Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutModification of approval TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR S U ' k,�y i 2 1999; INLAND WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION APPLICATION Sol t!] Application # 0-.37 P Date Received 5h INLAND \'°_E-IL '�;DS f.zZ :cvf CoNsERVrl Ioi�l cal.ti"JiSS Ga INSTRUCTIONS 1. One application (1) with map and plans (2 copies)) shall be submitted together with the fee set forth in the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations, Town of South Windsor. (See Regulations, Section VII - X) 2. The South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations should be reviewed with respect to the standards and criteria for application Evaluation. (See Regulations, Sections VII - X) 3. The applicant understands that this application is to be considered complete only when all information and documents required by the Agency have been submitted. The applicant shall also complete the state filing form. / A. Applicant's Name: / J/e-� ,�d t-.CS A.e-e Address: Phone: (home)�i Z�- �o (work) (fax) B. Legal owner's name: �1- �.��.� 111Via- Address Phone (home) �3fQ�i (work) fax) (List additional owners, addresses, and phone numbers on back of application) C. If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property; a letter by the owner(s) authorizing the proposed regulated activity set forth in the application must accompany this form and will be part of the application. D. Project Name (if any) 1. Contact Person (if further information is needed) (work)2�Jr' Jfax) E. The geographical location of the property which is to be affected by the proposed regulated activities including a description of the land in sufficient detail to allow identification of the property on the Inland Wetland and Watercourse Map. Assessor's map # Parcel # Zone 7 �. F. Names of all abutting property owners from records in Town Clerk's office. (use separate sheet if necessary) G. Have you notified all abutting property owners (from records in Town Clerk's office) by certified letter that an application is pending before the Agency? ** (you are required to supply a copy of the letter with the list of the names of the abutters).** H. Purpose and description of all proposed regulated activity(s) including amount of disturbance in square feet and types of fill and the time element involved: ie I. A class A-2 map of the property drawn to 1" = 40', showing the area to be developed, extent of the wetlands and watercourses affected, topography, existing and proposed activities and names and locations of adjacent property owners must be submitted. J. Amount of regulated area disturbance and types of fill (including wetlands and regulated buffers). S,6E ATrAch KENT K. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses in regulated areas to be altered: L. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be created: M. Lineal feet of proposed stream alteration: ",o N. Total land area of project and percentage which is wetlands: O. Identify all other permits or approvals that have been issued, applied for, or required with respect to the proposed activity set forth in this application. (These may include but not be limited to, local Planning & Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, D.E.P., F.E.M.A., D.O.T., The Army Corps of Engineers, and any other State, Local or Federal Permits.) P. The applicant (or designated representative) hereby attests that a sign will be posted at the following location(s) 1 , s 7�"0 VF By Name on or before the following date Signature: These signs must be displayed continuously for at least ten (10) days prior to scheduled meeting (see Regulations, Section 7.3a) The undersigned hereby applies for the regulated activities listed in paragraph H above, for a Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation permit for the property described herein and confirms that: 1. She/he is familiar with the currently effective Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations of the Town of South Windsor. 2. She/he understands that at any time during the review period, the Agency may require the applicant to provide more information about the wetlands and/or watercourses in question and/or any proposed activity. 3. All information submitted in the application for review shall be considered factual, or in the case of anticipated activity, binding. A knowing failure of the applicant or any of her/his agents to provide correct information, or performance exceeding the levels of activity anticipated, shall be sufficient grounds for revocation of any permit under these regulations. 4. By making this application, the applicant gives permission to the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Commission members and/or its representative to enter the portions of the premises which are subject of the application for the purpose of inspection and investigation and otherwise evaluating the merits of the application both b fore and after a final decision has been issued. Sig ature of Ownei of Property rn _ Date �- / - ✓�' Si nature of A licant � ��,� Date S /0 _ "5;v- . 9 'mil goo- aa-o- � � s� MAY-12-1999 15:42 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.02 t ■ WUQN M.ALFORO.SR..RE,6 LAENG11VEERS 0 SAIRVIFYOUS E PLAIVIVERS r WILSON4I.ALFORD,JR.,RQ.�L.5. 200 PIPE©N HILL ROAQ ■ P.O.BOX 484 ■ WIN SOR■ Cr Q6095 ■ PHONE(880)688-7288 ■ FAX(860)68&3485 Proposed 1I Cu#ler Ridge III, Subdivision i Prepared for Manna ino Builders, Inc. j Revisions to Disturb noes, to Wetlands/Watercourse Areas IMay 4, 1999 1 The following revisions were made to the subdivision plans within the wetlands and watercourse areas: Original plans were revised to January 28 , 1999 Current plans have been revised to May 3, 1999 1. Where proposed ButlerlDrive crosses the wetlands and pond area at Sta. 2+95 to Sta. 6+18 Original distur ante = 0.48 acres Present propose disturbance = 0 .44 acres The May 3, 1999 revi ions include: providing an eight (a) foot wide shoulder on the south side Of Butler Dri e instead of the previous twelve (12) foot wide shoulder. Therefore, the encroachment of the i 2:1 side slopes into the wetlands/pond area was reduced by 0.04 acres , i the Length of the f concrete arch culvert was reduced by five (5) feet o the south side of Butler Drive i 12. Proposed Butler Drivefpreviously connected to Murray Read. f The present proposal �s to make Butler Drive end at a cul-de-sac and not cd nect to Murray Road, A 50-foot wide right of way in favo ' of the town of South Windsor is proposed between Butler Drive and Murray Road for the "possible future" connection. Ia) This will eliminate the present need to connect the proposed subdivision into Kurr y Road, therefore, eliminating crossing the existing stream WJ4th a roadway. I i Original disturbance t4 Stream = 0, 02 acres Present disturbancejto stream 0.0 acres i I k MRY-12-1999 15:42 RLFORD A55OCIRTES INC 203 685 3485 P.O6 r I I Cutler Ridge IT May 4, 1999 i i I I b) By eliminating the roadway connection to Murray toad, at f the present time, t 'is wi11 eliminate the need for storm drainage, temporary�siltaticn basin and permanent grass swale adjacent to tle stream. 13 . Proposed Lot #1 has b9en moved approximately 40 feet to I the east. This will jut the west line Of Lot #1 approximately 42 feet east of Detention Basin #I. I 4. Summary of Wetlands / lWatercourse disturbances - Total original dirt rbance = 0.53 acres Total present propo feel disturbance = 0 .47 acres Present disturbanc 'n es clude: f + 0.44 acres : where utler Drive crosses the pond/wetlands at St . 