HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility Study of Remedial Actions for the Premium River Pine Brook Wetlands Complex 7/1/1988 Feasibility Study Report
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF REMEDIAL
ACTIONS FOR THE PREMIUM RIVER-
PINE BROOK WETLANDS COMPLEX
PREPARED FOR THE:
TOWN OF MAMA RONECK-VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
JULY 1988
PROJECT: 0879-06-1100
MALCOLM
PIRNIE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS & PLANNERS
Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
August 24, 1988
To: Mayor and Trustees , Village of Larchmont
Supervisor and Council Members , Town of Mamaroneck
A "Feasibility Study of Remedial Actions for the Premium River-Pine Brook
Wetlands Complex" was recommended in the joint Town of Mamaroneck/Village
of Larchmont Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) as one of the
most important implementing actions to be undertaken by the Coastal Zone
Management Commission (CZMC) .
The Malcolm Pirnie Feasibility Study submitted herewith accomplishes this
task by providing a basic preservation and monitoring plan for the Premium
River-Pine Brook Wetlands area considered as a complex, "a whole made up of
complicated or interrelated parts" both ecologically and territorially.
CZMC supports this Study and its findings and recommends that it be accepted
for implementation by both the Town and Village Boards . There are numerous
remedial recommendations that merit action but dredging, disposal and bank
stabilization of the Premium River are the first that must be implemented in
order to preserve the environmental quality of the area according to LWRP
Policies 7, 7A, 44, and 44A.
Inaction would mean the eventual loss of the river and a complete change in
the ecosystem. In the interim, a rapid increase in sedimentation and far
more extensive flooding will result for while sediment accretion rates were
within typical advancement patterns in studies done a decade ago, it now
appears that areas in the river are building in elevation at a higher rate
than expected. In 1977, it was estimated that 12,375 cubic yards of dredge
material needed to be removed; today the estimate is for 19 ,000 to 20,000
cubic yards .
The Feasibility Study demonstrates that unless there are drastic changes in
the Pine Brook watershed, the Premium River should not have to be dredged
again for approximately sixty years if recommendations are followed.
The costs for the proposed action are shown as the first three categories
in Table 1 of the Feasibility Study (p. 24) . Two items under the heading
BANK STABILIZATION, Retaining Wall and Concrete Footings , are no longer
applicable because repairs have been completed by the property owner.
Address Correspondence to CZM Commission, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543 (Phone 914-381-6133)
1
-2-
Costs in Table 1 are based on implementation of the DREDGING, MARSH
CONSTRUCTION and BANK STABILIZATION activities concurrently. The total
projected cost for the proposed remedial action is approximately $558,000.
However, there are two categories where expenditures can be substantially
reduced:
Included in the total cost is approximately $96,000 for
Vegetation Harvesting (see DREDGING) . According to Malcolm
Pirnie, vegetation harvesting is not required at this time.
However, if dredging is delayed for two to three years , it is
likely that vegetation will establish in the Premium River
channel . If dredging is accomplished prior to vegetation of the
river channel, the total project cost will be approximately
$462 ,000.
An additional area for cost reduction is in the item Replanting
(see MARSH CONSTRUCTION) . The unit price of $20,000 per acre is
about 80 percent labor. It is anticipated that project costs
could be reduced by $190,000 if planting was done by volunteer
groups .
These remedial actions could be spread out over time. For example, if done
in three years , Malcolm Pirnie calculates that assuming cost escalation of
4 per cent per year, and 50 percent of the project is accomplished in year
1 , 25 percent in year 2, and 25 percent in year 3, and mobilization cost
for the dredge each year resulting in a dredging unit price increase of
$1 .00/cubic yard, then Year 1 would cost $291 ,000, Year 2 $152,000 and Year
3 $158,000. The total cost would equal $601 ,000 versus $462 ,000 if done in
Year 1 .
As recommended in the November 1987 First Annual Report of the CZMC,
decisions regarding the Feasibility Study should "be given a high priority
so that remedial action can be taken with the least delay to restore and
protect this seriously pressured wetland and habitat area".
CZMC would like to start identifying and securing external sources of funds .
The Study states that "dredging should be done in late November and early
December to minimize the impact on the biology of the Premium River/Mill Pond
Complex", and therefore the target date for dredging would be November 1989 .
This is an important project which should proceed as soon as possible, and we
urge your acceptance of its recommendations for implementation.
Prepared by the Premium Sub-Committee:
Mary Anne Johnson, Chairman
Lawrence Lowy
Phyllis Wittner
For the Coastal Zone Management Commission,
Robert S. Schoenberger, Chairman
TOWN dF MAMARONECK Mamaroneck, N. Y.
To: Recipients of the Premium Feasibility Study Report Date: August 25, 1988
From: Claudia Ng, for the Coastal Zone Management Commission
Subject: Insert for the Feasibility Study Report
Please include this letter with your copy of the report "Feasibility
Study of Remedial Actions for the Premium River - Pine Brook Wetlands
Complex."
Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
August 24, 1988
To: Mayor and Trustees , Village of Larchmont
Supervisor and Council Members , Town of Mamaroneck
A "Feasibility Study of Remedial Actions for the Premium River-Pine Brook
Wetlands Complex" was recommended in the joint Town of Mamaroneck/Village
of Larchmont Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) as one of the
most important implementing actions to be undertaken by the Coastal Zone
Management Commission (CZMC) .
The Malcolm Pirnie Feasibility Study submitted herewith accomplishes this
task by providing a basic preservation and monitoring plan for the Premium
River-Pine Brook Wetlands area considered as a complex, "a whole made up of
complicated or interrelated parts" both ecologically and territorially.
CZMC supports this Study and its findings and recommends that it be accepted
for implementation by both the Town and Village Boards . There are numerous
remedial recommendations that merit action but dredging, disposal and bank
stabilization of the Premium River are the first that must be implemented in
order to preserve the environmental quality of the area according to LWRP
Policies 7, 7A, 44, and 44A.
Inaction would mean the eventual loss of the river and a complete change in
the ecosystem. In the interim, a rapid increase in sedimentation and far
more extensive flooding will result for while sediment accretion rates were
within typical advancement patterns in studies done a decade ago, it now
appears that areas in the river are building in elevation at a higher rate
than expected. In 1977, it was estimated that 12,375 cubic yards of dredge
material needed to be removed; today the estimate is for 19 ,000 to 20,000
cubic yards .
The Feasibility Study demonstrates that unless there are drastic changes in
the Pine Brook watershed, the Premium River should not have to be dredged
again for approximately sixty years if recommendations are followed.
The costs for the proposed action are shown as the first three categories
in Table 1 of the Feasibility Study (p. 24) . Two items under the heading
BANK STABILIZATION, Retaining Wall and Concrete Footings , are no longer
applicable because repairs have been completed by the property owner.
Address Correspondence to CZM Commission, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543 (Phone 914-381-6133)
-2-
Costs in Table 1 are based on implementation of the DREDGING, MARSH
CONSTRUCTION and BANK STABILIZATION activities concurrently. The total
projected cost for the proposed remedial action is approximately $558,000.
However, there are two categories where expenditures can be substantially
reduced:
Included in the total cost is approximately $96,000 for
Vegetation Harvesting (see DREDGING) . According to Malcolm
Pirnie , vegetation harvesting is not required at this time.
However, if dredging is delayed for two to three years , it is
likely that vegetation will establish in the Premium River
channel . If dredging is accomplished prior to vegetation of the
river channel , the total project cost will be approximately
$462,000.
An additional area for cost reduction is in the item Replanting
(see MARSH CONSTRUCTION) . The unit price of $20,000 per acre is
about 80 percent labor. It is anticipated that project costs
could be reduced by $190 ,000 if planting was done by volunteer
groups .
These remedial actions could be spread out over time. For example, if done
in three years , Malcolm Pirnie calculates that assuming cost escalation of
4 per cent per year, and 50 percent of the project is accomplished in year
1 , 25 percent in year 2, and 25 percent in year 3, and mobilization cost
for the dredge each year resulting in a dredging unit price increase of
$1 .00/cubic yard, then Year 1 would cost $291 ,000, Year 2 $152 ,000 and Year
3 $158,000. The total cost would equal $601 ,000 versus $462,000 if done in
Year 1 .
As recommended in the November 1987 First Annual Report of the CZMC,
decisions regarding the Feasibility Study should "be given a high priority
so that remedial action can be taken with the least delay to restore and
protect this seriously pressured wetland and habitat area".
CZMC would like to start identifying and securing external sources of funds .
The Study states that "dredging should be done in late November and early
December to minimize the impact on the biology of the Premium River/Mill Pond
Complex", and therefore the target date for dredging would be November 1989 .
This is an important project which should proceed as soon as possible, and we
urge your acceptance of its recommendations for implementation.
Prepared by the Premium Sub-Committee:
Mary Anne Johnson, Chairman
Lawrence Lowy
Phyllis Wittner
For the Coastal Zone Management Commission,
Robert S. Schoenberger, Chairman
TOWN OF MAMARONECK-VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
PREMIUM RIVER-PINE BROOK WETLANDS COMPLEX
FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 1988
This report was prepared for the New York
State Department of; State? Division of
Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revital-
ization with financial assistance from the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, provided under the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
Federal Grant No. : NA-82-AA-D-CZ068
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
Consulting Environmental Engineers,
Scientists and Planners
100 Eisenhower Drive
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREMIUM RIVER-PINE BROOK WETLANDS COMPLEX FEASIBILITY STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Scope of Basic Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.0 EVALUATION OF BASELINE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Description of the Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 History of the Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Sediment Accumulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5 Biology of the Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6 Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.0 DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Physical Inspections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Wetland Investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Hydrology of the Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 Sedimentation Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 Tidal Flow Augmentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3 Dredging- Premium River and Mill Pond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4 Disposal Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.5 Bank Stabilization- Rip Rap and Retaining Walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6 Pryer Manor Marsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.7 Control of Flooding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.0 FUNDING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.0 IMPLIMENTATION SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.0 PROPOSED MONITORING PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1 Sedimentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2 Wetland Production/Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3 Created Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
it
LIST OF TABLES
Table Following
Number Description Page
1 Cost Estimates for Recommended Actions 24
2 Potential Funding Sources 25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Folowing
Number Description Page
1 New York DOS Significant Fish and Wildlife Area 2
2 State Designated Tidal Wetlands 4
3 Historic Sites 4
4 Pine Brook Sediment Deposits 5
5 Premium River Sediment Deposits - R8, R12 5
6 Premium River Sediment Deposits - R4-R6 5
7 Premium River Water Quality 7
8 Water Quality Sampling Stations 8
9 Physical Structure Conditions 9
10 Proposed Extent of Dredging 14
11 Dredge Spoil Transport Costs 15
12 Wetland Creation 16
13 Proposed Extent of Riprap 18
14 Proposed Schedule 21
15 Stage Pole Locations 22
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Description Eau
A Premium River- Pine Brook Wetland Complex 26
Request for Proposals
B Narative- Significant Coastal Fish &Wildlife Habitat 27
C History of the Study Area 28
D Compilation of Bird Lists 29
E Environmental Data-Quarterly Survey 30
F Conceptual Design-Flood Control Pryer Manor Marsh 31
G Monitoring Program Procedures and Equipment 32
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION
In May 1987 the Coastal Zone Management A joint Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
Commission selected Malcolm Pirnie Inc. to prepare a (LWRP) was adopted by the Town of Mamaroneck and
Feasibility Study to evaluate actions to protect and re- Village of Larchmont in June 1986 and approved by
store the PREMIUM RIVER-PINE BROOK WETLANDS New York State (NYS) in October 1986. State Policy 7,
COMPLEX. From June 1987 to June 1988 existing data on protection and restoration of fish and wildlife
was compiled and evaluated and surveys were con- habitats, was adopted locally as Policy 7A, for the
ducted to characterize the biology, water quality, hy- protection and restoration of three locally important fish
drology and physical characteristics of the study area; and wildlife habitats. In order to preserve and protect
to evaluate the condition of structures such as bridges these three "unique natural and environmental
and seawalls; to characterize the condition of the resources", the Town and Village passed laws which
area's wetlands. created Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs). One
The major findings of the studies were: CEA is the 42-acre "Premium Salt Marsh Fish and
-the physical structures in the study area are gen- Wildlife Habitat Complex".
erally sound; The LWRP recommended that a Feasibility Study
- sedimentation rates in the Premium River are be conducted to examine measures which may correct
within normal ranges during dry weather conditions; or mitigate deterioration centering around the Premium
- water quality is generally good with the excep- River, its marshes, and Mill Pond. Acting under its
tion of elevated bacterial levels; mandate to monitor and coordinate the implementation
-the high salt marsh is in excellent condition; of LWRP policies and projects, the Town of
- the Pryer Manor Marsh is presently an undesir- Mamaroneck/Village of Larchmont Coastal Zone
able Phragmites monoculture; and Management Commission (CZMC), with the consent of
- the integrity of the area is threatened by acceler- the Town Board and Village Council and with a
ating sediment accumulation in the Premium River. Resolution of Cooperation by the Council of the City of
The draft Feasibility Study was issued in June New Rochelle, applied for a NYS Waterfront
1988 and the recommendations presented at a public Implementation Grant to perform this study.
meeting on June 16,1988. The Feasibility Study recom- The Feasibility Study grant was funded by the
mended dredging of approximately 19,000 cubic yards Department of State from June 1987 through June
of sediment from the Premium River, use of the 1988 with $25,000 from the State and matching funds
dredged material to create a barrier marsh at the and service equivalent to a total of $31,500 from the
Premium Point Beach, stabilization of some 2000 feet Town and Village. Following responses to the Request
of river bank and enhancement of the Pryer Manor for Proposal (Appendix A) issued by the CZMC, the
Marsh. Commission recommended that a contract be awarded
to Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., whose proposal best filled their
1
requirements (see Scope of Basic Services 1.1). and the flow configuration of the Premium River.
In July 1987, steps were taken by the CZMC to Samples and/or measurements would be taken
at the same locations for fecal colrforms,
secure NYS designation for the entire trimunicipal turbidity, total settleable solids and salinity.
PREMIUM RIVER - PINE BROOK WETLANDS - Sampling would be conducted to prepare a
COMPLEX as a "significant coastal fish and wildlife baseline biological characterization of the study
habitat" under NYS criteria. On November 15, 1987, area. Benthic (bottom) sampling would be
conducted at up to ten locations using
the Department of State, with the Department of equipment appropriate to the type of bottom
Environmental Conservation (DEC) designated, present. A single fish survey would be
conducted using electrofishing equipment. The
mapped(Figure 1), and wrote the narrative(Appendix B) objective of the sampling would be to provide a
describing the PREMIUM RIVER - PINE BROOK baseline biological inventory and to evaluate the
overall condition of the Premium River System.
WETLANDS COMPLEX, and thus State Policy 7 was
incorporated into the LWRP. This all-encompassing - A single survey would be conducted to inventory
wetlands' vegetation. The wetlands would be
name is used to describe the study area. classified utilizing the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) Coward's system for
freshwater and deepwater aquatic habitats. The
1.1 SCOPE OF BASIC SERVICES wetlands would be delineated utilizing USFWS
Based on the CZMC's Request for Proposal and a and U.S. Corp of Engineers (USCOE) soil and
vegetation identification methods.
preliminary inspection of the study area conducted on
May 8, 1987, Malcolm Pimie, Inc. proposed the - During all field activities observations of
terrestrial wildlife, birds in particular, would be
following Scope of Basic Services for preparation of the logged in field notebooks. Notations would
Feasibility study: include the species, the time of siting, location
- Evaluate baseline inventory information and and comments on behavior.
previous professional studies compiled and
prepared by the Commission to determine - A physical inspection would be conducted of
existing structures including the seawalls on the
adequacy for the purposes of developing and
river and pond, the weir and the Pryer Manor
evaluating alternatives. The evaluation would
identify data gaps to be addressed in the data Road Bridge. Recommendations for required
remedial work would be prepared and
collection activities of the Feasibility Study.
preliminary estimates provided of remediation
- Following evaluation of baseline information, costs and engineering fees.
data collection programs would be designed to _ Specifications and estimated costs would be
assess the rate of sediment deposition and provided for all proposed physical
collect data on water depth, stream flow and improvements, such as bank stabilization and
tidal flow. The data would be collected on a dredging of the river. Estimated costs of
quarterly basis to reflect seasonal variations of obtaining permits and approvals would be
tidal influence, stream flow and climatology.
During each quarter a storm and normal event provided if appropriate.
would be sampled. Net stream and tidal flows in
the system would be determined by installation - A staged program for implementation of the
of a continuous recording flow meter and tide proposed actions would be developed, based on
gauge at the Pryer Manor Road ("RED") Bridge an evaluation of the possible and negative
for a period of one to two weeks each quarter. impacts. Alternative actions would be evaluated
Instantaneous flow velocity measurements in terms of cost, environmental impacts,
would be taken at several stations in the river institutional considerations, assessment of risk
based on the location of storn-water discharges to public health and other appropriate
parameters.
2
PINEeA
O
VILLAGE OF X
LARCHMON
zt �' � 't
, y = a
3
" o
� Z O /y�9 Eg1N
r,
o �n tis �1
/ DEANti Fys�_ W,`�OW 1
CITY OF NEW OAK �\
ROCHELLE ' z OCU GE
QQ w 2 WOOp8R1D
DILLON RD.
GU10N
Q Q'
O mWOO
•r° �� P� o po qui ;,
'0RF G C 77 M
z
9p 30N q�F
NE 00 _
F'4 M R Rj�
OAK
CENTRAL
o PREMIUM /MILL BLUFF
w
POND a
9�.
9p
QOM
Q
Interpreted from Mt. Vernon Quad Habitat Map (Appendix B)
ECHO BAY
J:P
cO
< PCO
G �g�
NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE DESIGNATED MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
PIRNIE SIGNIFICANT FISH AND WILDLIFE AREA FIGURE 1
A long-term monitoring program, tailored to
CZMC resources,would be developed to assess
changes in the Premium River, Marsh and Mill
Pond. This program would recommend specific
environmental data to be collected, frequency of
collection, required equipment and the costs of
implementing the programs.
Interim status reports would be submitted
quarterly for the duration of the project,
summarizing tasks completed in the prior three
months and providing a schedule of activities for
the next reporting period. Progress meetings
with the CZMC would be held quarterly, one
week after submittal of the interim status reports.
Six copies of each report would be submitted.
The Draft Feasibility Study would be submitted
by April 30, 1988, to allow for review by the
CZMC. The final report would be submitted on
June 30, 1988. The report would include: a
review of prior studies; the results of field data
collection; a comparison of alternative actions; a
description of selected actions including
specifications and costs; a description of a
phased program for implementation of the
proposed actions, and the recommended
monitoring programs.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. was selected to perform the
Feasibility Study in May 1987, and the project started in
June. This report presents the results of that work.
3
2.0 EVALUATION OF BASELINE INVENTORY River, which also originates in New Rochelle. An
extensive salt marsh surrounds the confluence of the
This section presents the available information on two streams. The river, an estuary of the Long Island
the hydrological, environmental and physical Sound, winds its way to the Premium Mill Pond which
characteristics of the PREMIUM RIVER - PINE discharges to Echo Bay and ultimately in the Long
BROOK WETLANDS COMPLEX. Island Sound.
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 2.2 HISTORY OF THE STUDY AREA
THE PREMIUM RIVER - PINE BROOK Intervention of man in the Premium River Marsh -
WETLAND COMPLEX extends into three Mill Pond study area dates back to the mid 1700's. In
municipalities: The Town of Mamaroneck, the Village 1741, Silvanus Palmer built the first grist mill near the
of Larchmont and the City of New Rochelle. For the site of the present "Red Bridge", as shown on Figure 3.
purposes of this study the wetland complex extends The Palmer family, which owned a large manor in the
from Premium Point Road (west) to Beach Avenue vicinity, used the impounded water to provide power for
(east) along the Boston Post Road, and from the the mill. The mill was later moved to a second location
confluence of the Premium River and Pine Brook on Premium Point because tidal flow at the first site did
(north) to Echo Bay and Long Island Sound (south). not create adequate power to operate the mill
The complex encompasses an area of approximately (Seacord, 1964).
75 acres as shown in Figure 1. In 1758, the New York Mercury newspaper
The main component of this wetland ecosystem is published an ad offering for sale "...a farm, or neck of
the Premium Salt Marsh comprising some 42 acres(see land, lying in Mamaroneck, Westchester County,
Figure 2). Portions of the marsh which lie in the Town containing 120 acres, or thereabout with a good
of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont were dwelling house and a large barn; there is also a good
designated as Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) in grist mill...". The ad contained a land inventory of
1986 by the municipalities under the State 16 acres of salt meadow, 16 to 18 acres of woodland
Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) regulations. and 16 acres of fresh meadow.
