs~# of 19~q58~, ~qC~q-~-~, ~0qM~-~qS~qE~L~qd~qed. ~"~0qM~'~r~qT~.~-~qC~8qh" ~0qV~.~:~0qX~qM~qS ~0qM Co.; ~qu~-~.~qc~qd ~qv~qit~6qh ~qCh~qr~4q2~L~qI~4qv~i~ql ~qL~4qm~qt~a~qr~, ~qc~u~l~8ql~qe~ct to ~C~.~Q~-~,~,~.~qt~.~-~2qd~%~qa an ~C~I~J6 cf ~qa~q@~q-~q: ~2qlir~6qt~6qc~2ql Is ~6qL~0qh~qe ~2ql~qi~0qc~q:~36q%~6ql~00qe~0qt ~2q1~6q9~6q73). ~q2~q-~6q1~q-~6q@ ~q"~4qI~8qI~qM~qZ~2qA~q'~qZ~2qi~00qS~28qI~q" ~qL~6qX ~qc~6qa ~4ql~4qf~4q@q~qu~8qid, ~qc~q-~q.~q-~0qL~qcu:,~2q@~2qc or ~8qi~qu~00qm~4qn~2q-~2qv~40qdc. to, ~0qr~qv:~q'~6qY.~q, ~0 3 2~4q0~. 2 J. ~z ~qr a, to ~qp~z~;~'~q@ ~q1~.~3~, ~qc ~qb~s~:~4~-~-~@ ~c~r~qz~2qy ~'~-~ql ~qL~0qm ~c~qr~- ~rr~qc~8qf ~c~,~,~q: ~c~-~0qr by -~0qp~.`~qI~-~ql~-~_~*~_ OZ~.~, I ~c~:~: ~qC .~1 an ~qd~qi~qr~qe~qt~qt~6ql~qy ~qG~qr ~-~qL~q)~.~8qy It ~t-~qi~-~qc~6qh ~8qc~u~r~qy ~4qw~0qa~qt~r~8qz~4qo. 2 ~4qJ_ ~.~4q12 ~qE; ~qU ~qd 1 ~1~'. ~i7 ~qp ~q0 ~c~_~: ~c ~qz ~qf a ~c ~T ~qu~qc ~qc. a I a ~q%; ~qZ~. I I ~-~qmd c ~L~- ~r~q: ~qc ~4 ~qL~, r ~qP. ~qs ~q1~" ~rv ~q1~% ~qZ~.~& ~-I ~c~, ~7 ~- ~C~q7~qv~qi~qL~qf ~q0~:~q2 ~0q0 ~qf~. r ~7~6q1 C r ~'~.~-~7~q@ C C ~r~X ~F~. ~qt I- ~U~-~.~4-~1~*~f~7~t~, CIE ~f ~-~,~qC ~qL~4qut ~qI~.~-~ql~i~qz~qi~-~qI ~qr~4qx~q@~- ~q;~.~qw~.~;~q!~.~v~q!~q7~-. ~1~;~1~8 ~0qu~0qz-~4qx :a 3 ~c~. ~qi On 2 J~. J~l ~qn~qs~; ~:~:~:~@~l ~4qc~c~t~@~0qu ~z ~c ~qL~a_ ~x~r~. VAL~- ~qc~-~. ~qL~8q7 ~qt~q~3~q:~t 2 ~4qJ ~6qL~r~qn~. ~8qC~h ~-~.~2qL~qt b~.~-~-~- ~L~L 2 a. ~0q15 ~q3. ~2qa~q6 ~q:~,:~q1 ~4 .-I I~t"~qV~* %~'~2qq~qu~- ~4q&~0qv~qz~qa ~qC~.- ~qc~a ~l~2qa~qc~n~. -A" ~q.~q.~qr ~4qC~q-~0q7 ~q-~q.~ql~8qj~qc~q_~q;~q, ~0qC~q.~q-~36qA ~0qop~qc~qc~0qz~0q: ~qL~q.~q@~4q2 or ~q17 ~q1~q"~q'~qL~q.~q-~32qO~q. ~0 cc CC!, ~8qL~-~0qn ~.~.~,~-~q:~,~:~qz ~4qU~q;~j ~E~'~qt ~qc~0qr ~z~-~- ~z~4qx ~6qu~0qhn ~qc~q" I.-:. 2 &1 ~vlE~qt ~0qr~qz--.~qf~; ~qa~4qa a ~r~-~-~r~qt of ~.~q!~:~@ ~qY~C~0q= ~qc~qm~qj by ~qr~z~qc~qo~qc~qic~qti~qo~4qm~. cog -~0qZ ~0q=.~0q=~,~-c ~qC~qp~a~1~-~.~A~.~C~qL~:. ~qc~q2 ~qt~qp~-~:~6q&~q@~0qO~qz ~v~q@~x~qr~-~ql In t~6qh~:~- C~0q=~-~qZ~:~qr~.~q@~:~6qf~6qt~ut ~4qD~qn~p~j~4q=~qL~q- ~I~&~.~*~.~.~,~q:~:~-~-~qT~: c~qk ~'~o~p-~qc~'~6q%~q1~r~0qM ~0qm~qt~-~-~q! ~c~-~- ~q!~-~-~2qA~c~r~qd C~*~7~4qv~1~C~L~f~t~8qa~-~-~:~r~-~qt ~%~"~8qK~qr~q5~*~. ~qI~qV7~q2~8q1~. 2~,~0q1~,~6q19 ~'~*~qT~q7~ar~'~-~2~" ~qC~@~,~:~j~4qm~qz~i~qv~qk ~ar ~qr~q@~e~q7 ~i~-~*~-~,~7~,~,~-~-~qc~-~,~-~-~-~-~,~,~-~-~%~'~!~, ~r~.~q!~q: ~.~1 ~, ~b~. e~"~.~.~Z~qc ~qC~qC~8qV~0q@~:~q:~. ~:~q:~qI~qi~-~-~0qh ~ql~t~a~ql~l~4qa~-~qs I;;.- ~t~qu~a ~qT~C~.~V~.~qI~0qU~,~.~4qc ~q(~;~,~.~"~-~-~.~2qy ~qC~qZ ~qe~-~q9 ~4qV~-~q2~3 ~8qT~c~qr~q:~-~,~-~. Of 2 ~.~6q1 2~0qb ~qP~q=~.~q4~4-~S ~-~qC~, ~q1~;~c~,~-~qs ~qC.~:~6qA ~r~-~8qU ~qp~1~% o~qz ~qe~4qx~qt~.~q1~.~q2~q1~q- ~.~.~, ~p ~C~.~-~q~- ~qi~0qn~-~q1~, ~8qp~u~0qb~4qv~l~q* Or ~2qp~qT~qf~-~.~:~L~-~.~q0~, ~J~)~.~L~'~2qI~qN ~- ~@~, -.-a ~qG~'~A ~qQ~-~*~-~.~"~qz~qz~.~2qV~qj ~qC~-~8qZ ~qr~.~-~.~2qT ~qC~4qn a. ~qa-35 ~qO~q:~qC t~4qh~qs ~@~0q& A~qC~-~qo S~-~qz~qat~qion 22~F~:-2~q8 22~'~L ~qC~,~qc~4qz~2qn~qc-~.t~J~'~-~8qXu~qt~- ~4qG~qc~4qu~qs~qr~2qa~4ql ~qS~qt~qat~q@~q;t~qc~qs~s R~qc~2qv~4q1s~0qic~0qa of 195~2q3~c as ~c~r~qz~q@~4qz~0qm~qd~rd~, ~0qU~ql~qea 2~,~.~4q1,21 ~l~6qU~qa~qa~ql-~0qA~8qn~0qd~8qs~" ~8qx~qz~qa~s~4qn~qz ~'~J~'~qA~4qm~4qd~o ~4q1~-~8qm~-1~q1~-~8qa~0qd~qi~-~qr~-~s~p ~qs~u~ql~-~c~-~qr~i~qcr~o~qod ~P.~q:~q;~qb as ~L ~4q1 ~ ~qIa~qnL~qd~8qa ~4qv~qa~8qm~4qu~8qm~qt~, 22a~q- 22~qa~-~,~-~.~O~A5 OR Cc=, ~qe~-~qo~'~2qU~6qm~8qa~qb et. ~-~-o ~O~6qn~qot~8qi~qc~qr~8qa~qs 2~8q8 ~4qG~,~qC~q:~q2~qz~q;~i~qD~-~4q1 ~8qS~q"~',~qa~qt~4qu~6qt~-~e~0qm~q"~t ~6qB~r~.~.~q%d~qa~qi~4qu~qu or ~ql~qq~a~2q8~, as ~qt~q!~qk~L~-~,~,~L~;h consists of ~qe~8qm~8qy ~W of ~4qt~4qh~2qm ~4qW~4qT~'~qL ~'~qv~0qyp~-~-~qs de~qs~8ql~4qg~8qx~.~-~qL~qed as p~qe~q3r~.~-~ky ~q6~;~--~0qT~.~qZ~4qn~qs~qd~,~, v~8qu p, A ~. e ~qj ~-~-~qJ~qt ~.7 ~0qY ~k~4qr~qP~- ~8qM~, ~qa~4qn~0qv~,~qm~0qial ~qo~4qad fl~qo-~J~qI p~4ql~e~i~4q&~4qn Ly t~4qh~qo ~4qx~0qa~qt~'~.~qC~4qm~-~qa~ql~ql (as ~4qN~, ~% ~-~0qY b~qa a~4q=~q--~-~0q&~1~-~,~q1 from to ~4qo~:~qC ~qt~6qh~qs ~q7~qj~qr~-~q5~.~6~A~qc~qi of MR ~.~q1~6q7 3~~~q:~qL ~'~5~q3~qh~qa ~6qf~qal~0ql~o~2qm~-~q:~-~In~0qg a~q:~q@o p~qc~qi~0qz~4qi~4qt~0qt~qc~0qd ~4qu~qs~qe~4qz in ~8qW~6ql~qar~4qd ~qc~4qx~6qd as of 3.1~.1 ~qC~q1~1~,~-a~0qd~8qm~qg~qv far~i~0qm~ql~-~4qn~6qZ~. ~8qm~0qr~s~-~-~r~q5~4q=~9 ~6qga~qr~qd~qe~8qa~ql~4qmLg~o and ~6qhar~8qm~qst~0qi~4qn,~-~, of ~qe~qx~qc~-~6qp~qz~qi ~e~-~qn~6qd ~8qga~8qm ~4qp~4qa~qa~c~qLs o~4qf three a~qcr~qc3 or less. 3~8qA~.2 A r~qe~qs~4qi~0qd~qe~q:~qe~qz~qi~.~qa~8ql b~0qm~qa, ~q0~q1~.) ~J~"~r~-~8qr ~i~j~'~l~q:~q@~q@~qch a ),.,Is b~qs~4qm ~0qi~qs~qs~0qned or ~8qM ~qC~qk lot ~v~L ~qp~qr~qa~,~2q0~1~0q4~-~qsd ha~r~, ~0qb~g~qc~-~-~4qm or ~0qth~qD ~0qm~qi~ql~4qA~0qZ~0qY~-~qL~qa~qS~qon has b~qo~qc~0qa ~0qapp~qr~0qa~4qn~.~0qA as of ~6qC~6qV~-.~qz ~qc~q: ~1~q)~r~q0~qz~qj~qx~qL~6qz~q&~-~qI~-~,~4q1o~8qn 2 1, 1 ~c~q3t ~qC; o~0qr t~6qh~-c~qe~qe~. ~qR~.E~.~,~qg~r~qal~e~-t~-~0qio~0qn~qs. 3~-~0q1~-3 B~qo~qzt ~4qa~qu~chor~qe~8qg~qe or ~r~qo~qoor~qin~0qg~. 3 ~q-~44q1~q,4 ~0q:~0qL~q-~4qr~40qW~6qd~4qx~q6~qx~q-~44q&a~36q1 for ~6qt~q, ~4qe ~8qe~qx~qLj~4qo~6q:~0qp~q.~q-~qn~qnt a~ql~q.~q-~36qd ~qv~q-~q2~q-~8qf~00qu~36qA~q,~q-~0qe~qr~q,~q-~q-~q.n~qf~q.~q-~4qG of a ~qY~08qms~4q:~0q%d~4qc~40qe~qt~q-~q-~q!~q-a~36qj p~04qv~8q;pcr~8q%~q,~q-~36qI~q, ~qz~2qv.~0q@~2qah p~4qr~q-~8qop~2qe~4qv~44qty ~36qd~4qe~q-f~40qi~q-~qr~qi~4qc~4qa as the ~q.~q-~qla~4qi~40qg~q-~qc~q-~8qst~q. ~qr~qu~6qi~qr~qa~4qi~04qr~q"~q,~8qx~08qm ~04qm~0qa~0qiden~40qt~q-~qc ~0qa~44ql lot ~40qp~08qu~04qm~q-~4q5t~4qt~4q-d a~0qu~2q3~qn~q,~q"~qIn~4qc~8qr~2qe In ~qI~q'~ql~q-~q1h~qe ~40qT~8qc~q,~q;~q-~q-~04qa ~08qm~0qr~q' ~44qC~q-~44qL~qa~6qu~qs~ql~qc~q.