2+95 to Sta. 6+18 + 0 .01 acres; distu an,ce from creation of biofiltex�imarsh I area Ot Outlet of Flared end #4 + O.02 acres: u�t outlet a from ofcreation Flared end #5ofilter/marsh area 1 I I I f 1 � I I I I I I T7TRL P.03 JAN-18-1999 12:32 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.02 MAY. SOUTH NTNDSOR I t AGSAICY CQNSt tvATION n S, Minutes r ti� Pac re -1- Aril 18 1998 ,E°t r rraT.r.: John M. Moran Jr. , Jeremiah O'Sullivan, Walter Pekala, Betty Warren, Roy Normen Julie Raymond, George Daniels James Lombard' r ' CQUMPONDENCE END C fCATY NS 0 Moran made a motion to accept the letter om i,1i dl Sanctuary (dated 4f 7/88 to the as written fr '.,. Town Council . Warren Counc n septtn ed the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimou'l. licatian #88015W Ro calli Institute Adult r Care Facilit Attorney William Grace, representing Roncalli institute sail�i ,t s applicant had made an initial application to the Plannin `s` Zoning Co=nlas.ion in May of last .year. The concept 'of th facilit is to provide usin for the elderly especially I t ' l' need full time nursing re. g r ,a Sister Kelley spoke briefly about the history of foncalli athatthey operate a n r of the institutes in New Engl �d �. . . Institute provides all health care available on the site institute makes it affordable to everyone. Peter DeMallis of Desig Professionals, planner for the pro a ` said that this is essentially a elderly retirement facility the Roncall.i support services. It is located on a 56 between Avery Street in South Windsor and the Vernon Town "Z 'tt It has a 1000, setback f om Avery Street with woodlands i �- between so the visibili is reduced. It is over 500' fr rear property line to the closest building. A single ent drive with a. boulevard effect, crossing wetlands then o 4$�� `"` into a loop street withi which all the development occard.4 ' acres will be developed, building coverage is approximate "y the site. Five buildings will be involved, most of them o "< housing With one being for skilled nursing care. The sitqq incorporate 276 parking spaces. Location was selected dusk +;" site lines . At its greatest traffic period of the entire '$ which will be an aftern n peak hour, there will be appto$i _ 32 entering vehicles an 37 exiting. This applies to the day, on the weekend tra fic will be greatly reduced. The ,,P was designed for minor croachments on wetlands. Under n a of wetlands will be dis rbed. The project has been deli e sensitively toward the environment, toward the neighborhood* an toward the wetlands disturbances. William Mead of West Ha tfvrd, the architect for the p r4 Acts... ' stated that one of the nefi,ts of the circular drive was ".t,O ' '' `'`'' provide a campus like ervironment for the walkways. Paat F` experience influenced t e design of the smaller scale socfa� `':'. ± centers scattered `throu bout the project. The units will '4 i JAN-18-1999 12:33 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.03 SOUTH WINDSOR INIAND S AGENCY/CONSERVATION C Minutes aoe -2- April_ 18 1988 }.. .�_ - - 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units with their own separate entry'. <' Bob Arsenault with oesig Professionals handed out the se ' ' of construction to the C mmission members . (Exhibit A) The' 1:ra r, sanitary sewers will com from the mown of Vernon through Ov®rbrook Drive. the wa er comes from the Connecticut Water# Company, Avery Street se ice. There is a 0 increase in run ff.'-:. . ' : Basically six adzes of t e sight drain to the west to the wetlands near Avery St re t with the rest going to the rear ti ra sod detention basin All g g k P � the storm drainage will con'v+ek in the wetlands area he flow travels north then it oei a the east and comes south ri a sin g v .y y g down through a brook wrhi'c� " •�` �''r�}r'= goes into the same area is the sanitary sewer under Overbzoo -' Drive. Utility wise the �roject effects Vernon more than it. south Windsor. The proje t will not be phased however there 9 a ' 4. logical sequence of cans ruction which is shown under the "2,3 items of plan on the han out. The items are broken down inmo� lG distinct construction se uences : 1. Construction of the acdob$ road, water line and the box culvert. 2 . Rough grading 'o� t ;,` roadway down to the dete ticn basin. 3. Final constructidin; � " the northern roadway up to the temporary cul-de-sac and alao' tt , southern leg up to the b ilding called W. 'then as the tVo ' roadways are constructed Clerk and Donegal buildings will ,b ► constructed. After this area is stabilized, then the RiAgR �i' ,,; will be finalized, The M Ian and Portofino buildings will be constructed on the east end. The Florence and Dublin buildings will be constricted last. The applicant has ag ro4V%*ql,*' . . from the Water Pollution Control in Vein- ri "iihid-5 ut�► Win__sg�r�4�"�� . the installation of the anitary sewer. The-appZ ci-a"�5' thy' a, process of getting state permits for the installation of the detention basin. Jack Rossi, landscape architect from Johnson 6 Rector stated ° he would. describe the primary landscape design from the of the project out. Co rt yard areas were developed. Ea.C2i �. antrance has flowers and ornamental trees. The outer loop 'ins . designed to blend into the existing woodland farmland. Thho wetland area will be a conservation planting area containit m . . native wetland varieties. A walk will be incorporated thrq the woods and into the site with vegetable and flowers gAro for the residents. Willows and grasses will be planted a.ro" d - detention basin. All lawns will be maintained and everyth194 outside will be a wildflower and grass mix. •,i '•3..r d.L Virginia Burkhart, the ironmentalist for the project, st •that now in the wetland there is standing water, however , :late summer it would be;nv ,all dry. Deer and raccoon live in- �fi®'`' ;- area. Moran questioned as to he phase aspect of the project. �1a1 L logical to say only one phase when there had been a list git}erf ' the Commissioners: ' i i JAN-18-1999 12:34 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.04 •S. f F:e i SOUM WINDSORL INLAND S AGgNCX/C0NSMVAT10N I Minutes 'Pa a -3- April 18 1988 - Attorney Grace replied t at the project would take approxi' '; five up in to PProN eery phase that they went - through aid the applicant would not Like heldgettingto,. �':'"„ • p a als for v through because the appl�cant has been at this for a long t and would like to get started on the project. Grace assur" Comnaise'On that the committment of Roncalli was to do a go 1' Pekala said he was concerned about the detention basin bet' 1 .� Y k � :SS one central area. Arsenault replied that this was to mini the aunt of the distu � x once. Moran questioned as to t a safeguard of tr , abutters in tit' of the project. Arsenau. t briefly respon_ed that the �,p- .�,. submitted to the Town of! Vernon. There are several culve. ". underneath Overbrook Road , from there the flow seeks its � ',A. . the Rockanum River. Thejapplicant has submitted plans tv ..: . $ r State DSP for permit of a detention basin. From the ca1Cu ' of the engineer, there will be 0 increase from a 100 yr.,and there will be no imp �ct downstream from the construct. . K i Device a iea stated that he was conc erned with getting a SC& ;p , t the amount of topsoil that will be preserved. He also= S - di6 ,r with the location of the! stockpile ii the detention area. -1: f,= would appreciate them limiting the amount of area expoae� "'* :.A site. Davies said that he would lice siltation basins bb distributed throughout the site. 7 i j'Yc•. . 1 .vx _ Arsenault•s response was 1 that the a_=licant would heed all ' hJ511`-•-I Town's re uirements in t�ia " q I project-.