Provide wetland mitigation plans to the town of Guilford, Connecticut regarding a parcel of property with areas of concern regarding presumed filled wetlands.

1. PHASE II : PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPERTY OF :
Mark E. DeAngelis et al
354 Old Whitfield Road
Guilford, CT
Project No.: 43520
Date: 6/8/2007

2. SITE SUMMARY
Owner : Mark E. DeAngelis
Site : 354 Old Whitfield Street Guilford, CT
Parcel ID : 029016B
List No. : 9509A / 9509
Total ac. : 3 ac.
Altered Area : ¾ ac. of UPL and wetlands
PROJECT BACKGROUND
To provide recommendations to the town of Guilford for the proposed wetland mitigation
plan of the project site. Summation of past site land use found in historical city directories
for the town of Guilford, available for review at the Connecticut State Library in
Hartford, Connecticut, listed the Site as early as 1967 operating as the Arnold Foundry
Company. The Site use was for the production of non ferrous metal alloy castings,
aluminum and bronze, with a manifest of solid waste at 20-tons of sand per year. Files
found at the CT DEP indicate in 1980 apparent business closure and remnant debris of
castings, sand, slag and machine parts remained at the Site.
Mark E. DeAngelis appears to have acquired the property around 1988 where the primary
Site use is masonry and construction related. In 2005 an “After the Fact ” Regulated
Activity application was filed, and approved from the Guilford Inland Wetlands
Commission, for the request to place fill in buffer and on-site dumpsters.
In April of 2006 a local neighborhood coalition: Committee to Save Guilford Shoreline,
Inc. filed an application to intervene pursuant under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-19, the
Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).
It is the understanding of GZA that the Applicant has engaged with a certified
Wetland/Soil scientist, Michael S. Klein, and has provided a conceptual mitigation plan
for the Site. It is in accordance with the objectives and goals provided by the client, the
Town of Guilford, that GZA review all referenced applications and file materials and
make recommendations where deemed necessary to supplement the existing Phase II
Wetland Mitigation Plan and Existing Conditions Site Plan.
2

3. RECOMMENDATIONS
 Soil/Wetland Scientist – Michael S. Klein
o Area of concern is at an upper most range of tidal influence, freshwater
wetland species recommended for remediation
o Area of concern: South – Maximum depth to groundwater observed: 1.3’
Typical of wetland conditions. Regrading is not required within southern
restoration area
o Area of concern: North – Maximum depth to groundwater observed: 2.4’
Regrading required within northern restoration area to obtain wetland
conditions
o Create a secondary treatment area to establish a buffer between onsite
invasive plant species, Phragmites australis, and the restoration area
o Establish a multi-step restoration process using chemical control, glyphosate
(Rodeo), and mechanical control as well as salt-tolerant shrubs to shade out
invasive plant species
o A 5-year monitoring and maintenance schedule
CONCLUSIONS
 Graphically illustrate through cross-sections existing groundwater
elevation depths with existing contour elevations
 Develop a specified 5-year maintenance plan with scheduled timeline
of related remedial activity and applications of process
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Original Site Conditions
o Site area established within 100-year flood zone; determine original base
flood elevations
o Delineate site specific tidal flood zone, calculate total area
o Evaluate the area of concern:
 Is it a part of a flood storage area?
 Is it a part of a ground water recharge system?
 What is ground water elevation at full saturation?
o Delineate freshwater wetland areas, calculate total area
CONCLUSIONS
 Graphically illustrate through delineated mapping and corresponding
tables the topic information listed above in Original Site Condition
Recommendations
3

4. RECOMMEDATIONS
 Past Land Use History
o Address the concerns of the citizen action group: Committee to Save Guilford
Sound (CSGS) as stated in their application to intervene May 26, 2006 that :
“debris removal which is reasonably likely to contain hazardous materials
with no real plan to insure proper handling of those materials on or off the
site…” [ Section C, 3, point A]
o [Section C, 3, point D] “ Existing piles of soils of undisclosed origin and
unknown composition, along with heretofore mentioned likely contaminated
fill, trash and equipment are presently unprotected from flood waters and thus
pose and unreasonable risk of release into inland and coastal waters”.
CONCLUSIONS
 In good faith and restoration of public trust address concerns as listed
in the cease and desist order issued by the intervene party, CSGS, not
mentioned in the recommendations and conclusions provided
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Current Land Use
o Establish baseline elevations
o Conduct soil testing to determine extent and type of fill currently on site
premises
o Define the extent of debris containing fill placed into areas delineated as
wetlands
o Provide a site assessment of existing wetland functions and values present on
the site
o Conduct observations of existing surface water flow preventing minimal
disturbance to neighboring residential properties.
CONCLUSIONS
 Include site-wide topography at 2’ contour intervals with spot
elevations to indicate areas of low depression or high elevation points
4

5. RECOMMENDATIONS
 Proposed Site Remediation
o Provide a site plan with existing and proposed contours demonstrating
regrading restoration
o Provide a planting schedule indicating: the species name, common name,
planting quantity for specified planting area
o Save any original native material encountered
o Provide site plans indicating existing and proposed drainage features, i.e. west
side of parcel adjacent to residential properties
o Comply with established E&S control plans per Phase II Wetland Mitigation
Plan
o Apply BMP where deemed necessary by certified specialists, i.e. soil
management plan, dewatering, stormwater management, etc.
o Comply with the removal of debris per “After the Fact” application request &
approval
CONCLUSIONS
 Provide supplemental material, as recommended above, consistent
with Items A through G of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses
regulation under Section 271-23 in preparation of the Phase II Wetland
Mitigation Plan
 Provide a program statement of wetland conservation and use to
mitigate future adverse impacts of the site
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Monitoring Goals & Maintenance
o Develop a specified 5-year maintenance plan with scheduled timeline of
related remedial activity and applications of process as listed by Michael S.
Klein, April 13, 2007
o Continue soil, surface, ground and subsurface water testing per
recommendations of certified scientists
o Additional Wetland Nurseries as recommended by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service – National Wetland Inventory :
New England Environmental Services
Blackledge River Nursery
155 Jerry Drive Road
Marlborough, CT 06477
5