The Pine Brook - Premium Watershed drains a The historical record is consistent with the
considerable area in New Rochelle and most of the reported time period required for the transition from salt
Village of Larchmont, and is drained in turn by the Pine to high marsh. In New England salt marshes a period
Brook and the Premium River. The Pine Brook of 200 years or more was necessary for intertidal areas
originates in northern New Rochelle. Flowing to build up to an elevation above the mean high water
underground, passing beneath City Park, it enters the level (MHW) where high marsh vegetation would be fa-
Unincorporated Area at Fifth Avenue, crosses under vored (Chapman, 1960; Cohen, 1975). The Premium
the New England Thruway and the residential Pine River Marsh was reported to be predominantly high
Brook section, then surfaces south of the Post Road. It marsh in the mid 1950's (Cohen 1975).
flows southward a quarter of a mile to join the Premium A detailed history of the area is provided in
4
PINE��
O
VILLAGE OF N
LARCHMON
-01 CO,
, z ll
ti s�
0 a 0 yy H�
v / DEAN tiS \tom
CITY OF NEW OAK
W ocu a
ROCHELLE aQ a �a\o0E
*00
DILLON RD.
J2 GV\ON
00 �s9
v
/NT 90 FMFASON Q
q�F Aq
R MARTC
OAK
CENTRAL I
v PREMIUM /MILL 1 ¢ BLUFF
a�
9 �
HIGH MARSH POND�iG /
QFORMERLY CONNECTED O�tij
TIDAL WETLANDS
O /
SALT MARSH
Q Interpreted from Map 14-1982. Westchester Co.
Hydrologic Features Environmental Constraint Series
ECHO BAY
JPO
CO
O
MALCOLM VIRNIE, INC.
IR NI STATE DESIGNATED TIDAL WETLANDS
FIGURE 2
PINEeA
O
VILLAGE OF N
LARCHMON
z� J L
7, 00
ELM Z
O O 9y (p
/ DEA �'SF� YJ►L�pW
CITY OF NEW L_
A K
OCUST O
ROCHELLE ¢z uJ
0� Lu
pGE
QQ D WOOdgF
DILLONQ
RD. �
PQ Q
m
o
T 6yF 5 I w
R9� z SON CANE 2
q�F RA MANOR R�
CENTRAL OAK
PREMIUM /MILL ¢w BLUFF
9F
POND I� a
O1 MOTT HOUSE (SANN) G
O2 FIRST MILL SITE
T D90
O3 SECOND MILL SITE
O4
4 INDIAN WEIR
ROAD FROM BOSTON POST / 3 sl�
ROAD TO MILLS
J�
O6 HESSIAN CAMPGROUND
OPINE BROOK (OLD BOUNDARY /
PELL-RtCHBELL, BRONX-WESTCHESTER)�
ECHO BAY I
JPO
5O
O
<pNa
MALCOIM p11NIE. INC.
IRNI HISTORIC SITES
FIGURE 3
Appendix C. A core sample was taken from a sand spit which,
in the year prior to the study, had reached a point
2.3 SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION where its peak stood above the water at MHW.
In 1975 an extensive study of recent trends of Composition of the core showed an accumulation of
sediment accumulation in the Premium River and coarse and medium sands. The study also concluded
Marsh was conducted. Twenty-one sediment core that silts and clays were either being accumulated on
samples and nine discontinuous samples were the intertidal zones of the marsh, or were deposited
collected from the Premium Marsh, the Premium River further down the Premium River, probably even as far
channel bed and the Pine Brook channel bed. A total as the Premium Mill Pond. Deposition of silt and clay
of 200 samples were analyzed for the amount of was reported to be facilitated by the flocculating effect
organic material present and particle sized fractions. of the brackish water. The water's rise and fall through
Selected results are shown on Figures 4 through 6. the tidal cycle also promoted deposition (Schubel,
1971).
2.3.1 Sedimentation in the Pine Brook - Premium River Cohen concluded that the Pine Brook watershed
supplies enough inorganic material to account for any
The majority of inorganic material coming into build-up of the Premium Salt Marsh and the filling-in of
Premium Marsh was determined to be from the Pine the Premium River channel. She also concluded that
Brook watershed. Sediments of the Pine Brook - run-off from the nursery's topsoil mound was relatively
Premium River system showed characteristic unimportant as a sediment source influencing this
depositional grading for marshes where the sediments marsh.
are derived from fluvial sources. The pebbles and This conclusion was supported by the existence of
coarse materials are deposited first by the stream. an "overbank" deposit near the storm sewer culvert
Finer sands, silts and clays are carried further. which opens into Pine Brook. The composition of the
Areas of silt domination were reported to occur in "overbank" deposit indicated that the Pine Brook
the Pine Brook. One such area was reported near waters carried fine sands, silts and clays. However, a
Tony's Nursery. The report postulated that the review of the data showed that the sediment
accumulation may have originated from run-off from the contributed by the Pine Brook watershed was
nursery mound, which was located on the bank of the predominantly sand (22.7 percent coarse sand, 51.1
Pine Brook. Areas of silt domination occurred percent medium sand and 23.3 percent fine sand).
upstream of the nursery as well. Water current pat- Cohen concluded that the abundance of inorganic
terns were one reason given for silt accumulation in material traveling down the Pine Brook might be
these areas. Sift dominated locations in the Pine Brook caused by: 1) construction in the upland Pine Brook
seemed to occur in backwater areas with submerged watershed area, 2) overloading of the storm sewer
vegetation to trap the sediments. The majority of the system feeding this brook, and 3) normal erosion of the
samples collected from the Pine Brook, however, brook banks.
contained very small proportions of sift.
5
Sample 628 111111111MEMIMMMEMI
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample B30 ;
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample B32f
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample B33 f
s�1r
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample B34
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample B36
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample B38
0 20 40 60 80 100
PARTICLE SIZE-PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT
KEY
Course Sand Silt & Clay
® GranulesFine Sand PREMIUM RIVER-MILLPOND WETLAND COMPLEX
®
❑ Pebbles ® Mdium Sand PINE BROOK SEDIMENT DEPOSITS
e
JULY 1988
SOURCE:HOHBERG(1980) FIGURE 4
..........................................
SAMPLE R8
...........................................
..........................................
...........................................
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
a
0 15-18
......................
a 18-21
21 -24
24-27
27-30 His,
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Sediments
SAMPLE R12
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
t 12-15
n.
0 15-18
.....................
a 18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Sediments
KEY
PREMIUM RIVER-MILLPOND WETLAND COMPLEX
Course Sand ® Silt & Clay PREMIUM RIVER SEDIMENT DEPOSITS
® Granules ® Fine Sand
❑ Pebbles ® Medium Sand JULY 1988
SOURCE:HOHBERG(1980) FIGURE 5
SAMPLE R4
E 0-3
6-9
L
12-15
CDm
18-21
E 24-27
ro
30-33
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Sediments by Weight
SAMPLE R5
0-3
6-9
L
m 12-15
m
18-21
E 24-27
ro
In 30-33
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Sediments by Weight
..... .....................
SAMPLE R6
..........................
...........................
...........................
E 0-3
U
t 6-9
m 12-15
0
m 18-21
n
E 24-27
30-33
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Sediments by Weight
KEY
PREMIUM RIVER-MILLPOND WETLAND COMPLEX
Course Sand ® Silt & Clay PREMIUM RIVER SEDIMENT DEPOSITS
® Granules ® Fine Sand
❑ Pebbles ® Medium Sand JULY 1988
SOURCE:HOHBERG(1980) FIGURE 6
2.3.2 Sedimentation in the Premium Marsh mouths of rivers. Accretion rates on the sandy, marine
fed marshes are somewhat less than those on muddy,
Cohen concluded that the accretion rate on the river fed marshes (Cohen, 1975). The Premium River
marsh had not been greatly accelerated even though Salt Marsh is a river fed marsh that appears to be
there was evidence, from the channel cores, that an building up faster than some marine fed marshes. The
abundance of inorganic material was washing in coastal marsh "Flax Pond", located on the north shore
through the Pine Brook. Intertidal cores showed typical of the Long Island Sound, was found to have an
Shaler advancement patterns, where coarse grained intertidal accumulation rate of 0.27 cm/year as opposed
substrate sediments were invaded by intertidal plants to 0.5 cm/year found in the intertidal areas of Premium
when mean low water was reached. The transition River.
from unvegetated basement to intertidal marsh was Cohen's report of the water content of the
indicated in the columnar sections. The abruptness of intertidal area peat was inconsistent with that predicted
the sediment change, in some cores such as (122) was by Redfield's theory (1971). Redfield was measuring
explained by their proximity to the East Intercept Sewer intertidal peat located at great depths in his sediment
Line. The 13 - 16 cm portion in these cores may have cores. Cohen determined that in Redfield's studies the
represented the height to which the trench was refilled intertidal peat sampled could have been compacted to
with sand. Cohen also postulated that it may have a point where some of its moisture was lost to the
been the level of mean low water at the time allowing basement sediments or high marsh peat. The intertidal
Spartena alterniflora to colonize the area. Once the peat Cohen measured was located just at or below the
intertidal vegetation was present, silts and clays were surface of the marsh. There was no high marsh peat
trapped. Accepting this assumption, an estimate of above it, and most of these areas were inundated by
sediment accumulation rate was made based on the the tides twice a day. Cohen stated that this could
depth of the sediments above this point. Because the account for the high percent-water values obtained in
sewer line was installed in 1954 and 1955, and the intertidal cores at the Premium Marsh.
10 centimeters of sediment were present above the 13 Cores taken on the interceptor sewer route were
- 16 cm portion, Cohen concluded that approximately different from those obtained elsewhere on the high
0.5 cm of sediment was deposited yearly, assuming a marsh. The sediments in these cores were reported to
constant accumulation rate. This rate was consistent consist primarily of the sands used to refill the trench,
with estimates of accretion rates in-5-alterniflora areas explaining the unusually low water content values. The
of previously reported New England salt marshes surface along the path of the trunkline had been
(Chapman, 1960). The average accretion rates for recolonized by upland-type vegetation in the two
these marshes were reported as 0.3 to 0.6 cm per year. centimeters of fine sediment reported to have
accumulated above the sand. Cohen determined the
Chapman (1960) has stated that most New rate of accretion had an upper limit of about 0.1 cm
England salt marshes are formed either behind yearly, a rate consistent with those found by Chapman
protective barriers (such as beaches) or else at the (1960) for high marsh areas. Cohen believed the
6
actual accumulation rate was lower because some of point investigated. Historical data supports the
the fine material may have resulted from ditching of the hypothesis that the majority of the Premium
marsh has been a high marsh ecosystem for
marsh. many years. Estimates of accumulation rates on
The general conclusions of the Cohen Study the high marsh suggest that Premium has
maintained a high marsh vegetational pattern for
were: more than 1,000 years."
"The Pine Brook watershed appears to be the
present source of inorganic sediment entering 2.4 WATER QUALITY
the marsh area. The abundance of inorganic
material washing into the Pine Brook system The water quafity problems in the Premium River-
may be due to the sediment load of the storm Mill Pond Complex were examined in studies by Utter
sewers. Run-off from the nursery's topsoil
mound seems to be an unimportant source of (1975) and Hohberg (1980). The objective of the Utter
sediment for the marsh and channels." study was to determine the impact of pollution on the
"Intertidal areas appear to be accumulating sifts high marsh. The overall conclusion reached by Utter
and clays at a rate of .5 cm/year. This rate falls was that there was "no appreciable impact on marsh
within the average range for previously
function".
Based on samples,
TURBIDITY Utter found an average
_ sediment load of 58+/-
Larchmont Diner
29 mg/I for the Premium
Lorenzen Park
River. He concluded that
Elm Ave
Oak Ave the steady state levels of
suspended solids were
U52 Woodbine
Location within acceptable limits
Woodbine Ave
Guion Lane and indicated the
Residence absence of a chronic
First Turn siltation problem. Later
Indian Wier studies by Hohberg
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 (1980) reached similar
NTU conclusions based on
turbidity data (see Figure
Figure 7.-Turbidity In the Premium River 7). Hohberg concluded that under low flow conditions,
(Hohberg, 1980) the sediment load in the Premium River was typical of
reported for New England salt marshes."
estuarine systems. Hohberg did note an elevation of
"Sediment core analysis of the high marsh turbidity in the area of Woodbine Avenue and attributed
reveals homogeneity in sediment particle sizes
and water content to a depth of at least 30 cm at it to resuspension of sediments by the incoming tide.
Utter also collected data on the salinity and pH of
all locations sampled. No evidence of rapid residual water left on area salt marshes by the high
successional changes were observed at any
7
tide. Salinities ranged from 17.8 to 20.6 parts per 602.41, designated a "significant coastal fish and
thousand (ppt) with an average value of 16.8 ppt. wildlife habitat"by the New York Department of State.
Average pH was 6.7. Utter concluded that the pH was The area supports fish species including alewife,
within the normal range for salt marshes and that the striped bass, blackfish, bluefish, cod, eel, winter
salinity values were typical of local estuarine systems. flounder, summer flounder, mackerel, menhadens,
High tide salinity data collected by Hohberg is shown porgy, weakfish, silversides and killifish. Area shellfish
on clearly indicates that the incoming tide reaches the include the hard clam, soft clam, blue mussel,
terminus of Oak Avenue before salinity values are American Oyster and bay scallop. The area is now
influenced by freshwater flow from the Pine Brook. closed to shellfishing due to high coliform levels.
Further upstream salinity drops rapidly to freshwater A diverse community of coastal wildlife is
levels (less than 3 ppt at the Post Road). characteristic of the study area. Of particular
Utter collected 66 samples for coliform analysis importance are the bird species. A compilation of lists
over a twelve-day period at the stations shown in by local conservationists/ecologists is included as
Figure 8. Values ranged from 2700/colonies/100 mis to Appendix D. Nesting bird species include the black-
1200 colonies/100 mis. It is unclear from the report crowned night heron, ring-necked pheasant, mallard,
whether the reported values were fecal or total Canada goose, mute swan and the killdeer. Other
coliforms. In addition, no fecal coliform/fecal species of waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds and
streptococcus ratios were collected to characterize the passerine species have been recorded in the study
source of the bacteria. Utter found that the counts area. Large populations of black duck are present
were consistently elevated in the Premium River at the during migrations. In recent years the osprey has been
terminus of Woodbine Avenue. He attributed these observed during its migration. Overwintering species
elevated counts to septage or a leaking sewer. The include common loon, American coot, greater scaup,
data correlated to the suspended solids data, however, lesser scaup, shoveler, mallard, common goldeneye,
possibly indicating resuspension of bacteria from the canvasbacks, and common, hooded, and red-breasted
river bottom. mergansers. Winter use of the area by waterfowl is
determined by ice cover on the Mill Pond.
2.5 BIOLOGY OF THE STUDY AREA
The biology of the PREMIUM RIVER - PINE 2.6 HYDROLOGY
BROOK WETLANDS COMPLEX is well documented, Limited data is available on the hydrology of the
primarily due to the efforts of local conservationists. PREMIUM RIVER-MILL POND COMPLEX. Utter
The complex offers diverse habitats, including tidal found an average current velocity in the Premium River
river, tidal flats, shallows and salt and freshwater channel of 0.079 m/sec (0.26 feet per second). The
wetlands. Although development and water quality complex is hydraulically connected to the Long Island
problems have degraded the area, it continues to Sound through Echo Bay. The mean tidal range in
support various fish and wildlife communities. In Echo Bay is 7.3 feet. The mean range at spring tide is
recognition, the area was, pursuant to 19 NYCRR
1 . see Appendix B
8
PINEeA\
O
VILLAGE OF
,Y
LARCHMON
G rn �Ir
2 � 9 ys E p O9F _
a / DEAN 2 ySFy .N1Ll.OW
CITY OF NEW Op,K
ROCHELLE W OCUS w cr 6 Q
�Q 0 L a�oG
Q D Wl 2 7 �pp�
DILLON
RD. u1�
�J2 3 �� GV10N.
� 8
W O
�O C QO O fn
q�0 n 37
r
M A �� 00 Q� p ni
�Nt F,yF z
R
IgNE do J
Fq MA R
OAK
CENTRAL f
O PREMIUM /MILL Q BLUFF
/ >
POND a
9
�G
Ory
p0 D
it
O4 COLIFORM SAMPLING STATIONS,
(UTTER, 1975) /
O�
1 Z MALCOLM PIRNIE WATER QUALITY /
STATIONS J
Q
ECHO BAY
JPO
MALCOW
O
5�
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
PIRNIE WATER DUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS FIGURE 8
8.6 feet. The extreme high tide is 15.4 above mean Authority installed absorbent booms at the Pine Brook
low water(MLW) the extreme low tide - 3.9 (MLW). culvert at the Boston Post Road and at the discharge
from the Pryer Manor Marsh at the request of the U.S.
3.0 DATA QQ1 I ECTION A .TIVITI S Coast Guard. The latter monitors and is responsible
for the cleanup of oil that seeps into navigable waters.
This section summarizes the data collected to The Department of Environmental Conservation is
date in the quarterly surveys of the Premium River responsible for monitoring the recovery and removal of
Complex. The results of the hydrological, water quality, oil from the ground.
biological surveys and physical inspections is included
as Appendix E. 3.2 PHYSICAL INSPECTION
The inspection of physical structures was done on
3.1 WATER QUALITY August 18, 1987 by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. The seawalls,
Water quality data generally confirms that of the Pryer Manor Road Bridge and the Premium Point
earlier studies. Suspended solids generally ranged Bridge (Indian Weir) were found to be in generally
from 2 to 26 mg/I with the exception of two samples sound condition with the exception of the section of
collected in the February 1988 survey, when bottom seawall running east-west from Pryer Manor Road to
sediments were resuspended during sampling. Fecal the river proper, Trinity property, as shown on Figure 9.
coliform levels ranged from 0 to 18,200 There was noticeable buckling in this section,
colonies/100 mis. There was no discernible pattern to apparently due to the lack of drains in the wall. During
the spatial distribution of fecal coliforms in complex. surveys conducted in July 1987 the installation of a
There does appear to be a positive correlation of fecal french drain behind this section of seawall was ob-
coliforms to suspended solids. Total coliforms ranged served by Malcolm Pirnie personnel. This drain may
from 0 to 32,000 colonies per 100 mis, with spatial lessen the problem; however, additional drains may be
distribution similar to that found by Utter(Utter, 1975). required to preserve the structural integrity of the
Dissolved oxygen was near 100 percent of seawall. The railroad tie retaining wall just south of the
saturation during all surveys. Boston Post Road (Tony's Nursery) on the west bank
Data collected for pH ranged from 6.8 to 8.5, of the Pine Brook was also examined. The field notes
which is within the natural range for East Coast state that the timber retaining wall seems to be of
estuaries. insufficient strength for the overburden. The wall is
Visible oil sheers were noted during almost all noticeably buckled and there was an accumulation of
surveys. A major source of this oil was leakage from a soil below the compromised section of wall. The
35,000 gallon underground oil tank located at the Mac condition of the wall was verbally reported to the CZMC
Leay Housing site in New Rochelle. The tank was in October and documenting photographs were
replaced with an aboveground facility but residual oil is provided.
apparently reaching the Premium River despite the 3.3 WETLAND INVESTIGATIONS
installation of an interceptor trench. The Housing The Premium Marsh Complex is a diverse and
9
PINEg90
VILLAGE OF
LARCHMON
LAP D RAILROAD TIE WALL
21 v
c') `M
3 �1
9 Z 0 <0
HEgZN
? � tis NEP 09F
�
� O / DEA ASF ' W,�`°W
ti
CITY OF NEW
OCUST pAK
ROCHELLE 1 w w
zw uJ
z } E
<J D wQ 2 W0
p�Fi10G
DILLON3
RD. y�
GU10N .
Q ? 1
WOO
h Q O
1, m
�z0 0 ?�
00
O
NT 9 F'�Fgs ERO �a BA z
°Nq�F qNE AqY
F RR
�A 0 AWA
I OAK
CENTRAL W BLUFF
PREMIUM/ MILL >
POND a
9
T 0 /
p0 /
Q
ECHO BAY I
JPO
c
O
MALCOLM VIRNIE, INC.
IIRNI PHYSICAL STRUCTURE CONDITION FIGURE 9
ecologically important habitat comprising the Premium approximately 5.24 acres, is typical of a disturbed area
Mill Pond, Premium River, Pine Brook and Pryer Manor which now has the characteristics of a freshwater
Marsh (see Figure 2). Seasonal surveys were wetland. Dense stands of common reed, Phraomites
conducted throughout the marsh complex from eleven communisinhabit much of the marsh, which has an
sampling stations. Data was collected on water quality average water depth of 12 inches; consequently,
which included dissolved oxygen levels, salinity, water habitat diversity is limited, productivity low and
temperature, pH level, total suspended solids and waterfowl habitat restricted.
levels of Fecal coliform and Fecal streptococcus. In
addition, visual inspection was made of the Complex to 3.3.2 Wildlife Valtie
determine wildlife usage, vegetation patterns, and the During fall and winter surveys a high diversity of
effects of seasonal high tides and storm events. Based waterfowl were observed in the Mill Pond. The pond
on these data, conclusions were drawn on the quality provides year round habitat for resident birds and
of the marsh. overwintering areas and feeding grounds for migratory
The salt marshes located at the headwaters of the species. As noted during subsequent spring site
Premium River are critically important for three basic surveys, few waterfowl nest in the marsh complex.
reasons: Nesting habitat is restricted to a few undeveloped
(1) the environmental quality of the marsh
complex, areas; however, these nesting sites are accessible to
(2) fish and wildlife values, and local dogs and raccoons and are frequently destroyed.