~q-~qr~q-~q.~0q1-~q5-~4qi~0qr~36qy ~2q(~q.~q'~4q?~40q3~q.~40q0~qC~40q0 ~0qS~40qq~04qua~qv~qa~q. feet). 2 ~52q4,1~68q9 Such u~4qs~q-~q-~0qs s~6q1~4qh~4qall CA ~qi~4qst~08qr~04qu~8qs-t~00qu~00qr~04qv~0qa Mid b~q-~44qA ~4qE~q1~q1~q-~q1~q9~qk~40qU ~0qn~q-~qi~6qt r~0qe~00qm~08qw~0qe~ql~4ql or on Of ~0qS~04qu~40qb~q'~44qA~0qt~q'~04qa~04qm~q- ~0qV~00qm~08qx~04q=~q,~q"~q-~q-~q-S of ~04qv~qt~qI~q-~4qC~q-~qr~8qi~4qe~q-~6q1~q. or a Mole ~08q=-- ~0qr~q-~4q1~q, ~qu~q-~4qr~q%~4q@~8qc~q-~00qr ~4qC~4qG~08qW~4qE~4qD~0q, or ~2q6~0q&~0q@ 2.~0q1 ""a ~0qr~4q)-~08qn~4qi~8qo~08qn or o~q.~6q? a 2. ~4q1, a ~0 ~5 ~qf ~qC~.~,~2~. C~qw ~4qM~q0~0q1~7~-~q:~1~.~7~.~qc~qa~6qt~0qi~8qv~qa of ~qar~0qy ~-~,~%~.~o~0qo sc- ~4qCf a a,,* ~qa~4qml ~0qs~ql~;~0qd~q@~4qu~qm~qs~q ~;~ ~qC~-~-~ql ~4q0~q:~q@ 'of ~qar~6qy ~ctr~4qu~a~qt~4qz~4qm or c~4qh~qa~4qm- pu~qi~-~qz~-~qa~-~qc~4qr~,~'~q@ t~qc ~0qB~qa~c~qt~8qi~8qv~qa~s~, 2~.~c~,~-~q!~,~.~4qa `~qo c~4qf the G~qc~4qn~q:~qra~qll as 4~-~,~q5~,3 Oz~.~- ~q:~@~2qf ~qo~0qzy ~qs~2qt~-r~8qa~0qd~-~l~4qur~qa or ~qt~-~8qM~-~qa~6ql~ql ~J~%~4qW~qb~l~4ql~@ ~qx~q:~qx~-~-~-~0qrs~, ~" to Sections 25~q-~q7~-b to a ~8q0J~, I ~q- ~qCc.~q-~%~-~8qt~ql~. a=,! ~8qa~l-~a ~0qw~L ~L ~u~4qh~o of ~qr~-~ql~q"~8qV~qe~qx~- ~'L~qC~I~r d~qr~,~-~q-~;~8qv~qL~qt~ql~qc ~8qu~s~8qm~g~, p~2qa~4qr~qz~4qU~8qP~-~r~4qf~4qt~. ~-~"~L~qn Soo~q. ~-~*~L~-~;o ~qc o~q:~qC ~qt~.~4q%~r~- S~qta~0qt~qi~qf~i~t~-~j~qr~.~,~, ~qan~q--~i~-~0qd~qed. 1 ~.~0 ~. ~8q0 ~qs ~qc~:~0qh~a ~qr~q@~, ~qc~t ~-~q7 ~4qn~qt~. o v~qC ~-~q2~-~1 ~qc~; ~4qra r~.~q:~qE ~4~%. h ~q3 ~0qS ~qt at. ~F- ~r~, r ~L~q:~8qu~2qa~8qn~4qt ~qt ~qo S ~qc~.~q@~!~-~O ~qi ~qc ~8qn 2 ~qU~J~qI~L ~qc~qj~qC ~'~qE~L~0qA~qL~I~. 4,6 ~7~ ~qs ~qs~2qn ~q1~q:~4q0~:~.~- ~qt ~qe an a ~4qe~u~4~-~,~.~,~q:~0qM~2qy ~qE~;~,~qn ~qC~. ~2qe~-~6q1~q5~. ~qC~-~0qd ~q1 ~0q3 ~qC a I.- ~C~. ~q5 Of ~'~V~0qh~qc~-~.~-~,~q6 ~-~*~L-~l~qo ~0qth~qs of ~'~1~q1~-~8qn~- C~4qm~4qu~0qm ~;~q@~q@~2qU~2qw~qu~qt ~4qD .~.~qo~:~qa ~qa~qrd in a~qcc~qr~qv~qe~l~qa~y~.-~j~qa ~4q*t~r~.~*~L~-~-~-~.~q:~,~qte~qs ~qC~q:~, I ~qe~@~qr~4qd ~4qo~r~n ~4qw~0qh~qI~qc~6qh arc ~4qar ~qi~8qU~qcab~4ql~8qa ~ql~Z~i~qo ~8qU~6qn p~qr~qz~0qp~.-~qz ~qz~4qd 4~,6 of ~-~-~'~4qf ~C~qi~vy ~qE~.~- ~-~4qU~-~q7~-~s~2qc Regale ~S-~qs~6qt~8qio~8qn 4~-3 of ~qth~-~q:~-~qs~qa ~q6~q:~q0~. ~.~.~q- ~.~1 ~-~L ~, ~%~, ~qc ~8qef Ile ~8qt~8qh~8qm~, ~r 2 ~.~q7 ~I~L ~1~. ~qc~- a ~qc~:~q: ~qf~l~. ~qs ~r~.~q! ~qi ~qy a ~v ~4qv~l~qo~t~, ~qs a a ~qn~qn a p ~qo ~-~.~q7~' 1 ~qo r an a ~c~; ~4qt~4qy ~qF~. p ~qC ~qc ~4qd I ~qC~s~4qR ~-~qL~qb~-~qC~-~qso ~0qi~qt ~qs~0qh~.~6q0~4q1 ~q@~.~8qn ~0qw~qr~4qlt~qi ~qd~qirz ~q:~'~w ~-~*~4qU~qmc ~&~6qp-, MI.- ~qc~qe~qt~qz~-~@~@~, to ~qL~-~qp~6qp~0ql~0qy to the ~8qC~.~q"~, t~o~qb~qo ~qC,c~2qm~qa~2q6~8qi~qc~4qu~qt~, ~0qD~? ~q6~q1 of ~0qF~-~-~l~- ~qta~0q! for ".-~M~qi~qe ~8qm~6qq~-~q@~:~L~2qmd ~6qp~e~q-~qa~4qw~ql~-~0qA~u. ~4qa~qf~j way., in ~8qr~qz~qr~r~q:~,~qC~*~q! -the p~2qo~4qr~q:~6q4.~qo~qz~4qz~- of the ~qe~.~.~0q%-~qp~8qU~qa~qa~8qU~qc~-~8qn~qr or ~8qC~e~0qy ~qZ~qz~qa a~4qp~-p~0ql~8qt~qu~a~0qt~qi~qc~0qn ~0qi~0qn~qo~8qm~-~,~4qp~4qi~qst~qs ~8qu~t~0qt~qf~i~4ql ~qC~qC~8q=~-~-~.~8ql~.~,~-~qr~qA~L~qo~2qa~qCr of ~qi~,~0qho ~C~.~-~qC~. of ~0qF~8qr~qc~qt~-c~qa~qt~-~qS~qx~z~qv~. ~4qi~qc~qs~qu~-~qe~qs a n ~qc~--~0qy ~6qk~qn~-~0qp~q2~4ql~qe~F~-~4qU~r~2qn to. ~qb~ql~qa j~i~x ~A~7 or ~qe~a~qny ~v~ip~qo~qc~qC~-~La~ql~4qi~qs~l~u~'~-~qz ~0qb~q;~qr ~4qt~0qh a ~qS~qh~q?~0qn ~6qh~qT~2q7 t~4qh ~8qu~4qn~qi~qz~- r t~0qh~4qn~qe ~qJ~?~.~qe~q,-~q;~0q0~.~qz~8q*~2qU~qc~8qr a r I ~6qg~8qh~8qt ~4qO~qE ~0qC~q-~8qC~q-~4qC~8qC~q.~q'~4qs ~qL~q.~q.~q,~2q) p~8qa~04qz~q:~q-~q-~0qs of t~0qh~qi pr~q@~q-~2q;~q,~q-~q;~6qI~36qy ~0qur~q-~qI~8qc~00qr c~08q=~00qm~qr~q,~q.~6q&~qLra~q-~q,~'~q4.~08qv~4q2. ~8qZ~04qa~2qe p~8qv~qc~qn~40qp~8q- J ~q-~40qY ~q7~4q@ ~0qL~4qi a-, ~0qr~q-~q,~qz !~q-~ql ~q-~08qo a ~40q1~8q@ -~q-~4qe ~04qM~q" ~4qz~q:~04qa~6qL~6q7~q,~qL~qo~2q:~q6~4qr~q6~q!~q*~0qz~04qa ~2q@~8qc~qra f~12qm~08qm ~qV~q. A ~qw ~qJ. ~4qC~0qT~2q-~q-~q:~52qA~8qz~04qz~4qnn of ~8qv.~q:~4q:,~q- I ~4qi~4qc a ~4qs ~4qC~q-~q,~q.~0qS~q.~48qL ~4qC~q.~0qS~q.~4qT~q.~2qC~q.~qZ~q.~36qO~q.~36qY~qs ~8qG~q-~q-~q.~q- a of ~52qG~40ql~4qa~0qs~ql~q-~08q@~qe~q-~ql~4qu~12qu~04qn~40qy to ~2qC~16qa~00qm~04qa~8qr~12qe ~4qf~4qt~q.~0q@ t ~2qn~8qt~qi c~ql~4qa~04qu~04qr~q. of ~48qs~qz~q-~44qa~20qz~08qx~6qi ~0qc~04qn~40qd ~04qw~0qa~4qt~q-~4qe~08qr ~04qer~16qv~4qt~4qs ~40qi~08qn~40qt~q-~32qh~2qe ~qL~qL ~0 C~qc~8q=~-~-~'-~qu~a~q~q:~4~8qo~8q3 ~qa~4qn~qi by ~v~c~.~qS~qcr ~qe~qc~qc~-~p~0qa~qr~-~ql~i~qe~qs~'~. as ~,~,~:~@~6qV~0qx~qcd ~q:~4qL~8qn S~qe~-~qz~i~qt~qo~4qn ~;144qi ~'~q@~4qi t~q@ ~q" ~qa~qs ~qa~qm~qa~4qn ~q(~-~-~. a ~6qQ~q@~,~4q=~.r~a~0qi ~LSt~-~q:~qA~,~q%~4q4~,~qc~qs ~, ~6qP~v~qc~4qx~qi~qc~ql~qr~j~8qa of ~6q1~q95~1~' ~9 ~- ded or by S~,~.~-~.p~-~.~,ly ~qS~,~,~,~6qe~Lc~4q= as ~0qp~qr~4qo~-~4qAd~qed for In Ch., er 102 of ~6qP~1~. t~6qh~8qo ~4qG~q--~8q=~za~qll ~qSt~a~qt~8qu~t~qc~qs, R~8qv~i~qv~4qi~qv~8qion, of a~q3 amended, of dams, r~qz~qs~qe~4qr~qv~c~-~q@r~qs an~qi other ~0qfa~qe~q:~q1~q3~8q1~1t~qi~qe~s necessary to ~qt~4qh~qe i~qm~qp~qo~0qu~0qn~0q&~0qi~qn~6qp~'~, storage End ~4qw~4qit~2qidra~4qwal of~L~' water in connection ~0q0~q1~"th public ~qi~6q;~.~qD~0qter supplies, ~8qe~0qr~q, ~qc~qept as provided; in Sections, 2~r~-~-lIO and 2~,~1~5~q-2.12 of the Cor~4qm~qc~8qe~u~2qi~qc~2qu~t~. G~qe~-~-~qI~q- e~qi~0qml ~0qSt~qat~0qu'~u~-~qe~qs~qt ~0qR~qe~qv~2qI~qs~8qi~qon of 1958~, as amended. 3.2 Me ~-~qC~.~q0~q2~4q1~qc~qr~4qe~l~4qm~6qa ~qopo~qra~l.~1~q1~qo~qr~4qz and uses shall be p~qc~8qr~0qx~4qi~+~-ted~,~, as uses in ~0qLn~q-~q'a~8qa~4qd ~0qw~4qe~'~l~.