- Arsenault stated the t applicant has a yearly permit and they will be back every: until the project is completed. The applicant will work w th' Town Staff as far as segpencing the project. PUBLIC cO NT ' Harry Wells of 623 Avery; Street stated that Avery Street L's Y, filled to capacity now with traffic and this project will iknother 500 cars per daysHe also wanted to remind the ads' Id �4. at that they built Avery Heights into swamp too and that ne h had not recovered from that. � Audrey Wasik of 29 Carmao Road spoke in favor of the prbje6 rn Mary Ants Kletttber, 8 resi�ent ,if South Windsor attested to t2ie excellence of the Roacalii Institute, . Stanley Diacumski also a' resident of South Windsor asked a� -ta, ; how much would this cost an elderly person to live there.. Attorney Grace replied that the figures are not available t " time however the applicat said the average elderly persons Q�L btfard to live at the Innstitute whether it be by purchase b arrangement f' I I JAN-18-1999 12:35 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.05 .........�.._-� �..�...r.• OC YT'z P. 05 R{ INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COww-rSSION MINUTES PAGE 2 y T y..il Phase I. A road was con 'tructed where the silt pool was there are no silt pools ►here they should be. ' .Arran s propert y at the corner of Chapel Road and Clark Stre � discussed. Two barns were demolished and the barns buried, Neighbors were concernedjover carpenter ants in the barns 410? a150 once the barns deca ' would there be a sink hole. Clean yii� is only suppose to be us d and the Building Inspector givel.pexaaiasion to demolish. !It was asked it IWA/Cc have an Y Jurisdiction over this matter and the concensus was that riot been'brought •to• the tt of IWA/CC except Raymond.- ' It was also statedention pt through past builders woui d• their w4ste -for fill around s to the �``�'the duin "s •. . .. - . � e sites thus eliminating g4�' Daniels Made the motion tp accept the minutes of April 25, ;I and it'was seconded by Pekala . The motion carried and the yr t i ; ;'„• was unanimous: • '� OTHBR BUSINESS:. ' -.Pekala` E � •';'i lode- 'ihe'•motion to; le Item :., tab #6 and it was s t econde . . Daniels.Dan isleThe motion • Y . lion• and the vote :•.;. ." -�� - � was unan.L�ttous REPORTµ A.B.E. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer Davies -asked the Commis si' ners to visit Mountainview Estatej3, .: Q '. #133. The original condition about protecting the trees wa� ' tlj4d the applicant was to prowtde fencing at the drip lines of silob L ~ trees and prohibit encroachment in these areas . The applic j.t: . ; has protected the trees with b' of dirt. Normen made a mot send a letter to the a licant advising 0 PP g him to remove thejr d�z� •;��:� �:, and install the fencing. ;The motion was seconded by Pekala; motion carried and the a was unanimous. '. OLD BUSINESS .. A lication #530 Cliffwdod Estates _ The CPM issioners � " f l' proceede�d to discuss this apP�,ication and. the �. concerns centered around the accuracy of wetlands depiction, off problems, pitch away f rom Lawrence Road. There was from the SCS report in Fe ruary as well as the report' from ' • Lombardi .Assoc. To these concerns. Concern was also on why; . ' Lot. #36 is a buildable to , and that there were three aoce -' ;.paint$ into the site whichanti-tracking Pais would involved anti-tracki 21�there was suppose to be only one access from Kira Lana. Dad ' t' stated that there would b three access points when the :. developing is completed hgwever Burin �` "i g the developing phase i I JAN-18-1999 12:36 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.06 T. INLAND wS TLAND 3 AGEN csr/coxs�vxTrox coxiycxssxorr PAGE S SAY vir inia•q , Burkhardt of Burkhardt Environmental, Inc. $fated� ' 'it -one,.of .her functions hen she _is hired on a ro ect a evei6per ,to.an Y r n eyed s c p j to ar enda ,�`;;_; .Connectieut does not ha '.endan eyed'ies even thong :� ar ;n s:, .. •....-. an g ,species.�act.'`-,•She - rid hny endangered spec es ori. ..the .site acid :this has �� eustaritia .been �' ted' on 'Igtters I,from .DEP on 'past ' ' ` `' prQ jests. . She�h�d coinversation with a member of the Natural. Resources Data' - ' ;;; ;thesaid .they were .not aware of any endangered specie$ 'i '<a�rba• olaever; °in order t ' get a definitive an the 4.' ewer .,to, computez network athe would need a ca of a �aap +0J. 14'j.. k d iri ;writing ,a., .' 'fwyy�.'.ylr�. ti.a, O%'l•1t• 1 ! :•; +. ••:. .A . ult� tated :they c y +�:,.., ! ;r. .;:-:., ,y_ . ��ore`the. r;4 x :IO ,box oulvert A. �itallatiori f ;t ould ;h v ,." � r i� ='A the.Lstr c'tuire. a e;less 'ef feet o ' e and9,•` d,.the „otlie= r Cori;is nec inter' . : the'_vastriess_`�of ;CtiA s�-• ;cont n between Wetland',re$e ,for 8 khaa:dt::s.t t unit ... ~i�.i ated that a 'pre car can be purchased K r.:14,in, the bottom which i "� d.L rointate grave can be placed, sedianents ari11 ''•:.. �P a stream ha _ 4e . �, P y. nne�. In this 'in there t :.riot A:!LAtrdari_channel' acra's the Xisting roadway, ;July.it's' : ':veYy,drjy :out•-them.; ''•.: : -A.rseit lt'_saidlthere iS ." defined s j '# -: tream.- •:In ,response ;;.t .,.stoi�a�water .detention; .there was 'an extensive study .done ' "`': .• ,: ..;._ F...p including'analYizing the sptein'where water drains to Veriatt,...,.;: The site has'been analyzed for everything from a'.tiro year frequency 100 year storm and have come up with 0 increaise.. ; --the detention basin. Through Computer development, flows •.,:,, ti thb;timing ,have_been 'determined. '.lta and had cone Ym. ern on the impact on ,the ,Hockanuiie River •-.r `��''�' �-• . Gventually, on the Connecticut Rives and would DEP ' respond with theirconoerng. .. Arsenault sa been contacted with the rogue id that DEP h�d be rwhat permits were requires by the applicant. They requiredalq permit not a water diversion permit. The letter was dated, rd 7, 1988. The report has been sent to the Town of Vernon anth$x, applicant is waiting *for their response. ponce. � Jack.'Rossi of Johnson S, R litter listed the conservation :. nu lantings, blueberry, bay erry, currants, cattails, mountaifi ; rel, dogwood, bitches. He also stated that the buffer stt . gill be Incorporated when ever it is po9sible. eArsenault said that wa osing stabilization in thsprop detention basins. They w�ll use the -timing of constructig• + " ` Ar+l�nault proposes that the crossing at Avery Street will ' Access road of rough grading, using sedimentation controla�daq► •, JAN-18-1999 12:38 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.07 u u V Ac CO.. 4 . /CONSERVA . x`ION COSSION MUTES ,.. PAGE 6 ICY 23,{ they 1 y. pragess' into the site. • Constructing it, stabilizi 14aving the.` seditaentatl.oa control in place, then after he r+: •atabilirfng is accvm lisped s e of the �' construc�3on� �.The 'eeque�pce of$co som other utility ngtruction contains 31t y::fexxl�i `detailed.' "-Ire doi#g this method it lessens the size` area that is under construction at'• -� �: -;• .. _ :.� one time. Peter�Desi811ie of total Design ,Prof®ssionals stated that oat a' acre f O.r1 s` of wetlands �., onl y 7/10 of an acre will be die _ '' '•�'-to . =: 3uirkhardt' stated that ha art `"�` '' •�' in t � p icular wetland area the; ' e1ope6'..,0n``either slide and this is second 'and this�= `• ' vr9e a=anon" afid rowth `'sttea'.- ►"� .gig r ,there'`are no plans'`to clear that 5 There'as' red ins le birch befcr "•,, p • es acid skunk cabbage':ar�d•'. �.�•.. ycu,'d�tually 'get to the marsh which the wildlifa' g greatest` extent ri; ht now. � r• Gracg stated that the a 11cant is ' cons PP! projecting five years 'a' z. txuetiori n three phases. �_- ;s:• 'Arsenault Ba3.d:that trie site had been desi ned .