You're probably wondering what a "Hodject" is ... it doesn't depend on what the word 'is' is ... the following definition should help you understand a "Hodject":
Something that is supposed to cost nothing but costs a lot. Something that’s supposed to have no operating expenses, but has unually high operating expenses. Something that a majority of the people don’t want but never get to vote on, or part of which is not voted upon. Something that replaces a system that is presently working with a system that is more expensive or something that has no added value to the community. Something that came exclusively from the mind of John Hodge. Something that will accomplish little more than raise taxes. Something that is guaranteed to pit people against each other, often resulting in lawsuits or legal actions.
The following three pages below are from the DEP ... [you can click on each picture to enlarge] ... this memo was an internal DEP memo to file with a rather large distribution list. John Hodge is not on the distribution list, neither is Rep. Mary Ann Carson. The memo simply states the obvious ... the bridge was permanent without permission of any kind, no scour tests, no hydro tests, no nothing and the DEP told Hodge to remove it. Hodge simply through his belief that he can do what he please erected the bridge; the worse part he did it with taxpayer money ... and we didn't have a say! Welcome to a Hodject!!!
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: BETSEY WINGRIELD, BUREAU CHIEF, WPLR
FROM: ARTHER CHRISTIAN, SUPERVISING CIVIL ENGINEER, IWRD
SUBJECT: NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION IN FLOODWAY OF BALL POND BROOK,
NEW FAIRFIELD
DATE: 3/14/08
CC: DENISE RUZICKA, DIRECTOR IWRD, SHARON YURASEVECZ, CE III IWRD, KAREN MICHAELS, EA II IWRD
The following points regarding this current matter are for information purposes only. A proprosed project of this type would require a detailed hydraulic model in order to make additional and specific engineering and hydraulic conclusions associated with the project activity.
Flood Management Certification Related Issues
1. If the bridge project is funded with state money then Flood Management Certification approval is required since the activity is within a FEMA floodzone.
2. As of the date of this informational memo, no pending Flood Management Certification application has been submitted by DECD to the Engineering Analysis Section for any activity within this location.
3. DECD has been working with the town of New Fairfield
4. DECD has been working with DEP to insure that they do not forward money to New Fairfield
5. General hydraulic and engineering comments:
a. The bridge span is approximately 40 feet. The FEMA floodway width at this location is approximately 100-feet. The bridge structure as situated encroaches into the FEMA floodway. There appears to be fill placed in the bridge x-section to form the abutments and approaches.
b. The conveyance area of the floodway and floodplain have been permanently constricted by the placement of the bridge, the fill and the riprap at both approaches and embankment slopes. This blocks flow in the channel in the channel thereby causing backwater effects, increasing velocities and further scour and erosion of the channel.
6. c. If there is not adequate unclearence at the bridge, there may be debris blockage from this type of structure, thereby causing flooding to the upstream area.
7. d. The potential increase in water surface elevation from this new bridge may impact the Senior Center Senior Center
8. A hydraulic analysis showing that the new bridge and fill will not have any (0.00 ft) increase in water surface elevation within floodway is required both under NFIP and the FMC.
9. If state money is used to fund the temporary bridge and the bridge is to be considered a “temporary structure”, documentation must be provided showing that the bridge will be removed within 6 months. In addition, the bridge will need to meet the design standards for temporary structures in accordance with the DOT Drainage Manual standards. The bridge must be anchored to prevent it from floating away.
FEMA Related Issues
1. Construction of the bridge is in a delineated FEMA floodway.
2. Activity performed in this floodway area constitutes a violation of the flood management regulations and allowance of the bridge placement by the Town is a violation of the NFIP program, since the Town has not enforced its own requirements for its floodplain management program.
3. If the town wishes to keep the bridge in place, the town would need to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA and show that the placement of this bridge would constitute a no-rise (0.00) increase in the floodway; or would have to request a re-delineation of the floodway.
4. The LOMR process is rather lengthy time-wise (an estimated 6-12+months), and requires sufficient supporting documentation for the request in the form of detailed and thorough hydraulic and hydrologic analyses as required by FEMA.
5. There is no guarantee FEMA will issue a LOMR for the proposed request.
6. If the bridge is to become permanent, and a LOMR is not forthcoming, the DEP must refer this action to FEMA for review and possible enforcement action including potential probation and suspension from the NFIP program if the situation is not rectified sufficiently to FEMA’s satisfaction.
7. Probation from the NFIP would include a $50.00 surcharge placed on all flood insurance policy holders in New Fairfield (approximately 24 policy holders) and a notification that if the Town does not come into compliance with the implementation of their NFIP program, it will risk suspension.
8. Suspension from the NFIP would result in the non-renewal of all existing flood insurance policies in the community and a refusal to issue new flood insurance policies within the community. This would require homeowners and businesses to pursue other very expensive insurance avenues to obtain the necessary insurance coverage for their structures (i.e., private insurance). Mortgage lenders will continue to require flood insurance for affected loans in the community and for any future loans on properties in special flood hazard areas within the Town.
9. Probation may result in possible ineligibility for disaster assistance from FEMA in the event of a presidentially declared disaster. Suspension and non-participation in the NFIP would result in actual ineligibility for disaster assistance from FEMA in the event of a presidentially declared disaster.
Diversion Program Related Issue
The original submission to IWRD detailed the placement of a temporary bridge.
Because if was temporary, the bridge was not regulated by the Diversion Program.
After the placement of the temporary bridge, but before the DEP inspection of 2/29, the bridge was made permanent through the placement of poured concrete abutments and the placement of riprap.
The bridge encroached on the FEMA floodway and would most certainly cause a rise in the watersurface elevations upstream of the bridge. As such, the bridge would fall under the jurisdiction of the Diversion Program.
If the work involved the discharge of fill to wetlands/waters a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 Certification from DEP would be required.
Although the hydraulic and hydrologic requirements of FEMA and 25-68b (floodplain Management) can be dealt with through the submission and acquisition of a Letter of Map Revisions from FEMA, the requirements for a diversion permit would necessitate additional documentation such as an inland wetlands delineation, environmental Impact assessments and an alternatives analysis.
The diversion permit process, even with the bridge already in place is a lengthy process, just to make application, with no presupposition that a permit would or could be issued.