~-~ql~4qa~0qnds and ~4qw~q"-~'~:~qc~qr courses p~qrG~0qv~.~,.d~qed they do not d~:~qLs~-~,~q:~,u~qrb the ~q-~-~o~'Gur~6qal and ~0qi~qn~4qf~4qf~6qz~c~2q=~q@~.~qs cha~qr~6qi~qet~qar of the land: 3~.2~c.~4q1 ~8qC~qc~q%~r~qa~qc~@~qer~4qv~4qat~qion of -oil-.. ~2qvG~,~-~,~qat~2qW~-~;~6qio~0qnj wat~qer~qg f~4qi~qsh~t. ~qs~0qb~qc~-~0q1~q3~2qS~.~-~qish~, ~qa~0qrd ~0qvi~0ql~qd3~-~qAfe. 3~,2,2 0~-~qa~qt~0qd~qc~-~qor r~qa~qcr~qe~8qat~4qi~qon ~4qi~2qn~qc~qlu~8q&~4qu~8qg~g ~qp~q3~l~4qa~0qy ~-~qa~r~qd ~qcport~8qi~0qn~0qg~, arc-as~, golf c~8qo~2qu~i~2qrs~qe~qs~q ~4qB. ~qr~. ~qL d ~-~&~'6~4qW~q3~q!~.~qls~,, r~6qe~-~,ur~2qe ~qs~i~i~lu~qd~4qy, ~qho~.-~qSobac~0qk ~4qe~j~.~4q&J~qLu~4qg~qj s~qu~.~q1~0qm~8qm~4qI~4qn~4qg~, skin ~4qd~qiv~8qi~0qn~c~,~q, ~-~P I ~c~qa~0qn~-~qp n~.~-~,~, b~qzat ~0qw~qa~l~v~qer ~qs~6qk~ql~8qAn~6qZ, tr~ap~2qpi~0qn~,~q-~,~-~, ~qf~4qi~qs~0qh~-~qJ~4qxg and shell. ~X ~q1~q5~q5~q?~-~qI~8qm~4qg ~qu~6qh~q9~qr~4qe ~0qe~t~4qh~qe-~e~qi~r~ql~qs~qe l~qc~6qZa~4qn~0qy ~4qpe~r~qa~-~0qi~qtt~qed and r~qc~0qZ~qa~0ql~4qated. s~qx~-~8qv ~qC~%~qi I ~q4~0~0q1 1~.~1~q0 ~4qP=~qS~4qu~qa ~qsh~qa~8qn ~4qh~qe~.~-~qI~.~q-~c~qe~0qf~2qo~0qe~t~0qh ~qa~qca~qdm~qot a r~qe~8qpl~qat~qed a~qc~'~qc~qIv~4qV~e~0qV in a r~qe~0qp~8ql~qa~4qU~4qd ar~qc~-a of t~qh~4qs ~4qT~qc~.-~-a o~0qZ G~6ql~qes~qt~qo~i~qj~i~qb~8qur~4qy ~4qw~-~.~'L~4qth~q3~,~4qA ~qc~8qbt~-~2q@~-~*~4qz~0qj~2qx~- a p~qo~8q=~qL~4qt for such ac~0qt~qI~4qr~2qV~vy from ~8qQ~I~-~qG ~4~~~,2 ~6qSu~i~0qb~q@~l~r~;~qr~%~- to of S~qe~qcti~8qa~ql~qa 3~v ~0q4~-3 e~qz~q@d ~q1~..~q3 ~4qh~qcr~(~.~q:~q)f~j r~qz~.~q%~-~qz~,~q-~;~z~-~.t~qed a~c~6qt~4qi~qv~4ql~q- ~8qt~q@~qc~s ~0qa~6qf~6qf ~qZ%~qI~8qg~qs End ~L~.~.~,~4qeer a~qi~qa ~8qc~c~qc~qc ~4qt as ~qt~qh~qcy MAY be ~1~q4~q2~6q0 ~4~.~0q3 on ~qS~4qh~4qO~.~4q1 ~8qr~2qp ate- ~qO~qD~qI~'~2qT ~qt~'~q-~-~,~qo~qs~8q& a~4qe~'~4qA~q"~.~q1~-~2qW~4qi~qc~qs a. ~0qR~2q=~q@~4qve ~8qr~2qat~qe~qx~-~qSAI~I f~qg~%~0qo~4qn~. b ~. D~qa~8q=~qs~0qit ~4qr~0qe~t~-e~qr~ql~q-~qe~0ql in, ~qc~e ~8qU~qO ~q1~q4~q; ~-~r~4qu a ~qt I d. Co~qt~a~qf~qtr~8qu~qc~4qt in., ~qe~o Alt~* a r ~c ~qo r ~4qf. ~4qP~qc~qk~ql~8qlu~8qt~4qe ~qS~4qz~8ql~qeu.~,d ~qu~qc~0qtl~qa~qn~6qd~qs and ~qv~qz~6qe~qer ~qCO~8qU~qr~qs~qe~qs 4~q-4 ~0qT~36qI~0qL~q, ~08qn~4qzp ~00qv~44qf r~2qe~40q3a~40ql~00qa~q-~0qt~4qe~qr~48qd a~8qx~q-~8qe~0qn~4qs~q, ~qF-~4qa~40qt~q-~qi~44qt~4ql~8qe~44qd ~q1~8q1~40q0.a~08qa~4ql ~6qI~q.~q'~36qe~4qc~q:~0q2~q.~4qa-~q,~44qd~8qz ~8qc~8qnd ~44qW~ql~40qe~0q@~q.er Co~2qu~4qx~6q-~qs~8qc~4qs ~6qI~q.~q.~4qap~0qt~q, ~44qV~8qc~q@~q.~q-~08qa of ~48qG~2qja~4qs~8qt~q-~qc~qo~4qr~q-~4qI~08qn~q-~00qa~36qT~q. ~q. c~q-~q&~0q;~2q@~q,~q,~q' .~q%~q. ~36qb~4qa ~04qa~04qv~qa~4ql~0ql~0qab~44qi~4qr~q. ~2qC~4qcr ~0q:~4qLn~0q:--~4qc~40q6~6ql~4qo~00qn ~4q:~q*~q.~qr~qz ~0qt~40qh~4qs ~40qT-~08qa~q-~qi~04qn ~qr ~40qW~q.~q'~qr~q-~0qS.~4qC~08qe. T~q'~04qh~8qe ~0qc~12qa~q-~q.~q-~q-~qc~q-~4qS~8qC~44qM~6q-~8qo~04qn ~0qa~44qh~0qa~44qU~4ql ~08qu~0qp~36qd~qlat~2q3 t~36qh~6qo ~08qm~q-~qo~44qp as ~8qS~8qt~q. d~08qo~4qe~08qm~4qs n~8qe~4qac~4qn~8qsa~08qr~40qy. ~0 3~,1~,5 ~qG~;~8q%~-~q-~-~*~'~.~*~Fr~4qu~ot~4o~4qn and ~qb~,~,~-~r ~qw~qa~qt~qcr as d~qsf~I~.~.~q!~q:~qcd ~q:~4qL~8qn ~0qS~qe~.~-~q:~1~1~8q4~qc~2qa ~qS~qt~-~q:~-~0qW~@~qes~, R~qs~,~.~qi~qz~8q!~qc~0qn of ~6q1~0q95~q!3~2 as am~m~qa~4qn~qded~q or by ~qE~q!~qa~qt~qer ~6qS~q,~r~qat~qc~q-~-~qs as p~8qm~i~qr~4ql~qded for ~4qin ~qG~qi~8qm~qp~r~qL~qer ~2q1~0q02 of Co~qD~q;~,~.-~.-~,~q;~4qU~qc~7~qj~qt St~qL~6qtu~qt~8qw~,~, ~4qP~.~4qT~r~8qi~qv~8qi~qon of ~qic~,~q5~8q8~,~, a~q3 ~qam~qe~0q=ded~, of dams, r~4qw~qarvo~0qIr~qs a~4qn~qd ~0qe~6qh~qer ~6qfa~c~4ql~4qU~qt~0qi~qe~qs n~qe~-c~qe~qs~qsar~0qy to the ~4qi~r-~4qp~qo~4qw~4qu~8qH.~4qP~q1~q1~, storage ~qe I th p nd ~4qw~qith~6qdr~a~-~qv~ia~4ql of ~4qwat~t~qer in conn~qa~qct~4qio~0qn ~qvd u~8qb~ql~4qi~qc ~qv~ia~6qt~qer ~0q=~0qTpl~0qi~qe~8qs~, ~qe~qx~r~. cept as provided in Sections 25~q@~2q0-10 and 2~,~@~q-~q2~.12 of th~qe C~qor~8qm~qe~2qe~v~8qicu~tu Gem~- e~v~4qe~4ql ~L~c~ot~qatu~qle~qs ~q9 ~4qH~q-~8qw~8qi~qsi~qc~n~4qi c~4qf 1~4q95~8q8~,~, as amended. 3.2 ~4qMa ~0qf~qo~8ql~ql~qa~r~-~4qd~qi~q:~6qr, op~qar~8qa~-~I~qi~qo~qr~8qz a~4qn~4qd ~8qu~qc~qe~qs shall be p~qc~qr~qx~0qi~q+~-~0qted~l as ~0qn~-~4qM~q-r~qo~,~q-~j~ul~qa~-~0qted uses in. ~8qL~8qu~ql~0qa~8qad ~0qw~0qe~l~.~-~4ql~8qa~0qnd~qs and w~r-~A~qt~qer c~qc~qu~0qa~-s~qe~qs pro~8qw~*.~6qd~qed they do not ~8q&~I~qs~qt~4qu~qr~4qb the natural and i~qr~qd~qI~0q&~qa~8qn~6qw~4qz cha~qra~qe~qtr~or of the land: 3~.2~*~4q1 ~2qO~0qa~2qn~qc~@~qer~qv~4qzt~4qion of ~qe~qo~8qi~qll~@ ~4qv~qe~q.-~0q&~.~8qW~4io~0qn~f watGr~qg ~0qf~6qish~t. ~qu~6qh~8qu~ql~4ql~qf~qish~, and k~ri~0qld~4qL~q4~.fe. 3 L2.2 ~4qO~8qUd~qo~qor ~8qv~;~qcre~4qat~8qi~2qu~8qn ~8qi~2qn~qo~8ql~8qu~4q&J~qu~0qZ ~q;~qr~lay and ~-~-port~q3~8qx~&~j~q& a~qr~qcas~q ~0qSo~4qlf c~qo~6qu~4qrs~4qe~qs~p ~6qV~I~L~4qd~6qId ~-~qC~vv~z~qL~q!~-~"~qLs~,~, ~0qna~qt~i~8qm~2qe~. study., ~qhor~qsobac~qk~, s~qu~ql~l~-~qu~p~8qi~0qn~4qg~, s~qI~8qd~4qn ~4qd~qix~4qi~4qn~qg~qj b~z-at~0qi~qr~0qe~qe ~0qw~qa~8qtsr ~qs~qk~-~4ql~4qi~qn~2qg, tr~qap~6qp~qi~4qn~0q:~-~; ~0qh~8q=~8qU~qD~"~-~'~,~, ~6qf~6qi~qsh~q1~0qmg and &bell- ~4qV~qG~0qU~4qn~0qa ~qu~2qh~-~D~qr~0qe ~4qa~qth~qe~-~8qn~P~ql~qa~8qs l~qc~6qZa~ql~0qly per~z~4qItt~qed and rc~0qo~-LLat~2qed. ~S~E~R~q"~0qD oil ~6qM ~qG~1~8q7~1~-~q4~q:~1~2q0~q4~4qL ~qF~qr~l~r~j~0qv~qf ~1~4q5~qC~.~F~.~"~I~r~6qs 4~qa 1~1~.~q0 P~:~2q=~-~q8~8q"~' ~qs~0qh~qa~4qn h~qe~qr~-~c~qf~-~0qfo~qr~qth ~qa~qc~4qn~4qm~i~qo~qt a r~qe~m~4qu~0qf~0qtated a~qct~-~q1~-~v~4qit~0qy in a r~qc~4qp~4ql~0qe~v~qe~8qd area of t~qh~4qs T~r~q;.~i~4qa o~q:~qC G~0qI~0qast~qo~0q0~4qv~qa~4qry ~0qw~.