• ;I ..v' ! _ q •based ,on '� a '�f' State 'handbc0 .cf 'Sedimen ation and Erosion Control. '-S barriers 'are not bein chazttzelB':` '-Barr ere a 9 used to control sediment '11% any .of t)8 are used only during constructi,gn for •e@di entatiOn prablems `rhIch might arise. Haybales 'will 'be= $' a for'"sedimentation control:.' Haybales will, be placed where . .` engineers think will be the greater benefit, whether the a ` or 6 feet from the 'slope, : Burkhardt said that the native shrubs will be stockpiled. _ . , is not a I00% recovery rate however, the shrubs will re-seeI, r . k =b re-;establish themselves. ;The construction times will not ,�� " interfere 'wit ,;; •'h the nesting periods. t l'e3caYa asked for the limit of the rst phase '`�.•i'. 4 fi . r. ArBOAault responded that the crossing over Avery Street, inhta.li' µ;a ! the anti-tracking pad on Avery Street, rough grade the Bout X _. „ > .cop of the ring road down to the detention basin area. '1'h� ��""-' '• will utilize two of the cdl-de-sacs, one on the western sido ; y; being first then the internal to control the sedimentation. '..x,. Any disturbance in the wetilands•will be � ., July through Octobe �°�� � • ;Xoran asked if there was any feedback from the Town of Verabu which Demallie answered nq because they opted not tb The have y a e looked at the site and- .have all the available plaf�� reports. Arsenault said the Town of Vernon had responded over the ownership of the easement fox' sanitary sewers. The conneoQn ' ; was approved by the'water Pollution Control in Vernon and South JAN-18-1999 12:39 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.08 E /CONSSR IphAND W '1'.G142'tDS: AGFIVE�Y .`:r:'' PATION CQi�gSSIp ,i° '''�' PAGE 7 'MY 2 R� •wind_ sor_and the easementsare in .place. ; :._Davies asked t ;t`""-South Wl.iidsor 'hat the abope,'he put in writing to the Town ,4f :- Goodwij wasconcerned about 'the •azY .ells t '�:' :c:? �.: ,;�. ;�=:- , extensive test w o which Arsenault " topography, storm drainage: etcles and in looking .at- the ,�rs1ls„but..are ina . , they decided not to us so31,''disc providing .Curtaln.•.dralns. ;,.:The .site',co e,d�`s''- barge Will .be :to"thew,storm .drtiiria 1, Qmdir�a � . ec� Ji;Ito the detenti n. Theh' 9e s st rths bast th :. e takeA;-in10=ac � on ticn _flows from e room n_ '.Kielnt.•.:::';A silta berm-placed .in:;`t a to`$ . , � ;cause _some�pondi" ,,`;, de, �n r !9'of afar rin A•• ; Gong"stsxct rho�vever�the water' will parr Ydu g r; pp}��r� � .1E j�' .:i qy,- ► :x ;1 .emu• .:r.b6 � Qa nt0 th@ .more f t• r r' ,� Burkhardt sta L }.e , ' ►?:,`':: *; '�. fed that •it 'is =• -'•�.�<, easible ,ta ii�turbance totth,-when the groundis';frozen the^resultinbei» r .R ,. . a .soils. sGoodwi nks: that' the an riials 'wil •ear 'fr :constracft on begins',and.then a wou7,dsnot be u om. the,``Pi . .p. '^^ efor. sing :the Q ' rt• :(r: c:, r• r,. �.. _ _•L" 'ter'. ���?,•• :.•_ :.t.•;. F: .. �• `,1..•'�.- i� .��-•' 1 r�'' '.t+ `i:�• �.r.,r. 8urkhardt'rIL {:::P','. X`: :. �.r• 4'r:�y:.�_' . ' lied that = - , .�at duri .. :m atitf,mat ng .the tame when .the• marsh is 'dry ' 't .use 'the :pentral ;chaiznel;as` do the +,usin 'the wooded.areas raccooriffi as;,weld 'the axmer s' �vi�ence shows .that' the animals jz cornfield to the north also. In her opinion,.tha._ culvert will not change their habits. The animals also use large red maple swamp on the eastern portion of the site.box culvert was not de d in t psiiaartly x culvert he roadw$y for wildlife ® 'i. - A box provides, for more ode u ; wildlife .them' €vr .instance q ate -pathwa :a , 24 corrugated metal i e and 'c - �; to 'im 1 g 9 P P p y that �there .i''s not . cin to be an effe�Lhe.,wildiife. beer 'are very adaptable to landscaping, thet' ;l,Y.Populati94 May .decrease. However there are still fields to north ,and .the .wetlands whic undisturbed. h will far the most P8xt remain 'a•;:' '` ' .:, Raymond asked the Commis sion to table this application unt.iX thee:'=�� `'' applicant gets 1' g the information from the Database and submits it to IWA/CC. t.: -Ndrmen stated that s ince Burkhardt has already checked the site t he is wondering what a Database would tell about the site tlai a'T �` ` on site inspection would not tell. y` Burkhardt replied that the data is Compiled on a grid systent by sending Database the map;, if they have noted something i� ¢ E r "Areas they will feed the information �' s back. Verbally they hAd reported .that they were unaware of any ends ngered Area. Burkhardt said that in he p on of the r ins erti site, JRN-18-1999 12:40 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.09 � AoBxcY/corrssxvATlox cawwirssYo�t , •� .y �'�` 5 PAGE 8 !!hY 23 •1 Al observed no habitant;s:•' areas that would be suspected of enda�g��•.R • : apecie$. Pekala raised the question of using a s } ingle entrance to whi ' "Arsenaiit ,re Ch `" J plied that with them 9 f the eating o Town Staff they <� .t : had 'suggested the single entrance especially since the site; ; contains the' ring roid. :,• } ':Nol meet"'ieaid that if YWA/CC acted on ' -:.a roval ." the application, that Pp ,.,. uld be conditional upon the results from �' s PekaZ�. .etated 'that• • ' • •:•����� • � -� ' -;:.• '.i,�,.:� �•.a - r _he' had•'heard new data and would ' slot"of _.;. a reclate Af.,.this 'application was tabled unto.] the next. .`yQ •6 ...omusissioners agreed and •t?ie •application was he ex `. i'eviaw':�tnt3,1. the next' meeting. ` lnplication'#88026w - Brlan and Tracy Martin LL ' Dtoimen _said that the Martins were back with revised plan$ .,.the e .ppldcenment "of the retaining wall. . ;'The retaining wall off-:the" ourictation wall . The driveway will be located on th_, of the 'hause instead of in the back a ' F4` f the house and 'that fie. .. .. ` 'f Plot plan ,reflect the pFoper location. = " ''Pekala .tp de the motion to'a pprove as amended Application #88.02� ;,:' .• xt was seconddd by Normen. The motion carried and the vote va"a' unanimous 'with Goodwin abstaining. Application #88027W Town of South Windsor, p =A �• , - •. . , Chapel Road ,,�• `•• :Pekala said that at the previous meeting nothing was said to: �he'..';r 'r ` Town about replanting and :re-establishing the buffer. The" 4come down hard on the homeowner and in his opinion 1WA/CC 'shottl4 .� r: Vome. down just as hard on the contractor or the Town, whoeve� :i •• 'K 4e that is responsible for the sides of- the road, conservitioA ' .T >-.{iaeasures 'and tree planting. The area should be re-worked ag` le3Y' , t ' as possible to what it was before the State decided that ChapeX ' + " • toad had to be widen. Pekala said he was speak�,ng most about ghat was designated as the' conservation easement. � �... Koran stated that the State is dealing directly with the homeowner and IWA/CC should not step tread in and '. doh ground that.:::.��,• -_.. is not theirs . The State is giving the homeowners money to restore the property. 1-i O'Sullivan said that the Town owns the easement and, the Town should refurbish the conservation easement by replanting it. , ; s. Davl,es stated that the To ation Town does not own th '�asementa they just establish a right of way.coThe homeowner the easements, they make the deals with the State and it is urn to JAN-18-1999 12:41 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P. 10 1 1 i.F Ration to table ztems 4 5 S of the agenda to later Ar the evening . ,.T was made by Commissioner Pekala ` :. ,and seconded by Comm.issione Lombardi inbetrdi t�.the' motion carried : The vote was as-7ollows: unanimous TI�I�s A lxcation #88--15P - Roncalli Institute rnc, �'• > vt-ton to approve Ap2licatign #98-15P with modifications . *as made b Commission y er Pekala and seconded by Commissioner Raymond The motion carried A` - the vote was as fo lows: ' unanimous 5_. 