Conservation Commission Agenda (linked)

February 17, 2026 
 
Waterford Conservation Commission 
c/o Maureen FitzGerald 
15 Rope Ferry Road 
Waterford, CT 06385 
 
Re.: Mamacoke Brook Outfall Channel Stabilization & Restoration 
 
Dear Ms. FitzGerald: 
 
Connecticut College received grant funding to stabilize and restore Mamacoke Brook, a 
coastal lowland stream located on Connecticut College Arboretum property between 
Mohegan Avenue (Route 32) and the Thames River, north of Benham Avenue. The 
principal investigator at Connecticut College is Ms. Maria Rosa, with technical support 
from Dr. Doug Thompson, Connecticut College and Ms. Maggie Redfern, the Director of 
Connecticut College Arboretum. For the design team, GreenVest, LLC is the College’s 
implementation partner for the broader Mamacoke Island Aquatic Habitat Resilience 
(MIAHR) initiative and Biohabitats is the project ecological and engineering lead 
 
The project site, located at 435 Mohegan Avenue Parkway, is 54.10 wooded acres and 
contains approximately 0.82 acres of inland wetlands and watercourses and 2.25 acres 
of tidal wetlands. The proposed project intends to restore 0.27 acres of wetland and 
watercourse and enhance 0.47 acres of wetlands and watercourse. 
 
A detailed assessment of the project site and Mamacoke Brook is discussed in the 
attached design report. This includes assessments of watershed characteristics, 
geology, soil, wetlands and watercourses, hydrology, vegetation and ecological 
communities, listed species, and cultural resources. These existing condition are 
accounted for in the design approach discussed in the report as well as depicted in the 
design plans.  Below is a summary of design report and plans, specifically the project 
need, objectives and approach. 
 
Mamacoke Brook currently exhibits substantial instability, including bank erosion and 
channel incision, producing excessive sediment that is transported downstream into 
Mamacoke Cove and ultimately the Thames River. Primary drivers include concentrated 
stormwater outfalls, a steep flow path, and reduced riparian vegetation in portions of 
the corridor. To reduce erosion and improve hydrologic and ecosystem function, the 
Mamacoke Brook restoration projected intends to: 

February 17, 2026 
Re.: Mamacoke Brook Outfall Channel Stabilization & Restoration 
Page 2 of 5 
 
 
 
1. 
Improve geomorphic function to promote long-term bed and bank stability 
2. Reduce sediment transport downstream 
3. Attenuate stormwater flows from concentrated sources by increasing 
infiltration/groundwater recharge where feasible, and reduce nonpoint source 
pollutants (e.g., roadway contaminants and fertilizers) 
4. Enhance ecological functions and stream habitat quality 
5. Maximize reuse of onsite native rock and wood in restoration features 
6. Control invasive species and improve riparian vegetation conditions through 
treatment and native plantings 
 
The design prioritizes long-term stability, floodplain reconnection, and water quality 
improvement while accommodating constraints such as steep terrain, limited 
construction access in forested reaches, and avoidance of significant impacts on 
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) right-of-way. The project is divided 
into three segments based on field conditions and the related the design approach. 
 
1. 
Upstream Restoration Reach - Although a reinforced plunge pool and outfall 
energy dissipation could reduce erosive power, this approach is not feasible 
under current constraints (e.g., pipe elevations, access limitations, and CTDOT 
right-of-way impacts). Instead, restoration in the upstream reach focuses on 
limited, low-impact measures to increase sediment trapping and habitat 
complexity. This approach uses wood augmentation, including Post-Assisted Log 
Structures (PALS) where feasible and/or strategic use of existing fallen trees. This 
is expected to provide modest functional uplift given the high-gradient 
environment and limited upstream wood recruitment potential (culvert 
constraints). 
 
2. Middle Restoration Reach - The middle reach is identified as the most actively 
enlarging and degrading portion of the system. The proposed design will restore 
stability in a steep intermittent channel (~8–10% slope) using a series of cascade 
grade control structures spaced roughly every 70–100 feet, over a total length of 
approximately 560 feet to the more stable downstream reach. 
 
Key elements of the proposed design include: 
• 
Cascade structures that provide ~3–4 feet of vertical drop over short 
distances using large subangular boulders sized for stability during the 100-
year storm, with plunge pools for energy dissipation. 

February 17, 2026 
Re.: Mamacoke Brook Outfall Channel Stabilization & Restoration 
Page 3 of 5 
 
 
• 
Between cascades, the restored channel bed is set higher (within ~1–2 feet of 
top-of-bank) and designed at ~5% slope to support riffle/pool formation and 
wood retention. 
• 
Two complementary restoration techniques are incorporated to encourage 
geomorphic/habitat diversity and support adaptive learning: 
o 
Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance (RSC) riffle/pool step-pool 
approach, with riffles sized to convey approximately the 5-year storm 
(10 ft wide by 1 ft deep), plus shallow pools enhanced with woody 
material for roughness and habitat. 
o 
Dynamic boulder cluster / woody streambed approach to partially fill 
incised sections and promote a roughened bed surface that may 
evolve toward multi-threaded flow patterns (with performance 
standards acknowledging material sorting and wood decay over 
time). 
• 
Because there are known sensitive archaeological resources within the 
project area, specific steps have been taken to avoid or limit ground 
disturbance that is otherwise not necessary or associated with the 
restoration of the stream channel through this reach. 
 