(3) socioeconomic values.
The high salt marsh is biologically important and
3.3.1 Environmental Quality offers habitat for a diversity of wildlife. Seasonal
observations indicate that shallow tidal inlets are
The environmental quality values of the marsh habitat for marsh invertebrates, insects and fish
include water quality maintenance, pollution filter,
sediment control, nutrient recycling, oxygen production species which attract migrating wading and shore birds,
and aquatic productivity. The low salt marshes and as well as mammals, to the marsh. Small mammals
high salt marsh, located in the upper reaches of the utilizing the site are prey for resident and migratory
birds of prey. The high quality of the high salt marsh is
Premium River, support stands of saltwater cordgrass,
Snartina alterniflorawhich form the basis for providing enhanced and protected by a buffer strip of trees,
the aforementioned values. The high quality of the shrubs and reed grass along its terrestrial boundaries.
high salt marsh is also indicated by the diversity of The various plant species provide food, cover and
nesting habitat for passerine species and small
vegetation and limited intrusion of Phraomitgs, The
mammals.
dominant plant species, salt marsh grass, Dmstechlis
�RLSi3I3, provides food and cover for a diversity of 3.3.3 Socioeconomic Val u .
wildlife species.
Unlike the high salt marsh, the Pryer Manor
The Premium Marsh Complex also provides so-
Marsh, a formerly connected tidal wetland of cioeconomic values which include flood and storm
damage protection, erosion control, aesthetics and
10
recreation. Marshes in the upper reaches protect Pine Brook during large storm events. Current
property from flood damage by slowing the flow of operation of the reservoir does not include provision for
water. Deposition, however, of debris and sediments passing flood flows into Pine Brook. Therefore, the
carried by seasonal high tides and during storm events drainage area below Larchmont Reservoir will be
was observed in the high marsh. Continued deposition considered as the potential source of upstream
will accelerate successional change in the marsh and sediments. This watershed is characterized as fully
adversely affect its environmental value as well as its developed residential with a business corridor along
value as an educational and recreational resource. the Boston Post Road. Approximate peak flows at the
During winter surveys extensive flooding was ouff all of the box culvert under the Boston Post Road
observed on properties adjoining the Pryer Manor for the 1,5, and 10 year storms are 250, 440, and 500
Marsh and along Pryer Manor Road. These conditions cubic feet per seconds respectively. Because of
indicate that the former tidal marsh does not have potential flooding, resumption of discharge of flood
adequate drainage into the Premium River system. flows into the Pine Brook from Larchmont Reservoir is
In summary, the natural marsh ecosystems are not considered feasible.
important for aesthetic benefits, recreational pursuits The Pine Brook watershed is apparently in good
such as bird watching, educational pursuits, and as condition with only minor obvious sources of sediment.
monitors of the environment. Sand, possibly from winter street sanding as well as
minor local erosion, was observed in the streets. The
3.4 HYDROLOGY OF THE AREA Boston Post Road box culvert does not show signs of
A general field reconnaissance and survey of the clogging or buildup of material. This culvert has been
lower Pine Brook, Premium River and Premium Mill observed running at capacity after moderate to heavy
Pond was conducted on April 6, 1988. The purpose of rainstorms. In order to minimize flooding problems in
this field work was to observe the hydraulic interactions the Pine Brook Watershed, this culvert must be
within the estuary during an entire tidal cycle. Of maintained clear and unobstructed. Based upon field
particular interest were: observations and review of sediment grain size
- potential locations for structural sedimentation
control facilities on Pine Brook distribution data, the primary source of material in the
- identification of hydraulic points which control Premium River is the Pine Brook watershed. The
the velocities of tidal movements conclusion of reconnaissance of this watershed is that
t
- observation of drainage patterns in the Pryer there are no reasonable on-stream locations for
Manor Road area placement of a sediment control structure.
The dam at the Premium Point Bridge is required
Runoff from the approximate one square mile of to maintain Premium Mill Pond during low tide. It is the
watershed below Larchmont Reservoir contributes major hydraulic control point in the system, with the
flood flows to the Premium River. Available information Pryer Manor Road Bridge as a secondary control point.
is unclear as to the past operation of the outlet works at The effect of the dam is to decrease the average tidal
the Reservoir and the extent of overflowing into the range from 7 feet below the dam to approximately 3
11
feet above the dam in the Premium Mill Pond and in BROOK WETLANDS COMPLEX. The activities
the Premium River. The major effects of decreasing reviewed include: sedimentation controls, tidal flow
the normal tidal range are decreased maximum velocity augmentation, dredging of the Premium River, disposal
in the Premium River and possibly diminished bed load of the dredged material, stabilization of river and marsh
capacity for movement of sediment. As the Premium banks, repairs to structures,enhancement of the Pryer
Point Bridge Dam(Indian Weir) is required to impound Manor Marsh and control of flooding.
the Mill Pond, modification of this structure is not
considered feasible or desirable. 4.1 SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS
Flooding problems on Pryer Manor Road have A review of data from prior studies and the results
existed for decades. Recent changes in the small of surveys conducted by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. indicate
contributing watershed, primarily construction, and the average deposition and accretion rates in the Premium
adjacent freshwater wetlands may result in more River are within the range found for New England
frequent flooding. Based upon survey data, there is marshes. Water column solids are also within the
approximately one foot of freeboard available above normal range for East Coast estuaries.
the fresh-water marsh and Pryer Manor Road at its Although the average deposition/accretion rates
lowest point. Suggestions to raise the water level in are within the normal range for estuaries similar to
the marsh in order to modify the growth of tall grasses Premium River localized areas in the river, such as the
will diminish the freeboard to less than a half foot. confluence of the Pine Brook and Premium River
Considering the surface area of the marsh as appear to be building in elevation at a higher rate than
approximately 5.2 acres, less than a 2.5 acre-feet are expected. This area and other areas of sand bar
available for storage of flood flows prior to inundating formation in the Premium River seem to result from
the road. Combined with high tide, the approximate shifting of the sediment bed load and erosion of the
34-acre drainage area will frequently produce enough stream banks. The preliminary engineering analysis
water to flood the road. indicates that to effectively control sediment input from
Mitigation of the flooding problem will require storms of greater than a five-year frequency, a sedi-
improved drainage, increased storage in the mentation basin of a prohibitively large size would be
contributing areas, raising the road, or a combination of needed. The resultant loss of natural streambed and
all of these. Care must be taken in the design of Pryer aesthetic impacts do not justify the potential benefits.
Manor Road flood relief so as to avoid increasing The most effective method to reduce sediment
flooding in adjacent areas. input to the Premium River is the aggressive
implementation of Local Policies 11-17 Flooding and
Erosion Policies as outlined in Section III of the LWRP.
4 .0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS
4.2 TIDAL FLOW AUGMENTATION
This section presents an evaluation of potential Alternatives to augment tidal flow in the Premium
remedial actions for the PREMIUM RIVER - PINE River estuary were reviewed including: lowering the
12
elevation of the Indian Weir; removal of the Indian Weir characteristically low production rate. Most of these
and installation of a tide gate; and installation of a box barge mounted dredges require five to six feet of draft.
culvert through Premium Point beach connecting the Sufficient water depth could not be realized in the
Long Island Sound and the Mill Pond. Lowering of the Premium River or Mill Pond to meet the draft
Indian Weir would result in the Mill Pond being dry requirements. Therefore, this group of dredges was
during most of the tidal cycle and was removed from removed from further consideration.
consideration. Installation of the table gate at the A landbased dredging method, the dragline, was
Premium Point Bridge or the culvert at Premium Point also evaluated. A dragline excavator is a crane unit
Beach had capital costs of over $500,000 and yearly with a drag bucket connected by cable to the boom.
maintenance and operation costs of over$50,000. The bucket is filled by dragging along the sediments
Because of the high costs and the fact that no ap- toward the crane. This method is best suited to
preciable increase in Premium River tidal velocities removal of 12-to 30-foot depths of sediments. The
would be realized these actions were given no further dragline is limited to an operating range within 200 feet
consideration. of a level road.
Most of the area proposed for dredging could be
4.3 DREDGING - PREMIUM RIVER AND MILL done by this method using local streets for equipment
POND setup. The production rate would be about 350 cy/day
4.3.1 Discussion of Alternatives requiring approximately 60 work days to complete the
Past studies including White(1977), Hohberg(1980) proposed dredging. It is anticipated that another
and Cropper(1983) have concluded that the Premium 30 days would be required for moving and setup of the
River Marsh and the Premium River-MillPond Complex crane at up to 20 locations. At a rate of $1,200 per day
are threatened by sedimentation. Each of these prior for the crane and operator, the crane alone would cost
studies and this study recommend dredging in order to $90,000 to $108,000. This type of dredging operation
preserve the environmental quality of the area. Several would also require truck transport of the material to an
alternative techniques were evaluated for use in interim storage site or disposal area. To maintain the
dredging the Premium River and areas of the Mill stated production rate, assuming movement of the
Pond. Mechanical dredging techniques such as material to a location within an hour's travel time, six
Clamshell, Dragline, Bucket Ladder and Terra Marine 12-1/2 cu yard lined trucks would be required at a rate
Scoop were evaluated. The main advantage of of $70.00/hr. Transport costs, assuming use of the
mechanical dredging is that they allow removal of dredge material for marsh construction in the study
sediments at nearly in-situ densities, minimizing the area, would be approximately$180,000.
addition of water and maximizing solids content of the As a result of the operating limits of the dragline
removed materials. The main disadvantages are the dredge, the disruptive impacts of crane operation
high levels of solid resuspension and turbidity which including noise impacts, disruption of traffic, and the
result from mechanical disruption of the sediments. In problems associated with movement and operation of
addition, the mechanical methods of dredging have a the machine in a high density residential area, the
13
dragline dredge was eliminated from further transport or to interim storage by pumping through a
consideration. floating pipeline. A projected production rate of 500 to
Four hydraulic dredging methods were evaluated 700 cy/day would require 25 to 40 days for completion
including the Suction/Dustpan dredge, Cutterhead of the dredging. The projected cost for hydraulic
dredge, Hopper dredge, and Horizontal Auger dredge. dredging is approximately $175,000, assuming that the
This category of dredges transports solids as a 10 to dredge spoil is used for marsh construction or fill within
20 percent slurry, a watery mixture of insoluble matter. the study area.
The slurries can be pumped several thousand feet.
The hydraulic dredges generally have high production 4.3.2 Recommended Dredging Method
rates. The major disadvantage of hydraulic dredges is Dredging is proposed for the Premium River from
that the sediments account for 20 percent, by weight, of Lorenzen Park downstream to the Red Bridge as
the material removed. The suction/dustpan dredges shown in Figure 10. Sufficient sediment will be
use suction to remove sediments after loosening with removed to provide a channel 15 to 20 feet wide with a
water jets. This type of equipment is generally used for water depth of three feet at mean low tide. Side slopes
maintenance of large waterways and requires several of 1 foot vertical size to 5 feet horizontal will be required
feet of draft, eliminating it from further evaluation. based on published slope equilibrium values for wet
Similarly, Cutterhead dredges are generally desiigned sands.Preliminary cross-sections and example specifi-
for large scale projects and require five to six feet of cations are attached. The proposed equipment, the
draft. horizontal auger dredge requires about 2 feet of draft.
The Horizontal Auger head dredge uses a To provide sufficient water a temporary earth dam
hydraulically operated boom to position the would be constructed at the Red Bridge, at an elevation
auger/suction assembly. The removed sediments are to provide water levels upstream of 2 feet or
transported by suction as a slurry through a pipeline to approximately equivalent to a spring high tide. Dredge
the disposal destination. The advantages of the design spoils would be pumped via a floating pipeline to
include low resuspension of solids, control of the Premium Beach for marsh construction. The
sediment removal depth and draft requirements. In "MUDCAT dredge is capable of pumping the dredge
addition, small units such as the MUDCAT can be spoil slurry 6,000 feet with its own pumps, so no
transported and launched by trailer. booster pumps should be required. Areas of the Mill
The horizontal auger dredge is the most Pond may also be dredged to provide additional
appropriate for use in the Premium River and Mill Pond material for wetland creation.
due to the limited water depth and channel size. The The dredging will require preparation of contract
approximate draft requirement of two feet are met in documents, including detailed specifications and
the area at a spring high tide. In order to maintain equalization of required permits. Costs are
sufficient water depth in the Premium River, a summarized in Table 1(see page 24). The required
temporary earthen dam would be constructed. The permits may include:
dredged material could be transported to trucks for
14
PINE69
O
VILLAGE OF
LARCHMON
z
I21 Z�
3 O O ESM i
1 3 % O y9 HEsis
C)
P �
O / c DEAN
CITY OF NEW � ,.
OCUST� OAK
ROCHELLE �z ww
Q
Q c7 LU } R�pG
WOOS
DILLON RD. cow 2'
GWON
.2`
OPP ,�tiP O O \gyp W pO
ARE OF DR GING
ARFMi� °csy 90
o
INV E A
AyFRM NOR R�
CENTRgI- OAK
PREMIUM /MILL j w BLUFF
POND f a
T D90
i
ECHO BAY I
JPO
50
O
MALCOLM VIRNIE, INC.
PIRNIE PROPOSED AREA OF DREDGING FIGURE 10
Federal creation of wetlands in the Complex,use of the dredge
Construction of dams, dikes or ditches across material for local fill and off site disposal
navigable waters, or obstruction or alteration of
navigable waters required under Section 9 and
10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 (33 USC 401, 403). Dredge Spoil Transport Costs
600000 -
Establishment of harbor lines 500000 -
pursuant to Section 11 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 400000 -
(33 USC 404, 405).
300000 --
Approval of plans for
V)
0
improvements made at private U 200000 --
expense under USACE
supervision pursuant to the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1902 100000 --
(33 USC 565). 10, 1
Disposal of dredged spoils into 20 30 40 50 80 100
the waters of the U.S., pursuant Distance to Site
to the Clean Water Act,
Section 404 (33 USC 1344).
All actions for which permits are required Figure 11-Offsite Land Disposal Costs
pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (33 USC 1413). at upland sites. Assuming the spoils are chemi-
Construction of artificial islands and fixed Gally suitable for use as fill or landfill cover, the major
structures in Long Island Sound pursuant to cost involved with offsite disposal is transport.
Section 4 (f) of the Rivers and Harbors Act of Transport costs by distance to disposal area are
1912 (33 USC).
showrion Figure 11, based on the use of 12-1/2 cu yard
Ltaa lined trucks and a dredge production rate of 500
Permit to excavate or fill in navigable waters. cy/day. The major impact of offsfte disposal would be
Permit for Stream Bed or Bank Disturbances. the increased truck traff ic and associated noise on the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification local streets during dredging. A truck loading station
could be established at Lorenzen Field to minimize this
Others impact.
Permits for Activities Affecting Wild, Scenic and
Recreational Rivers. 4.4.1 Marsh Construction
Two locations were evaluated for marsh con-
4.4 DISPOSAL OPTIONS struction using the Premium River dredge spoil: the
Disposal options for the dredge spoil include use for Mill Pond and the bay side of Premium Beach.
15
Evaluation of marsh construction in the Mill Pond was from ground predators and human disturbance, island
recommended in the LWRP and required to be consid- habitat diversity, and nesting and substrate stability.
ered by the scope of services for this Feasibility Study. These conditions are or can be met for dredge spoil is-
Construction of a salt marsh on the bay side of the lands in the Mill Pond. In addition, a variety of species
Premium beach is consistent with Local Policy 12, in occur in the study area which could utilize the islands
that it would protect the beach from erosion by tidal ac- for nesting, roosting and feeding.
tion and wind-induced wave action. Premium Beach Location
Mill Pond Location An alternative location for marsh creation is on
The LWRP recommended consideration of the the bay side of the Premium Beach. Sediment loss is a
creation of saltwater marshes around the edge of the major cause of barrier erosion and land loss on barrier
Mill Pond. This strategy, which would limit recreational islands and beaches. As sedimentation diminishes
access to the Mill Pond through creation of tidal mud through time, the barrier island or beach is lost.
flats during low tide, is inconsistent with the objective of Coastal structures disrupt the natural sediment dispers-
maintaining the recreational value of the area. al system and are generally not effective in stabilizing
Consequently, we evaluated the creation of five to six, shorelines (Montgomery and Leach, 1984). Input of
one-to two-acre wetland islands in the Mill Pond. additional sediments, such as dredged material,
Construction of several small wetlands would help pre- through the creation of bay side marsh has proved ef-
serve the open water character of the Mill Pond and fective in increasing beach stability (see Figure 12).
allow continued access to the Mill Pond by small craft. Plantings of vegetation, particularly Spartina alternaflo-
A typical cross section is shown on Figure 12. a and -,$.. patens. has further stabilized the beaches
Over 2,000 islands have been constructed using studied to date. An additional benefit of marsh
dredge materials, both as individual islands and clus- construction is the mitigation of wind (storm) induced
ters of islands, in the United States. A number of these wave impacts on the beach area. Wave run-up, the
islands included wetland development. In 1978 the distance the water will reach up a beach, is
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station substantially reduced for vegetated surfaces as
(WES) concluded a study of the coastal and estuarine compared to the smooth surface of compacted, barren
waterways of New Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, sand. Although construction of the marsh would
Texas and Oregon/Washington. preclude the use of the beach area for direct contact
Data was collected on available habitats, nesting activity such as swimming, it would offer valuable
populations of sea and wading birds and the role of the habitat and protection of the barrier beach.
Corps of Engineers in providing those habitats. The costs, permit requirements and funding
These regional studies located over 600,000 potential for either the Mill Pond or Premium Beach are
nesting water birds on dredge material islands. The is- equivalent.
lands were particularly important to nesting populations Vegetation
of terns and skimmers. The most important factors to In a study conducted in 1981 by the WES, 12
the success of dredged material islands were: isolation planting techniques were evaluated for the
16
Existing Barri(.; Cca,', Levee
:..,•:.::.,•::.,•.....• . . .:::.,•:::::::::::::::::. Dredge Spoils
.a�F1'Qa"' 'n'.�''e:&':atii:iaiii ;•ka;�u';iiai?'�;i
..•,xaxccv t,aa2 "3:$+'�'r:''':':':':'S`�`'':t::•: '.';:;'';::`::::r5s:>�Y
,w..<iia.,d2�+S+eKGC+nh;.Qa�'eR;Ee.S i66»e �k'Y ot�o6ioi:dx.�wVc::.w.,,.• .
SCHEMATIC-MARSH CREATION ON A BARRIER BEACH
Final Elevation 1 to 4 feet
above MSL
5 Mean Sea Level (MSL)
1 ........
Existing Bottom
Ld 200 feet
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION CREATED ISLAND
Note: Planted with Spartina alterniflora
using plant roll technique
PREMIUM RIVER-MILLPOND WETLAND COMPLEX
MARSH CONSTRUCTION SCHEMATICS
JULY 1988
FIGURE 12
establishment of Spartina alternaflora populations in ments were not suitable for land disposal due to the
wetlands created with dredge spoil. The results of the high sodium content and the acidity of the sediments
study are summarized below: when drained.The report states that land disposal was
possible but would require neutralization with lime, con-
struction of filtered underdrains at the site to remove
Percent
Plant cosy saline leachate and a portable irrigation system to
Survival cost cost linear leach salts from the dredged sediments. Cropper con-
After Per Per Meter
Treatment 5 Months Plant Hectare" (20-m deep) cluded that use of Lorenzen field for disposal of 12,375
Plant roll 60 $0.60 $24,000 $0.48 cubic yards of dredged material(White, 1977) the ele-
1.1 kg/m2 44 1.58 63,200 1.26
Paratex mat vation would be increased by 3.30 feet. For the 20,000
Flat tires 38 3.66 146,400 2.93 cubic yards recommended in this report the elevation at
Burlap bundle 37 0.34 13,600 0.27 Lorenzen field would be raised by approximately 6
0.7 kg/m2 28 1.24 49,600 0.99 feet.Cropper expressed concern with placement of fill
Paratex mat
Standing tires 23 0.94 37,600 0.75
material on the low strength soils in the area due to po-
Multiple- 22 0.25 8,000 0.16 tential lateral displacement of the underlying marine
stemmed plants sediments. The general conclusion of the report was
Single- 18 0.15 6,000 0.12 that the use of the dredge material for marsh construc-
stemmed plants
tion as described in the White report was the better dis-
Hold-gro 17 0.34 13,600 0.27 posal alternative.
Sand grid 16 2.13 85,200 1.70
Enkamat 14 0.74 29,600 0.59 4.4.3 -Recommended DispDsal Aftemativ
Cortex 10 0.34 13,500 0.27 It is proposed that a ten-acre marsh be created at
the Premium Beach. This marsh would be created by
The burlap roll technique proved to be most cost hydraulic placement of dredge spoils from the Premium
effective. River. The Spoils would be placed on the bay side of
the beach to an elevation between mid-tide and mean
4 .4.2 Use as Local Fill high tide to provide the proper elevation for propagation
In 1980 a study was conducted by the Soil of S artina aftemiflora. The S artina will be
Conservation Service in cooperation with the established using the plant roll technique.