~'~4qUh~qo~4qut ~q:~qV~qi~4qr~qz~4qt ~qc~4qbta~ql~0qn~4qLn~q- a for such a~8qe~L.~qA~4qv~q:~8qV~-y from ~qt~0qh~-~qC~. ~qk~ ~2 ~k~c~O~'u~0qb~I~-~^~) to ~4qt~6qh~h~qe pr~qL~0qn~'~a~4qZ~.~.~'~-~8qa--~q!~3 of ~0qS~0qe~t~6qA~t~4qi~qc-~q1~q3~- 3. 4~-3 ~qe~4qz~4q! ~q1~4~95 ~qh~q:~-~qx~-~r-~q3~0qf~q5 r~qe~4qS~,~q-~0qU-t~qed act~2qi~8qt~2qi~q. ~qt~2q4c~-~q3 ~0qw~qe~4qU~qe~8qc~qd~q: ~4qa~qr~-~4qA ~v~-~2qeer ~qa~r~qv~0qx~e~qc~qo a~qz~qa ~6qp~r~4qe~qh~qS~.~4qM~qt~qc~l~, ~qc~-~4qx~qa~qc~qpt as t~0qh~qc~0qy my be ~4q1~q4~-~qo~qr~-~r~-~qS~q&~qd by the ~4~3 ~qI~6qb~i~. ~qs~4qh~L~c~q@~qkl ~2qr~qc~4qz~qal~2qe~qb~qo ~qaz~4ql~qy~- t~qh~l~qos~8q& ac~ql~8qUv~8qIt~8ql~qe~qs which.- ~8qa~e ~0qR~2q=~8qve ~8qm~qa~6q&~qo~qi~-~4qia~ql~" ~4qf~q;~qz-~o~qn~qi~s~, b . D~qa~8q=~qz~0qIt ~0qr~8qzte~8qe~qL~8qe~0ql ~8qi~8qn~p C~O ~q(~qT~qe~r~r~, ~qt ~qr~4qu~qct I d~, C~qo~8qn~4qx~qt~er~4qu~qa~6qt in, ~8q9~9 or f. ~4qP~8q0~q2~q-~1 ~8qut~qe a~qvd and ~qv~qza~0qter c~2qw~qj~qrs~qe~qs. 4~.4 ~qr~qe~2qb~08qo ~04qn~0q2~36qp ~4qcf ~04qr~4qc~40qZ~00qa~6qL~00qa~0qt~8qe~44qd areas, ~qF~04qu~40qt-~6qi~44qt~4qi~8qe~4qd ~q"~48qI~08qM~0qIa~4qi~4qr~4ql ~6qU~ql~0qa~48qU~0qa~08qn~44qd~4qs ~4qn~4q:~q,~40qd ~ql~qe~0ql~36qe~qv~q-er Co~12qu~qt~04qr~qI~08qM~4q3 ~44qH~4qap~4qt ~44qTC-~12qM of be ~04qa~08qr~qa~0q:~4q%~0qla~q'~qI~q'~44qA~04qr~q. for ~0q:~0q!~q.~qY~q-~q% t~40qh~04qs ~36qT~q-~0qC~8qA~q-~qv~04qn ~0qG~48qI~8qC~0q:~4q;~qIk~qo~4qs ~44qM~6qI~6qS~q.~4qC~4qe~q, Me ~6qC~2qo~04qz~00qT~q.~q-~0qS~qI~q-~4qa~44qi~4qc~00qn ~0qa~0qball ~4qv~6qq~q.~q-~0qdat3 ~0qt~36qh~2qo ~12qm-~qo~40qp as ~q-~q.~0q@~8qJ~8qc~q- d~4qo~qi~08q=~q-~q5 n~08qe~qa~q-c~4qs~8q!~q,a~4qry. ~0 ~n ~2qAl~" C ~3 ~qC~-~4~. ~qG~i~2qn~n~q:~8qx I c~ql~. .~q3 ~l~b~. .~@~,~'~0qh~y ~7. 1 ~-~.~q7 ~qC~-~q1 ~qC~. ~q0~q% ~4qL~. ~- ~qv ~1~q3~q" C ~q0 Of ~r~ql~a~c~qc C.~1~, ~qr ~l~qa ~qS~ql I ~-c~6qf a ~0qlc~0qz~qal ~q1~q7 ~-~q@~4qn a :~.~qr- a c~4qlr~qz~q:~@~4qAa~-~8qV~4qx~8q= ~-~.~q7. ~6qf~6ql- ~4qT u. of all ~_~.~qE a' ~qcf ~qr~-~q:~.~'~- ~q"~.~q1~1~%~ii ~'~U~'~l~l~4qm ~qf~t~d~q2~b~q) ~c~q3ay~3~qv ~qr~-~I~qt ~qL~4qn~qr~qz~: ~qZ~. ~-~0qd~8q!~4qv~q:~, (2~.~q5~q) ~qd~1~qn~v~qa~, ~qr~q@~0qr ~q!~q@~-~qS f ~qi~j~qe~q:~4qn I ~qz ~r! ~- ~q1 ~2~"~:~3 ~qt ~-~L~qn~0qm~- ~qz~,: - 2 a ~qS~' o ~- h ~0qh ~qS ~q@~q3~0qj ~qc~4qm-~.~7 ~qc~-~*~,~.~q-~q-~,~, of '~2qX~-~qa ~-~,~.~qr ~8qVJ~-~1-~q1 ~.~-n ~'~q@~qf t~6qh ~qo c~- ~L~"L~:~.~qx ~..~. ~- ~u ~0q0~8q%~4~q1 ~qm~, ~8qv ~v~4qm~z~4qr~qz ~'~l~q; r ~4qv~,~q@~,~q:~,~qc of a th~:~q@ Cc.-,-- ~8qV~-~q1 ~%~:~q3 Is ~2 ... ... ~n~qf ~qC~.~- C. ~L ~L ~:~q@~qr ~qx ~L~u~-~,~.~ql ~qC ~q:~-~q:~6qk~.~. I ~6qZ~.~.~. ~q1~q1 ~qC Cc ~7. ~qL C ~8q% cr ~qf~qJ ~r ~*~.~.~qr~-~:~- ~qa~.~%~qj %-a a ~qh~6qy ~J6 ~Z~_ ~O~f~,3 ~qC~, a a ~qi h a ~qJ~i. ~q1. e ~qZ~q: I ~qv a ~r ~1~%~q; ~q1~-~qD L ~S~qE~? ~q@~-L ~c ~-~'~T A ~1~@ ~. A. ~C~.~: ~qC -Is ~;~;~qc ~-~C~. ~qC~' L ~7~. ~S~: 1~q0 ~'L ~".n ~0qa~r~4ql ~0qE~4qm~- ~qa~c~-~.~, ~r~qv ~qv~0q! or r ~1~4~q"~q;~qZ ~q0 ~qZ~q% ~4qn Shall ~qz ~q1~- ~- ~r ~4qr ~r ~qj ~qo~qz` d~a~ql~-~.~1~q3 ~qo~.~-~-~, ~qe~. ~j~q: ~qc ~q1~1 ~qc~0qm ~qP~:~:~.d 0 to b ~qvi~ql ~6qd a 6a~0qi~qly n~c~4qw~qs~qp~qs~2qp~qc~@ ~'~l~-~-~:~:~-~0qv~q': ~96ql~ql ~k~.~- ~l~i t he ~qT~qz ~qn of ~4qMa~st~v~:~0qA~0qu~r-y ~6qE~l~0qx~e~; e~r~8qy~a c~qf ~q6 ~qC~'~, ~qr~qc~,~@~- to ~qL~,~q3 ~q!-~qL to P ~2qy r ~r ~5~. of z~- ~3~' ~C ~i ~r~; 0 ~e~Z~qn~.~-~I~c~qe~qo ~qr~-~r~id d~-"~i~0qn S~e 2 ~-~-~_~qD d 2 L ~q1 2 1 c~. f ~q1~- ~qs c ~qF ~qc ~1~6qX~qI. ~-~J~I~. c n ~s ~q'~;~q"~qf ~C~. ~C ~!~6q0~! ~qC ~qd ~r~-~qu of a p r f ~I~0qM ~s ~q3. a n ~-~3 as a A ~0qC~,- ~0qr ~0qC~4qc~q-~4q:~q-~q-~qc ~8qC~q:~qO s ~qc~qn~qx e ~0qF~q, of ~qt~0qa~6qh~q. ~qC ~qnt ~q!~qF~q. ~q-~q-~32qy r~q. ~2q1~q, ~6q5 ~32qd ~0q7 r ~qC ~2qi ~qi~q' ~q:7 ~6q2~q1 1 ~32qp ~qL ~0 of ~qZ~% T~n ~-~J ~7 ~Ir ~z r c L ~qC ~1~q: ~L~n ~q3~,:~.~.~,~r r r ~.~e ~.~"~r D~e. ~:~q%~qv r ~qJ~. ~C ~V ~.~1 ~t ~f~; C ~'~qS ~1~. IF ~j~p J. ~Z ~V ~qs ~qC ~.~-~qT~t ~, ~7~, ~-1. a ~q% ~1~C~, ~1~q1~% a ~2~'~O~P~P~'~_~'- r A ~qz ~V ~qr~L ~r~i.~, ~x ~1~5 v~r a ~2 ~r L ~2~. ~qC~-~L ~- ~J~,~J~r ~I~r ~7 ~qJ 4 1- ~-~qL~!~-~. ~-CC- ~qr~. ~r A. ~qf~.~.~. I. ~f~r ~'~qc ~r. ~qC~!~, ~qE~q:~'~- 7~. ~l~a ~qo It ~V- ~z ~r ~qJ~: ~I~q@ ~qr IF ~qa~qc ~q:~q2 ~-~I~'~q-~qy ~-~.~q1~c ~qc~. ~qy C ~,~q2 ~1~.~q1 b r% ~r~qi ~J~,~. CC. 2 ~0 ~x ~r~; ~qn ~'~2qv J~. A ~qC~-~-~q: ~- ~qF` ~c~qo~qr~-~qb~- of ~T ~@~qD ~L~;~: p ~n~2qt~-~:~qj~q"~' b ~L~qL~qt ~'~L ~n~C~E~q) ~qc~ql~, ~qI~'~qC~"~, ~r~.~n~n~qs of ~25 37 ~4~.~q;~p 2.~, ~qj~-~,~-~L~:~- 'A b~a~-~qL ~z~c~-~-~t~q: ~0qn~c,~"~- --~,~q3 ~qc~qf ~qc~ql~' (if ~qc p ~qp ~-~qS~. ~c ~qC~. ~0qn~?~L~-~' ~2qe~s~qn~z~4qn~qc of o~:.~- ~'~qC~-~qC~' ~qo~l~' ~r~qz~-~-~-~p ~qL~n~l ri~ap n~v~L~.~.-~)-~.~r ~qc~-~r Of C ~r: ~r~,~q:~- ~qc~v~, o r ~qn-~ql ~qE~. r ~al 1~q0 t~ql~:~,~q: ~qC~-~qC~qf~r~-.- ~6qV~q@~c ~qO~ql L2 ~.~7~-~qc~0qv~q;~-~qc~q;~6qy ~T ~z ~@~ql ~-~Y ~.~-~q7~:~6qy~q@~q!~q; ~-~c.~:~, or a ~:~L ~3 ~r ~% ~r~) ~1 ~-~C ~q1~-~g~q@~c~e~qt~- ~qc~-~0qm In ~c~. a~ql ~ql~l~! h ~qI~T~,~-~:~-~0qn ~e~n~qd~f~i 3-~qc on of d ~-~F ~qj~a ~ar~l ~q3~q@~qr~qc~t ~.~q"~C~q:~q% ~i~qE-~z 7 ~u J~. ~- ~qp ~r~2qp ~s ~qZ~. ~qc ~- ~r ~, ..I ~qZ ~qc -a-; ~"~2qy to ~qr~z~,~k ~V~-~-~A~j .~2A. ~n c~ql~4qu~0qve ~qd~.~c~.~l~L~p~qa ~u~-~0qI~qth &I--, 1~c~: ~qs ~1~;~-~!~.~6qU. ~6qb~a~, ~qC~q@~.~0qV~-~z~qa~. k. I ~a~ql ~q5~. ~q1 c f ~q1~0q1 ~q1 -~*~qc~, ~q7. a ~qn~. ~6q1 a ~qn ~-~q1 ~1 ~- t ~qS~. ~qr ~qr~. ~qc~, ~n ~2qf ~2q7- ~qoJ~q" ~qz n ~q'~0qv Cc~q- ~0qa~qr~ql ~4qc ~q- ~6qJ~6qt ~q.~q1~q. ~0 c ~4qX A ~.~qc -a 6 ~0qU~, r ~4q1:~q1~7~.~-~-~!. ~qt~e ~-~4 ~6 w~a~l Of ~qi ~0qW ~r~l~l~.~.~qC~. I, c ~qc~n~x~qr~: ~qC~. LIU~: ~qc~qrv~n ~q1~6qA c~. 