2Tmr Application #88-47W, Wil.mar Construction i ::Kation to a improve Application #88:47W with modifications. ►ias made by Commissioner Pekala °'•and seconded by Commissioner Slicer The motion carried .The vote was as follows: unanimous I 'ITSli. Lk2plication #88-42P Paul' s Distributers Motion t0 approve Llication �' 4n #88=42P with modific at o 's :was made by Commissioner Pekala w.= :And seconded by Commissioner Slicer 4• _.,-, ,The motion carried ` the vote was is follows: unanimous •:n:�. ��iG gg `7 i" loin 111samm 140 W414 MIN 22m ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,SR.,P.E.&L.S. ENGINEERS 0 SURVEYORS 0 PLANNERS ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,JR.,P.E.&L.S. 200 PIGEON HILL ROAD 3 P.O. BOX 484 ® WINDSOR M CT 06095 ® PHONE(860)688-7288 M FAX(860)688-3485 LIST OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS PROPOSED "CUTLER RIDGE II" SUBDIVISION 940 AVERY STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. PREPARED FOR: MANNARINO BUILDERS, INC. OCTOBER 15, 1998 SOUTH WINDSOR ABUTTERS: . ASSESSOR' S MAP NO. 93 PROPERTY OWNER/MAILING ADDRESS 7 (SUBJECT) SKW REAL ESTATE: LIMITED PARTNERSHIP C/O ARCHON GROUP, 1275 K. STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 5 REGINA M. BLOZIE, ET AL 678 SALMON BROOK ROAD, GLASTONBURY, CT. 06033 6 REGINA M. BLOZIE, ET AL 678 SALMON BROOK ROAD, GLASTONBURY, CT. 06033 8 JOHN R. & RHONDA D. WILSON 926 AVERY STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 9 RANDY M. & PAMELA J. OLSON 904 AVERY STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 10 DAVID M. BLOZIE 882 AVERY STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 ASSESSOR' S MAP NO. 80 28 ROBERT A. & SUSAN E. DOWDING ll MURRAY ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 29 PEDRO M. GOMES 25 MURRAY ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 30 PEGGY THERESA GROSSI 37 MURRAY ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 31 CHERYL J. MADER 47 MURRAY ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 ASSESSOR' S MAP NO. 80 PROPERTY OWNER/MAILING ADDRESS 32 GEOFFREY DAVID BENJAMIN 57 MURRAY ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 33 DAVID S . & CYNTHIA D. MARLIN 65 MURRAY ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 34 MOLLINA STEWART 75 MURRAY ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 35 GILBERT TAVARES OLIVEIRA 83 MURRAY ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 36 WILLIAM N. & RUTH M. OLSEN 15 AHERN DRIVE, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 ASSESSOR' S MAP NO. 81 1 RICHARD W. & DYLA D. KIRBY 23 AHERN DRIVE, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 2 CATHERINE M. HERRICK 29 AHERN DRIVE, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 3 ROBERT R. & RHONDA L. JOYSE 35 AHERN DRIVE, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 WITHIN CUTLER RIDGE SUBDIVISION LOT 3 MICHAEL & THERESA BREAUX 27 CHANDLER DRIVE, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 LOT 26 MANNARINO BUILDERS, INC. 1169 ELLINGTON ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 OPEN SPACE CUTLER RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O MR. ROBERT MANNARINO 1169 ELLINGTON ROAD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. 06074 i:.,J VERNON ABUTTERS: ASSESSOR' S MAP NO. 3 PROPERTY OWNER/MAILING ADDRESS 9 FAITH R. LYMAN 243 TALCOTTVILLE RD. , VERNON, CT. 06066 46 JOHN C. , JR. & SALLY J. LYON 93 OVERBROOK DRIVE, VERNON, CT. 06066 47 HELEN G. STROINEY 97 OVERBROOK DRIVE, VERNON, CT. 06066 • MT ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,SR.,P.E.&L.S. ' ENGINEERS 0 SURVEYORS • WILSON M.ALFORD,JR.,P.E.&L.S. 200 PIGEON HILL ROAD ■ P.O.BOX 484 ■ WINDSOR■ CT 06095 ■ PHONE(860)688-7288 ■ FAX(860)688-3485 October 16, 1998 Michael & Theresa Breaux 27 Chandler Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Proposed "Cutler Ridge II" Subdivision 940 Avery Street, South Windsor Applicant: Mannarino Builders, Inc. Owner: SKW Real Estate Limited Partnership Dear Property Owner: In accordance with Section 7 .3b of the "Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses, and Conservation Regulations" , we are required to notify you that an application has been filed on the property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing by the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission. The application and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department. As an abutting property owner you are invited to the hearing to ask questions and/or give comments, however, you are not required to attend. You may also submit written comments regarding the application prior to the hearing if you so desire. For further information regarding the specific date this will be heard please contact Phyllis Mann, Recording Secretary or Jeff Folger, the Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer at the Planning Department, 644-2511 , ext. 253. Thank you. Very truly yours, Wilson M. Alford, Jr. , P. E. Alford Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 484, Windsor, CT 06095 Tel . (860) 688-72,88 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 1 submitted to the TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION 1 for a PERMIT APPLICATION addressing ' WETLAND,WILDLIFE & WATER QUALITY ISSUES for the PROPOSED CUTLER RIDGE H OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION AVERY STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 1 prepared by Rema Ecological Services, LLC 19 Foster Street Manchester, Connecticut (860) 649-REMA(7362) ' (860)-647-8397 (fax) ' December 16, 1998 Report Preparer: eorge . Lo an, MS Principal Environmental Scientist Computer File: c:\projects\conn\9851SWN5\CutlerRidgeII.doc r Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW...............................................................................................2 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................5 3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS..........................................................................................................................5 3.2 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT................................................................................................5 3.2.1 Uplands.....................................................................................................................................6 3.2.2 Wetlands....................................................................................................................................8 ' 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES.......................................................................................11 5.0 STREAM HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION&ASSESSMENT................................................13 6.0 QUALITATIVE STREAM BENTHIC BIOSURVEY.....................................................................13 7.0 WILDLIFE UTILIZATION AT THE SITE....................................................................................15 7.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 15 7.1.1 Results..................................................................................................................................... 16 7.1.1.1 Avians...............................................................................................................................................17 7.1.1.2 HeMtiles&Mammals........................................................................................................................18 8.