Westchester County Soil and Water A plant roll is constructed by laying a 12 foot
District(Cropper,1983). The report evaluated sedimen- length of 3 foot wide burlap on the ground. A 1.5 foot
tation in the Premium River and MillPond and reviewed wide strip of Paratex, a biodegradable mesh is placed
alternatives for dredge spoil disposal. Cropper's con- on the burlap, followed by sandy soil and groups of
clusions related to sedimentation support the conclu- plants placed at 1.5 foot intervals. The sides of the
sions of this report. burlap are closed around the plants and secured with
Cropper concluded that the Premium River sedi- hog rings. The resulting plant roll is buried in the
17
wetland plot. This planting method had the highest modular precast concrete retaining wall in 8 by 4 ft
survival ratio of those tested by the U.S. Army Engineer sections would be used to replace the compromised tie
Waterways Experiment Station, about 65 percent. retaining wall. The work could be accomplished in a
Generally, the created wetland was indistinguishable single day, based on historical output levels of 550
from local natural wetlands within two years, although square feet face area (SFFA) per day. Installation of
production was lower. footings and gravel backfilling behind the wall with
Sediment curtains would be installed around the gravel for drainage will be required.
area of marsh construction to minimize sediment
transport impacts on the bay. These curtains would be 4.6 PRYER MANOR MARSH
removed upon completion of pumping. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the
Specifications and permitting would be done techniques and associated components of alternative
under the dredging activities. actions which have been found economically and
technically feasible to improve conditions in the Pryer
4.5 BANK STABILIZATION-RIP RAP AND Manor Marsh. Alternative actions have been divided
RETAINING WALLS into the following groups:
Approximately 2,000 linear feet of shoreline will - Dredging
- Installation of Spillway
require stabilization. The riprap will be placed on the - Phragmites Control
concave bank of the steam bend to prevent continued - Biological Control
formation of sand bars at the tangents between the The impacts relating to each group are discussed
bends as shown in Figure 13. This is the hydraulic according to environmental or socioeconomic factors
mechanism which is forming the salt marshes in the which may be affected.
Premium River. The riprap will involve the placement 4.6.1 Dredoino
of 6-to 9-inch stone from the toe of the underwater The impacts associated with dredging alternatives
slope to above the high water mark. The interstitial include the physical transport of recommended dredge
spaces between the rocks will be filled with soil to allow equipment across narrow local streets in the vicinity of
vegetation to reestablish. The vegetation will increase the marsh. Since a crane 17 feet wide with a 100-foot
the bank stability and minimize the visual impact of the boom would be required to extend into the marsh
riprap. Reconstruction of the west bank retaining wall interior, transport and use of this equipment may
on the Pine Brook at the Boston Post Road is require temporary rerouting of electrical lines and
recommended. The existing railroad retaining wall is closure of area streets to traffic. During the projected
noticeably buckled and appears to have insufficient two-week period required to
strength for the overburden (photographs submitted to dredge the marsh, area residents would be exposed to
CZMC on February 23, 1988). Due to environmental increased noise levels and possible odors from dredge
concerns related to the leaching of wood preservatives material.
into the surface waters, we are recommending Placement of dredge material on marsh
installation of a prefabricated concrete retaining wall. A embankments would cause water to drain from the wet
18
PINEBA
O
VILLAGE OF
LARCHMON
Z, rn
y
`� �►n E`M i
9 4,
o 7D Z 0 /y < HEgTN
Z 0 J3tis E P 0
9F
O / DEAN 'I'SF�_ W11.LOW
CITY OF NEW OAK
ROCHELLE W ocusT
1 IrUJ
4 D o w
Q* A W00D6
DILLON RD. h�
Q' I
oa °_ y� \mow D LOCA71 N OF IP RAP
RFMi� �' •�Q" c� csy � n
p m
W
AZ
9� SpNq�F IgNE coq
q MA R R
OAK
CENTRAL
O PREMIUM ILL w BLUFF
POND a
9
T D
J�
Q
ECHO BAY I
JPO
cO
O
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
IIRNI EXTENT OF PROPOSED RIP RAP
FIGURE 13
soil directly into the marsh, temporarily affecting water was minimized.
quality. Dredging would disturb or eliminate marsh 4.6.3 Phragmites Control
sediments in dredge sites as well as increase turbidity. As discussed in the previous section, Phragmites
It is likely that invertebrate populations would be can be effectively controlled by installing a spillway
disturbed and may be lost in dredge sites. However, which would raise the water level over the marsh an
most aquatic species are mobile and can avoid turbid additional four to six inches.
areas and dredge sites. Waterfowl usage of the marsh By comparison, the dredging process would
would also be temporarily affected during the dredge eliminate only those Phragmites plants in dredge
operation. areas. Effective removal of remaining plants would
Vegetation in the marsh is principally a require application of a chemical herbicide such as
Phragmites monoculture. As such, the deposition of Rodeo. Use of Rodeo in the marsh would require an
dredge material along the southern boundary of the EPA permit, since application would be made over a
marsh would eliminate Phragmites and create an water body. In an aquatic environment Rodeo has a
upland. To place dredge fill in a wetland, a permit half-life of 60 days and during that time may affect
would be required by New York State as a provision of sensitive aquatic species.
the Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24). 4.6.4 Biological Control
4.6.2 Spillway Dredging the marsh would create water channels
Both installation of a spillway increasing culvert three feet deep which would provide habitat for Banded
capacity and placement of a berm on the marsh Killifish, Fundulus maialis. These native fish are
perimeter adjoining Pryer Manor Road and Dogwood effective in controlling mosquito larvae and other
Lane would temporarily disrupt traffic patterns in the aquatic insects.
area of the construction site. Since fill material would Although installation of a spillway would raise
be transported to the site, truck traffic would increase water levels, it is likely that the entire 16 to 18 inches of
during construction of the berm. The resulting increase surface water would freeze during the winter season.
in traffic would elevate noise levels along the proposed In this event, conditions would not support Fundulus
truck route and in the construction area. species as a biological control and alternative control
Impacts to aquatic biota during construction would methods would be required.
be temporary, and limited to the work area on the
marsh perimeter. 4.6.5 Recommended Actions
The principal difference between dredging the Based on an assessment of the environmental
marsh and constructing a spillway is the level of water and socio-economic impacts associated with remedial
over the marsh. Installation of a spillway would raise actions for the Pryer Manor Marsh, the following
the current water level of 12 inches an additional four to actions are recommended:
- Improve drainage to lessen and potentially
six inches. Since Phragmites could not survive over a eliminate the degree and frequency of flooding.
long period in 16 to 18 inches of water, areas of open - Increase the water level to control Phragmites
water would increase as the Phragmites monoculture and subsequently create additional open water
19
for waterfowl use. amphibian species. Placement of snags in the shallow
Introduce biological controls to increase species waters and along the marsh edge would provide
diversity and control insect populations. perches for insect-eating birds, such as swallows and
Replace Phragmites monoculture with wetland flycatchers. Furthermore, construction and installation
vegetation to increase plant diversity and of swallow nesting boxes would offer additional nesting
provide food and cover for wildlife. habitat. Bird boxes could be mounted on 2-inch
galvanized pipe or 2 X 2 inch pressure-treated wooden
Phragmites Management posts. Mounting brackets would be used to secure the
Increased water depths of 14 and 18 inches in the bird house to either type post. Price quotes for 2-inch
marsh would effectively control Phragmites growth galvanized pipe averaged $104.00 per 21-foot length or
without additional management or chemical $35.00 for each bird box, and treated posts (2 X 2
applications. To maintain this depth the current water inches) averaged$1.50 per 8-foot length.
level would be increased by four inches through Total costs for six bird houses and mounting
modification of the drain intake. This could be supplies would range as follows:
accomplished through construction of a catch basin at Galvanized Pipe - $268.00 to$273.00
the location of the existing drain pipe, however, a Treated Wooden Posts -$50.00 to$56.00
engineering study of the drainage from the Pryer Manor Costs outlined do not include labor costs for
Marsh is needed. As the Phragmites monoculture construction and placement of bird boxes in the marsh.
diminished, and as subsequent open water areas
became available, freshwater planting, which would Regulatory Requirements
increase plant diversity and provide food and cover for It is probable that the sites where soil would be
wildlife, could be introduced into the marsh. deposited to create a berm along the southern
The following plant species are recommended: boundary of the marsh would come under the
provisions of the New York State Freshwater Wetlands
Cost/ Act (Article 24, ECL; 6NYCRR Part 662). The law is
Each Plant
Marsh Hibiscus - Hibiscus moshentos 1 yr.plant $2.25 applicable to all wetlands over 12.4 acres or which may
Soft-Stem Bulrush - Scripus validus bare root 2.00 have a unique local significance. The wetlands
Pickerelweed - Pontederia cordata rhizome 1.50
Duck Potato - Sagittaria latifalia tuber 0.22 legislation requires that a permit be obtained for most
Arrow Arum - Peltandra virginiana bare root 0.22
Spatterdock - Nymphoides variegatum Price not available activities in classified wetlands which may result in
Prices do not include costs for planting substantial alteration of these resources. Wetlands are
delineated on the basis of hydric soils and the
Biological Controls presence of wetland vegetation and include swamps,
Providing the necessary requirements for insect- marshes, bogs and several other habitat types.
eating birds and amphibians would aid in the control of Conditions which may apply to these definitions
insect populations. Logs and emergent vegetation are the alteration of drainage conditions and the
along the marsh edge would create habitat for deposition of soil in a classified wetland.
20
4.7 CONTROL OF FLOODING
- preparation of final designs and issuance of contracts
The flooding of Pryer Manor Road at the Pryer needed to implement the project in a one-year period.
Manor Marsh requires detailed engineering evaluation. The critical item In the implementation of the proposed
Malcolm Pirnie's survey indicates that mean high tide schedule is the dredging. Dredging should be done in
elevation is within 0.1 feet of water elevation in the late November and early December to minimize the
Pryer Manor Marsh, essentially precluding flow. We impact on the biology of the Premium River - Millpond
recommend that two steps be taken as soon as Complex.
possible. The first is to obtain a conservation The monitoring program relies heavily on the
easement the Buchman properties. It appears that any CZMC and the support of local citizens. The program
mitigation of the current flooding problems will require can be implemented immediately upon approval if it is
use of these properties. A conceptual design was to be performed by the CZMC with citizen support. If
prepared which would mitigate flooding by storms by the program is to be contracted, a three-month period
less than a 10 year frequency. The design includes will be required for contracting.
raising the elevation of Pryer Manor Road by four feet,
installation of a berm south of the marsh and
replacement of the existing drain with a 3 by 3 ft box 7.0 PROPOSED MONITORING PRO GRAM
culvert (See Appendix F). The approximate
construction cost would be $200,000. A detailed The proposed long-term monitoring program was
engineering study would have to be done to design the developed to complement the data generated by this
modified drainage system and get accurate costs. Feasibility Study and prior studies of the area by Utter,
Cohen, Hohberg and others. The program was
5.0 FUNDING designed to provide useful data related to the
preservation of the area, while minimizing cost and
Federal and State Programs were reviewed to complexity of the data acquisition techniques. The
evaluate if the proposed actions would be eligible for program consists of five major elements including:
funding under those programs. The Programs identi- monitoring of sediment buildup on the Premium River,
fied as potential sources of funding are shown in Table high marsh and in the river channel; monitoring of
2. Applications should be requested and completed by production and community composition in the Pryer
the CZMC, if acting as the lead agency, to allow a de- Manor wetland and the Premium River marsh;
termination of eligibility. collection of data on newly created marshes in the Mill
Pond or Premium Point beach to characterize planting
6.0 IMPLEMENTATIONS H D l survival; periodic collection of water quality samples,
and inspection of physical structures.
A proposed schedule for implementation of the
proposed actions is shown on Figure 14. The schedule 7.1 SEDIMENTATION
is based on acquisition of the permits and funding, In order to monitor long-term buildup of sediments
21
Select RemedialActions
Investigate Potential Apply for Required
Funding Permits
(2 months) (4 to 6 months)
Prepare Contract
Documents
( 1 month)
i
i
Solicit Bids
(2 weeks)
Select Contractor(s)
-T
Perform Work
(3 months)
' Institute
Monitoring Program
PREMIUM RIVER-MILLPOND WETLAND COMPLEX
SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
i
JULY 1988
I
FIGURE 14
on the Premium River high marsh, stage poles would biweekly from May through September using the
be installed at a minimum of five locations in the marsh. staging poles installed for the sediment accretion stud-
The stage poles would be constructed from 1-inch ies. The marked staging poles would provide a means
galvanized or PVC conduit and driven into the marsh to for the measurements to be done from a single
a depth of approximately 10 feet, leaving 5 feet above location using binoculars. The data would be used to
the marsh surface. Markings would be made at one characterize productivity of the marshes based on
centimeter (cm) intervals for 10 cm above the marsh growth rate.
surface and the zero or initial reading marked. The Production would be monitored by yearly
remainder of the pole should be marked at 10 cm sampling in the Premium River marsh and Pryer Manor
intervals with alternate intervals painted a visible color wetlands. In each of the areas, five randomly located
such as yellow or red. Similar poles would be installed one square meter quadrats would be established
at ten locations in the Premium River, including sites of where all vegetation would be cut down to ground level.
historic sediment buildup as shown in Figure 15. The The vegetation would be separated by species type
river channel stage poles should be installed so the and weighed. This activity would provide data on
markings can be read from the shore at low tide. production levels in the high marsh and the formally
As a minimum, readings of sediment elevation connected wetland. The data would be used to
should be taken at the marsh stations yearly. evaluate production trends and the success of the
Readings should be taken at least quarterly, monthly if enhancement activities proposed for the Pryer Manor
possible, for Premium River channel stations. Marsh.
Elevations of the sediments should be recorded relative During the vegetation sampling, data would be
to the starting elevation such as +1 cm or -2 cm. collected on community structure. Counts and species
Negative readings are possible in the channel if bed identification would be done in each of the quadrats
material is shifted by flow. The results will provide prior to devoiding. All vegetation would be identified at
long-term data on sediment accretion rates in the high least to the genus level. The community composition
marsh, and on the changes in the Premium River will be defined by mapping species distribution within
channel due to sediment deposition and shifting of the the quadrat or by counts of individuals,where possible.
stream bed.
7.3 CREATED WETLANDS
7.2 WETLAND PRODUCTION/STRUCTURE Data collection for the newly created wetland in
Collection of data on production and community the Mill Pond would be similar to that proposed for the
structure of the study area wetlands will be used to Premium River Marsh and Pryer Manor Wetland.
monitor longterm biological trends. Reports on similarly created marshes indicate that two
The proposed program would include observation years are required for the created marshes to achieve
of the height , production and species composition of plant communities which are nearly identical to native
the vegetation. area marshes in community structure and density. For
The height of vegetation would be monitored this two-year period, "only surviving plants would be
22
PINEBR
00,, X
VILLAGE _ OF
LARCHMONT
�V1,,
<
XA
CITY OF NEW
LOCUST / ^•�•` l ��
RO..HELLE '�"--- Luw �: ,, � RtiDGE� �_✓�.
�00DO
D1LLON Il J(
RD.1
GU�O�►J
rM I�
rn
ti,
Fye �\�o W 0c
/ Z '
�,l �F SFR MANOR R&'
F
— _ OAK /
'CE_NTRqL, \ BLUFF
PREMIUh" /M:LL j Y l
PON
STAGE POLE STATION f
i�
ll
I
ECHO BAY I
�O
MALCOLM
1
- MAICOLM PIRNIE.r---INC.
PIRNIE LOCATION OF STAGE POLES FIGURE 15
counted" data would be collected only on planting The proposed monitoring program has been
survivals. Two yearly surveys would be done to count designed to be simple and inexpensive to implement,
live and dead plantings. The expected survival rate for while providing useful data. It was designed to be
the planting procedure specified is approximately within the resource availability of the CZMC.
60 percent. After the initial two years, the program Specifications for all required equipment and standard
described for the area native wetland would be institut- sampling protocols are included as Appendix G. The
ed. cost of the proposed program if done by the CZMC
would be $1,500 for purchase of equipment and$2,000
7.4 WATER QUALITY per year for chemical analyses and expendable items.
The results both of the quarterly water quality Cost for a contractor to do the work would be
surveys conducted for the Feasibility Study and studies approximately$6,000 per year.
of others in the 1970s indicate that water quality has
been stabile. Because of this stability, it is recom-
mended that two formal surveys per year are conduct-
ed, a single survey during low flow conditions and
another during a storm event. Water quality samples
should be collected at the ten Feasibility Study stations
shown on Figure 8. Samples should be collected for
total solids, fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci. At
each station for dissolved oxygen, salinity or
conductivity and temperature, using recording meters
(specifications are attached as Appendix G). Water
quality samples should be taken at high tide, using
either a Kemmerer sampler or pond sampler (see
Appendix G). During collection of the samples, the
water elevation should be noted using the staging
poles installed in the Premium River for sediment
deposition monitoring. This data would be useful in
characterizing the flow characteristics during sampling
and also provide a hydrologic database for the river.
Hydraulic profiles could be generated to evaluate
whether the hydraulics of the system were changing
over time. To accomplish this, the staging poles would
be surveyed to tie them into a single datum.
7.5 SUMMARY
23
TABLE 1
PREMIUM RIVER-PINE BROOK WETLAND COMPLEX
PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
FACILITY/ ESTIMATED MATERIAL INSTALLATION CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST UNIT PRICE COST COST
DREDGING-PREMIUM RIVER AND MILL POND
Hydraulic Dredging 19,450 cu yds $8.15 $158,520.00
Vegetation Harvesting 25 acres $3825.00 $95,625.00
(if required)
Temporary dam 200 cu yds $4.36 $872.00 $9.84 $1,968.00 $2,800.00
Dredge Contract/ $26,000.00
Permitting
MARSH CONSTRUCTION-PREMIUM BEACH
(12 acres or less)
Sand NA
Replanting 12 acres $20,000.00 $240,000.00
Sedimentation Curtains 4000 sq.ft. $0.75 $3,000.00 $1.83 $7,320.00 $10,320.00
Sand 1,620 cu yds $7.50 $12,150.00 $7.11 $15,180.00 $17,330.00
BANK STABILIZATION-PREMIUM RIVER
Retaining Wall 240 SFFA $17.80 $4,272.00 $2.66 $638.00 $4,910.00
(Modular Prefab Concrete)
v'
Concrete Footings 12 cu yds $192.40
$2309.00
Rip Rap 350 cu yds $8.06 $2,821.00 $13.32 $4,662.00 $7,483.00
DREDGING-PRYER MANOR MARSH
Drag Line Dredging 2000 cu yds $8.20 $16,400.00
Revegetation 8000 sq.ft. $3,500.00
Biological Controls $300.00
0849-06-1
24
TABLE 2
PREMIUM RIVER-PINE BROOK WETLAND COMPLEX
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY PROPOSED ACTION
Dredging Marsh Bank Enhancement
Premium Construction Stabilization Pryer Manor
River Premium Beach Marsh
US Department of Interior
14.411 Historic Preservation
Grants in Aid X
15.611 Wildlife Restoration X X X
Coastal Barriers Resource Act X
New York State Department of
Environmental Protection
Urban Fishery and Wildlife X X
Program
Environmental Quality Bond
Act, 1972 X X X X
Protection of Natural and
Manmade Beauty Program X X X
Beach Erosion Projects X
25
APPENDIX A
Request for Proposals
26
Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont
J J
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
April 30, 1987
Mr. Gary B. Trachtman, P.E.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Consulting Environmental Engineers
2 Corporate Park Drive
White Plains, New York 10602
Dear Mr. Trachtman:
The Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont, under the auspices of the
Coastal Zone Management Commission and with the cooperation of the City of New
Rochelle, seek to conduct a study entitled: "Feasibility Study of the Premium
River, Marsh, and Mill Pond." This study is the initial phase of a project
whose major objective is the restoration of the Premium River waterway. It is
one of the implementation projects recommended in the Town/Village Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Some of the problems contributing to the deterioration of the estuary are
increased and excessive siltation, erosion of the river banks and marshes, and
pollution from oil and sewage spills. Background information concerning the
history and problems that have had an adverse impact on the waterway and
marshes as well as previous professional studies will be made available. We
believe these to be important documents to be reviewed prior to the initiation
of the new study.
Consultants with experience in the management of sensitive areas with an
emphasis on soils and drainage, wetlands and saltwater biology, hydrology and
environmental engineering are invited to submit proposals. Submissions must
include qualifications and related experience of personnel. Your cost analysis
should include breakdown of professional services (time and cost):
The guidelines and outline of tasks (scope) is attached. This Commission would
like to consider your reply at its May 26, 1987, meeting, and your proposal
should therefore be sent to this office by, May 15. The selected consultant
should plan to begin work by the first week in June. The entire study must be
completed by April 30, 1988.
If you have any questions concerning the RFP, please contact Mary Anne Johnson
(914-834-1916) , Phyllis Wittner (914-235-0415), or Claudia Ng (914-381-6133).
Upon submission of your proposal, we would like to arrange a meeting with you.