1~qA ~qf a to ~L~q0 ~C~. ~qZ~:~:~'~q! ~J~L~'~qc ~qp~-~qa~0qb~'~.~!~.~-~Ic h~E ~q3~.~q1~q1~1 ~@~qJ~. b- A ~6qq~.~-~C~-~6qM.~q"~2qy ~qc~qr ~qc ~0ql~qe~z~;~F~.~. ~c~qf~qp~.~_~,~s~,~@ ~c~z~,~qi ~qG~@~P~.~L~6qM ~qob~qi~qc-~0qA~qi~8qv~qa~.~, of d ~n ~'~,~"x~7~- n~q:~)t ~qL~-~- ~..~0qn~.~0 cr :~q;~qo of r~qc ~L~O~V. Mo. ~qc~t~l~ql an v a .~.7 ~T~. ~qr~qz~"~, ~qc~q"~, ~r c~, ~qf ~qc ~z~: ~-~qC ~qi tb~q:~: ~c~qf ~q!~,~:~7 ~q)~.~r - r ~u ~v I. ~E~L~-~.~q1 ~qC~q:~L ~qL~- ~c~k~qc ~P~. ~qc ~x ~1~1~q-~qC -.--jet ~c~qc~7~qn~.~qc~l 01, ~4qV~l~qr~a~qc~v~. ~6qT~b~qi~s ~A~r~.~L~6qO~L~0qu~qA~qs~s ~L-~;~,~-~' ~@~q@~2qf r ~qr or ~I'~"~qi a c ~a~qn~6qi~s~.~,~! ~3 ~qO~:~qc ~q:~8qx~z~@~, ~'~qe ~8qr of ~qa~qa~qt~6qi~c~0qn ~qa~qr~qc~qa ~,~L~c~-~.r ~q@~,~.~0qC~i ~E~-~"~.~I~qc~. ~6 ~@ ~r~.~. ~q2 ~-~v~:~: ~qZ C ~qn~qc ~q0 ~'~2qU~.~, ~e ~7~-~q.~@ ~qf~r~i ~4qr C~q. ~4qC o ~qI~qL ~00qL~04qn ~6q1 ~qI~0qL t ~4qc~q: I~q" 6~q. ~6q3. 5 i~q'- ~qLY ~qp a a ~0qc ~qi~0q@ ~q1~q:~q:~q- ~0 ~C~.~, ~r ~f r~al ~qe D~-~r of ~qcd on. ~qL~8qy ~-~-~q2~ed, ~qe~6ql for a-~q1~q2. r~. Of L~qC~.~"~0qAf~-~-~:~1~. ~3 ~L~L~-~qc~- a a d~,~q:~,~[ Cats~-~. ~q(~qF~"~-) ~t~o ~1~.~7~1-~-~, ~c~ql~-~-~q! ~-~4qY count ~6qV~qU~. ~qL~:-~" ~q5 ~qi~- ~0qC~@ ~z~z r ~r~i~6ql~0qv~ed ~qa~n~qi ~ql~i~n~qc~%~qs ~c~.~4~' ~I~qX~.~-~V~qE~, ~C L ~L- 1- ~@~W~-~-~L~c~@- ~f~b .I ~C~-~A~L ~qi P~;~-~% for 4~- t~qz-~.~-a~qt~qcd ~i~i-~q1~.~6qU~qh f~'~-~qz~,~"~- of ~C L ~@~.. ~'~i ~- ~C~"~l ~- 6. a I ~qn~4qa ~q-~qi~0ql~qr~qi~0qp ~q'~qn ~0qb ~0qz -A' ~qC ~qx~q'~q-~q! ~0 ~w r C ~8qm~qo ~qC~0qz *I ~qi~6qp~.~-~O~l~4qL~qe~-~l~q"~i~8qm ~qz~0qh~qa~qll n~q7~,~' b~qo u~qt~qf~0qA~0ql ~0qt~'~0qh~qs ~qC~qo~qz~4q=~'~qs~--~6qi~qon ~6qL~.~q=~.~q3 ~ck~-t~qs~4qm~q@~q-~-~q:~0q1 ~q1~0q1 ~6qh~q%~qs 'Do ~0qS~qz~4qY~0qa~-~-~0qo~4qm 5.3 ~qcf t~0qh~-~8qm~4qm ~qT~-~.~e~0qZ~qv~6ql~s~.~0qU~4qm-.3 ~0qar~4qA ~qc~qo =~0qV~-~0qW~qo~6qd ~e~qr~i~0qp~ql~6qic~8q=~-~2qts In ~qT~2qh~'~qs~, ~qc~0qm~-~z~qi~.~q5~qz~'~qs~-o~4qn ~qC~l~qr~-~3~6qL~q!~, 'Una ~8q=~0q1~q1~- of Ito de~-~q"~-~I~qs~0ql~qo~8qn ~u~-~J~0qU~q%~qi~4qm d~qa~6qr~qa of t~6qb~qa ~6qO~q@~qo o~:~qC the d~qe~q:~q-~,~-~'~. ~s~0qi~qo~0qn and th~qa Co~-~-~,~-~~~n~-~* s~qi~0qo~0qn~s~q2~4qwal ~qC.~qC~l~-~qC~q:~; ~qx~qo~,~u~r~l~.~-~-~qe two. b~q3 ~4qy~qa~0qh~'~.~q5~.~qah~e~q"~2qd in a d~,~,~-~'~6qa~0qy ~6qb~4qw~.~4qA~q-~r~.~4qP~q, a ~qP~,~8q=~q3ral in T~qc~"~qc~r~i~qt of and In ~4qc~0qdJ~qa~qz~qc~0qn~qh t~c~0qu~4qm ~q:~qL~4qn ~qi.~q1~q3-~1~1~qch the ~qc~qr~.~qC~q:~;~8qe~4qw~.~-~;~0qd ~4qv~-~,~,~4qU~qF~-~q=~qO~8qz ~4qa~qr-~q1 ~0qv~qet~4qu~4qx c~o~4qu~qr~-~-~qc~qs ~%~qY~-~!~% ~4qloc~qa~8qt~qe~6qd~, ~0qH~4qw~8qr~q@~qn~,~q!~. ~q1~0qJ~.~4q1 ~qt~qa~qt~q"~q-~0qC ~qb~8q=~0ql~r~..~., ~vh~4qal c~qc~4qa~m~qc~2q=~q3 no sooner than t~6qb~.~'~;~.~qr~qZ~4qy (30) ~6qC~qs~6qy~8qp ~qi~qc~;~'~L~-~4q*~,r 'Whom (~q6~0q0~q) d~qE~qya ~qc~qi~l~l~-~per the ~0qr~qa~qc~qe~q:~qlpt or a ~qc~2qm~q-~4qA~8qe~b~8qe ~qC~b~* t~qh~0qm ~'~C~4q&~-~qo and ~qP~L~ql~,~,~q%~qC~q3 Of Mich ~0qh~q:~qa~q:~4qi~0qr~.~q3 ~6qb~q3 ~2qp~qi~l~0qm~'~q"~I~qs~0qh~qe~6ql In the ~qf~8qc:~8qm of a ~q1~1~q:~6qZ~6qa ~qc~t~q:v~qe~4qe~c~q;~8qS~qs~qe~-~.~-~q:~!~q:~q!~qb in a a ~-~-J~0qA~,~q2~@~qy~0ql~4qat~4qi~qoa in ~qt~0qh~qa T~0qw~4qu of ~6qG~6ql~qa~t~4qe~@~,~qo~qr~0qt~4qz~0q@ ~-~j~0qA in car.% ~4qm~h~qar~-~- t~q@~-~-~q3 ~qaff~qe~qe~v~qsd ~0qwc~o~u~'~qla~4qn~6qds or ~c~;~r~,-~i~4q=~qz~qc~qs a~qr~qz l~4qo~qc~a~q"~C~'~qe~qd~. I~'~qL~v~qb~0qt~qa~qs~k of b~qs p~qu~6qbl~4qi~sh~qe~ql at ~2qI~qc~qast ~0qc~,~-~.~qze ~0qm~1~w ~0q=~,~q:~.~qr~qc t~.~'~.~-~.~a~0qn th~qi~qr~-ty (30) ~qm~i~, a~0qr~4ql ~4qn~qst~. ~0qf~-~q;~-~.~,~qcr ~1~4~.~q1~-~-~q:~2qa ~0qU~4qm ~q(~q10) days ~l~b~-~z~-~0qf~qo~qr~qa~. A3~q3. ~C~2qW~-~-~q!~qL~C~,~L~:~q9 ~C~r~.~q! ~J~-~-~.~6qn3 ~P~qM~.~11 ~qr~qe~-l~qL~qt~0qI~qr~0qz ~0qW~N~.-~.r~qo~0qto z~ql~q:~g~q7.11 ~l~w~-~,~q3 too r~.-~.~q:~6qb3~q-~q4~qc at ~'~W~-~%~q"~-~-~q3 ~qC~4qm~,~0q=i~qc~qz~q:~q@~qo~2qW~qs ~qC~qf~ql~2q!~qT~.~qC~-~- the ~6q0~6q1~qf~qic~qe or ~qC~qC~q=~qv~ql~q=~:~q:~2qt~2qy ~L ~6qY~qz ~t~:~.~l~ql~r~qe ~0qz~z~@~'~0qM~8qx~a~qz ~E~.~'~0qa~r~-~0qU b~q3 ~s~r~qa~z~t~, '~u~qo ~-~.~1~-~1~q3 ex. ~1~6q1~qS~C~qV~q.~-t~, ~qa~6qdj~4qa-~qm~qb ~0qa~qi-~6ql Chief ~2qM~0qn~qe~qu~-~1~.~6q1~4qv~8qo ~6qO.~q[~2qZ~q3.~,~-~-~q3r of ~6qt~2qh~-~q3 ~i~qf~l~a~-~qB~qr~qa~qin ~2ql~qe~n~0qi or ~4qv~.~,~qt~r r cc-.=. ~3~qa ~q:~qU~*~.~qes. ~q1~-~q3 r ~'~qI~'~l~l~-~le nay (to a ~.~q6~qa~qt~qs ~0 ~qf~c~qa~qr ~2qR~i~'~qll d~qs~v~r~@~q1~qc~q;~i~t-~l- ~qo~-~' or ~J~-~-~q:~)r ~2qr~e~ql~-~6q2 ~qC~2 -a ~f c~l~@ or far ::,--::'A ~C .-.,a ~q:~-~.~q3 ~2qL~.~-- ~-~qu~s~qz~6qd as a for ~qd~qz~ql~my~e ~J. ~qC ~l~t~.-y r ~-~L~-~qc~-~b-~. t ~qC~.~-~qt~r~4qn~qi~.~qv S~qO~8qU ~qC~!~0qA ~qK~*~.~:~;`~w~. ~0qn~q@~2qd~D ~g~q:~,~,5~c2 of ~qn~. or ~9~.3 ~qY~ql~i~qc~t C~2qh~qS~0qn-~f~t ~6qB~0qx~qc~qv~q;~q@~q!~0qU~q:~qi~qa O~qf~6q2~qL~qc~qe~qz~@ of ~-~0qW~qi~qe ~qT-~-~2qm ~v~-~-~*~0qb~qs~qr~qG~.~'~-~.~0qu ~-~,~*~;~q?~-4~qo ~qu:~-~'~@ I~qe~0qz~qd cr ~qu~4qa~qt~qc~-r ~6q1~-~qL~qe~qs~e ~q.~qj to a ~4qC::~0qcc ~q% ~ql~qi~qz In ~qF~4q:~q,~q4.~q4~q^ ~52q4~q,~q6~q5~qg.2 of ~0qn~0qs~q, ~qc~q.~qL r ~q'~qt~q-~36qh~q-~0qs on 6~q*191 ~40q1~40qX~6qI~qL E~q.~32q1 ~6qd~8qs~04qz~q,~q;~8q3 ~04qm~36qf~36qf~q,~6q:~4q@7~qz ~4qz~q+~q, c~00qr ~4qt~qz~0qf~4qc~0qI~4q3 ~8qC 6~q*~40q1~q&2 ~48qL~08qm ~36qr~4qr~q,~6q%~2qj ~4qc~q,~q%~q, -I. cc.. ~q-~q:~0q5~0qs~qL~q-~0q!~8qo~qr~q;~4qs ~qz~q:~q?~40qd~12q/~6qor ~40qf~4qs~q-~08ql~44q%ral or ~4qst~00qa-~q1~4q63 ~0 car... ~-a~f ~'~n r ~qn ~qC~.~,~m ~r~qi ~4qc~6q? ~qt~6qh~q: c~qt -~.~*~qh~q:~.~% ~6qp~l:~qzc~4q=-~.~a of ~q-~q:~qL~cr~.~qL ~-~-~qZ ~r~-~r t~ql ~q3 ~.~.~qC~qz~qc ~qa~r~q:~q3 ~8qu~6qn~qc~-n a~:~-~*~.~'~,~.