3. Downstream Restoration Reach - Downstream, where the stream slope softens, 
the valley widens, and stability is greater, a Stage 0, full-valley restoration 
concept is proposed to maximize floodplain reconnection, wetland function, and 
water quality benefits. In this reach, design intent is to restore the wetland/valley 
complex with multiple anabranching flow paths, high habitat diversity, and 
enhanced sediment/nutrient retention across the floodplain.  
 
Because this downstream reach includes dense stands of Phragmites australis, 
an integrated management approach (i.e., timed chemical treatment combined 
with biomass removal) will be coordinated with the Arboretum’s policies and 
long-term stewardship capacity.  Additionally, because there are known 
sensitive archaeological resources within the project area, specific steps have 
been taken to avoid or limit ground disturbance that is otherwise not necessary 
or associated with the enhancement through this reach. 
 
When implemented as designed, the project is expected to: 
• 
Reduce active erosion and sediment delivery to the salt pond and Thames River 
through grade control, raised bed profiles, and floodplain reconnection 

February 17, 2026 
Re.: Mamacoke Brook Outfall Channel Stabilization & Restoration 
Page 4 of 5 
 
 
• 
Improve stormwater attenuation, infiltration opportunities, and pollutant 
processing by re-establishing floodplain and wetland function—especially within 
the Stage 0 restoration area 
• 
Increase habitat complexity and ecological function through wood structures, 
dynamic bed features, invasive species management, and native plant 
community restoration 
• 
Avoid and minimize impacts, to the greatest extent practicable, to trees along 
the restoration reach 
• 
Protect known and potential areas of archaeological resources 
• 
Preserve and avoid potential areas of state-listed species. 
• 
Provide a high-value, long-term teaching and research opportunities for 
Connecticut College students, staff and partners 
 
While the proposed project will result in 0.74 acres of direct wetland impacts, we believe 
that this restoration activity is not a significant impact.  
 
• 
Deposition and/or removal of material will have substantial long-term benefits 
to the watercourse and overwhelm any potential negative short-term effects 
related to construction. Construction will include an erosion and sediment 
control plan consistent with CTDEEP guidelines that will minimize impacts to 
downstream wetlands and watercourses. 
• 
The natural channel has been greatly impacted by erosion associated with 
increased runoff from Mohegan Avenue Parkway.  Natural dynamics of the 
watercourse will be reintroduced through the construction of a natural channel 
to the extent practicable based on current climatic and land use conditions.  
• 
The project will not diminish but rather enhance the watercourses’ ability to: 
support aquatic life and wildlife; reduce flooding in established areas by 
reconnecting existing floodplains; promote improved water quality; and 
enhance recreational opportunities and safety at the site.  
• 
Water quality will be further improved by reestablishing a riparian buffer within 
the upland review area and improving groundwater connections. Reducing 
erosion also decreases water turbidity and establishing a canopy will address 
increased water temperature relative to solar energy input.  
• 
The project will be conducted during a period of low-flow when the Mamacoke 
Brook is typically dry. Turbidity, siltation, and sedimentation will be addressed 
during construction by using established erosion and sediment control 
techniques. Over the long-term, the proposed restoration will reduce turbidity, 
siltation, and sedimentation.  

February 17, 2026 
Re.: Mamacoke Brook Outfall Channel Stabilization & Restoration 
Page 5 of 5 
 
 
• 
The proposed restoration includes educational and scientific benefits by 
allowing students and faculty of Connecticut College to support the assessment 
and design process, observe construction, and complete monitoring to 
document project outcomes along with adaptive management if needed. 
 
A detailed assessment of the project site and Mamacoke Brook and the resultant design 
are discussed in the attached design report and depicted in the attached design plans. 
It is anticipated that the project will begin during the low-flow period (summer) and 
take approximately 3 months to complete. Plantings will be installed immediately 
following construction, but no later than October 31. 
 
Should you have any questions about the proposed project, please do not hesitate to 
contact me directly at 860.968.2738 or jwilson@biohabitats.com.  
 
Sincerely, 
Biohabitats, Inc. 
 