Sincerely,
?,!J
Robert S. Schoenberger
Chairman
Enclosure
Addrptis L'.)rrrcnondonco to C'7`.1 C'ommk,;inn 7-111 Rtwtiin lnct 121.i,-iri Vy 11513 Phone
-2- RFP
SCOPE: Feasibility Study of the Premium River, Marsh and Mill Pond
(Location map enclosed.)
The study of existing conditions and correlation with past studies in order to
arrive at solutions with alternatives, recommendations for plan of action with
costs and strategy.
Proposal should incorporate the following items:
1. Provision of scientific data as follows:
a. assessment of the rate of increase of sediment deposits, depths
of waters , hydrological features (rainfall , velocity- both tidal
and streams, wind influence; preferably under normal and storm
conditions;
b. assessment of the quality of the water including pollution
sources, bacteria count, turbidity,, salinity,.odor;
C. observation of the kinds of bottom dwellers, fish, other sea
life, vegetation and wildlife; -
d. correlation of the above data with existing studies in order to
weigh alternatives and arrive at final, considered
recommendations. (See summary of previous studies ' recommended
actions.)
2. Inspection of existing structures:• seawalls (river and pond) , weir,
bridge, drainage pipes to evaluate sources of point and non-point
pollution.
3. Provision of exact specifications with estimated costs for proposed
physical improvements. (Previously suggested improvements were
catch basins with oil collars and trash racks, bank stabilization,
seawall repair, weir repair and dredging the river. Dredging must
address subjects of type, quantity and removal of spoils with a
feasible solution.)
4. Stage priorities by evaluating the advantages , drawbacks and impacts
.• of various actions, weigh alternatives.
S. Development of a sound, long-term monitoring program in order to
assess changes, pick-up new and emerging problems as they occur, and
measure the success or failure of clean-up programs.
The principal investigator, who is responsible for coordinating study
and arriving at recommendations, should schedule at appropriate time
intervals interim reports and meetings with this Commission.
APPENDIX B
Narative-Significant Coastal Fish &Wildlife Habitat
27
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT NARRATIVE
-----------------
PREMIUM RIVER - PINE BROOK WETLANDS
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
The Premium River - Pine Brook Wetlands are located on Long Island
Sound in the Town of Mamaroneck, the City of New Rochelle and the
Village of Larchmont, Westchester County (7.5 ' Quadrangle: Mount
Vernon, N.Y. ) . The fish and wildlife habitat is an approximately
65 acre area including Pine Brook south of the Boston Post Road,
the Premium River, Premium Mill Pond, the northeast portion of
Echo Bay, salt marsh areas adjacent to the river and creek and
small portions of adjacent meadow. The land area bordering the
wetlands complex is predominantly moderate density residential and
commercial. Several town and village owned parklands including
the Premium River Conservation Area, Woodbine Park, Kane Park, and
Lorenzen Park are part of the habitat area. The portion of the
habitat area within Mamaroneck and Larchmont was designated as a
Critical Environmental Area under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
FISH & WILDLIFE VALUES:
The Premium River - Pine Brook Wetlands area is a relatively
undeveloped complex of tidal river, tidal flats, shallows, salt
marsh and freshwater wetlands which is unusual in Westchester
County. Although adjacent and upstream developments and water
pollution have degraded this area, the wetland complex remains
undeveloped and the range of natural communities in this area
support a diversity of fish and wildlife species. Local efforts
are underway to preserve, maintain and restore the wetlands. As
an initial step, the Department of State has funded the
development of a wetland restoration and management plan for the
Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont.
The productive salt marshes, tidal flats and shallows serve as
nursery and feeding areas for a variety of finfish species
including alewife, striped bass, blackfish, bluefish, cod, eel,
winter flounder, summer flounder, mackerel , menhaden, porgy,
weakfish, silversides and killifish. Shellfish found in the area
include hard clam, soft clam, blue mussel , American oyster and bay
scallop. Although the area was once used for planting and
harvesting oysters, the entire area is now closed to shellfishing
due to degraded water quality (high coliform levels) .
Recreational fishing remains locally important.
A variety of coastal wildlife species occur in and around the
Premium River - Pine Brook Wetlands. Nesting bird species include
black crowned night heron, ring-necked pheasant, mallard, Canada
goose, mute swan and killdeer. Many species of waterfowl,
shorebirds, marsh birds and passerine species feed in the area as
residents during the summer and also during spring and fall
migrations. Large concentrations of black duck occur during
migrations and in recent years, osprey (T) have been observed
migrating through the area. Overwintering species include common
loon (SC) , American coot, greater scaup, lesser scaup, shoveller,
mallard, common goldeneye, canvasback, common merganser, hooded
merganser and red-breasted merganser. The use of this area by
waterfowl in winter is influenced by the extent of ice cover on
Premium Mill Pond. Waterfowl hunting is not allowed except for
some areas offshore of Premium Point.
The combination of this area' s diverse natural communities and
wildlife and its proximity to New York City and the densely
populated region of Westchester County makes the Premium River -
Pine Brook Wetlands area significant for informal nature study,
birding, photography, environmental education and research. The
L. I .F.E. Center naturalists as well as other Westchester citizens
groups conduct frequent nature walks in this area for school
groups and adults. Several high schools and universities use this
area as an ecological laboratory.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any activity that would further degrade the water quality in
Premium, River, Pine Brook, Premium Mill Pond and associated
wetlands would adversely affect the biological productivity of
this area. All species of fish and wildlife may be affected by
water pollution such as chemical contamination ( including food
chain effects) , oil spills, excessive turbidity or sedimentation,
waste disposal, and sewage discharges. Efforts should be made to
improve water quality in the area by controlling runoff and waste
discharge from adjacent and upstream commercial and residential
areas and improving tidal flushing. Elimination of freshwater
wetlands, salt marsh and intertidal areas through excavation or
filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area.
Natural plant communities bordering the wetlands should be
maintained to provide cover for wildlife, erosion control, and
buffer zones. Opportunities for compatible public uses of the
area (nature study, environmental education) should be maintained
or enhanced to utilize this valuable fish and wildlife resource.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
NYS Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources and _
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Glenn Cole, Wildlife Manager
or .Tack Isaacs, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYS DEC - Region 3
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz , NY 12561
Phone: (914) 255-5453
John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
or Pieter VanVolkenburgh, Chief - Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYS DEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (5 16) 751-7900
Alison Beall, Curator
Marshlands Conservancy
Westchester County Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Conservation
Route 1
Rye, NY 105680
Phone : (914) 835-4466
Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Larchmont
Coastal Zone Management Commission
750 West Boston Post Road
Mamaronack, NY 10543
Phone: (914) 381-6133
NYS DEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (5 18) 439-7486
1
a t{ye' t •+ rl '', of. G h ��•
'IL
4..•Im•n14�••/�'•'.l::¢ ' I r ` r .���• /'tom "td
t. +ti• 'tir.+Y'P,i,l'I• iJ -sl.•{ Jr titch Sch - (i' ��J Up� /•/�� ' rI rh •� T ,
.::,�`{�, rh��drTJ'lLT't� :Fa ,. ` •`+ '., �i. iy .."
a'
100
• S.t++�C •y�•' �r•VI,,
•z CCuntry Club U w - �' J.• I . Sen
e-
agt ^��
� �^*' P k .,.:i 9 �� •, ,..�� ;tires � i .;;, '� �o
y' .t �/L r_C'1.:+',1 I r,^�•i ppb �•�'�rp0 r9+t,.FO j, I '.Q 1 'y'L>� ' t ;♦j.
AS John and PA.k-_S
Club
iwh FoOes,�
'/ Wv �y► �'Y poi , �� 1 y �.
\.\ _'_'-sm-� ArE -�•y' �"�tr 'I;Q q �yM� �•� \•I .) 1' JIU��C St.•°�� �L�'F �y,� -i e, j t..
/,`. �,c_F•N_f�s=?• :rtje;. `1 %v„I. ( Q '(r �I ►��'•.O' ' �r.. fOMG.. `�• l�',-r1 : .�-., - Yt<� i/
r l'� ,r'/i :y-:.'t■ AVE_ds: 'r, ri r r i�i I\ .: 'CG '.•� � \ a, - . ;�, '� ,,`y '�-
,• ,/ ;1:Nr,tl'rl E''+N���_ y,-. '1 1 '�.�•���. l�y•`•,a p1'C ,•; .<, / C� ., `+' '}• r./
,J : '. •,t
yo5 r '-:._ xr �� 1 1'r (` �. \Ph q ;:II'� /,,Is s7tr ..>.`• '!., rl r�. ►V� LV1 c - `�•tl *•.
r '/ :y, �;' . \ �``r 1Ti,,rle•�'bb� �' ►'•<- ��' 1.1 0'B e 8 c fl m an i t IN \ ' ''.
,/ J.,, .•j•'. _ —'t '•4R U rt E ''A•rt ';l j M! P ;�•'.�-, .'f•'” `` 1 ) r�•
I Y _ Rn r /i✓/ y.;' I ,I i �. ii �V•QO(�.7-�e►�'t :r•�','
! ♦. : 1 I 1('>:>,r t: 1 ��• "'C`_J/A I ol� (Tir-! w R.• j �S ` L ,
..ij 1 7U NT
-+ Y I 1' �i Q,M/1�`� �^// L�•�✓✓v-h '•f�� ,ra. I .IK, t:n �- /arn`:.n�,'�;' •� _ `•.:.7`�•�.y l.y
' tis BeechIYt
PARK1 ♦crov_ /tel` ;'� \�-�"�I'Zke �\�� ha''i'•j'��:'ryF "Puatctnd�
f� Beecii�mbnt� " !.. - 1.P 1 ` # *�. Ste `'; ^+, �r
i ;.:- '}} �`_ EA PK
,r
rl _,^. 'i s j-- L4d't'� L9 .•�1 �(-` i,lr�\ �- i� ',l• 0 s-, . ,►�C',', •St► t , ,A � ....
3 a 1 ,� �.; Il �\ 'ai''/ ` t' \ ` 1� SPF • al:✓ ' 7 % ''
•S C` /', , %4
• 56 �t 1 t .: r \ v .�4� /•tyt / ��` ^(•Iw7t iP'1Rth A+Q l
< '` '• / (`.j h y, ".JVD ` •'•^ ` /.. ': a�t
nu 'Rao?q T wer. ? 1 �- ! ` 5 a,L+l1i1VHA!}Ij\,
sl (, )Ie�ii�'+:, ,��i .`� /`►'eti/�./. �t1 ` +. yf ('s•. 1
'�, .� ?, `,,yyy(Jo�•cr Ar' - �.IR
j
C kh )' , c, - -•Nt!{,*}ILS n� ap•: t' �y.
� i , � ;3� 7r^ j �. e�• G ILC ..'<`�. -;.�• -f :LO- .,; � ..r 1 Ir,M
1 -;' ttl,ly Famdi cw •y t,ru,;� ., ►1fc,+'�-v ti� I ,�. `•,. 'i.
ail n
n lyANr �wE'``RU�;IiCJ)�t�. y�N�' . ,r tuv:en'.
;�"1' _ f Park
lltly, -�C-Cs`iur,
} Luba: — -s -- 'Cplperrn r+IQm "icy
home 1 ;
'lv ;.yiAV
Z t Roc' ,ci I e"... • i ' ~ I y
s,• j- _fir
atrhlrwln. �;` I-Jk +a E � Park ` Homestead\ ,° �,• ;
l in i r- G Av ^j �c «°+ -LC 1-1 %• , 'ark '
NEWROCHELLE
r.Vf. -t,- r '+ - •' orci
rmory' d4/
�; �Mc r� 4; `` '-, 5^-w g
++ FeerY.= JJesfa �� `'',' sa j
Fark \
rro
rot. '�I .•1 1yirbrsrr SthwA�t+� KtC•hna�ie� b:; r� 5la '/"" •,p;. I Seogel`'u3 .� .
' .7 ,f+.'r•' ;• r' •^.%MarnsUn
_
r. : tic 7Sc' Waxhivetot�
:6eaul,- t- 1'r�
LHADI �r=- x tY Y�t-1 ; ��-y�` ;5`t p• r;' ��T :.Ff-mlunl
- r �/ f ►' .i. .�.....'•-'/ ' , 8lwitlt�itiuerame Cl+blrtY. ;yt. Cul:w t F;
�:�. 7 • r" '.Cemetery .,�� / ��
•t�:biOy z c .r . l:rh., i:u!I
/ \ ;Trinity a' had
`r rl•...��a�r t it I Cemetery \
hn /r nivn¢,I �� r ! ".�1 ♦ , , i' ',M , y Crh sV eYt
NCY / �' ;," ..� , r 1 'r A ^ dol 11
Jr Na311 M, tt
�� moi, ;F: -KirlG51; N►CF.'' .Y P fc .� t •� - 0
�,3�""S'3 Ave I, _r + /f j /�►N). ''As Rye s 1 a e T1 C,�.5 r , 7` �•.ai ti'l t ?¢ j 6)P of
%,
�j- .8 •�.�.. .`•7}� 'PaT�+•..tom; , ,- "� 0"' Sa)I SUl3l'1 y r S5
c t % ellare +
_.it-. , COLLEtIB OF \,(• v
a •�tcun.ta.„•tacrtr.•� .f�i` �1�)l�Mrlli- � y,,,
1 •,` "•.'Pine
Wa1z, Quad: Mount Vernon, NY -y� Island
• - Area Name: Premium River- mp"' a` ,;i` til,•IIII•
Pine Brook Wetlands t: Eiy '•.•9�.. Par•
Habitat Boundary: _ �.r, •�: .0 Q° , ; 's [:•II•r.11C
`a J � � _ _ `-,a�/4'• 9u.fi�c::•,�w y�. /7 ._,;`D_'
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Premium River - Pine Brook Wetlands
County(ies) : Westchester
Town(s) : Mamaroneck, New Rochelle
7.5' Quadrangle(s) : Mount Vernon, NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS) (R) (ISxR)
Individual Replace- Final
Score ability Score
---------------------------------------
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER) : 9 x 1 .2 = 10.8
--------- --------- ------
A relatively undeveloped complex of
tidal flats, salt marsh, and
freshwater wetlands; unusual in
Westchester County.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV) : 0 x 1 .2 - 0.0
--------- --------- ------
Possibly important for overwintering
by common loon (SC) but further
documentation is needed on the extent
of use by this species.
HUMAN USE (HU) : 4 x 1 .2 = 4.8
--------- --------- ------
Environmental
-----
Environmental Education, research, and
informal nature study attract visitors
from throughout Westchester County.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL) : 0 x 1 .2 0.0
--------- --------- ------
No unusual concentrations of any
fish or wildlife species occur in the
area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R) : 1 .2
Irreplaceable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
SIGNIFICANCE _ [(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR) ] = 15.6
APPENDIX C
History of the Study Area
28
FINAL 05/25/88
Historical Highlights
It is believed that the Siwanoy Indians (Mohegan tribe , aigonquin nation)
built stone and log weirs to trap fish running with the tide . It is also
known that a dam existed prior to 1741 at the site of the present "Red Bridge"
(Pryer ' s Bridge) when the Palmer family used the impounded tidal waters to
provide power for the first Premium Grist Mill. The Mill Pond was formed by
an old rock dam thrown across the mouth of the estuary between the mainland of
the City of New Rochelle and the peninsula , Premium Point , at the site of a
former Indian weir. The first Mill was probably owned by Sylvanus Palmer who
died in 1742.
While Seacord and Hadaway 1 mention Sylvanus ' son, John, as the next
owner , a search of the deeds at the Land Office in Westchester County showed
the sale of Sylvanus Palmers ' e�tate by his son, Salvenas Palmer , to John
Stevenson on November 14, 1751 . A mortgage recorded on October 2, 1755 with
the eventual sale of these lands on August 15 , 1788 was recorded between John
Palmer and John Stevenson.3 (Seacord and Hadaway record Gilbert Willett (no
deed found) as the owner after John Palmer and omit John Stevenson. ) Research
did not uncover the deed recording the sale of land by John Stevenson.
The next deed found was between Samuel Underhill and his wife , Anna, and
James Mott on April 17 , 1815 for some 50 acres of land which was probably an
addition since Seacord and Hadaway stated that Samuel Underhill sold the Mill
to his brother-in-law, James Mott , in 1776. (The deed of 1815 does mention an
indenture made on September 20 , 1786. )
"James Mott of N.Y.C. retired at the age of 33 , and settled in Mamaroneck
on the "West Neck" of land of his grandfather's grandfather, J?hn Richbell , on
the peninsula nearly in front of the Village of New Rochelle." (It was
Richbell who bought Mamaroneck in 1661 from the Wappaquewam and Manhattan
Indians . ) In 1776, the original Palmer farm house burned down. Mott then
built and lived in the 2 story farm house , which was later occupied by the
Pryer family and is now 4 Pryer Manor Road (John and Marianne Sann) . It is the
oldest building in the Village of Larchmont and has been designated a historic
building. The Mott family operated the Grist Mill located at the far end of
the Mill Pond for over 40 years .
"The Motts were Quakers and suffered severely during the Revolutionary
War. Many were the times that the Whaleboatmen (men who favored the American
cause and stopped the flow of contraband that was moving into N.Y. City to
supply the British) and their leader, Captain Pete Davis , came to their rescue
in driving off the "Skinners" (recant Americans detested by all because they
robbed and killed from both sides , whichever favored their needs) who were
raiding the Mott 's Mill and homestead. During the daytime the Whaleboatsmen
1 . Seacord and Hadaway, Historical Landmarks of New Rochelle , 1938 . New
Rochelle , New Rochelle Trust Co.
2. Liber G, p. 437 , 11/23/1751 .
3. Mortgage recorded in index as 10/2/1755 ; actually 6/8/1755 .
4. Liber R, p. 258, 4/17/1815 .
5 . Scharf, Thomas J. , History of Westchester County, New York, 1886. L.E.
Philadalnhia _ Proctnn n_ R7A _
-2- History
would hide in the Mill Pond keeping out of sight of any British patrol boats
moving al .g L&ng Island Sound. On moonless nights , the Whaleboatsment would
overtake any small sailing vessel carrying contraband to the British in New
York City." The Whaleboatsmen would remove all goods and men from the ship,
set it on fire, and return to New Rochelle. They allowed the crew to escape
when they were near Davenport Neck. Livestock were turned loose on Mott ' s
Island , and then by day, th9se Whaleboatsmen returning to Connecticut reloaded
cattle etc. for sale there.
The neck of land known today as Premium Point was known as Mott 's Neck;
Echo Island at the tip of the neck was called Mott ' s Island. After the
Revolutionary War , the old Mott 's Mill at Pryer ' s Bridge was abandoned,
probably because the waterway was relatively narrow above the first dam site
and little power could be generated.
In 1801 , the Motts built the Premium Mill and the present dam on Mott 's
Neck 500 feet east of Mott 's Island. It was the largest flour mill in the
country, equipped with twelve large grindstones , and was operated by James and
his 3 sons , Richard, Robert and Samuel . It stood four stories high and was
located at the south end of the dam (Premium Point) . Being near the mouth of
the bay , the tides provided water power , and gave much larger storage of water
than the dam above at the old mill. Most of the flour was exported to Europe.
The Premium Mill was at the Mamaroneck end of the Mill dam, and the dam
connected with the New Rochelle shore. The miller 's house was at the New
Rochelle end. Access to and from the Mill was by a private road in
Mamaroneck, rynning over the old Mill dam at Pryer ' s , down the beach to the
Premium Mill. (The road from the New Rochelle end of the dam to the Boston
Post Road, Premium Point Road, was built by Coles in 1829 . )
At first this new venture was a huge success , and Adam Mott of Long
Island, son-in-law of James Mott , joined them in 1803. Robert and Samuel
became owners and managers of the Mill in 1804. Robert , who resided in New
York City, acted as their agent and handled the exportation of flour with
John L. Bowne as his partner. Adam became a part-owner of the Mill property
in 1804.: Robert died in 1805 and Richard Mott was added as a partner then.
Unfortunately, the wars between Napoleon and England in 1806, the
embargoes and blockade of our ports during the War of 1812 and the opening of
the Erie Canal brought disaster to this once flourishing enterprise. In 1915 ,
the property passed from the Motts to Isaac W. Coles and William F. Coles .
The Mill never fully recovered from the wars , and in addition, western New
York soon developed as the center of the milling industry.
In 1843 , Henry P. Kellogg from New Rochelle became the owner of the Mill
and held it for 40 years. The last use of the Mill was for grinding barytes.
The Pyemium Mill was abandoned and eventually torn down in January or February
1883 . Kellogg divided part of the lands into three or four large estates ,
which are some of today's Premium Point estates .
6. Bromley and Newberry, 75 Years at Echo Bay Yacht Club 1910 to 1985 .
7 _ T.i Thor q n_ 19 T).nc 1 1 1 R1 S
-3- History
Water and water courses , the beach surrounding the Mill Pond lands , the
private nature of the roads involved were first mentioned as early as 1786,
and continued to be conveyed as private property through the ensuing years .
It is interesting to note that in 1855 , Henry P. Kellogg leased the Prgmium
Mill Pond to William Tucker "for planting and then removing oysters".