~j~T~r~6ql ~6q1~q5~-~2qf~qo~. ~qC. A ~-~q2 of ~qCr~qa~- to ~qt~qs ~q1~q3 ~qC~-~s~ql~i ~2qZ ~2qy In. ~-~?~I~-~qc~-~0qm~-~!~: ~qO~:~qC ~-~a~qc ~0qU~-~qtt~2qy or ~qv~6qn~q=~q0~0q1~q@ ~r~qc b~qa to the ~qc~0q=~.dr~c~q=~q- on ~-~;~-~qh~qc ~qe~qf~:~* or ~l~8qm~@~, ~q:~-r ~0~, ~.~j L~' ~u~qr~. A~A ~c~-~2~0 ~q1~6~-~r~-~qW~q: ~8qm~qt ~q]~qL~-~q=~q!~.~. ~S~A~.~- ~6qp~qi~z~q:~-~qs ~qa~0qr~ql ~a~-~qz~qi e-'r3. ~qr ~'~r~-~,~- ~q2~q@~-~-~-~qc~0qh a ~0q&~q-~qa~0qr~ql~'~-~0qp~l~ql~qo~0qn~, ~qC~.~-- ~0qm ~qC~-~I~qr ~6~-~qC~qL~-~I~L~4q"~qI~qt~2qy ~n~qd~i~' ~c~0qr my a. '~.~.~'~s of ~Y ~I~L cc ~qZ~q: ~- A ~g~j_~, ~q'~-~'~7~qL r~fy L ~4qmr~qa~0qm 2~.~- ~q1 ~q5 ~q-r~-~q. an c ~2qz ~60q7~q, ~4qs Of ~q.~q"~36qS ~36qV~q:~q; ~0qC~q'~0q:~q'E~q:~q'~q-~q*~q-~q7-~q'~0q:~q;~0q:~q-~q-~q'~qf~q,~q:~q- ~0qr~q:-~qL ~0 ~6~~1~~~~ ~0 C~~"~ ~L~v~: ~c ~~1 ~c ~qv c :~.~qr~. ~qc~@~0qa~Z ~0qme~6ql ~k~f~t ~q6.~6q1~.6 ~'~qI~'~a~qn~? A.. or ~-`~0qL~qr~2qy the d~qa~6qt~i ~c~0qw~qr~qs~qe~. t~6qh- ~6qU~q: C on o~-~'~* ~0qV~I~'~4qm ~-~-~A~l~qc~z~z~qi at ~60q4 ~4~p~2qh ~8qM~: ~.~A ~I~qh~qo ~c~qa~qcr~e~qi~r~c ~r~-~6qf ~qc~' ~3~qr p~z~qc~;~q:~.~qL~-~-~qIv r~ql~qf~6qt~s~% - and the ~cr of ~0qp~0qa~4qb~q)~0ql~qc h~s~qa~6qlt~0qh~c C~qaf~qe~l~v~2qy or ~u~qc3~2ql~qar~qe. 6.2 ~-~q4 ~0qe~0qU~qv~4qa ~qch~a~2ql~6ql ~6qb~qa ~L~La~q):~.~-~-~:~qi ~0qw ~a~6qp~qp~ql~qic~a~"~&~-~2qk~qe~0qn~qz ~%~,~r~0qI~0qV~0qA~0qn fcr~'~w~q7~L~-~qf~:~qE~-.-~qs ~0qO~0qW ~'~6qk~-~6qy~a ~e~2ql~0ql~qar ~a~q-~qm~ql~qi~c~qa~qn~qt of a ~. ~. or ~qw~-~q2~q@~qh~qc~,~q:~I~v ~qCf its ~qd~i~-~c~qi~qs~qi~qo~l~ql ~6qi~l~ql ~6qU~q-~1~,~0~1~-~0qi~qn~qz ~a~qi~r~t ~qZ. ~qy~s ~r~j~-~" ~:~1~.~q0~-~c o~qi ~qc-~c~-~ch d~s~c~qi~4qz~qion. C~L~.~qI~.L~qi~qf~6qieJ ~r~.~-~:~"~6qO~- ~J~L A_ ~qI~r~0qao Cc~.~-~n~0qi~0qm~s~qi~qo~0qn ~s~c~6qh~a~6ql~ql c~qa~4qv~q:~qz r-~1~1~4~4q06~--~q3 of t~qh~q:~.~, ~o~qr of a ~q;~0q=~q_'~qU~. to b~,~-~, ~0qpu~2qb~6qU~s~2qh~s~0qd in a ~qd~c~a~6qdl~8qy in ~2qV~n~4qe~- T~.~-~,~*~.~-~0qn of G~q)~8q=t~-~l~0qn~2qv~qd~qt~6q7. ~L~qS~' ~6qM~-~qT~qI~2qG~6qH 7: THIS ~2qP~2qA~S~qT~.~r~qI~qCT 7~.1 ~q1-~qh~qe ~8qM~"Y ~6qa~l~0qr~qa~0qnt a ~0qm~qr~0qa~ltt or ~qt~qi~-~qc~r~s~-~, ~qC~-~qr ~2qd~a~qr~-~,~,~.~qr ~C~. ~8qp~qa~-~.~qV~2qV~,~;~. ~qY~"~k~.~B~. ~qo~8qx~qf~6qI~0qx ~8qt~ql~c ~qd~-~r~.~,~7~,~.~qc of 1 ~3~.~q1~q1 for a p~,~%~qr~n-t c~qa ~i~t~2ql~qz ~qC~z~0qA~A and z~qit~qs ~-~r~8qa~lth ~qt~6qh~q:~@ ~qc~qf ~qL:: 7 ~@2 ~0qV~0qa~qe ~qC ~c~@ ~qs ~o n ~m~i ~qi ~qr~v ~r~qn~. ~-~.~-~-~:~.~qt ~u ~qi t~qb. ~c~%~q:~:~- ~:~qi '--I- I:.,&, ~8qp ~1 ~:~,~4~,~*~- ~qe . 1~1~, a ~r ~:~8qj ~qt I a ~A~r~v~:~-~_~q@~C~qd T'~: ~q:.~qS~t ~'~.~@~qI~qlc~- ~r~2qp ~'~t~-~qh~u~ql~0ql I, ~-t ~qt~. ~c ~z~-~;~:~'~_~-~qa~:~ql~qt~qt~c~,~.~2qd ~2q:~C~Z~. ~o~r~0qe~j ~qd~2q"~I ~n ~qe~.~,~7 ~qf ~qJ~. ~a~2ql ~2qp~qz~l~c ;1 ~.~5 ~-~r~,~:~- c c ~-~;~,~'~-~r ~V~q:~,~n~, ~- c ~z ~- ~C' ~qp~; ~qp ~2qf~-~,~r ~q!~.~qh~c~, ~q@~q7~. ~q:~qF f 4 ~C- c~:~,~-=~-~-~.~- ~z ~E.~: E ~Z ~qf ~r ~Z~. ~c~qa~qf ~z~.~-~'~- !.On ~2qb~q:~- ~-~C~qw ~qw~a~ql~"~. c ~ut t~qz~@ ~I~L~.~%~; ~L ~.~. ~o~-~,~q: ~qR~e~2qc~qul~t~a~qt~qh~qi~qm~e~. 7~.4 ~q7~qm~-~q"~*~@~4 of ~qu~r~qe~-~.~%r ~P_ n ~@n: ~qv~z ~ar ~c ~2qA~qn~qz Of ~I~t~q"~k ~qC~. ~v ~v ~-~.~6qZ ~c ~qs ~3 I ~% ~qc~r or ~I~-~r~a~-~i~c ~qf~c ~qr~z-~z ~.~4~6 c Cr~z~qm~qi~c~qsic~qn. ~^: I- ~qT~q' ~' A T. ~Q ~qJ~q' ~qry ~qr~qi~qs~qr~qz~q.~0qo~q.~q-~qi ~qz ~qi~q-~2qI ~qz I.; ~qd~q:~q-~q.~qF ~q- ~qc ~qr ~6qn ~0qc~qj~q, C~q, ~qP ~28qp~0qr~qoc~0qs~q-~2q1~q1~0q1~qr~0qa c in L~qc~04q%~q;~q,~q-~qP ~qcl~q. 9 c~2qT A.!:!: ~qn~q-~8qI I ~qc t ~q; S ~0qc ~qc~q'~qp~ql ~q_~0q1 ~q1~q, ~q-~qn ~8qh 3 ~4q*~q;~6qC c~q. ~qi r~qi ~qs a ~qz~q! ~6qf ~0 ~qC~qO~qJ~q1~1-~2~. ~2qP~6qE~qP~6qO~qE~qT~qS ~8qA~'~!~"~.~'D ~x~l~-~.~qC~qt~2qh~q:~,~0qM~:~q" in, ~qt~qh~qc~;~qT~qS ~qF~qC~;~6q0~6q2a~2~,~-~q:~'~-~qo~-~-~qz ~z~qi~qi~-~4qa~ql ~,~s~.-~6qq re~qqu~qi~qr~qa~8q=~-~r~8qP. for the ~qr~2qppl~qi~qz~a~r~-~0q& to obtain any other a~qs~q@e-~v~qi~l~f or 1~0q1~-~c~qan~z~qe r~qe~2qT~qa~0qired ~qla~qw or ~q:r~qc~6qa~qi~0ql~0qat~qio~qu ~qe of the of ~6qth~'~s United ~6qSt~q2~'~-~L~qL~-5 or of the S~qtat~qe of Com~,~.~%~qc~ql~a~qi~c~0qut or any p~qc~4ql~0qi~qt~6qi~qc~qa~6ql ~qa~4qm~0qb~qd-~q:~.~-~qis~ql a r~qeof ~6qi~r~k~6qa~0qu~6qX--~0qZ~, the ~0qM~-~6q1d~2qi~qn~8qg~.~, ~qZ~qo~r~0qa ~q1~2qb~q.~-~6qu~"at~t~0qi~4qo~qn~qs of o the T~8qwn of ~qCl~qasto~qnb~0qu~qx7~o One ~qob~L~.~P~qin~qi~qn~6qg of ~qE~4qu~qc~6qh ~qa~-~-~qs~qe~0qa~qts~, pcr~qa~qlts~, or ~2ql~qi~qc~qar~4qm~qes is solely the ~qj~q-~-~,-p~o~qn~qs~4~1~qk~qd~q1~q4t~2qy of the applicant. ~2qO~4qx ~.~q3 ~S~qB~O ~6q1~q0~q: ~qF~2qm ~q10.1 There is no ~2qf~qs~e for a ~6qpe~qn~qm~4qm~l~6qb. 10~2 ~6qLpp~6ql~0qi~qq~wt~0qi~qon. fee sc~2qh~ed~i~t~i~4qm~.. ~6q1~0q0.2.1 D~e~-~qc~:~ql~e~-~r~6qet~-~qor~6qy ~2qRu~0qU~qn~4qg NO Pee ~0q1~4q0.2.2 C~6qi~qe~rs A Application $5.0~q0 10.2~,3 C~6qL~qu~es B ~6qk~qr~6qC~ul~6qi~qcat~0qi~qo~4qn ~q$20.00 10.2~.~q,~'~. A~2qp~6qpl~6qie~qLt~qi~4qm to ~qZ~0q=~z~qn~6qd ~qYmlan~0ql ~6qVotla~0qnd or~.~2qVat~u~qer C~4qw~qa~r~-~-~e~q3 ~6qM~qcp $15~-~2q0~6q3 S ~E~~~" T I ~2qC.~, 1 ~6q1~0q1 ~q: ~2qD~"~6q*~2qC~2qm~2qF~-~q:~.~2qM~qq~-~6qT ~q1~q1.1 In the p~qc~-~qr~2qro~:~qv~.~q&~qr~.~qOe of its duties ~0qu~z~ql~qer ~qP~qo~c~0qul~at~qion~qs~, the Co~qm~qi~s~qs~2qion by a r~qc~qz~,r~qa~qs~qe~0qn~qt~-~-~t~qt~qive~g ~4qe~. ~qv~qa~ql~l reasonable ~1~q4~q4~-~qm~qe~qs ~qr~qa~6qy enter upon any ~0qF~qabli~qc or pr~6qi~-~qV~q66~qt3 ~L~-r~D~qr~j~qC~-~,-~.-4~.~2qy~. ~0qw~x~s~2qP~4~- a p~ri~0qva~qt~-~a r~qc~qs~qid~.~-~m~qr~-~:~:~o~j for the ~ql~ju~qr-~k~.-~.s~qe of ~qS~0qmp~qec~qt~l~qion ~-~qL~qo ~qr~q=3~1~t~qt~ile ~qv~-~.~4q6~-~2~-~q:~1~*~C~-~q1~qc~qm of these ~2qY ~-~.