 
Joshua H. Wilson, PWS 
Sr. Ecologist 
 
Enclosures 

2/12/26

Conservation Commission 
Permit Application Attachment                                                                   Properties Adjacent to: 
Owner 
Parcel ID# 
 
Property Address 
Mailing Address 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
435 Mohegan Ave Pkwy
BLAHUN, GEORGE JR
BLAHUN, GEORGE JR & DIANE
CLEIN, ROBERT H
CONNECTICUT COLLEGE
CONNECTICUT COLLEGE
PINKOWITZ, BARRY M & 
SHELBURN, JEANNE L
SHELBURN, JEANNE LEE
TREDWAY, LORAINE & 
KAPLAN, MICHAEL W
393500
393900
437500
393800
436800
24400
436500
24800
7 MAMACOKE ROAD
5 MAMACOKE ROAD
449 MOHEGAN AVE PKWY
14 MAMACOKE ROAD
435 MOHEGAN AVE PKWY
30 BENHAM AVENUE
417 MOHEGAN AVE PKWY
34 BENHAM AVENUE
7 MAMACOKE ROAD
449 MOHEGAN AVE PKWY
30 BENHAM AVENUE
34 BENHAM AVENUE
451 MOHEGAN AVENUE PARKWAY
270 MOHEGAN AVE
270 MOHEGAN AVE
30 BENHAM AVENUE
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
NEW LONDON, CT 06320
NEW LONDON, CT 06320
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374
QUAKER HILL, CT 06374

TOWN OF WATERFORD 
Instruction Guide for Inland Wetland / Watercourse Permit 
 
 
Application Fees:  All Application fees include $60.00 for the State of Connecticut. 
Residential Improvements, Additions & New Structures:  $110.00 
Residential Subdivision, 3 or more Lots:  $160.00 
Commercial/Industrial Development:  $160.00 
Major or Significant Impact Activity:  $360.00 
Public Hearing Fee: $400.00 
 
 
 
Permit Extension/Modification:  $ 110.00 
Permitted Use:  No Fee  
Unregulated Activity:  No Fee 
 
 
All applications shall include a completed original application and 14 copies to be submitted to the 
Conservation Commission office.  The wetlands application checklist is for your convenience, it is not necessary 
to submit this document with your application.  Incomplete applications will not be completed by staff, they will 
be returned. 
1. 
Applicant 
Include the full name, address, zip code and telephone number of the applicant(s). 
2. 
Owner 
Include the name(s) of the owner(s) of record as it appears on the land records (deed) of the 
Town of Waterford.  The owners’ complete address, zip code and telephone number are 
required. 
3. 
Agent 
Include the full name, address, zip code, and telephone number of the agent.  An agent 
prepares the application for submission or will represent the owner / applicant at a meeting. 
4. 
Address 
Provide street name and number of subject property. 
5. 
List of Abutters 
Complete the attached form with the name, address, and assessor’s map and parcel numbers 
for all adjacent properties. 
6. 
Activity to Be 
Reviewed  
Briefly describe the type or nature of permit requested.  Attach additional sheet(s) if 
necessary. 
7. 
Description of 
Proposed Activity 
Describe in detail all proposed work.  Scope of all work shall be included.  Attach 
additional sheet(s) if necessary. 
8. 
Purpose of Activity 
Describe in detail the purpose of the permit request.  Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary. 
9a. Acreage of Property 
Provide the size of the subject parcel and the area of all wetlands on site.                               
[Note: one acre = 43,560 square feet.] 
9b. Area of Wetlands and 
Watercourses 
Provide the area of all wetlands on the site in acres. [Note: one acre = 43,560 square feet.] 
10. Wetlands Altered 
Indicate the area of the wetlands to be altered by proposed activity. 
11. Wetland Mitigation 
Describe measures incorporated in the plan to mitigate the wetland impacts associated with 
the proposed activity, including restoration, enhancement or creation of wetland area.  
12. Regulations 
Indicate you have reviewed the “Waterford Inland Wetlands and Watercourses 
Regulations” and have complied with the application requirements. 
 

 
 
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT 
 
 
Connecticut College Mamacoke Brook Outfall 
Channel Stabilization and Restoration 
Waterford, Connecticut 
 
 
 
 
 
February 6, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project #25201.01 
 
 
 

 
 
 
ii 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
WETLAND DELIENATION REPORT 
CONNECTICUT COLLEGE MAMACOKE BROOK OUTFALL CHANNEL STABILIZATION AND 
RESTORATION, WATERFORD, CT  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
SECTION 
PAGE 
1.0 
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 4 
1.1 
Background ............................................................................................................... 4 
1.2 
Objectives ................................................................................................................... 5 
2.0 
WETLAND DELINEATION ....................................................................................................... 5 
2.1 
Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands .................................................................... 5 
2.1.1 
Regulatory Definition .............................................................................. 5 
2.1.2 
Methodology ............................................................................................... 5 
2.1.2.1 
Hydrophytic Vegetation ...................................................... 6 
2.1.2.2 
Hydric Soils .................................................................................. 7 
2.1.2.3 
Wetland Hydrology ................................................................. 7 
2.1.3 
Determination and Identification of Federal Wetlands ..... 8 
2.2 
Connecticut Jurisdictional Wetlands ......................................................... 8 
2.3 
Field Investigation .................................................................................................. 9 
3.0 
RESULTS OF THE WETLAND DELINEATION .................................................................. 10 
3.1 
US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory ............. 10 
3.2 
Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Map ............................ 10 
3.3 
Field Delineated Wetland Units .................................................................... 11 
3.3.1 
Wetland Unit A .......................................................................................... 12 
3.3.2 Watercourse A .......................................................................................... 12 
4.0 
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 13 
5.0 
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 13 
 