The history of Pryer Manor becomes less divergent now and centers on the
area as we know it today. Very little seems to have been written about the
family that gave this area its name . John Pryer was born in New York City in
1802 . He worked there as a merchant , and moved to the Town of Mamaroneck in
1839 . It is said that he purchased 150 acres of land which he soon sold. The
next recorded events were the death of John Pryer on April 18, 1875 and the
death of his wife, Eliza M. , on June 9 , 1887 at the age of 75 . They had five
children.
Their son, George , was deceased prior to January 7 , 1888, but little else
is known of him, except that he had a son, Henry, as mentioned in family deeds .
William C. was a physician in the Village of New Rochelle. (The text records
him in9error as William E. It also states that he died on September 24,
1888. ) John T. was a merchant residing in New York City. Adeline C. lived
in the Village of New Rochelle. Charles , referred to in the County deeds as a
"Gentleman residing in the Town of Mamaroneck" received the most written
notice . He was born in 1851 , "l ved on the old Pryer Homestead in the Town of
New Rochelle" and was an author. Two of his works were "Reminiscences of an
Old Homestead" and "Legends of Westchester County, New York" . (Neither of
these works dealt with the Pryer home or Mill. ) On June 17 , 1880, Charles
married Julia C. Miller who died in October 1884, leaving one son, Harold C.
Charles remarried in 1888 to May E. Harmer. They had a daughter, Alice de
Crevecoeur. As the source text was published in 1899 , the history ends at
this point .
An incomplete search of Westchester County Land Records provided the
following information. February 8, 1888 saw the division of the John Pryer
estate amongst his four children (Adeline, William C. , Charles , John T. ) as
shown on map #886 filed January 1888. They all had basically the same rights :
they owned 1/2 part of the roads laid out on map #886 opposite and contiguous
to their parcels ; they had water rights to the Mill Pond, "Creek" , river and
Long Island Sound; they had rights of way across Premium River Road, Pryer Lane
and Pryer Manor Road; they had the right to use the Beach Lot for ingress and
egress to and from the waters of L. I. Sound. These rights continued to be
passed on to current owners . However, on January 19 , 1957 the roads lying in
the Town of Mamaroneck were deeded to the Town.
8. Liber 299 , p. 416 .
9 . Biographical History of Westchester County New York, 1899 . Chicago, The
Lewis Publishing Co. , Vol . II, p. 572.
-4- History
Updating: Governmental Actions
By the 1960s , our foresighted local officials , in particular Christine
Helwig, initially as the Town Council member liaison to the Parks and
Recreation Committees and subsequently as Supervisor of the Town of Mamaroneck,
along with a small but growing public began to awaken communities to the
realization that some of our greatest assets were slipping away. The concept
of preserving the Premium River , marshes and Mill Pond to "safeguard the
community's few remaining natural areas and to supplement recreation
facilities" was first found in the Comprehensive Master Plan for the Town of
Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont (May 1966) . It called for the acquisition
and dedication of thirteen acres in the Town and nine acres in the Village
including the Village owned "beach lot" with access from Point Road as a
Premium Beach Conservation Area. A study group was formed to "preserve the
natural wetlands and improve the high area for the use of the community" , and
acquisition was begun. The Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) , formed in
1964 and named a Commission in 1973 , was responsible for the maintenance and
development of the Premium River Conservation Area then as it is today.
By the 1970s , the modern environmental movement was born and with it came
the augmented knowledge of the importance of wetlands as fish and wildlife
habitats , for water quality improvement , flood protection, shoreline erosion
control , for aesthetic reasons and recreation. The 70' s also saw passage of
federal and state legislation calling for user restraint and appropriate
management through local programs . Restraints were provided to some extent in
the New York State (NYS) Environmental Conservation Law; some of its impacts
are of special interest to the Premium, for example , Article 8 The State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) , Article 15 Water Resources and
Article 25 Tidal Wetlands . The latter inventoried and mapped the Premium area
on map #604-530 in 1976.
SEQRA, adopted in 1978 , required that environmental factors be considered
along with social and economic considerations in government decision-making.
It encouraged communication between government agencies , project sponsors , and
the general public . Under SEQRA, provision was made for local government
agencies to designate specific geographic areas within their boundaries with
"exceptional or unique characteristics" as Critical Environmental Areas (CEA) .
This was instituted in 1986 by the Town and the Village in their joint Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) , and when they passed local laws
designating some 40 acres as the Premium Salt Marsh Complex.
Perhaps the Coastal Zone Management Act (Federal 1972 , NYS 1979) brought
the greatest boost to the Premium Complex initially when NYS in its Draft
Program (1979) designated the "Premium Marsh Complex- Significant Habitat
area, an area for preservation and restoration" as a Geographic Area of
Particular Concern (No. 27 A-8) because of "coastal-related values ,
characteristics or impacts on them". This designation was meant to encourage
municipalities to provide appropriate management for the area through local
programs .
History
The LWRP, which adapted NYS coastal policies to local conditions , was
adopted by the Town and Village on June 30 , 1986 and approved by NYS on
October 28, 1986. It was the LWRP's detailed description, study of problems and
possible solutions in the Premium Conservation Area coupled with the framework
of state policies that formed the basis for the local CEA legislation, and for
this Feasibility Study.
The CEA designation gave special protection because under SEQRA a CEA
automatically becomes part of the statewide Type I list. Hereafter , any action
occuring "wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to" it is
considered to be a Type I action for any local or state agency that may be
involved, and a determination of environmental impact and significance must be
made.
Two local policies were added to the LWRP: Policy 7A states that as one of
the three "locally important habitats", The Premium Salt Marsh Complex, "shall
be protected, preserved , and, where practicable, restored, so as to maintain"
its viability as a habitat . This Policy was adopted in order "to strengthen the
hands of the municipal governments in pursuing restorative, enhancing, and
protective actions--and in obtaining the cooperation of all , both within and
beyond our municipal borders". Policy 44A called for the restoration of
wetlands that have suffered damage.
On November 15 , 1987 , Policy 7 became effective when after a six year
investigation of habitats , NYS identified the approximately 65 acre
trimunicipal (Town, Village and City of New Rochelle )Premium River-Pine
Brook Wetlands Complex on the State Coastal Area Map as one of the seven
Westchester County "Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats" under
the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (19NYCRR Part
600.5) . According to that Act , "Communities that prepare an LWRP are
required to protect designated significant habitats and are encouraged to
use local land use controls for habitat protection" .
A constant , reoccuring theme in the LWRP is one that stresses the need
for cooperation from our neighboring municipalities to try and adopt
"provisions for preserving wetlands and other remaining open space in the
shared watersheds , and making of plans for permanent organizational
structures by which the municipalities sharing each watershed can manage it
in cooperation". This is the way of the future.
APPENDIX D
Compilation of Bird Lists
29
(Revised 5/12/88)
COMPILATION OF BIRD LISTS for THE PREMIUM RIVER-PINE BROOK WETLANDS COMPLEX
1 Identified in Chester Place Woods (May 1967- July 1960- T. Waller.
Pryer Manor Marsh, Premium River, Marsh, Mill Pond and adjacent lands:
2 1970- 1973 (Sidney Bahrt et al).
3 October 1978- 1985 (Mary Anne Johnson et al) .
4 1987-1988 Audubon Christmas Count & PPPA Monitors (partial)
* Occasional or rare.
(E) N.Y. State List of Endangered Species (1983)
(S) " " Species of Special Concern
(T) Threatened Species
(V) IfVulnerable Species
GAVIIFORMES
Gaviidae- Loons :
(S) Common Loon Gavia immer 3
PODICIPEDIFORMES
Podicipedidae- Grebes :
Horned grebe Colymbus auritus 3 4
Pie-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 3
CICONIIFORMES
Ardeidae- Herons :
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 3 4
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 2 3
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 2
Green Heron Butorides striatus 1 2 3
Great Egret Casmerodius albus 2 3 4
Snowy Egret Egretta thula 2 3 4
Louisiana Heron Hydranassa tricolor 2* 4*
(S) Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 1
Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa Violacea 3*
Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 3 4
Threskiornithidae- Typical Ibises:
Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus 1 3
ANSERIFORMES
Anatidae- Cygninae- Swans :
Mute Swan Cygnus olor 2 3 4
Anatidae- Anserinae- Geese
Brant Branta bernicla 4
Canada Goose B. canadensis 2 3 4
Snow Goose Chen hyperborea 3 4
Anatidae- Anatinae- Marsh Ducks :
Wood Duck Aix sponsa 2 3*
Common Pintail Anas acuta 3*
-2- (Revised 5/12/88)
Anatidae- Anatinae- Marsh Ducks- cont. :
Americ_: Widgeon (Baldpate) Anas americana 2 3 4
Northern Shoveler A. clypeata 3 4
Eurasian Widgeon A. penelope 2 3* 4
Mallard A. platyrhynchos 1 2 3 4
American Black Duck A. rubripes 2 3 4
Gadwall A. strepera 3 4
Anatidae- Aythyinae- Diving Ducks
Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 3 4
Greater Scaup A. marila 3 4
Canvasback A. valissineria 2 3 4
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 3 4
Common Goldeneye B. clangula 3
Anatidae- Oxyurinae- Stiff-Tailed Ducks :
Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 3
Anatidae- Merginae- Mergansers:
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 3
Common Merganser (Goosander) Mergus merganser 3
Red-breasted Merganser M. serrator 3 4
FALCONIFORMES
Accipitridae- Hawks etc. :
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 4
(T) Northern Harrier (Marsh Hawk) Circus cyaneus 3
Buteoninae- Eagles etc. :
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 3
(T) Red-shouldered hawk B. lineatus 3
Cathartidae- American vultures :
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 3
Pandionidae- Ospreys :
(T) Osprey Pandion haliaetus 3
Falconinae- Falcons:
Merlin Falco columbarius 3
American Kestrel F. sparverius 2 3
GALLIFORMES
Tetraonidae:
Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus 1 3*
Phasianidae:
Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 1 2 3
GRU IFORMES
Rallidae- Duck-like swimmers :
American Coot Fulica americana 2 3
Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 3*
Clapper Rail R. longirostris 3*
-3- (Revised 5/12/88)
CHARADRIIFORMES
Charadriidae- Plovers :
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 2*
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 1 2 3
Scolopacidae- Sandpipers etc. :
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 3
Sanderling Calidris alba 2
Dunlin C. alpina 3*
White-rumped Sandpiper C. fuscicollis 2
Pectoral Sandpiper C. melantos 2
Least Sandpiper C. minutilla 2
Semipalmated Sandpiper C. pusilla 2 3
Scolopacidae- Sandpipers etc.- cont. :
American Woodcock Philohela minor 3
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 2 3
Greater Yellowlegs T. melanoleuca 2 3
Solitary Sandpiper T. solitaria 2
Laridae- Larinae- Gulls :
Laughing Gull Larus atricilla 3 4
Herring Gull L. argentatus 1 2 3
Ring-billed Gull L. delawarensis 3 4
Greater black-backed Gull L. marinus 2 3 4
Laridae- Sternidae- Terns :
(E) Least (Little) Tern Sterna albifrons 3
(T) Common Tern S. hirundo 3
Rynchopidae- Skimmers :
Black Skimmer Rynchops niger 3*
COLUMBIFORMES
Columbidae- Pigeons , doves :
Rock Dove Columba livia 1 2 3
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 1 2 3 4
STRIGIFORMES
Tytonidae- Barn owls :
(S) Barn Owl Tyto alba 3
Strigidae- Typical owls :
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 3
Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca 3*
Common screech owl Otus asio 3
CAPRIMULGIFORMES
Caprimulgidae- Goatsuckers :
(S) Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 3
APODIFORMES
Trochilidae:
(V) Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris 1 2 3
-4- (Revised 5/12/88)
CORACIIFORMES
Alcedinidae- Kingfishers :
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon 2 3
PICIFORMES
Picidae- Woodpeckers:
Common ("Yellow-shafted") Flicker Colaptes auratus 1 2 3 4
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 3
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 1 2 3 4
(V) Hairy Woodpecker P. villosus 1 2 3
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 3 4
Red-headed ifM. erythrocephalus 1 3
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 2 3
PASSERIFORMES
Tyrannidae- Flycatchers :
Eastern Pewee Contopus virens 2 3
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flairventris 1
Acadian Flycatcher E. virescens 1
Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 2
Ash-throated Flycatcher M. cinerascens 2*
Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 1 3
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 1 2 3
Hirundinidae- Swallows :
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 2 3
Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bicolor 3
Cliff " Petrochelidon pyrrhonata 1
Bank " Riparia riparia 2 3
Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis 1 2
Corvidae- Jays , Crows :
Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 2 3
Fish Crow C. ossifragus 3
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristat 1 2 3 4
Paridae- Titmice:
Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus 1 2 3 4
Tufted Titmouse P. bicolor 1 2 3 4
Sittidae- Nuthatches :
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 3
White-breasted Nuthatch S. carolinensis 1 2 3 4
Certhiidae- Creepers :
Brown Creeper Certhia familiaris 1 2
Troglodytidae- Wrens :
(S) Short-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus platensis 1 3
Long-billed " Telmatodytes palustris 1
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 3
House Wren Troglodytes aedon 1 3
Winter Wren T. troglodytes 3
-5- (Revised 5/12/88)
Mimidae- Mimic Thrushes :
Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 2 3 4
Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 2 3 4
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 1 2 3 4
Turdidae- Thrushes :
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 4
Olive-backed (Swainson's) Thrush C. ustulatus 1
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 1 3
(S) Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 1 2
Robin Turdus migratorius 1 2 3 4
Fieldfare (Accidental Eurasia) T. pilaris 3*
Sylviidae- Kinglets , Gnatcatchers :
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 3
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 1 2 3 4
Motacillidae- Pipits etc. :
Water (American) Pipit Anthus spinoletta 3*
Bombycillidae- Waxwings :
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 2 3*
Ploceidae- Weavers :
Red Bishop Euplectes orix 2
Sturnidae: Starlings :
Starling Sturnus vulgaris 1 2 3 4
Vireonidae- Vireos :
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 3
Parulidae- Wood Warblers :
Myrtle (Yellow-rumped) Warbler Dendroica coronata 1 2 3
Yellow-throated Warbler D. dominica 1
Blackburnian Warbler D. fusca 1
Kirtland's " D. kirtlandii 1
Magnolia D. magnolia 1
Palm D. palmarum 2
(V) Yellow " D. petechia 1 2 3
Black-throated Green Warbler D. virens 1
Yellowthroat , Common Geothlypis trichas 1 2 3
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria verens 1
Black & White Warbler Mniotilta varia 1 2 3
Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia 1
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria eitrea 1
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 1 3
Louisiana Waterthrush S. motacilla 1
Northern it S. noveboracensis 1
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 1 2
Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 3
Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 1
Wilson's Warbler W. pusilla 1
Ploceidae- Weaver Finches :
House Sparrow Passer domesticus 1 2 3
-6- (Revised 5/12/88)
Icteridae- Blackbirds , Orioles etc.
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 2
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 2 3
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 1 2 3
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 1
Baltimore Oriole (Northern) Icterus galbula 1 2 3
Orchard Oriole I. spurius 2
Common Grackle Quiscalus guiscula 1 2 3
(V) Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 2 3
Thraupidae- Tanagers
Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 1 2 3
Fringillidae- Finches , Sparrows :
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 1 2 3 4
Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 3*
American Goldfinch C. tristis 2 3
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 1 2 3
Purple Finch C. purpureus 1 3
Evening Grosbeak Hesperiphona vespertina 3*
Slate-colored Junco Junco hyemalis 1 2 3 4
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 1 2 3 4
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 2
Fringillidae- Finches , Sparrows- cont . :
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 1 2 3
Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 1 2 3
Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 1 2 3 4
(S) Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 1 2
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 1 3
Chipping Sparrow S. passerina l
Field Sparrow S. pusilla 2
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 2 3 4
White-crowned Sparrow Z. leucophrys 1 3*
-7-
FISH, AQUATIC, LAND SPECIES:* THE PREMIUM RIVER-PINE BROOK WETLANDS COMPLEX
FISH SPECIES:
Alewives Flounder (Summer and Winter)
Bass (Striped) Mackeral
Blackfish (Tautog) Menhaden
Bluefish Minnows (Silversides , Killifish)
Cod Porgy
Eel Weakfish
AQUATIC SPECIES:
Damselfly
Dragonfly
Clams (Hard, Soft-shelled, razor)
Crabs (Fiddler, Marsh)
Horseshoe Crab (nesting)
Jellyfish (comb)
Mussels (Ribbed, Blue)
Eastern Oyster
Scallops
Snails (Mud, Marsh)
Recently sighted as yet unidentified large Turtle (s)
LAND SPECIES:
Bullfrog
Green Frog
Toad
Praying Mantis
Eastern Chipmunk
Eastern Mole
Mouse (Deer, White-footed)
Muskrat
Opossum
Raccoon
Striped skunk
Eastern Grey Squirrel (also all black form)
Vole
Other important coastal species are found along the rocky shores , tidepools , beaches
and harbors of Larchmont, as follows :
Redbeard Sponge Atlantic Bay Scallop
Deadman's fingers Jingle Shell
Moon Jellyfish Cockle
Sea Anemones Shipworm
Ribbon, Sand and Seaworms Sea Snails : Limpet , Moon
Starfish, Sea star Shrimp: Mantid and Brine
Sandhoppers : Amphipods Crabs: Hermit Blue, Green, Rock, Calico
Barnacles : Rock American Lobster
Atlantic Oysterdrill Slipper Periwinkle (Smooth, rough common)
Whelk (Knobbed, Channeled)
See Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Larchmont LWRP.
*
PREMIUM MARSH COMPLEX- Articles and Studies Compiled 10/87
(Unless otherwise noted, month and day articles appeared in "The Daily Times",
Mamaroneck, New York, Gannett Westchester. )
1961-
* Larchmont-Mamaroneck League of Women Voters , "A Comprehensive Recreation Survey."
1966-
Arbib, Pettingill, Jr. and Hoyt , Enjoying Birds Around New York City,
Houghton Mifflin Co. ; p. 101 .
* Raymond & May Associates , "Comprehensive Master Plan- Town of Mamaroneck", May.
1967-
Johnson, Jr. , James G. , "Premium Point Mill Pond Water Fowl", January 6.
Straub, George, "Rivers and Streams , Water Uses , Urbanization" , March 10.
Wood, Philip, "Salt Marshland, Productivity", April 21 .
Bahrt , Geraldine, "Shore Birds", May 25 .
Bahrt, Geraldine, "Pryer Manor, Birds", June 15 .
* Planning Associates , "Master Park Plan and Program Study of Premium River
Properties" (Preliminary for Town of Mamaroneck & Village of Larchmont) , August.
Guttman, Ethel, "Bird Migration" , December 21 .
1968-
Johnson, Mary Anne, "Winter at Premium Mill Pond & Other Locations", February.
Johnson, Mary Anne, "September Sights and Sounds", September 26.
1969-
Wood, Philip, "Water Pollution" , January 30.
Wood, Philip, "Water Pollution: Aquatic Life", February 6.
Wood, Philip, "Water Pollution: Temperature Changes", February 13.
Waller, Trudy, "Birds Identified in Chester Place Woods", May 1967-July 1969.
Del Guercio, M.D. , L.R.M. , "Where Did All The Fish Come From?" , December 11 .
1970-
Johnson, Mary Anne, "Audubon Christmas Count", January 22 and 29 .
Lehman, Elisabeth, "State and National Legislation Affecting Our Sound Shore
Environment", March 26.
Wood, Philip, "Quality of Sound Waters", July 9.
Lehman, Paul, "A Look At Our Local Birds", August 27.
Allen, June, "Premium Marsh" , October 1 .
1971-
Lehman, Paul, "Birds and Butterflies Thrive in Marsh" , April 15 .
Johnson, Mary Anne, "Spring Drama in the Salt Marshes", Four in a Series , June 3.
Sterbenz, Nancy,"Estuaries Have Life of Their Own- Food Producing Plants", June 10
Sterbenz, Nancy, "Continental Shelf- Important Food Source" , June 17
Sterbenz, Nancy, "Usefulness of Sea- Long Island Sound Biological Oxygen Demand
and Stratification" , June 24.
*
Articles and Studies - cont. -2-
(Unless otherwise noted , month and day articles appeared in "The Daily Times",
Mamaroneck, New York, Gannett Westchester. )
1972-
Sether, Hallie , "Birds Well Adapted To Their Environment", March 3.
Sleeper, David, "Why Save Salt Marshes?", July 14.
1973-
* Utter , James , Ph.D. and Steineck, Paul, Ph.D. , "Proposal for Studies of Small Salt
Marshes In A Suburban Region: Larchmont Harbor, New York", April .
* Utter , James , Ph.D. and Steineck, Paul, Ph.D. ,"Larchmont Harbor Salt Marsh
Ecosystems : A Progress Report", May
1974-
Bahrt , Sidney, A Wilderness of Birds , Doubleday.
Bull, John L. , Birds of New York State, Garden City, New York, Doubleday/
Natural History Press; pp. 81 , 237 , 368.
1975-
Johnson, Jr. , James G. , "Pond Blooms Again" , February 6.
Johnson, Jr. , James G. , "Swans : As Powerful As They Are Majestic" , February .
Johnson, Jr. , James G. , "Cold Spell Troubles Swans", March 7.