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION.......................................................................................................19 8.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 19 8.2 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS TO WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES...........................................................21 8.2.1 Wildlife Habitat.......................................................................................................................21 8.2.1.1 Resident Wildlife Species........................................................................................................................21 8.2.2 Potential Impacts to Other Wetland Functions.........................................................................24 8.2.2.1 Ecological Integrity.............................................................................................................................24 8.2.2.2 Educational Potential...............................................................................................................................25 8.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION...........................................................................................................25 8.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: QUALITY...........................................................................................26 8.4.1 Design Objectives....................................................................................................................26 8.4.2 Structural BMPs......................................................................................................................26 8.4.2.1 Catch basins.............................................................................................................................................27 8.4.2.2 Extended Detention Basins.....................................................................................................................27 8.4.2.3 Biofliters/Level Spreaders.......................................................................................................................29 ' 8.4.3 Procedural BMPs:Long-Term.................................................................................................29 8.4.4 Applicable Standards and Guidelines......................................................................................31 8.4.5 Sizing Guidelines for Stormwater BMPs...................................................................................33 8.4.6 Assessment of Proposed Stormwater BMPs...............................................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..41 9.0 REFERENCES............................................... ' i Supplemental Report, ' Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16,1998 List of Figures Figure Page 1. Site Location........................................................................................................... 4 2. Aerial Photograph of Site............. 3. Pollutant Concentration-Runoff Curve .................................................................... 33 4. Generalized precipitation analysis............................................................................ 34 List of Tables Table Page l. Dominant Vegetative Cover Types within Stud Area............................................. 6 Y r2. Wetland Unit Description Summary........................................................................ 10 3. Wetlands Functional Assessment Summary ............................................................. 12 4. Proposed Direct Disturbances to Wetland Areas...................................................... 20 5. Impacts to Wetland-dependent Wildlife................................................................... 23 6. Wildlife that Prefer or are Attracted to Edge Habitat............................................... 24 7. Pollutant Removal Efficiencies per BMP................................................................. 37 8. Expected Average Pollutant Removals for SMS ..................................................... 36 ' 11 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 Appendices Appendix Following Page I. On-Site Soil Investigation Report............................................................................ 45 2. Annotated Photographs........................................................................................... 45 3. Vegetated Invento 4. Wetland Characterization........................................................................................ 45 5. Rationale for Wetland Functional Assessment.......................................................... 45 6. Stream Habitat Characterization and Assessment..................................................... 45 7. Wildlife Inventory................................................................................................... 45 i 1 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street.,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ♦ Mixed hardwood woodlands open fields old fields shrub thickets P and forested and emergent wetlands characterize the site's landscape. ♦ Overall, the site's two (2) wetland units were found to provide moderate, or moderate- high quality functions and values. ♦ Thirty-five (35) single-family residential lots and associated infrastructure improvements are proposed for the 55.1 acre parcel. ♦ Approximately 0.58 acres of direct wetland disturbance is proposed, and will be mostly associated with the site's access roadway. The intensity of the direct impacts to wetland functions and values are considered to be low-moderate before compensatory mitigation. ♦ Indirect long-term impacts to wetland functions and values will be low. ' ♦ Many Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) are incorporated into the plans. These include: catch basins, wet extended detention basins, and polishing "stormwater wetlands." ♦ Many Procedural Best Management Practices (BMps) are incorporated into the plans. These include: scheduled sweeping of impervious surfaces, inspection, maintenance and cleaning of structures, and others. i 1 ' 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 1 Supplemental Report, ' Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW This supplemental report has been prepared by REMA ECOLOGICAL SERviCES, LLC RES on behalf of Manarino Builders, Ina ("the applicant") for submission to the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission of the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut ("the Commission"). ' The application to the e Commission is being filed pursuant to the Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (Section 22a-36 to 22a-45), as amended, of the Connecticut General Statutes; ("the Act") and the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations for the Town of South Windsor. The applicant requests approval from the Commission to develop 35 single-family residential lots, and associated infrastructure improvements on land ("the site," "the development site") located off and to the east of Avery Street, in South Windsor, Connecticut (see Figure 1 for site locus). Specifically, approval is sought from the Commission: (1) to discharge treated storm drainage to wetland and watercourse areas, (2) to disturb approximately 0.58 acres of forested and emergent wetlands (including a small, rshallow, man-made