Commission Reviews Railroad’s Wetlands Application

By Andrew Gorosko

Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) members and nearby residents are pressing the Housatonic Railroad Company for details on the railroad’s pending wetlands protection application for its 30 Hawleyville Road (Route 25) rail terminal, in seeking to learn how the firm would suitably protect the environmental quality of the wetlands near its 13.3-acre site.

The environmental protection issues surfaced at a May 26 IWC public hearing, at which railroad representatives explained their wetlands protection plans, prompting questions on whether the measures would be adequate. The hearing had started on May 12. It is scheduled to resume on June 23.

The railroad is proposing that almost four-fifths of the 9,500 cubic yards of fill that was deposited at its rail terminal in 2009, without the required prior approval from the IWC, be removed from the property in conjunction with its pending proposal to improve its facilities for the handling and temporary storage of construction materials.

The pending wetlands application seeks to remediate the environmental problems caused by the unauthorized filling.

Edward Rodriguez, railroad vice president, had stressed that the railroad’s current application for a wetlands protection permit is separate from an earlier request for a wetlands permit for the site submitted by Newtown Transload, LLC, which the IWC rejected in February. Newtown Transload, which is a contractor for the railroad, has appealed that wetlands permit rejection in Danbury Superior Court.

The earlier wetlands application was submitted in connection with the railroad’s controversial pending proposal to expand its solid waste handling operations at the terminal. The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is reviewing that solid waste application.

IWC Chairman Anne Peters said the IWC soon expects to receive a report on the railroad’s application from the IWC’s environmental consultant. Mr Rodriguez said he would respond to the consultant’s report.

IWC member Mary Curran voiced concerns about the outdoor handling of construction and demolition debris at the railroad property and its possible adverse environmental effects.

Mr Rodriguez said that if the firm receives a solid waste permit approval from the DEP, it would confine such waste handling to the interior of a building.

After the railroad receives such DEP approval, it would also need to town approval for solid waste handling, he said.

Conservation Official Ann Astarita noted the construction/demolition debris on the site is now exposed to the elements, posing pollution hazards. That debris is near environmentally sensitive wetlands, she noted.

Ms Astarita asked the railroad to specify the composition of that waste, in inquiring how its presence might damage the wetlands.

Mr Rodriguez said the railroad is working to get repairs made to a recently damaged shed roof, where such material would be handled after the repairs are made.

Commission member Philip Kotch asked how the IWC can be assured that the track extensions, which the railroad is proposing as part of wetlands permit application for handling construction materials, would not be used for the handling construction/demolition debris.

Ms Peters said she is concerned about how the railroad would environmentally protect a wetland lying east of the worksite. She noted that the fill which has been used on the site does not contain “soil,” but is some version of pulverized construction/demolition debris.

Ms Peters asked whether the railroad has a vegetation planting plan for wetlands protection and whether pieces of angular stone known as rip-rap would be used to stabilize slopes.

IWC member Katja Pieragostini asked that the railroad clearly mark the location where the firm proposes constructing a retaining wall.

Also, Dr Kotch urged that the firm prepare a narrative describing in detail the steps to be taken to environmentally improve the site. Dr Kotch also told the railroad to produce scientific documents concerning the pollution potential posed to adjacent wetlands by the presence of the pulverized construction/demolition debris on the site which serves as fill.

Dr Kotch urged that the IWC conduct a meeting at the railroad site to better understand the implications of the wetlands application. The maps presented by the applicant do not adequately describe the enormity of the project, he said.

Ms Peters said she would check on whether such a meeting at the site would be legally possible.

 

Public Questions

James Mitchell of 17 Butterfield Road told IWC members that people who live near the railroad property drink the water that comes from their domestic water wells, in raising the issue of possible well water contamination posed by railroad activities.

“Please don’t give in and don’t negotiate. Use the full force of the law” in dealing with the railroad, Mr Mitchell said.

Attorney Keith Ainsworth, representing Catherine and Howard Winkler of 149 Currituck Road, objected to the railroad’s wetlands application. A large, high-quality wetland owned by the Winklers is adjacent to the railroad site, he said.

Mr Ainsworth stressed that no environmental buffer exists between the railroad property and the Winkler property.

Rain falling onto railcars would drain off those railcars, carrying contaminants into the adjacent wetlands, he warned.

Core samples should be taken at the railroad site to check on subsurface conditions, he said.

Ann Marie Mitchell of 17 Butterfield Road urged that chemical testing be done to determine the acidity/alkalinity of the fill at the railroad property to learn whether its presence is compatible with the wetlands.

Ms Mitchell said there is inadequate stormwater control on the railroad site.

James Ruopp of 46 Hawleyville Road asked how the public can be assured that the facilities which the railroad proposes for handling construction materials will not be used for solid waste handling.

“We’re just perplexed about the whole situation,” he said of the complexity of the various applications for the site.

Noting the multiple business entities involved in using the railroad property, Mr Ruopp said, “I question whether the railroad really knows what’s going on [at] its property.”

Michael Sanchez of 137 Currituck Road urged that core samples be taken at the railroad site to determine whether the existing fill there lies above a wetland.

Other issues raised by residents at the public hearing included: the blowing dust created by trucks traveling to and from the railroad property; the railcar switching practices of the railroad, and the potential for flooding at nearby land due to railroad activities.

The railroad receives shipments of building materials by rail, which it temporarily stores for reshipment by truck.

About five years ago, the railroad also got into the solid-waste transfer business. The railroad transfers solid waste from trucks onto railcars for shipment by rail to out-of-state landfills.

The railroad’s pending proposal to increase the range of solid waste and also expand the tonnage of solid waste that it handles at its terminal has proven controversial, drawing stiff opposition on environmental grounds from a citizens group and from some town officials.