 
 

 
 
 
iii 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
APPENDICES 
END OF REPORT 
 
A 
Existing Conditions Mapping 
B 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Report  
C 
Wetland Delineation Forms 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Certification of Wetland Delineation 
 
State jurisdictional wetlands and watercourses were delineated in accordance with the 
State of Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (CGS 22a-36 to 22a-45 
inclusive).  Federal jurisdictional wetlands were delineated in accordance with U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and Regional 
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and 
Northeast Region (ERDC/EL TR-12-1) pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). To the best of my knowledge, the delineations depicted hereon are 
true and accurate. 
 
The wetland and watercourses were delineated in accordance with applicable local, 
state and federal statutes, regulations and guidance.  Classification and mapping of 
soils on site were conducted in a manner consistent with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Soil Survey Manual (Soil Science Division Staff, 2017).  This delineation does not 
constitute an official wetland boundary until such time as it is accepted and approved 
by local, state or federal regulatory agencies.  
 
 
 
 
 
Joshua H. Wilson, PWS #1992  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Date 
Registered Soil Scientist 
 
2/6/26

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
1.0 
INTRODUCTION 
The Connecticut College Mamacoke Brook Outfall Channel Stabilization and Restoration 
(the Site) is along an intermittent channel extending from the culvert outfall east of CT 
Route 32, located at approximately 600 feet north of the intersection with Benham 
Avenue, to a culvert under a private railroad berm, approximately 0.3 miles east in 
Quaker Hill, Waterford (New London County, Connecticut) (Figure 1).  The Site historically 
was an agricultural homestead site but is now mixed hardwood/softwood forest, 
hedgerow, open field and open water.  
 
Figure 1 Site vicinity map. 
 
1.1 
Background 
Connecticut College received grant funding for the stabilization and restoration of the 
Mamacoke Brook, which is located on Connecticut College Arboretum property between 
Route 32 and the Thames River. The Brook will be stabilized and restored as part of the 
Mamacoke Island Aquatic Habitat Resilience (MIAHR) Project, which also includes tidal 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
marsh restoration along the Thames River. The Brook is laterally and vertically unstable, 
with eroded banks 4-6 feet in height and deep channel incision along portions of its 
approximate 1,500-foot length. This instability is likely caused by concentrated 
stormwater flow contributions, a steeply sloped flow path, and a reduction in vegetation 
along portions of the channel. Consequently, this has resulted in channel enlargement 
and excessive sediment generation due to bank erosion. The proposed stream 
restoration will stabilize the flowpath, enhance the overall health and stability of the 
stream system, and reduce pollutant loading into the Thames River. 
 
1.2 
Objectives 
The objective of this report is to describe any regulated jurisdictional wetlands within the 
Site project boundaries.  
 
2.0 
WETLAND DELINEATION 
2.1 
Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands  
2.1.1 
Regulatory Definition 
The Army Corps of Engineers (Federal Register 1982) and the Environmental Protection 
Agency (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as: 
 
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground 
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under 
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically 
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.  Wetlands generally 
include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. 
 
Wetlands are generally identified and delineated through the positive evidence of the 
following diagnostic environmental characteristics: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric 
soil, and 3) evidence of hydrological indicators. The 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation 
Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of 
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (ERDC/EL TR-
09-19) provides the specific guidelines and methodology required to complete federal 
wetland delineations. 
 
2.1.2 
Methodology 
The 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Interim Regional Supplement to 
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
provide definitions and guidelines pertaining to the diagnostic environmental 
characteristics: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soil, and 3) hydrological indicators. 
These three characteristics were evaluated during the Onsite Inspection (Level 2) and 
using the methods for Routine Determinations, Comprehensive Determinations, Atypical 
Situations, and Problem Areas.   
 
2.1.2.1 
Hydrophytic Vegetation 
Vegetation that occurs in wetlands or hydrophytic vegetation is defined by the USACE as:  
 
…the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the 
frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce 
permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to 
exert a controlling influence on the plant species present (USACE 
1987:12). 
 