pond, for the construction of an access roadway, (3) to culvert roughly 140 Iinear feet of intermittent stream channel, and (4)to conduct regulated activities within designated upland review areas to watercourses and wetlands. The development site encompasses approximately 56 acres. In its current condition the site is in a complex of forested land, old field/shrub thickets, and emergent and forested wetlands. An unnamed semi-permanent stream, tributary to the Hockanum River, flows southeasterly through the site's eastern section. The site is border by residential properties to the west and south and undeveloped land to the north and east. 1 According to the USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map (Manchester Quad), the site ranges in elevation from roughly 220 to 310 feet above mean sea level. The site plans confirm tthese elevations. Slopes vary from nearly flat within the western and central portions of site to steep just west of the site's forested riparian wetland. The �'Y objectives b j ectives of this report are to: p J ' 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 2 1 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT F- 1.December I6, 1998 Describe existing resource conditions (i.e. watercourses, wetlands,uplands); 2. assess the overall wetland and watercourse functional quality at the site; 3. provide a fairly detailed inventory of wildlife populations at the site; 4. briefly analyze potential direct or indirect impacts to wetland and watercourse function and surface water quality; and 5. briefly discuss proposed mitigative strategies that minimize or compensate for impacts to wetlands, and surface water quality. The site was ins ected a number of times. The following p ow g table gives the dates, the purpose ' for each of these inspections, and the person conducting the site inspection. Inspectimi 7/19/98 George Logan Wetland delineations 8/2/98 George Logan Wetland delineations 8/15/98 Bob Russo Wetland delineations;baseline inventory, 9/3/98 George Logan Baseline inventory 10/18/98 George Logan Baseline inventory 12/7/98 Bob Russo Baseline Inventory 12/13/98 George Logan Baseline inventory, water quality testing; stream biomonitonng ' For RES George T. Logan, Certified g gan Cert ed Professional Wetland Scientist and Wildlife Biologist, and Registered Soil Scientist, the bulk of these field inspections. Bob Russo, a Certified Wetland Scientist and Registered Soil Scientist with Environmental Planning and Soil Science (EMSS), performed some of the wetland delineations and gathered baseline information on upland and wetland habitats. For this report a set of plans entitled "Cutler Ridge II, Open Space Subdivision—RR Zone, prepared for Mannarino Builders, Inc., Avery Street, South Windsor, CT" (Sheets 1 through 10), prepared by Alford Associates, Inc., dated October le, 1998, and revised through December 10, 1998, were reviewed. r ' 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.D0C 3 ♦ r � srrE ' ♦ ,� ..mot:_,:':r * �::.... '::.: • ...:::..::...: • • rt • N ': ... �aY..:�: ::: .-:.rr.�.::.::::pr'�f`���`i t�'._�t�ii��'�:ilki' �.,:.�: ...: ....:: • ...... ...::."•;.: ?.:: :.�F Wyly '�k:::�`i t:...: . © � grsgs�r • ♦ ■ yr :?r::i::.:::... '�':':': _:...*' +e !�... ::.:.:::::::.:::.....:::"::;;fir..;.: • �'.+�'�;;:._:..:::. •;� •• • , '_.e:;:t?:tit;::.:ME li:pY`.; '..:.:` .: :.:i.;r'>>i:;l#': ..".?:a:`:.? ::.:: ,-s?::;2:r:+li ' N Site Location Map Proposed Mannarino Builders, Inc. Subdivision tAvery Street, South Windsor, Connecticut Date: 10/1/98 From: Figure 1 Manchester, Connecticut Quadrangle Map, 1992 — Rema Ecological Services,LLC USGS 7.5 Minute Series 19 Foster Street 1 — 1,000 Manchester,CT06040 site Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December I6, I998 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS According to the Geological Map of Connecticut (Rodgers 1985), the site is underlain by reddish brown arkose (i.e. brownstone) also known as Portland Arkose. Bedrock was not ' found exposed on the site or within three feet of the soil surface. The Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut (Stone et al. 1992) indicates that the entire site lies on glacial till ' deposits. However, some shallow outwash deposits (i.e. sands and gravels) were found underlying some of the site's western wetland, while shallow alluvial deposits were identified in portions of the site's eastern wetland. The site's soils were mapped in the field in July and August of this year (1998). These soils were found to be of both disturbed and undisturbed (except for the plow layer) types and are derived from the types of underlying parent materials or deposits mentioned above. The upland-type soils on the property were identified as the Cheshire (Cs), Narragansett ' (Na), Watchaug (Wg), and Wapping (We) soil series. The wetland-type soils on the property were identified as the Rippowam (Ro), Walpole (Wc), and Scarboro (Se) soil ' series and the Wilbraham and Menlo (Wt) soil series complex. The On-Site Soil Investigation report prepared in support of the wetland delineations on the site can be found ' in Appendix 1. ' 3.2 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ' All major vegetative cover types on the development site were identified and inventoried. Whitlock et al. (1994) define a cover type as follows: "A portion of a wetland or upland system that contains a uniform plant community composition and structure or that is influenced by one hydrologic regime. A distinct change in either hydrologic or vegetation characteristics indicates a change in cover types." Four 4 upland and three 3 wetland cover es occur within the site, and are briefly ( ) P ( ) types y ' described below. Annotated photographs of the various cover types can be found in ' 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 5 1 . Supplemental Report, ' Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT ; December 16, 1998 ' Appendix 2. A vegetative inventory of the dominant flora within the wetland cover types is provided in Appendix 3. Table 1 provides a synopsis of the dominant cover types encountered at the site. ' Table 1: Dominant Vegetative Cover Types within Study Area Cover Tyl)e Upland Mixed Hardwoods forest UA Hardwoods forest, red maple dominated UB Hardwoods forest/sap1mg-shrub thickets UC Old fields/shrub thickets UD Wetland Shallow/Deep Marsh complex WA Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow complex WB Forested Swamp (Riparian) WC *See Figure 2 3.2.1 Uplands ' The majority of the site consists of upland (non-wetland) vegetative communities that have developed following land clearing and agricultural activities. One of the upland cover types can be described as a mid- to low-slope mixed hardwoods woodland, and is ' dominated by oaks, maple and hickories. Mature hardwoods of uneven-age with an average diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of 12 to 14 inches dominate this area. Trees of ' up to 36 inches DBH were observed here. Canopy closure within the woodland approaches 95 percent. Vertical heterogeneity is moderately high throughout most of this ' cover type. However, understory species diversity was found to be low throughout most of this cover type with maple-leaved viburnum making up the bulk of the shrub layer in many places. This wooded community occupies the eastern half of the site. Smaller woodland patches occur within the western half of the site near wetland areas. ' These can be described as a low-slope hardwoods woodland, and are dominated by red maple and white ash, with some oak. ' 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.D0C 6 l Proposed Wetland Wetland Crossing Mitigation ' Area Wetland Mitigation Area ' Wetland 1 Wetlantl 2 v, N Proposed Cutler Ridge 11 Open Space Subdivision Property Avery Street, South Windsor, Connecticut Showing Wetlands and Watercourses on a April 20, 1995 Aerial Photograph (CT DEP#51-24) Approximate Property Boundary Date: 6/2/99 - .................. Watercourse/Waterbody (Approx.) Figure 2 ----•-•-•-•-•-• Wetland Boundary (Approx.) Rema Ecological Services,LLC V&#Wk Vegetative Cover Types (see Table 1) 19 Foster street NOT TO SCALE Manchester,CT 06040 Wetland 2 Wetland Ecological/Assessment Unit Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Mindsor, CT December 16,1998 In the center of the site, are several agricultural field abandoned many years ago have developed into a patchwork of"old field"and"shrub thickets." 