* Utter , James , Ph.D. , "Larchmont Harbor Salt Marsh Ecosystems : Second Progress
Report", January.
* Cohen, Morein, "Recent Trends of Sediment Accumulation in the Premium Salt Marsh,
Larchmont , N.Y." , February.
* Town of Mamaroneck Conservation Advisory Commission "Natural Resources Inventory".
1976-
Bull, John L. , Supplement to Birds of the New York Area, Dover; p. 6.
Johnson, Jr. , James G. , "Winter Waterfowl Pageant", January 8.
Johnson, Mary Anne, "Mills Abound in Area" , March 18.
Johnson, Mary Anne, "For Sale: Farm, Neck of Land in Mamaroneck", March 26.
* "1976 Report of the Review Committee of the 1966 Master Plan for the
Unincorporated Area of The Town of Mamaroneck".
1977-
White , Robert E. , P.E. , "Premium's Silt Threatens Wetlands", December 29 .
* White, Robert E. , P E. , "The Premium- An Endangered Waterway"
* Town of Mamaroneck CAC, "Natural Resources Inventory".
1978-
Johnson, Mary Anne, "The Premium- An Endangered Waterway: Pryer Manor Land
Resources . Addendum to Report by Robert White" , October.
1979-
Cropper, James B. , "Inventory and Evaluation of Land, Water and Related Resources:
Re:Premium River Dredging Feasibility Study".
Emanuelson, Clifford, Correspondence regarding Complex concerns , November 30.
k
Articles and Studies - cont . -3-
(Unless otherwise noted , month and day articles appeared in "The Daily Times",
Mamaroneck, New York, Gannett Westchester. )
1980-
• Hohberg, Robert , "Premium Marsh: Demise of An Estuary".
Wittner , Phyllis , "Pryer Manor and the Premium River Conservation Area,
January.
* Department of Development , City of New Rochelle, Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc
Local Coastal Management Program New Rochelle, N.Y. ,"Issue Areas", March
* Cropper, James B. , "Updated Review of the Premium River" , December.
Reisman 3rd, Phil , "A Celebration that knows no boundary" with "Waterways of
Larchmont Mamaroneck" map, December 13.
1981-
Drennan, Susan R. , Where to Find Birds in New York State; The Top 500 Sites,
Syracuse U. Press; p. 396.
Johnson, Mary Anne, "The Premium Marsh Conservation Area", February 13.
1982-
Buchman, Alex, Report Opposing Proposed Compost Site (Premium Marsh Conservation
Area) , January.
Wittner , Phyllis , Letter to the Editor: "Our Input Is Clear", May 10.
1983-
Emanuelson, Clifford, Memo: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, January.
Johnson, Mary Anne and Wittner, Phyllis , "The Premium Marsh Complex" , May.
1985-
Andersen, Tom, "Communities Unite to Keep Marsh Natural", November 15 .
Bromley, Bill, Newberry, Ellen, "75 Years at Echo Bay Yacht Club", (including
early history written by George Wilson, Vice President of the Westchester
Historical Society in 1976) , 75th Anniversary book.
1986
File related to subdivision proposal on 4.24 acre wetland, Emerson Point
Estates , March '86 thru April '87.
Wittner, .-Phyllis , "History of Pryer Manor Marsh" , August.
Leahy, Christopher, "The Famous Fieldfare", Sanctuary, The Bulletin of the
Massachusetts Audubon Society, July/August.
Formation of citizens group, Pine Brook-Premium River Preservation Association.
1987
* Tomecek, Stephen M. , "Emerson Point Estates , Emerson Ave. and Gaillard Place",
January 26.
* Soil and Water Conservation District , "City of New Rochelle Emerson Point Estates
Subdivision, February 24.
Andersen, Tom, "Wildlife Status of 4 Sites Could Affect Development", July 29.
Andersen, Tom, "A Look at Proposed Wildlife Habitats", July 29.
Designation of the Premium River-Pine Brook Wetlands Complex as a "Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat". Various correspondence related to same for
public hearing held by Dept. of State, August 18.
Andersen, Tom, "Conservationists urge expanding wildlife habitats", August 19.
DeChillo, Suzanne, "An Effort to Protect Shoreline Habitats for Wildlife,
The N.Y. Times , August 23.
APPENDIX E
Environmental Data-Quarterly Surveys
30
November 1987 Dissolved Temp. Salinity PH Suspended Fecal fecal Total
SAMPLING STATION Oxygen sC PPI: Solids Coliforms Strep Coliforms
PPM mg/liter al/I ODml /100ml col/I DOml
-I Tony's Nursery-Pine Brook 8.7 14 0.5 7.06 6 f t00 NA 4600
-2 Lorenzen Street Field 7.6 16 17.5 7.05 6 90 NA 2900
-3 Lorenzen Street Field 9 15 19.5 6.96 19 230 NA 19900
-4 Lorenzen Street Field 7.9 13.5 20 6.81 2 90 NA 32000
"5 Nigh Salt Marsh 6.3 14 7 6.81 6 <30 NA 27000
-6 High Salt Marsh 6.6 14 16.5 6.84 8 40 NA 11500
"7 High Sell Marsh 12 16.5 17 7.04 9 0 NA 0
-8 High Salt Marsh 8.2 15.5 20 7.63 12 2400 NA - 2400
�9 Trinity Rectory 9.5 14.5 22 7.36 26 1100 NA 2400
-10 Red Bridge 10.8 15.5 21 8.13 15 460 NA 1100
-I1 Premium Point Beach 14.2 15 23.5 8.52 20 240 NA 240
February 1988
Dissolved Temp. Salinity PH Suspended Fecal Fecal Total
SAMPLING STATION Oxygen sC ppt Solids Coliforms Strep Coliforms
PPM mg/liter col/I00ml ai/t00ml col/100ml
I Tony's Nursery-Pine Brook 10.8 5 0.5 3 TNTC <I NA
*2 Lorenzen Street Field 11.4 4 7.5 4 <I <I NA
03 Lorenzen Street Field 9.6 2 1.5 98 18200 <1 NA
04 Lorenzen Street Field 10 5 1 16 190 <I NA
-5 High Salt Marsh 9.2 4 1.5 22 <1 0 IM
-6 High Sell Marsh 10 4 I.S 14 <1 NA
-7 High Salt Marsh 3 0 8 1240 TNTC 0 NA
-8 High Solt Marsh 12 4 1.5 79 140 0 NA
-9 Trinity Rectory 11 2 0 2 58 <I NA
-10 Red Bridge 12 2 8 17 2 <I NA
�I l Premium Point Beech 15.2 2 21 11 <I <1 NA
APRIL 1988
Dissolved Temp. Salinity PH Suspended Fecal Fecal Total
SAMPLINGSTATION Oxygen sC PPt solids Coliforms Strep Coliforms
Ppm Mg/liter al/IOOml /100ml col/I OOml
�l Tony's Nursery-Pine Brook 9.2 10 2 6.89 4 560 <1
02 Lorenzen Street Field 11.3 11 11.5 6.85 9 <I <1
�3 Lorenzen Street Field 13.8 12 20.5 7.57 13 320 <1
-4 Lorenzen Street Field 10.4 11.5 10 3.75 2 240 <I
-S High Salt Marsh I 1 10.5 17 6.37 7 20 0
-6 High Salt Marsh 11.2 10.5 20 7.7 9 0 0
-7 High Solt Marsh 11.2 10.5 21 7.74 6 0 <1
-8 High Solt Marsh 13.2 9.5 21.5 8.09 5 620 <I
-9 Trinity Rectory I 1 10 20 6.74 3 400 <1
-10 Red Bridge 13.2 10 22.5 7.56 11 460 <1
0 Il Premium Point Beech 14.5 10 31 8.28 10 140 <1
MAY 1988
Dfosolved Temp. Salinity PH Suspended Feces Fecal Total
SAMPLI NG STATION Oxygen sC ppt solids Coliforms Strep Coliforms
PPM mg/Iter col/IOOml /1 DOW Cal/IOOml
o'I Tony's Nursery-Pine Brook 8.7 15.5 0.5 6.9 7 1320 <I
02 Lorenzen Street Field 9.6 15 13 7 10 140 <1
03 Lorenzen Street Field 9.6 16.2 20.5 7.8 10 220 <1
�4 Lorenzen Street Field 8.9 16 11 7.6 6 50 <I
-S High Sell Marsh 9.8 15.7 to 7.9 8 0 <1
-6 High Solt Marsh 10.1 15.6 20.5 7.7 12 40 <1
-7 High Salt Marsh 9.8 16 21 7.85 4 0 0
-8 High Solt Marsh 11.2 15.5 21.5 8.2 3 2200 41
�9 Trinity Rectory 10.3 15.5 21.5 8.4 15 820 <1
-10 Red Bridge 10.2 Is 21.5 7.9 19 410 <I
I l Premium Poi nt Beach 11.5 15 30 8.4 t8 60 <1
Water Quality Data-Drat
Premium River FS Summer Sampling
Date Sampling Current Turbidity Salinity Fecal Coli Comment
Location Velocity NTU's jag/z col./100m1.
7/26/87 cm/sec
a 1 37 4. 1 27 52 Hohberg station 1
2 23 9.3 25.5 43 Hohberg station 2
3 18 10. 1 25.5 46 Hohberg station 4
4 12 12.2 24 67 Hohberg station 10
5 <10 14.8 21.5 67 Hohberg station 12
6 <10 15.6 20.5 54 Hohberg station 13
7 < 10 26.5 21 101 Hohberg station 14a
8 < 10 17 18.6 140 Hohberg station 14b
9 < 10 7.9 2 276 Hohberg station l 6a
10 <10 6.7 3.8 210 Hohberg station 16b
r
Premium River FS Summer Sampling
Date Sampling Current Turbidity Salinity Fecal Coli Comment
Location Velocity NTU's 00/0 col./loom].
8/1 1 /87 cm/sec
1 63 3.8 24 24 Hohberg station 1
2 78 7.8 22.5 18 Hohberg station 2
3 35 11.5 22.5 23 Hohberg station 4
4 26 11.6 20.5 31 Hohberg station 10
5 23 13.2 18 25 Hohberg station 12
6 13 14.6 17 46 Hohberg station 13
7 <10 21 .7 19.5 82 Hohberg station 14a
8 <10 14.3 16.8 87 Hohberg station l 4b
9 <10 7.3 1 .6 167 Hohberg station 16a
10 <10 5.4 2.6 150 Hohberg station 16b
1 I
r����SU t l '8 � •6 ..9, .r�: oust-u? uE 5 l O£4
...... ....................................................:.......................... ......:..............:...........:.........................................
C.L•- (1009C SO '8 L '6 t'Z 9�. Oi=iS19Z Or_ls319Z S IS I L£
y•�. .....,.... ..00S6E . ..... Sii':9... 6:. .......... S'. �.... L4...... 9�,.L 197- .. OO99_S? o0s l 9£
c. .. ... .. ...:..00IS6E ........ so.;$... 8..�.......... S .�L..... 5 .8�.. 8 595?... OO.'��SZ 5t � 1 S£
�M;y;......... ...:..Ciiiu6l~........ ... .;. .......... . .... . . . . ... .........SO-81 : S ,i7ZS.SZ6ZSOS7OSH7OE� l ts£
. ......... . .. . .............. .. : . . ........ . . ....... ..... .... ..
16ir06� 10 ;9l :Oi _F7qZ6tII 0091N, Slit ££
. .. .: 8 �� ��01`................. 0006� sBZ 60H27, O0 tZZ .........
OH Z£
� .................................... ...........:.. . ........ .... ..
1 qO1_ OOS6£ 56 'L S '6 SZ LZ IL761Z OOSHZ Sa l l£
;..i.�.i_........ _ _06
68g$.;.y.... tj:.�..... .....:.. `....... �7..... 86.2.11..Z .. 009�OZ .:..0M 0£
....... . i . ......... ...... .. . .......... . �........ ...... .. l5L .... .. ..
Atl_ j�o98OILf,: ' S:� L7Z:MLOOLIOZS l 2 l 6Z
i . ...... ... . ......... . .... . ........ .. . ..
to700Z 61 ouf 8ZVi? `^ 0006 1P ,L5' . 5SG
L.`'.... ,.......��r_iq.l�8............S:.L...... 1.,. .......... . .S. V7........s7..... i�S7,:............. SIZ I LZ
,..i7.` Y............�i OSE ........ SS.�L... 9 .�........... .zz....... ,y..... �3trfs� ............. OOz t 9Z
8y.`-...... .. : .`Oof1E........ S..L.... . 6. .......... S ' lZ S 't•Z. L/S1............... ..Str t I SZ
57.1-... .... : .r�l_.aZ�......... SE.IL... L'. ........... ...lti....... S*. 7,. IS .S�; ............ U l l 1►Z
_ ... Sr ►_ ........:..nl_'.5i.t8......... S`.'L... F_:.�.......... S'.I'I7.... � ..... gs/sc-1: ............ Sill £z
Hi:..........:..i:j iiit:l; .........:...1.:. ...... :.5...........:..S:.�r........S . Z.. 95I.SZ:..............:..Sf•ut lZ
..................:.......... ........................:................................. ...........:................:........................ ___
i,It' I- COOtC S11L E '9 0' bZ E31861 000961 HOI OZ
..........................................................................................
731�3`I: N39AXO: spnoo . spnoo £ l f8 61
N31Y�h MIA 113FI�]NOO Hd:......... 03A-104510: A111 11VS: 3 dl"a31:1(1u 8313H: NI U3131-4i 34'411 91
......... .....:......................... ............................:.......................................................................................
. Ll
Ol 6 9 L 9 5 £ Z t
L��61 l-.f19f'1V I I `1J:3,,Id l"'IIII V1A-Jd
.':� ��..... —. -HOBS£ ....... B0 'L..... . I •�, 6t ....... �.. `r-
US SZ COSI Z9
..cZl�..,..... 0009£........... .l'O �`.....• .UL 6I c'•£ £l�1Sz: sf41 19
P,? I-.........: .00SS£........ St •L....' .9*L.......... ...fii........ Z ..... 9/S':............. OEH 09..
£'. l-........ Ill.n�G£........ . .� •L. .... '.-.L :..6i........ c. ..... lS�'s'. ............. SISI 6S
£'.Z_ 1- 0009£ SZ 'L t •.L. ........ ...0'....... ; .S • 1£.. ........lS�SZ: ............. .....f... ._
.. ....... G� b l 0S
:. t-� l-........ OLIS9£......... ..Z •.L......:..£ •S. ..,......:..0z........ i.�..... SSlSZ S�£ I LS
611 - til OLE Z'L ?'� ... ...... ..'�F........ 1.�... . Ls��? ............ fl£•2.t 9S
Cir lI ..... ...........
............
0009£ SkL � ` O 1� £blSz: Slit SS........ L ....... .. ..........:. .......:........... ..... ...S ............OOSE 9S •L 9 .8 Zz 1£ W : OO£ i las:......... ........ . .. .
`
91 1- OOOLE SS l 6 _ ..... 12.. WSZ. si,Z I £S
j LII ... .... :OOS9E ....... OS •L.... ¢ •� ..........:..5'.l 1 ... Off- .... Lsls� :....5i i l ZS
:..a . l ..................`.. ....... £S ......:....... ..........:..5..�'.....:..G£ ... 9s1S=. .............:..C':`Ei.I Is
....... G tt . ... . G£ LbSZ: St I I _O_SOGOL£ WL � '6 ZZ
.......... ......... .. ...... ............. i_IGL£ L . V 6ySiG11 61►-......... ........ '.... . . ... ......... S..... ... . ... .............. .............. S .0.`
oil- OCCG$£ L ' . L •� •?Z 6r16SZZ GGl'LZ
........ ' ..,...... ,. .. ......... .. ..... ......Gil- 0006£ O:� 506� 1L QUgOLF• G£Cil L_b........ . ....... Z
GI1` OOr362 ZO 'L . �.� OOL69SIOt 9h
• :........ ...... . . ... . . '.... ..... P_ ..0.oil- n�ro� OIL I 01 : S•294SL969Z • OOZ9O0I S�
...., .... ... . ....... . .... ... .. ......•. . .... .. ... .Ill ' OO6£ S9 6 �h €70zM89Z009944Sk6 ib
........ ........ ....... . ...
_ ..:...1.�.�-........ 0006£......... L.9.�:L'... ' .9.'�.......... ...S ��'.... 6.7..... ' .61SSq�'... 0094•? 016 Ei_
91/8 Zi.
.13A.3*1: ..:. :... hJ3G,�1:;0:.............. ...........: ..sjun��a.. sjunoa.. ..
831b'Al AI.IAll.A11NO3: Hd: 0aA-1GSSIO: A11N11VS: 3 d1^J31:inn 83133 FII 8313W: 34'4I1 Ob
_..__it 6 $ �— L 1 ..�.�
L961 1!=UAY t l `83AId VIC111.11 iii
. ................. .................... to
F? I-- 0006C UL 8S/-qZ:, 00S 1 90
..... ... .. .. . .................................................... .................. .............. ........... ....... .........
OOS92 L 9 19 S ' 17- 02 /S so
.......... . ......... ........ .............. ..................... .......... .........................I................. .............. ......... ---
17, 1-- 00"362 SSIL : 1. "9 E.? : 02 U� I ko
........ ... ........ ... ..... .................... ............. ....... .......... .............. ......... ........... ..... ............ .........
0- 1 -- 0006C S "L L19 CZ 02 6
sti- I E9
.......... ........... ............. ... ............ .. ......... -
-z. 02 oo� I zo
..... ......... . ............................I.......................................................................................
..........
0000� 9 19 SIU
6 7, 9LIS71: : 9�2 I to
........... .................... ............. .................. .............. ......... ................:........... .........
171- (1000� 91L 6 '9 S "Z7, 02 69/SZ:' OU 1 00
. .................. ....... ............ .............. ........... ................ ......... .........
5116 *9 U 6Z SICI 61.
. .........11.................. . .11............. ........... ......... ........... ................ ............ .. .........
91 1- oosob 99 1 1 9 9 12 9L/S7-:
002 1 91,
El I- 0006C s I L"ZI LLISZ: 00Z I It
........... .................... ............. .................. ........ ........... ...............:.............. ......... -
F., I I- 00S6C OIL 6 '9 H LZ 13152 SH I 9L
..... ......... ... . .................. ............. .................. .............. ..............
•
71. 0056C OIL CIL �7- L oozez 0091
'0£ t si.
............... ...................... ................................ .............. ........... ................ .......
0 S
............. ........... ...............................
............. ............................ .............
0 It- 00S62 I
OLIL I L t- L Z 9 137...
9 oo�
M I- 0006L S91L � ,L S .27 L 82fo8z 0 0,:-19 L z '0'*0-1 1 :r I
. .......... .... ....... .................. .......
-6*,,*:�*,,- I I *,,,*'':-6. .......................................
()01- 00b : F3 L E L H Z z9LOLZ : OOFLL7, Sbo I Z1.
............... ............................... .................. ... ....... ................ .............. .......
90 1- 0006C SS1L... CIL I S "SZ LLILLZ 009SLZ 0201 It
.................. . .................. ............. ............................................. ................ .............. ......... —..
901- 0006C S81L S "L : SIH 9Z 69LSLZ 001D;,L? Slot OL
............ .... . .................... ..... ........ .................. .............. ....... ................ .............. ......... .
�01-- 0006C Ile 9 *L L7, S(� 99Z�U! OOLELZ 0001 69
... .............. ............ .... ............ ........ ................ ......
i7o 1- 0006E 6 "L L 7- S-� 299ELZ 00
9ZZS�6 99
E01- ons8c sole OIL Z :....................1100191.. .........
, 026 .1.9
........... .................... ........... . ..........I....... ...... .............. .............. .........
99
IIA31: N39AXO: spnoo G�Uno.-:) 61/9- S9
- - ....:.................... ........ ..................:................... ....... ................ .............. ......
8 3.t'v1 M:'AJ.I A 11.3 1111 N 0 3: Hd: (13AIOSS I fl: A I I N I TvIS:' 3 cii-431:ino 8313W: NI 83131-11: 3W U' ik9—
...... ........... ......... ............. .................. ............... .......... ...
..........
£9
9 z
0 1 6
I I '83AId INMI-1138d
PREMIUM RIVER, 1 1 AUGUST 1967
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
138 •
_ .........................................:.............................................:............................ . ...... ................:..................
139 TIP.4E :PAETER IN :t•AETER OUT:TErvlP 1, :SALINITY :DIS30LVE.0 :pH :OONDlJC:TIVITY:WA1ER
................................................................................................ ................................... ....................... ...
90 8/2O co�.�nts counts :OXYGEN :1. EVEL
X31 .......... ............ ......I......... .............. .... . ..................
_ ................:..........................:..................
..............:.............. .. ....
.. ... .............:.............
. ....
92 930 2822400 286445 26 24. 5 8.6 7.8 39500 : -98 .
!�3 945. 256400. 2289175. 2.5. 44. 5. ............8:.$. 7:.$. 39000 .:... ......T;.'�.I�.
_ ................:...........:..............:..................:.............:............I........... ..............:......,.. . ...