Whether the hydrophytic vegetation is prevalent in an area is dependent on the 
presence of dominate species comprising the plant community or communities that are 
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (USACE 1987:13).  Plant species are 
assigned a wetland by the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetland 
Inventory (NWI) program.  Plant species with an indicator status of obligate (OBL), 
facultative wetland (FACW) or facultative (FAC) are considered to be typically adapted 
for life in flooded or saturated conditions.  The indicator status of vegetation identified in 
this survey follows the PLANTS Database (USDA, NRCS 2006): 
 
• 
Obligate wetland (OBL) plants are species that occur almost exclusively in 
wetlands; Estimated probability of time is >99% 
 
• 
Facultative wetland (FACW) plants are species that usually occur in wetlands; 
Estimated probability of time is 67%–99% 
 
• 
Facultative wetland (FAC) plants are species that are equally likely to occur in 
wetlands or non-wetlands; Estimated probability of time is 34%–66% 
 
Hydrophytic vegetation is considered to be a primary characteristic of a wetland when 
“more than 50 percent of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC” (USACE 1987:17).  
At an observation point in each wetland area, the dominate plant species were 
determined as those having the greatest relative basal area (woody overstory or tree 
layer), greatest height (wood understory or shrub layer), and greatest percentage of 
areal coverage (herbaceous understory or herb layer) (USACE 1987:53). 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
 
2.1.2.2 
Hydric Soils 
Wetland or hydric soils are defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural 
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as: 
 
…a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding 
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic 
conditions in the upper part ((Federal Register, July 13, 1994; USDA-
NRCS Hydric Soils Technical Note 1: Proper use of Hydric Soil 
Terminology). 
 
A soil is considered to be a wetland soil by the USACE when the “hydric soil supports 
hydrophytic vegetation and the area has indicators of wetland hydrology” (USACE 
1987:21).  Hydric soils are typically poorly and very poorly drained soils. They undergo 
chemical reactions and physical processes as a result of soil saturation and reducing 
conditions which differ from those found in upland soils. 
 
2.1.2.3 
Wetland Hydrology 
The USACE defines the term wetland hydrology as: 
 
…all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated 
or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing 
season (USACE 1987:28).   
 
Thus, “areas with evident characteristics for wetland hydrology are those where the 
presence of water has an overriding influence on the characteristics of vegetation” 
(USACE 1987:28).  The criterion for hydrology consists of inundation or saturation “to the 
surface continuously for at least 5% of the growing season in most years (50% probability 
of recurrence)” (USACE 1987:30). 
 
The presence of primary and secondary wetland hydrological indicators was noted at 
each observation point selected in the wetland area. The guidelines (USACE 1987:34) 
consider that “wetland hydrology is present when any of these primary indicators is 
present when combined with a hydrophytic plant community and hydric soils.”  
Additionally, the USACE guides that “in the absence of a primary indicator, any two 
secondary indicators must be present to conclude that wetland hydrology is present.” 
 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
2.1.3 
Determination and Identification of Federal Wetlands 
The determination and identification of federal wetlands used the methods for Routine 
Determinations, Comprehensive Determinations, Atypical Situations, and Problem Areas.  
Overall, the generalized methods (based on USACE 1987, Figure 16, pages 63-64) involve 
the following: 
 
A. Hydrophytic Vegetation (Step 13) 
• 
Characterize each plant community types (i.e. trees, saplings, shrubs, herbs, 
moss/lichens, and vines) 
• 
Record USFWS NWI indicator status of dominant species 
• 
Determine if more than 50 percent of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC 
 
B. Hydric Soils (Step 14) 
• 
Gather soil profile data by using a spade or auger to dig a soil pit 
• 
Record soil profile data 
• 
Document hydric soil indicators 
 
C. Wetland Hydrology (Step 15) 
• 
Observe the presence of primary hydrologic indicators 
• 
Observe the presence of secondary hydrologic indicators 
 
D. Wetland Determination (Steps 16 and beyond) 
• 
Using the guidelines determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present based on “A” 
• 
Using the guidelines determine if hydric soils are present based on “B” 
• 
Using the guidelines determine if wetland hydrology is present based on “C” 
• 
Make the wetland determination based on the following: 
• 
A wetland exists if all three of the wetland criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and 
soils) exists for a observation point 
• 
The observation point is not a wetland if one or more of the wetland criteria are 
absent 
• 
For Atypical Situations or Problem Areas, all three wetland criteria may not be met. 
 Consideration for modifications or disturbances should be considered and 
greater weight may be assigned to on criteria over the others. 
 
2.2 
Connecticut Jurisdictional Wetlands 
A wetland, regulated under the Connecticut Inland Wetland and Watercourses Act, is, in 
general, defined as a soil that is saturated to within 20 inches of the surface during a 
portion of the growing season.  These soils have redoximorphic features, a deficiency of 
oxygen near the surface, and/or ponded water during the growing season.  They are 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
poorly drained, very poorly drained, alluvial, or fluvial as specified by the USDA Natural 
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).  Depth to seasonal high water table is 
determined by low-chroma mottling or wetness indicators.  Hydric soils have a similar 
definition. 
 