~P ~qz~ay that haw, a ~8ql~qc~qt~l~w~c~.~- of aut~qh~o~r~qi~m~qs- ~L~.~qI.~qcn ~-~qr ~3 the Ch~q?~qS~0qx~qm~qan of the C~0qm~-~m~qi~s~s~qi~o~0qm ~-~qa~6qi~4qor ~qto ~q:~-~%~qz~x~2qe~L~L~-~P~qt~-~q!~-n- ~qF~-~c~c~-~q2~-~-s~s~e ~f ro. L A L 21~2 ~q)~q-~"~,~V ~qP~er~z~qo~n ~qt~.~3k~qa~q3 p~qar~w in or ~0qa~qr~qm~qi~et~qs ~q4-~qn ~an~v ~4qv~-~*~,o'~Ja~w~:~qL~,~-~,~0qn of a*- p~qr~qo-~4qn~qi~c~0qi~on o~qf t~2qh~0qu~se R~,~;~q%~q:~j~ql~,~-t~-~:~qL~qc~qn~,~3 ~qs~qh~l~a~6qu~. b~a ~qf~qin~-~-~zd not mo~r~qa tb~qa~qm one th~qc~qa~qiz~s~qn~qd ~qd~2qd~j~'~q-~q'a~:~.~-s ~qf~-~w~.- each off~:~;~,~0qm~e. ~2qS~qa~th ~4qv~qi~c~ql~a~qt~qi ~'~qo~4qm -halls ~'~0qb~qa a s~qepa~qr~8qe~ve a~qn-~qi ~8qC~-~L~s~6qV~in~qct~o o~qf~qfe~m~r~0qz~e~.~, ~0qm-~.~qd, in the a Cc-so of a ~c~eo~r~-~2qM~q-~0qnu~6qi~qn~q,- ~-~0q0~0q1~qo~qla~6qt~0qion, ~qe~qs~qc~2qh day~2s ~co~m~2qU~0qmu~an~ca t~qb~qa~qr~qc~qo~6qf ~z~2qb~all b~q3 d~qe~,~q-~q-~-~r~6qA~. to be a separate ar-~qi ~qd~0qi~st~6qi~-~0q=t o~2qf-~r~0qu~k~qe~qe. All. costs, fees and ~4qv~%p~c~-~q-~s~e~qs in ~qc~qa~rm~qact~qi~c~qa ~u~t~q-~1~-~6qUh such action, ~qs~ql~ia-~1~6q1 b~qs assessed as ~0qd~a~qc~e~q:~q:~e~qz ~a~r~e~-~q~4qx~r~,~'~L~. the ~qvi~6qa~t~a~qt~or. ~q(b) i~qr the Cc~v~qz~:~qi~-~-~z~"~-~'~c~r~L d~4qv~*~&~-~.~o~-~,zd~r~L~i~P-s ~8qU~n~c~qt ~r~m~8qy ~qp~a~:~-~s~qc~0qm is in any rem, ~-~v~t ~qa~qc~qt~-~q1~-~-~4qk~-i~qt~2qyI a ~8qP-~qq~, ~v~qc~qd ~:~qith~qou~qt ~qi ~n~qer ~qp~qe~r~0qz~qit~s or is ~q=~2qe~Le~qr~6qia~6qL~ql~qy~, e:~qz~qa~c~qe~"~.~-~6qU~n~2qg th~qo ~ao~q-~,~6q4~8q1t~q:~q@~qor~vs or ~qI~-~qi~0qx-~qIt~lat~6qi~qo~qn~s placed on h~qis permit or t~2qh~qo ~s~c~@~c~8q-~-~- of work ~qz~qz ~qz~qat forth in ~,~the application, or has a ~32qp~q,~q-~q:~6q=~2qU d~qg~0qc~qe~6q@~q.-~8qA~2qZ~qon or t~8qhr~0qou~8q,-h ~qr~2qlo~q-~00qm~04qm~2qt~6qi~0qo~00qn~q- to -~36qUh~qsr ~q- ~qi~qo. ~6qi~6qr~ql-~4qt~qe~32qy or its ~4qe~qx~q-~00qm~6qi~0qr~4qo~00qn~qz~qe~qr~6qf~q,,al ~6qJ~q.-~q.~q.~q-~q.p~qa~0qct~qj or his ~4qo~q*~q.~q'~32qL~qa~32qZ~qad or is ~2qi~00qm any ~40qW~00qh~4qer ~qi~00qr~40ql~00qdlat~32qio~04qn of these ~q,~q)r th~qrt~qo ~q'~qL~qLh~0qe ~00qa~qct~q-~6qi-~4qe~6qf~q-~q.~0q1~28qw for ~qi~4qen~2qi~qch, a p3~q-~q-~00qm~q:~6qL~ql~qw has ~qv~q&~q.~q%~0q: ~q-~q3~6qa ~32q&~qr~4qc~qrt~q-~q%~q-~32q4 has h~q.--~q.d a ~6qm~0qo~00qv~4q: ~qz~04qw~qe~qr~4qe~04qm I ~0qs~qt~qat~q.~q, or e~32qff~qe~32qew on the ~6q!~q-~q-~32qI~0q&~qr~36qA ~q- ~qa~qr-~6qA ~qw ~q.:~28qe~q.~q.l cr ~qt~q-~q.~q*~0qa~8qt~qz~q-~q.r course t~32qha~00qn was p~qx~q.~0q@~6qJ~qa~4qc~qt~4qc~40qZ by the p~4qo~qr~2qr~40qittee~qs ~32qt~28qh~4qe C~0qc~00q=~36qU~q-~q,~0qs~q-~q*~q%~q.~4qc~00qn ~4qc~00qh~4qa~0ql-~0ql ~2ql~04qm~4q:~q.~8qs a r~0qz~0ql~36qUc~0qe of to t-~2qh~4qe ~04qm~0qr.~0q-~36qI~32qtt~4qe~4qe~q, ~40qi~04qm~q- ~qcl~04qu~2qd~6qi~6qr~q.~q- r~00qm~qc~6q! ~6qf ~8q1 ~0qc~qt~q-~6qL~36qi~q-~qon. of ~36qV~qa~8qs f ~4qa~36qe~qts or ~0qc~4qo~6qm~0q:~6ql~00qu~6qv~6qL ~6qw~2q1~2qd~qt ~qch ~00qw~4qa~00qrr~00qa~00qm~36qt ~qs~qm~2qa~0qch ~4ql~qi~q-~q3~q:~0q@~qr~32qa~32qz I at ~28qh~qz ~qt ~32qF~qA~qn~8qg US ~qp~2qo~q-~q-~6q-~qz~qi. ~4qs~32qh~04qa-~q1~32q1 b~6qv~0qv~0qa t~32qh~qs ~44qq~q)~6qp~4q*~6qr~q*~q.~04qu~qn~32qV~qL~28qy to ~qC~q.~q1~qh~qo~q.~q.~q' ~qv~qr~32qi~8qt~32qh ~32qU~qh~qu~0qr~4qe ~28qF.~q&~q.~28qV.~q"~6qL~qmt~2q1~0qc~q-~0qn~-~0qs ~qa~qr~q&~8qd ~qt~32qh~0qs for r~4qs~8qte~q"~28q1~q1~q-~q-on of ~q4~q.~32q4~qc~q. pe~qx~6q-m~32qit~q, ~8qt~32qb~00qer~4q3~qa~36qGcr t~00qal~qt~00qs ~4qo~2qn~4qt or ~00qm~q-~0qora of the ~8qf~0qe~32ql~2ql~0qo~qv~0qi~6qn~36qs ~0qs~qt~qw~q-~4qC~q-~36qP~qS~8q: ~0 ~c~0q=~:~:~, ~qt~qz ~qC~.~.~. ~6qU~q:~@ ~e~4qm~ql~0qb in ~q;~C~q!~*~-~&~. ~v~-~.~6qV~.~q)~6qA~r~_~z~0qU~qC~.~.~ql ~q1~q3~Z ~2qt~qi~qa I,;- of ~8qth:~$ ~qz~qs~qt ~0qU h~8q= ~qL-~;~qa~qn r~qy ~qe~qz~.~- ~qe~-~qs~qt~4qion in C~-~4q7~.~-~.~4qr'~w ~0qF~qU~0qM~0qU~-~I~qr~8qt~u ~4~1:~q3 ~2q2~6q2~.~-~q-~,4 of t~2qh~j C~o~r~qm~-~qs~qa~qt~6qi~qou~'~. G~C~r~.~-~!~qr~qzI ~6qS~*~V~qatu~qtc~s. as ~qs~qe~0qr~4qn may b~qa ~a~qm~qe~qn~qi~0qm~L~l for the c~qolle~0qe~t~0qi~qo~0qn of Mass ~qc~a~-~L~qI ~6qp~qC~0qe~n~6qat~0qi~4qm~, t~-~qc~-~2qC~qa~t~t~i~l~l~qar with all costs.. few and ~qe~qy~2qpe~0qme~a of ~qs~8qu~4qp~-h c~qol~qi~qc~0qe~qicn~.~. and/or ~0ql~qo~0ql ~qn~0qe~0ql~on ~q1~q3~0q1 in ~-~4qrh~4qe c~3~s~r~a of a ~4qw~2qe~2qV~j~r~_~,~q_~-~qS~qn~L- ~qv~-~q_ l~4qat~qSc~0qm~, ~4qb~-~0qA~qr~qA3 a ~L ~0qi~8qn -the ~qS~qu~ip~qz~0qr~ql~ql~qar C~c~c~;~@~.~,~.ri~, ~6qF~qur~qz~qz~qz~qn~l~q@ to ~qza~6qi~0qd S~-~n~-~at~6qio~0qn ~2q2~6q2~0q&~.~- ~.~q1~1~. ~q1~, ~. ~. ~'~. ~a~q3 ~qt~6q%~qa ~qV~8q=~,~qs ~4qt~qa~4qy t~qe ~qa~0qm~qe~r~q-~qt~t~6qd~, for an order r~qa~-~st~8qr~qa~0qir-~qI~4qnw ~zu~0qe~qi violations ~0qa~rr~0q& ~2qf~qe~4qr ~qm~u~c~ch o~w~qe~.~-~_r ~2q&~_~-r~qa~0qe~qw~qL~qr~qg ~qtb~qa~q% ~0qv~.~1~c~.~0qo~ql~qe~qt~2qi~c~0qu be ~qc~qc~qx~-~r~Q~q:~qt~qcd or rc-~.~-~n~qy~-~q:~:~ql as the C~-~c~0qr~i~0qd~-~1~-~-~s~q:~q@~qon ~qv~qe~4qz:~qr~r~a~ar~2qy ~4qm~z~ql~l to th~qm ~-~r~qo~@~-~r-t~qi~cn of the. ~qi~p~qJ~L~z~-~_~,~z~ql ~v~i~c~' ~qu~ql- ~a~r~-~q1 ~-~.:~-~L or c~qor~r~c ~qe~a~s ~, ~arA~ql ~6qU~a ~A~-~W ~-~8qh for the ~8qw ts~l ~qf~q2~i~m3 ~qe~x~.~-~qI ~e~q;~0qpe~rz~qe~qs of ~qr~qu~c~. act ~2~q1~3 ~4q1~!~,~,~L ~qt~-b~-~-~. ~qe~;-~-n~q!~.~@ ~6qU~qh~at C~4q=~-~2qI~0qm~qs~0qion shall ~qsu~-~s~0qp~qe~qnd ~qcr ~z~4qv~qv~qc~2qk~qe a remelt ~4qp~4qar~qs~0qu~a~qm~qt~. .~P to ~q2~6q2~.2.b (~0qi) ~0qa~qt~4qw.~-~L~-~e ~8qt~qi~0qm ~6qpc~r~0qm~qi~qtt~qe~qe ~qS~qh~qO~q2~0q1 ~qt~,~q3 r~qa~l~qo~q!~q"~6qU~n~qd of ~2qt~6qh~-~- Com~q- ~;100qm ~'~qs3~q" ~2qM~L~.