!34 1000 : 289200 : 2908^r 5 : 25 : 24. 5 : 8. 5 : 7. 85 : 39O00 : - 100
_. ................................................................................................................I............. .. ............... ..... ....
!95 1015 :slack 26 24. 5 7. 9 7. 7 395010 _,1 Ci 1
.......................................................................................:.............:.................. .:. ............... ..:.............
.. . .
96 1030 :25/5226 24. 5 8. 1 7. 7 39�aCii_l
...........................................:..............:...................................................................
.....:...........
!. 1045.. ..............:25/34 ....... ......26 24. 5. 7.57.. 85.. 395011 -1.��41*1 .. . ....... . . . . ..
'98 1 100 291000 . 292688. 26. 2 7..4..:......7. 8.. 395i-�0. :. ........-103.. ....... .. ... .. .
�99 1 1 15 292700 294527 26 24. 5 ^r . 35 7. 9 3'9500 -105
1 00 1.1.3.0.. ..294500. 296621 26..5............2.4. 7:.6. : ...7. 85
. r�.5.. ..........39500..:........._1.�J.6.. ............... ..
_. ...............................:...........:..............:..................:.............:....................:....................... ..... . ... .
101 1145 296600 : 298050 : 26. 5 : 24. 5 : 7. 45 : 7. 9 : 39500 : -109
........................................................................................................................................................ . ... . ..
102 1245 298600 299897 27 24. 5 7. 55 7. 9 400010 •-1 13
1 03 130.0..• ............ :25/86 ...... .....L.�. ........�.4... ..........�:.j.. ..........�.. ........40O�:�i,i. : ... ....�;.i.4....................
104 131.5. :25/.37 ....... 2.7..•.........G4... ........7. 75 . ...7;.9.5... .........39500..: ........-1 i.6.. ........... ... ..
1 05 1 3:3.0. . ............ :25/50 ........ .... `.?.. .....24. 5. :.$.. .....^;.�5. . .........395ut1..; ....... _;;.;.4............. .. .
1 06 .1. 4.5.. .............:25/35 �..... .....�.�............�.3..:...........�:.�. .....�.8..,..........3���-ii'i..:�.. .... .�;.j.�.. ........... .....
.......................................................................................:.............................. .. ....... ................. . . .. ........ .
1 07 1400 :25/48 28 22. 5 7. 8 7. 65 3851111
1 08 14.1.5. :25/58 ...... .28.5:..:....22.. 5. ' ...... ..7..3.5.. ....7. 65.. 3800�i..:.. ....-1.1.?. : ....1... ..., , .
109 14:30 :25/47 29 22. 5 7. 15 7. 7 38O0 -- 12:0
1 10 1.4.4.5:...:........... :25/51........ 2.9.. 2.3. '...........7. 2..'.. ..7..�'.5..'.........380-�1�.�-�.. :.. ... .. .-1 1.`�'.:....... .. ...
1 1 1 ...................... .............. :.,................ ............. ................ ...:............ ......:................
1 12
..........................................................:..................:...... .......:....................:.. ...... . .. . ...:. ....... .
113
_ .............................................................................:.............:....................:....... ..... .. . :.... ........ . .. ..
114
115 ................ ................ . . ...... .. . . .. .. ................ .
APPENDIX F
Conceptual Design-Flood Control Pryer Manor Marsh
31
Preliminary Cost Estimate-Flooding Control, Pryer Manor Road
ROAD MATERIALS
- clay base
-crushed stone
-Binder course
-bituminus paving
CLAY FILL
- materials a $10.65 per cubic yard (Means 1987)
-spread and compact clay a $ 1.52 per cubic yard(Means 1987)
CRUSHED STONE
-8 inch deep crushed stone base a $ 5.90 per square yard
(compacted)
BINDER COURSE
-a $ 29.00 per ton, 3 inches thick = $ 6.75 per square yard
WEARING COURSE
-@ $ 30.80 per ton, 3 inches thick= $ 7.05 per square yard
COST TO RAISE ROADWAY ELEVATION BY 4 FEET
-assumes 1000 linear feet of roadway to be raised
Clay bed
3.5 ft deep x 20 ft wide x 1000 ft length x cy/27ft3 = 2600 cy x $ 12.17 = $ 32,000
(Means, 1987)
Crushed Stone
20 ft wide x 1000 ft length x yd2/9ft2 x $ 5.90 = $ 13,000 (Means, 1987)
Binder Course
20 ft wide x 1000 ft length x yd2/9ft2 x $ 6.75 = $ 15,000 (Means, 1987)
Wearing Course
20 ft wide x 1000 ft length x yd2/9f t2 x $ 7.05 = $ 16,000 (Means, 1987)
Timber Guide Rail
-2000 ft x S 8.80 per linear foot = $18,000 (Means, 1987)
SUMMARY OF COSTS TO RAISE PRYER MANOR ROAD
ITEM ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COST
Clay Bed 512/c.y. 2600 c.y. $32,000
Crushed Stone S6/s.y. 2500 s.y. $15,000
Asphalt Base Layer S7/s.y. 2500 s. y. $17,500
Asphalt Finish Layer S7/s.y. 2500 s. y. $17,500
Timber Guide Rail S9/l. f. 2000 1. f. $18,000
Subtotal Construction Cost $100,000
COSTS- 600 foot Reinforced Concrete Culvert, 36 inch diameter, 525#/linear feet
Excavation
-Excavation and hauling a $9.96/c. y. (Dodge 1987, pg 46)
Material & Installation
-Sand bedding, 6 inches deep =$18.00/ c.y. (Means, 1987, pg 30)
-Reinforced Concrete Culvert = $59.00/ linear feet (Means, 1987, pg 41)
-Catch basins, footing and excavation, 8 inch thick x 4 foot deep cast in place concrete=
$705.00 each, (Means, 1987, pg 39)
-Frames and covers, 36 inch diameter = $465.00 each. (Means, 1987, pg 39)
Grade and Revegetation
- $1.55/ sqare yard. (Means, 1987, pg 56)
Drainage Channel
-S 35.00/ Linear foot
ITEM ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COST
Excavate 4 ft x 4 ft S10/c.y. 400 c.y. S 4,000
Sand bedding, 6 inches S 18/c.y. 50 c.y. $ 900
Concrete culvert,36 inches $ 60/l. f. 600 l.f. $ 36,000
Catch basins S1200/each 3 S 3,600
Grade & Revegetate S2/s.y. 1000 S.Y. $ 2,000
Drainage channel S35/l.f. 250 l.f. $ 9,000
Subtotal $ 55,500
COSTS- Earth Berm
-Select fi l l a $12.00 per c.y. x 2000 c. y. =$24,000
-Grade & Revegetate a $2.00 per s. y. x 1600 s.y. = $3,200
Subtotal $27,000
COST SUMMARY:
Raise Roadbed $100,000
Install Culvert $55,500
Earth Berm $27,000
Subtotal $182,500
Engineering @5% $9,125
Contingency a 20% $36,500
Total $228,125
SCHEMATIC CROSS—SECTION — PRYER MANOR ROAD
Elevated Road Bed (+) 8.3
Berm (+) 7.0
Current Road (+) 4.3
Pryer Manor Marsh Premium River MHT (+) 3.7
Water Level (+) 3.05
DATUM = 0 Invert Drain =0
TYPICAL CROSS—SECTION—EARTH BERM
8 FT 3 FT
2:1 side slope
4 FT
Volume/ linear foot = (4' x 3' x 1') + ( 2 x ( 8' x 4' x 1') = 50 c.f. / I.f.
50 c. f. / I.f. x 1000 I.f. = 50,000 c.f. / 27 c.f. per c.y. = 2000 c.y.
MALCOLM PIRNIE,INC.
PI-RN I BY DATE SHEET NO. OF
CHKD.BY nATE JOB NO.
SUBJECT
3
1�1
i
1
t
-or cj
o ink it
t
MALCOLM MALCOLM PiRNIE,INC.
i RN i BY DATE SHEET NO.----OF
CHKD.BY--SATE JOB NO.
SUBJECT
7-01
Cc
t ti
MALCOLM PIRNIE.INC.
MAW"
PIRNIE BY DATE SHEET NO. OF
CHKD.BY DATE JOB NO.
SUBJECT IL
7-7,: -F1 c e
v - rel I
2.4
(s.
APPENDIX G
Monitoring Program Procedures and Equipment
32
(11/85)
SECTION XIII
SAMPLING OF LIQUIDS IN LAKES,
PONDS, LAGOONS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
A. SCOPE
This recommended protocol outlines procedures and equipment for the collec-
tion of representative liquid samples (aqueous and non-aqueous) from lakes,
ponds, lagoons and surface impoundments. Included in this discussion are
procedures for obtaining representative samples, Quality Assurance/Quality
Control measures, proper recording of field notes and recommendations for
personnel safety.
B. SAMPLING EQUIPMENT (Also see Section VIII)
The sampling of both aqueous and non-aqueous liquids from the above men-
tioned sources is generally accomplished through the use of one of the
following samplers:
1. Pond Sampler
2. Wheaton Dip Sampler
3. Kemmerer Depth Sampler
4. Bacon Bomb Sampler
5. Weighted Bottle Sampler
The sampling device should be laboratory cleaned, preferably be the laboratory
performing the analysis, using pesticide grade acetone (assuming that the acetone
is not a target compound) or methanol, then wrapped in cleaned and autoclaved
aluminum foil, and custody sealed for identification. The sampler should remain
in this wrapping until it is needed. Each sampler should only be used for taking
one sample. If the use of dedicated samplers is impractical, samplers should be
cleaned in the field using the decontamination procedures outlined in Section
XXVIII.
In addition to the samples, other equipment necessary for a sampling operation
includes:
1. Sample containers, proper size and composition, lab cleaned
2. Field and travel blanks
3. Bound field notebook
4. Sample analysis request forms
5. Chain of custody records
6. Seals for legal sample security
7. Sample labels
8. Explosimeter and Oxygen level monitor
9. Geiger counter
10. Photo Ionization Detector
11. Absorbant pads
12. Appropriate personnel safety equipment (see Section XXIX)
13. Camera and film
14. Plastic bags for contaminated items
XIII-1
(11/85)
2. Sample Collection
At this stage, a sample can be collected in accordance with the previ-
ously determined Sampling and Analytical Plan (SAP) , considering the
points raised in D.3.a and b. above.
After choosing the appropriate sampler of the proper composition (i.e.
glass, PFTE, POC) follow the specific sampling protocol outlined below.
a. Pond Sampler
i. Assemble the Pond Sampler as is indicated ensuring adequate
extension in order to obtain the sample without placing the
sampling team in danger of falling in the impoundment being
sampled.
NOTE: When sampling lagoons or surface impoundments containing
known or suspected hazardous substances, adequate precautions
must be taken to ensure the sampler's safety. The sampling
team member collecting the sample should not get too close to
the edge of the impoundment, where bank failure may cause
him/her to lose their balance. The person performing the
sampling should be on a lifeline and be wearing adequate
protective equipment.
ii. Collect the sample in the beaker of the pond sampler at the
desired depth and location.
iii. Transfer the sample(s) into suitable sample containers.
iv. Cap the sample containers, place in a double plastic bag,
attach the label and custody seal, record all pertinent data
in field log book, complete the sample analysis request form
and chain of custody record before taking the next sample.
V. Preserve and/or place on ice if required.
vi. After following proper decontamination procedures,
immediately deliver the samples to the laboratory for
analysis.
b. Wheaton Dip Sampler
i. Assemble the sampler in accordance with the manufacturers
instruction.
ii. Operate the sampler several times to ensure proper adjust-
ment, tightness of the cap, etc.
iii. Collect the sample in the bottle of the sampler at the
desired depth and location.
iv. Transfer the sample(s) into suitable sample containers, if
the bottle provided with the sampler is not appropriate.
V. Cap the sample container, place in a double plastic bag,
attach the label and custody seal, record all pertinent data
in the field log book, complete the sampling analysis request
form and chain of custody record before taking the next
sample.
vi. Preserve and/or place on ice if required.
XIII-3
(11/85)
e. Weighted Bottle Sampler
i. Assemble the weighted bottle sampler.
ii. Lower the sampling device to the pre-determined depth.
iii. When the sampler is at the required depth, pull out the
bottle stopper with a sharp jerk of the sampler line and
allow the bottle to fill completely (This is usually evi-
denced by the- censation of air bubbles) .
iv. Retrieve sampler.
V. Transfer the sample to a suitable sample container and cap.
vi. Place the sample container in a double plastic bag, attach
the label and custody seal, record all pertinent data in the
field log book, complete the sample analysis request form and
chain of custody record before taking the next sample.
vii. Preserve and/or place on ice if required.
viii. Repeat in the same compartment if several sample strata are
present or move onto the next compartment.
ix. After following proper decontamination procedures, immedi-
ately Section) , deliver sample(s) to the laboratory for
analysis.
E. SHIPPING OF SAMPLES
See Section XXVIII on Shipping of Samples in order to comply with DOT
Regulations.
F. DECONTAMINATION
See Sections XXVIII and XXVII on Decontamination of Equipment and Personnel.
XIII-5
Water sampling: 11 samplerlsampling."equipment
i rah sampler -
tain subsurface samples without entering effluent.
Y `
-grab sampler letsou lower a sterilized Sam e. .
y �
bottle-,
e;=and'replace the-cap atthedesm�klepth to elual; '
Ahe'6harxG of surface crfrom your
�. Conforms to the procedures described in the
fit`s'Handbook for Monitoring Industrial Wastewater.' y
fi-ft grab sampler is made of light-weight-3Y4"square -
-s
num tubing with a rugged baked-enamel finish.An adjust-
clamp holds the sample bottle.A plastic handle insures a �"
jiip-proof grip on the grab sampler.Comes-completely assembled: y
udes an auiodavable, 1000-m1 glass sample bottle with a Teflon*
resin-lined screw cap An�idjustable damp Is supplied `
smaller size bottles- _ - - "
„�•-� Gather samples
phonal sampling bottle rack is molded of unbreakable yellow from>doclrs,
thylene.Accommodates up to four 1000-m1 bottles and has ad- >;baady or: +;
dltiortaI space for accessories.A centered handle prevents tipping,.: spillways=without
wring transport.Available with or without four sutoclavable graduates entering the water.°
X000-m1 borosilicate glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps 4
-00 Grab sampler.Shpg wt 5 lbs..•� ... "` ,$186.00 . ,
J-5482-10 Bottle rack. 141i2L x 9W x Bth'D Shpg wt 2 lbs..512.25Z, X '
J-5482-11 Bottle rack with 4$bottles.Shpg wt 9 lbs.I.
s38.50
Teftn—Reg TM EL du Pont de Nanous A co
'4 .Whirl-pak sa pJinbags
Sterile polyethylene sampling bags have convenient handling
features to prevent contamination Handy pull-tabs make them easy
to open. Flip the bag around the wire tape and bend it over,and the
bag is sealed—you never touch the sample or bag lip.Bags hold,-..-...
_.both solids and liquids safely and are priced economically for on
time use.
N��{O.�W��1,^.�. W�/l,l,h�..yam
I111111J{�\1�/CW _ w '�"�.-1aT,tTtN11 SII I\O'{AI labelti
Cat f10 OZ Size Pr1os0500 Gt no.. oz Size PrkN500g 4
44499-10 6 3'x T =.36.00 J-6499 60 2 3'x b' $37.50
J-6499.20 18 41Y x 9' 50.90 J-6499.70 6 3'x 7* 35 1V
J4499-30 24 51Y x 9' 67.15 J46499.80 18 41h'x 9' 54.65
4449940 36 4W x 15' 80.60 r Yc
9980
J- 442 51Y x 15' 100.00 '.c'�?t—0 5;7 ..-
"��icaa c s'
g) Whirl pak sodium thiosulate bags
Ideal for chlorinated water sampling,this Whirl-pak bag includes_•.:a
10-mg tablet of sodium thiosulfate.The thktsulfate ties up free t:
chlorine,allowing coliform bacteria to grow. ; -
Bag and tablet are sterile,nontoxic,and non-nutritive. ai
Simple to use and Ieakproof..The size is just dght'(4 oz)for a Stara
dard battery of tests.To seal,just fiip the bag over the tape and bend
Me tape ends down.
J48499-90 Whlrl-pak thiosuifate bags.Dispenser pkg of 100.$11.90 �
h) Zip-lip bags
Polyethylene bags are priced forone-time use,yet can be reustx '
Easy-to-use zip•lip seal allows dustproof,moisture-proof store a
2-mil bags have a single-track closure 3-mll bags have a have +fir
track closure.Use for small parts,samples,powders Not reoorrn "
mended for liquids.
Cat.no. Size T1liclvfess /p• �`,"y
f
J4003-01 ,$1
rx3" . .. .;2,musr 5ooa #; 1.20^:"' "�1
..n
J4503-11 3'x V "2$Nis-L 500 '"<14.25
J-6603.02 4'x 4' 2 mil '' 500 16 00 1000^'
r
J4160303. 4'X8' 2 mlia �.;500 17.55 1000 _
J 6603-21 5'x8' 2 mile 500 24.65 1000.
J48503.31 6"-x g,._. _..,.2 Mills � low"
J-6603461 .8'-x 10'" 3 mils r 500 07.75
J-6503.06 -,`.8'x 10" 2 mBe .600 -`42.00 '-4000-
J41603-71
1
J Ab03-71 9'x 12' 3 mHsn 200 41.15 6'1000 _
J-6503-07 12'x 15' 2 mils 35.30 1000 L
J4503-90 Zlp-lip bag assortmer>t. 10O'each of 6503-11,-21,'311"'.'
% . .,�
-61,and-71..... , X5.10 2 packs/cs•„
Call us toll-free at 1-800-323-4340
Iij
WILDCO •
FIELD
KITS
WILDCO LIMNOLOGY( FIELD SAMPLING KIT Section 10
Catalog Number 3501
The WILDCO Limnology Field Study Kit is an ideal tool for
aquatic fauna, bottom and sediment stratification collect-
` ing, sampling and measuring of water pH,turbidity, and
temperature.
Aquatic Biologists and their students have a distinct ad-
vantage of being able to use this efficient,low-cost field kit
which is outfitted with orofessionai type apparatus &
equipment most often used in introductory limnology.
Ideal for most high school and junior college curricula.Kit
is contained in Sturdy Plywood Carrying Case.28"L x 16"
Wx6" H.
I
DESCRIPTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL TERMS:
1. WILDCO-KEMMERER WATER SAMPLER
Sampling capacity is 1200cc.The Clear Acrylic Plastic Sampler is complete with Drain Valve,Thermometer inside
and Messenger. Thermometer has a range of –40 to +50°C in 1°C graduation. Messenger and Metal Parts of
Sampler are constructed of Nickel Plated Brass and Stainless Steel. Catalog No. 1200SL-3501.
2• FRESH WATER pH TESTING KIT, WIDE RANGE
Ideal for accurately determining pH of Fresh Water. Testing Kit consists of comparator unit with (8) Permanent
Color Standards covering the pH Range of 3.0 to 10.0,(2)Empty Comparison Tubes,(1)Bottle of Reagent for(50)
Tests, Instructions and Plastic Case. Reagent Refills available. Catalog No. 31265-3501.
3• SECCHI VISIBILITY DISC
A standard professional size fresh water Secchi Disc,which is smaller than Oceanographic Models.It has four(4)
quadrants; two(2)white and two (2) black and is 20cm in diameter. When lowered into the water,the depth at
which the black and white quadrants are no longer visible is a measure of the transparency or turbidity index.
Made of black and white plastic, weighted; includes 100 ft. of Line. See Sec. 8 for Cat. No.
4. FRESH WATER THERMOMETER
This Glass Theremometer has a range of–35°to +50°C in 1°graduations.For convenience of measurement,this
Thermometer is mounted in the Kemmerer Water Sampler. See item 1 above.
5. STUDENT PLANKTON NET
Ideal for student use in river,lakes,oceans,etc. Net is made of nylon bolting cloth,unbreakable plastic collecting
bucket, rubber drain tube, and pinchock. Net opening is 20cm in diameter and length is 50cm; ring and bridle
assembly is made of stainless steel. Catalog No. 30012-3501.
6. WILDCO GRAVITY STRATIFICATION SAMPLER
This Sampler when dropped into the water,drives deep into sediments to take an undisturbed sample suitable for
bottom organisms and stratification studies. A valve prevents loss of the sample; tube is interchangeable with
other No.2400 series WILDCO Core Tubes.This interchangeability is a desirable feature when use of other tubes
and plastic liners is desired. Catalog No. 24108-3501.
7. WILDCO STREAM DRIFT NET
This Net is ideally designed for sampling larger plankton, insects, insect larva, and other drifting organisms in
shallow streams. The net also efficiently collects bottom fauna when upstream area in front of the drift net is
agitated.All Nylon Net is impervious to rot or decay,for long life and satisfactory service.Net mesh openings are
363 microns. Catalog No. 151.
Catalog No. 3501 —Shipping Weight 33 lbs. (15kg)
—REPLACEMENT SUPPLIES FOR FRESH WATER pH TESTING KIT(ITEM NO. 2)
Indicator Solution—For approx. 300 Tests—Catalog Number 3501pH
Shipping Weight— 1/ lbs. .25k
81