Watercourses are also regulated under the Connecticut Inland Wetland and 
Watercourses Act.  Watercourses are rivers, streams, brooks, waterways, lakes, ponds, 
marshes, swamps, bogs, and all other bodies of water including natural or artificial, 
vernal or intermittent, public or private. A defined permanent channel and bank, and the 
occurrence of two or more of the following characteristics delineate intermittent 
watercourses: 
 
• 
Evidence of scour or deposits of recent alluvium or detritus 
• 
Presence of standing or flowing water for a duration longer than a particular 
storm incident 
• 
Presence of hydrophytic vegetation 
 
2.3 
Field Investigation 
To prepare for the field investigation, the following current literature and mapping were 
reviewed: 
 
• 
NRCS Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/) 
• 
USFWS Wetlands Online Mapper (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/)  
• 
Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Tenth Edition (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) 
• 
Soil Survey Manual (Soil Survey Staff, 1993) 
 
In September 2025, Biohabitats delineated the Federal and State wetlands on site.  Soils 
were inspected on-site by a Biohabitats Soil Scientist using a soil auger or spade, digging 
at least 20 inches to view the soil profile at the observation point selected for each 
wetland area.  Soil types were identified by observation of soil morphology (matrix color, 
mottle colors, mottle abundance/size/contrast, and soil texture/structure, etc.) using the 
terminology and abbreviations found in the “Field Book for Describing and Sampling 
Soils” (Schoneneberg et al., 2002).  The hydric soil indicators and soils sections of the 
wetland determination form were completed using “Field Indicators for Identifying Hydric 
Soils in New England” (New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee 1998). 
 
Wetland and watercourse (waterway) limits were demarcated (flagged) with pink 
surveyor’s tape (hung from vegetation) or small flags (on wire stakes) labeled “WETLAND 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
DELINEATION” that were generally spaced at every 30 feet.  Complete boundaries are 
located along the lines that connect sequentially numbered flags.   
 
 
3.0 
RESULTS OF THE WETLAND DELINEATION 
3.1 
US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory 
The USFWS NWI (Figure 2) maps wetlands based on analyses of reconnaissance level 
information on the location, type, and size of wetlands habitats such that they are 
accurate at the nominal scale of the 1:24,000 USGS quadrangle base map.  Wetlands 
identified are based on the classification of Cowardin et al. (1979) and the letter and 
number codes used in that reference. Thus, the maps provide a planning tool to 
determining whether a site contains wetlands.   
 
The USFWS identifies the wetlands occurring on-site as: 
 
• 
Estuarine Intertidal Scrub-Shrub Broad-leaved Deciduous Irregularly Flooded 
Mesohaline (E2SS1P5) 
• 
Estuarine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottom Subtidal (E1UBL) 
 
Use of this resource, however, does not take the place of on-site wetland delineation and 
evaluation.  As part of the field investigation, wetland areas were identified, characterized 
as to their hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological indicators and assigned 
a wetland classification based on this information.  
 
3.2 
Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Map  
Wetland soils are identified by soil scientists based on established hydric criterion and 
boundaries depicted on aerial photographs and are accurate at a scale of three acres. 
Thus, the maps provide a planning tool to determining whether a site contains wetlands. 
(Figure 2) The upstream limits of the project area are classified as Canton and Charlton 
soils (60D), a steep-sloped, well-drained soil. The majority of soils within the project area 
are classified as Sutton fine sandy loams (51B), which is a moderately well-drained soil 
typically found on hillslopes and classified as having high runoff potential. The northern 
side and downstream limits of the project area are Charlton-Chatfield complex (73E), a 
very rocky, well-drained soil found on 15 to 45 percent slopes. All of these soil classes are 
derived from granite, gneiss, and/or schist.  

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
Use of NRCS soil mapping, however, does not take the place of on-site wetland 
delineation and evaluation.  As part of the field investigation, wetland areas were 
identified, characterized as to their hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological 
indicators and assigned a wetland classification based on this information. Soil 
characteristics were recorded during on-site field inspections of soil borings and test 
pits.  Details of soil observations are provided in the wetland delineation forms (Appendix 
B). 
 
Figure 2 Site soils map. 
 
3.3 
Field Delineated Wetland Units 
Three (3) wetland/watercourse units were identified on the property.  One of the 3 were 
outside of the investigated area of disturbance and were not delineated or inspected at 
the same level of detail as the remaining 2 wetland/watercourse units.  Appendix A 
provides the location of the 2 wetland/watercourse units that were characterized and are 
described in this report. The limits of the wetlands and watercourses on site were flagged 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
in the field and enumerated WA-1 to WA-35. A generalized description for each wetland 
and watercourse unit is provided below. 
 