~qI~. ~f~c~m~0qn~l~0qz ~q0~s~2qx~-~r~4qA~m~ql~o~4qn by ~c~q:~qa~6qll an! the Co~z~-~4q%~q4~_~s~_~-~q:~qL~qon shall ~q=~0~q1~0q=~q0 ~0qm~. ce of ~qj~4qA~-~qs ~2q=~qeu~ql~8qm~6qt~-~qi~4qm a:- ~qt~qv~.~9~6qp~e~qw-~qi~qo~4qn of a p~q2~qx~-~q_~.~S~2qA~. ~qi~4qo In ~0qpu~l~qb~u~ql~ql~t~zh~qC~0qd ~q1~0qz. a ~S In ~"~,~l~2qm~; T~qc~?~u~4qm ~4qa~qr~.~.~-~ql An ~qa~qmy ~q15~qC~2qO) of th~qo a~qlf~qt~-~r~c~qt~sd ~4qw~qe~qi-~ql~-~qc~0qm~6qd ~_~0qn ~qC~4qr ~.~2q0~0q2 ~-~.~0q1~-~4qV fire (5) d~a~6qw~qs ~qe~0qf ~-~0~1~1~-h~4qo d~qa~qt~qs of ~qd~-~qZ~'~qC~ql~qZ~qio~0qn~. ~~4 ~qC~qr ~e~qm ~qa~q@ I ~r~. ~q2~0qA ~qS ~. ~@~L~qL~L~'~qS~:~ql -.:I ~r~.~qu ~qt ~q1~2qA ~s a 1~.~- ~4~- c~, a ~q2~-~q0~6q2 1~. ~-~_ ~qr~a ~qi ~r~.~'~-~, ~a~6qA~qs~qs d in a ~qr~q2~2qp~ur~qa~ql~I~qE~- ~'~q_~.~C~qz~;d by ~qt~*~?~-~,~.~q:~r ~qt~6qh~qa~. ~0qL~qf~-~0qT~qc~6qe~qe~qi c~qo~z~z-~qz~qe~qs t~to t~'~.~*~.~-~,~:~.~-~.~F~-~'~-r to ~0qv~ql~qo~6qi~c~-~qL~0qi~qo~qn~g ~1~q1~1~l~qe~qr~qs~0qv~qI~0qr ~2qp~o~q=~4~2q0~6qf~6qt~qe. ~~1.5 All ~2qpa~2qe~L~2qA~-C~qS L.~!~.~-~F~t ~qt~qo ~0qr~@~2qz~_~r~.~L~v~qz Of ~qt~8qh~o~l or ~qo"~'~qmr ~v~.~-~q@~-~q:~'~Ld~qe~0qm~qec ~6ql~qr~qto r~qa~z~qz~.~7~"~q; -x~2qA ~qa~ql-~6qL~qa~q@ ~qC~:~.~qr~6qd file I~4qn-~ql~qw~q~qz ~J~"~r~-~-~r -~1~6~.~1~1-~6~q0 ~2qpa~r~qp~qo~s~e of ~s~8qh~q:~r~u~6ql~qm~qz ~q:~t~..~.L ~qS f C~q:~_ ~r~qC~4 ~C~, I a p~e_~0q=~:~q@~. L ~V ~L~.~- ~4~6 t ~qa~_~6qA ~I~lC~qr ~*~qr ~- ~1~-~2qh~qe of ~F.~qL ~q(~%.~qC ~qi~cn~. ~L -~q1 -~q:L~ql ~qV.~:~@~qc~-~,~4~_~n~8qL~3 to this ~qZs~qzt~2qi~qc~-n~s. ~8q0.~6q1 ~2qp~s~0qm~e~m~0qs -ball vim. ~qC~6 ~`~-~4qh~qo ~qr~" ~q4~q;~qb~.~q@ p: ~qc~z~e~-~z~8qe~. ~qv~-~.~1~4~-d~t~;~x~qc~qe~e ~qUr7 ~qa~q]-~:-~6q!I ~0qL~q3 or ~qJ, ~8qt~ql~0qi~0qc~36qh ~4qc~6qL~q'~q.~q-~8qc~6qn~q. ~0qs ~q,r-~q.~q: ~qav~0qc~0q:~q,~6qJ~qc~4q:~0qp~32ql~0qc to ~q.~q1~q.~6q1~6qu~q.~q; ~32qp~0q: of ~0qc~00qm~6q! 12: ~qr~q@~0q:~8qy ~6qr~6qp~qr~qe~28qp~0qm~qr~4qz ~qr~q-~q-~q.~32qd a ~2q3~q.~2q:~q.~qst of ~32qt~q.~q'~2qh~qo~qr~0qe ~q-~qc~q-~2q1~36q1 ~qa~qv~qe~36ql~qc~6qu~28ql~q-~36qI~00qr~qLs in the ~6qS~2qb~28qe~qw~4qz ~2qwh~4q3 ~32qq~6qu~0qe~6qI~36ql~6qg~64qy in ~08qc~q.~q-~0qt~q,~q.~q.~q%~q:~qrdan~q,~0q2~qt: ~00qu~6ql~6qt~36qh ~q1~q1~40q1~qr~q, ~0q:~q;t~qe~6qr~4qu~0ql~8qe~4qz ~q- ~0qs~8qe~qi~q-~q0 ~q-~6qCc~0qI~32qt~40qh 12,~0q2~q.~q.~44ql A ~40qP~32q0~q3~4q1. c~2qw.~4q::~q.~q-~q.~0qc ~qcf in or ~6qL~6qn~q.~q6~q. ~04qv~qz~2qr~32qM~0q!~q.~28qr ~q3 ~4qJ~q'~q:~q:~q& ~28qh~36qy~qt~q:~q-~qp ~qE~32qJ ~q'~qr ~04qU~qL~q-~36qd~2q!~6qm~q- to or ~6qb~0q!~0q"~ql~q.;r d~4qL~36qLr~q%~q.~0q* ~qc~qt p ~q-~04q4 ~00qvr V v I I I I I I I . APPENDIX D I . - I I I I I I I - - 1 .0 I ia,A- AL APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO Date CONDUCT A REGUL,@TED ACTIVITY Filed: WITHIN 7N77K UETU-ND OR WATER COU-SE ArFA IN TFF_ CITY App. OF NORWICH (in accordance with Sections 22a-36 to 45, inclusive of the General Statutes, as amended, and the regulations of the Norwich Inla6d Wetlands and Water Couries Commission) INSTRUCTIONS: All applicants must complete Section I of this application form for preliminary review. The Commission will then notify the applicant of any additional information that may be required and will schedule a public hearing, if necessary. In addition to the information supplied in Section 1, the applicant may submit other supporting facts or documents which may assist the *Commission in its evaluation of this proposal. AC- SECTION I 1. Name of Applicant Home Address Business Address Telephone # 2. Applicant's Interest in the Property -Owner Lessee Lessor Other 3. Name of Property Owner (if not applicant) Home Address Business Address Telephone -4. Attach a written, witnessed consent to the proposed activit--,-- by the owner, if applicant is not the property owner. 5. Geographical Location of the Property a. This property may be reached from by proceeding (north) (east) on Route No. (south) (west) and the following specific directions: (Use an additional sheet, if necessary, to draw a sketc1h showing the property in relation to surrounding roads.) 77'' b. Lot number (or other designation) as shown on the Tax Assessor's Map (Zoning Map, Subdivision Map, etc.) Specify map source 6. Purpose and Description of Activity for Which Authorization is Requested. a. Proposed activity will involve the following within inland-wetland or water course area (Check appropriate box or boxes): alteration Constructiorf deposition of materia-'i pollution removal of material b. Attach a general desc ription of the proposal and identification of each regulated activity for which a permit is sought. Include nature an,d volume of material to be placed, removed,-or transferred. c. Attach a sketch showing location of proposcd -activity on property. d. Please submit a detailed plan of the proposal, if available at this time. e. Purpose of the proposed activity (i.e.,. addition to existing dwelling, new business, industrial park, etc.): 7. Names and Addresses of Adjacent Property Owners .(attach separate sheet) 8. The Property to be Affected by the Proposod Activity Contains a: -swamp marsh bog@ lake or pond -stream or river flood plain other regulated area describe The undersigned applicant hereby consents to necessary and proper inspections of the above-Pientioned property by Agents of the Norwich Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission, at reasonable times, both before and after the permit in question has been granted by the Commission. The undersigned swears that the information supplied in the completed application is accurate, to the best of his knowledge and belief. b Signature of Applicant Date Application Filed @ III @ - 3 bbtjU 141-09 3429--