Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trail Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineers present semi‑final Margery Reservoir trail plans; DEEP official says nest not threatened
Summary
Design consultants presented 60–90% plans for the Margery Reservoir Trail, reported a DEEP site review that found no immediate threat to a nearby bald‑eagle nest, and outlined boardwalk, fencing and drainage measures intended to limit wetland disturbance.
Engineers presenting the project’s semi‑final design told the Margery Reservoir Trail Advisory Committee on June 17 that a recent site walk with Brian Hess of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection found the proposed alignment acceptable relative to a nearby bald‑eagle nest.
The consultants said they had located much of the trail immediately adjacent to Route 37 to reduce impacts within the 330‑foot eagle buffer, and that DEEP’s field observations did not show signs of distress in the nest’s two young. A member of the design team summarized DEEP’s response as supportive, saying the reviewer “felt very comfortable with it being located again against the already disturbed corridor.”
Why it matters: the route crosses wetlands and steep slopes that require different construction solutions. Consultants presented a range of techniques intended to minimize footprint and protect habitat, including short boardwalk spans built from the top down, helical micropile foundations (each pile said to disturb under two square feet), and targeted fencing and interpretive signage near the nest to keep users on the trail and away from sensitive trees.
The team walked committee members through plan sheets showing wetland delineations, areas where grades exceed the target ADA slope (5 percent), and red rectangles marking locations that need further design work. In steeper sections the consultants said the project will balance retaining walls, at‑grade routing and boardwalks “foot by foot” to avoid unnecessary clearing. They noted that some sections may require railings where slopes approach roughly 8 percent.
Stormwater and erosion were a central focus. Presenters explained that several roadside drainage outlets currently daylight onto the property, forming gullies that will complicate trail crossings. Proposed fixes include extending and stabilizing the outlet pipes with riprap, adding drainage manhole structures with sumps to capture sediment, and selecting site‑specific treatment measures that could include oil/water separators where warranted. The consultants said the design work will aim to convey runoff beyond the trail footprint and, where feasible, improve downstream wetland and water‑quality conditions.
Permits and next steps: the plans presented are a semi‑final (permit‑ready) set that the team intends to submit for required permits. The presenters committed to completing a Northeast Bald Eagle nesting screening form and to referencing National Bald Eagle Management guidelines as part of the permitting package. They also said project slides and the plan set will be posted on the project website for public review, and outlined a schedule moving the design toward 90% completion and permit applications.
What remains open: the team highlighted several localized design challenges (steep slopes, wetland crossings, drainage outlets) that still require field‑level decisions and costing. The committee agreed to continue refining the alignment and mitigation details as the design advances.
The committee did not vote on the alignment during the meeting; presenters said permit applications will follow the next round of plan refinements.