3.3.1 
Wetland Unit A 
Wetland Unit A is a freshwater nontidal scrub-shrub broad-leaved deciduous wetland 
present along the western edge of the salt pond impoundment at the eastern extent of 
the project area. This wetland is fed partially by a seep at the toe of slope to the west and 
the pond to the west and is characterized by shrub layer that is dominated by grey alder 
(Alnus incana) and spicebush (Lindera benzoin). The herb layer is dominated by 
common reed (Phragmites australis), skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) and 
beggarsticks (Bidens frondosa).  Hydric soils were encountered at the toe of the  
surrounding slope and the following indicators were met: stratified layers (A5), dark 
surface (S7), thin dark surface (S9). The wetland hydrology present in Wetland Unit A 
included primary indicators of surface water (A1), saturation (A3), sparsely vegetated 
concave surface (B8) and secondary indicators of drainage patterns (B10), dry season 
water table (C2), geomorphic position (D2) and the plant community passes the FAC 
neutral test (D5). 
 
The upland conditions adjacent to Wetland Unit A consist of steep sideslopes of coarse 
material that drain well. Hillslope forests are dominated by American beech (Fagus 
grandifolia), black birch (Betula lenta), sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and black oak 
(Quercus velutina) species in the tree layer with the shrub layer dominated by burning 
bush (Euonymus alatus), maple leaved viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), sassafras 
(Sassafras albidum), arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum) and barberry (Berberis 
thunbergii). The herb layer is composed of wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), white 
wood aster (Eurybia divaricate), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolate), woodland sedge 
(Carex , burnweed, and woodland sedge (Carex sylvatica) poison ivy (Toxicodendron 
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus 
orbiculatus) vines. No wetland hydrology or vegetation was present and there were no 
hydric soil indicators present. 
 
3.3.2 
Watercourse A 
The project site centers around Watercourse A (Mamacoke Brook) which is an 
intermittent channel that is laterally and vertically unstable, with eroded banks 4-6 feet 
in height and deep channel incision along portions of its approximate 1,500-foot length. 
sediment generation due to bank erosion. 
 
 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
4.0 
CONCLUSIONS 
This Wetland Survey and Evaluation has been prepared to determine the wetlands and 
watercourses occurring on the Connecticut College Arboretum property in Waterford, 
Connecticut.  Two wetland and watercourse units were identified on the property in the 
area of USEPA and USACE interest. 
 
5.0 
REFERENCES 
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for wetlands, Wetlands Research 
Program Tech. Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways 
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.  
 
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 
deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 
Service Program. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC.  
 
Hagstrom, N.T., Humphreys, M., and Hyatt, W.A. 1994.  A Survey of Connecticut Streams and 
Rivers—Lower Thames River, Pawcatuck River, and Easter Coastal Drainages.  F-
66-R-6: Progress Report, CT DEP Inland Fisheries, April 1, 1993-March 31, 1994, 
Hartford, CT. 
 
New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee.  1998.  Field Indicators for Identifying 
Hydric Soils in New England.  New England Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Commission, Lowell, Massachusetts. 
 
Schoenberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E.C. Benham, and W.D. Broderson (editors). 2002. Field 
Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0. Natural Resource 
Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. 
 
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 10th ed. USDA-Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 
 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).  1987.  Wetland Delineation Manual, 
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Wetland Research Program 
Technical Report Y-87-1, On-line Edition. 
 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1993. Soil Survey Manual, Handbook No. 
18 U.S. Government Printing office. Washington, DC. 
 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS).  2006.  PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov, 30 October 2006. 
National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA). 
 
 

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A – EXISTING CONDITIONS MAPPING 
 
MAMACOKE BROOK OUTFALL CHANNEL  
Waterford, Connecticut 

1 of 3
State jurisdictional wetlands and watercourses were delineated in accordance with the 
State of Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (CGS 22a-36 to 22a-45 inclusive).  
Federal jurisdictional wetlands were delineated in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and Regional Supplement to 
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region 
(ERDC/EL TR-12-1) pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). 
To the best of my knowledge, the delineations depicted hereon are true and accurate.
 
Joshua H. Wilson, PWS #1992
Registered Soil Scientist
S

2 of 3

3 of 3

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A – NRCS SOILS REPORT 
 
MAMACOKE BROOK OUTFALL CHANNEL  
Waterford, Connecticut 

Soil Map—State of Connecticut, Eastern Part
(Mamacoke Stream Restoration)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/8/2025
Page 1 of 4
4585400
4585500
4585600
4585700
4585800
4585900
4586000
4586100
4586200
4585400
4585500
4585600
4585700
4585800
4585900
4586000
4586100
4586200
741500
741600
741700
741800
741900
742000
742100
742200
742300
742400
742500
742600
742700
741500
741600
741700
741800
741900
742000
742100
742200
742300
742400
742500
742600
742700
41°  23' 28'' N
72°  6' 45'' W
41°  23' 28'' N
72°  5' 47'' W
41°  23' 0'' N
72°  6' 45'' W
41°  23' 0'' N
72°  5' 47'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator   Corner coordinates: WGS84   Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84
0
250
500
1000
1500
Feet
0
50
100
200
300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:6,150 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 
1:12,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause 
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil 
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of 
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed 
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map 
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: 
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator 
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts 
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the 
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more 
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as 
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: State of Connecticut, Eastern Part
Survey Area Data: Version 2, Aug 30, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 14, 2022—Oct 6, 
2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were 
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background 
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor 
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—State of Connecticut, Eastern Part
(Mamacoke Stream Restoration)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/8/2025
Page 2 of 4

Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
3
Ridgebury, Leicester, and 
Whitman soils, 0 to 8 
percent slopes, extremely 
stony
1.7
1.1%
12
Raypol silt loam, 0 to 3 percent 
slopes
2.8
1.7%
34A
Merrimac fine sandy loam, 0 to 
3 percent slopes
14.0
8.8%
34B
Merrimac fine sandy loam, 3 to 
8 percent slopes
0.5
0.3%
38C
Hinckley loamy sand, 3 to 15 
percent slopes
2.3
1.5%
50B
Sutton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 
percent slopes
3.7
2.3%
51B
Sutton fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 
percent slopes, very stony
23.9
15.1%
60B
Canton and Charlton fine 
sandy loams, 3 to 8 percent 
slopes
13.1
8.3%
60C
Canton and Charlton fine 
sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent 
slopes
10.9
6.9%
60D
Canton and Charlton soils, 15 
to 25 percent slopes
6.9
4.4%
61B
Canton and Charlton fine 
sandy loams, 0 to 8 percent 
slopes, very stony
23.9
15.2%
61C
Canton and Charlton fine 
sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent 
slopes, very stony
11.2
7.1%
68C
Narragansett silt loam, 3 to 15 
percent slopes, extremely 
stony
0.7
0.5%
73C
Charlton-Chatfield complex, 0 
to 15 percent slopes, very 
rocky
0.5
0.3%
73E
Charlton-Chatfield complex, 15 
to 45 percent slopes, very 
rocky
20.9
13.2%
84B
Paxton and Montauk fine 
sandy loams, 3 to 8 percent 
slopes
5.2
3.3%
84C
Paxton and Montauk fine 
sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent 
slopes
9.3
5.9%
Soil Map—State of Connecticut, Eastern Part
Mamacoke Stream Restoration
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/8/2025
Page 3 of 4

Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
98
Westbrook mucky peat, 0 to 2 
percent slopes, very 
frequently flooded
1.4
0.9%
997
Thames silt loam, subtidal
3.6
2.3%
W
Water
1.6
1.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
158.0
100.0%
Soil Map—State of Connecticut, Eastern Part
Mamacoke Stream Restoration
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/8/2025
Page 4 of 4

 
 
C:\Users\JWilson\AppData\Local\Temp\Bluebeam Software\11576599.doc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B – WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS 
 
MAMCOKE BROOK OUTFALL CHANNEL 
Waterford, Connecticut 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
State:
Investigator(s):
Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
NWI classification:
x
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
Yes
x
Are Vegetation
, Soil
, or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X
No
X
No
X
X
No
X
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
Yes
X
ENG FORM 6116-8, SEP 2024
Northcentral and Northeast – Version 2.0
U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Northcentral and Northeast Region
See ERDC/EL TR-12-1; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 9/30/2027
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Mamacoke Brook Outfall Channel Stabilization &  Restoration City/County: Waterford/New London
Sampling Date:
09/12/2025
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Floodplain
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Slope %:
1
Connecticut College
CT
Sampling Point:
Wet 1
B. Salladin
Section, Township, Range:
NAD83
Charlton-Chatfield complex
N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Yes
No
(If no, explain in Remarks.) 
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Long: 41.388310
Datum:
LRR R
-72.102159
significantly disturbed?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
No
naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? 
Yes
within a Wetland?
Yes
No
Remarks:  (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)                                       
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1)
Water Marks (B1)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
High Water Table (A2)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Saturation (A3)
Marl Deposits (B15)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
1.5
Water Table Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
16.8
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Remarks: 
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Saturation Present?
Yes
No
Depth (inches):
0
Wetland Hydrology Present?
ENG FORM 6116-8, SEP 2024
Northcentral and Northeast – Version 2.0

Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
x 1 =
1.
x 2 =
2.
x 3 =
3.
x 4 =
4.
x 5 =
5.
Column Totals:
(B)
6.
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
X
1.
X
2.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
X
ENG FORM 6116-8, SEP 2024
Northcentral and Northeast – Version 2.0
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Wet 1
Tree Stratum
)
Absolute 
% Cover
Dominant 
Species?
Indicator 
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species 
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6
(A)
Total Number of Dominant 
Species Across All Strata:
8
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species 
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
75.0%
Lindera benzoin
10
Yes
FACW
Prevalence Index worksheet:
10
Yes
FACU
FAC species
15
45
43
43
Total % Cover of:
190
OBL species
Multiply by:
FACW species
95
40
418
UPL species
20
100
Alnus incana
30
Yes
FACW
FACU species
10
Prevalence Index  = B/A =
2.28
183