3.2.2 Wetlands Two (2) distinct wetland areas [i.e. Wetland 1 and Wetland 2) are associated with the site { (Figure 2). Large portions of these wetlands occur off-site. The off-site portions were i either briefly investigated, or remote sensing (i.e. aerial photograph interpretation)was used f to classify and characterize them. It was necessary to look at off-site portions of contiguous wetlands to accurately assess their ability to perform a variety of functions. Although occurring separately on the site, Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are hydrologically connected via ` a stream corridor to the north of the subject property. Wetland 2 features an unnamed semi-permanent brook that is a tributary to the Hockanum River. While Wetland 2 is predominately forested, Wetland 1 is characterized "open" emergent wetlands. Presumably this is the result of using the wetland as a pasture many I years ago. Table 2 provides a summary of these wetlands' classification and physical characterization. It should b n 'e noted that a wetland's hydrologic rye refers to the elevation and degree of fluctuation of the water table with respect to the land surface over time" (Golet and Lowry 1987) (see Appendix 4). The hydro e ologic setting of a wetland refers to topographic, geologic and hydrologic conditions in which the wetland occurs (Golet et al. 1993). Golet et al. (1993) state that wetlands in Southern New England are found in four hydrogeologic settings: surface-water depression, surface-water slope, groundwater depression, and groundwater slope (see Appendix 4). A few additional notes are provided here on the portion of Wetland 1 that would be altered under the current proposal to provide access to the property from Avery Street. Wetland 1 is a groundwater depression wetland. Groundwater was observed discharging at its southern terminus in the late fall of this year (1998). Water elevation fluctuated by up to one and one half feet during the period of fieldwork (July through December 1998). During an August field visit surface water, which had been observed flowing through a low point in a dirt road that traverses the wetland corridor at the property's northern boundary, was not flowing at that time. 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.DOC 8 Table 2: Wetland Unit Description Summary Soil TA pes' reed canary grass,sedges, 1 emergent wetland; rushes,burreed,duckweed, Scarboro loam,Walpole loam; seasonally flooded surface-water depression; M-1,SM-2,DM-5 buttonbush,ferns, silky poorly and very poorly drained groundwater depression dogwood red maple,spicebush, Rippowam loam Wilbraham riparian wooded swamp, elderberry,alder,arrowwood, seasonally flooded, seasonally surface-water slope; 2 WS-1 jewelweed,cinammon fern, silt loam,Menlo silt loam; saturated groundwater slope sedges,skunk cabbage,red top poorly and very poorly drained Notes: 1: see Appendix 3; 2: see Appendix 4; 3: see Appendix 1; 4,5 and 6: see Appendix 3 Supplemental Report, ' Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT , December 16, 1998 ' 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Scientific research has shown that wetlands provide many important biological, hydrological and social functions (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). It is desirable to quantify, to some extent, the relative value of a wetland or watercourse in regard to these functions. This is necessary in order to design environmentally sensitive site plans, predict with some ' confidence the potential impact of a proposed activity, and where unavoidable wetland impacts are to occur, be able to design suitable mitigation. ' Several scientifically based procedures have been developed in an attempt to assess the various functional values provided by wetlands. Five evaluation methods were drawn from ' to assess the watercourse and wetlands on the site. Of these, one method (Ammann et al. 1991) provided the general framework for the evaluation of functional values, while another (Golet 1976) was relied more heavily upon for the evaluation of wildlife habitat. The five procedures are the following: ' 1. Golet, F.C. 1976. Wildlife Wetland Evaluation Model. pp. 13-34 in : J.S. Larson (ed), Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands.Univ.of Mass.Water Resources Research Center Publ.No.32. ' 2. Ammann,A.P.,R.W.Franzen,and J.L.Johnson. 1991. Method for the Evaluation of Inland Wetlands in Connecticut:A Watershed Approach. CT DEP Bulletin No.9 3. Hollands,G.G.and D.W. Magee. 1986.A method for Assessing the Functions of Wetlands.pp. 108-118 in:J.A.Kusler and P. Riexinger(eds). National Wetland Assessment Symposium Proceedings. ' 4. WET 2: Wetland Evaluation Technique. Volume H. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Wetlands Research Program. 5. Hollands, G.G. and D.W. Magee. 1995. A Hydrogeomorphic Procedure for Assessing the Functional Capacity of Wetlands: In press, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,Mississippi. ' The basic concept behind most wetland evaluation or assessment procedures is that wetland characteristics contribute to, or give rise to wetland functions that have certain value to natural systems or man. By assessing the relative importance of certain characteristics to a particular function (e.g. wetland class to the wildlife habitat function), and then weighing the various expressions of those characteristics in wetlands (e.g., shallow marsh, wooded swamp, etc.) one can arrive at the relative functional value of a wetland or watercourse for that function. 9851SW-MCuderRidgeII.DOC 11 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street, South Windsor, CT , December 16,1998 ' An assessment of the major functions and values of the site's wetlands was conducted. This was based primarily on best professional judgment/experience and the use of some or all of the above referenced standardized evaluation procedures. The results of this assessment are summarized in Table 3. The assessment forms for the wildlife habitat function evaluation and the rationale for the ratings can be found in Appendix 5. Overall, the site's wetlands, one of which would be disturbed under the development ' proposal, were evaluated as being of moderate or moderate-high quality for most functions. There was no evidence discovered, either during the field inspections or from published resources (i.e. soil survey, NWI maps, DEP resource maps, aerial photographs, etc.) indicating that the wetlands associated with the site are unique resources in the Town or in the region. There are many other wetlands within the municipality and the region that offer higher quality functions. Moreover, inspection of the Natural Diversity Data Base Maps at the CT Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP), did not indicated the presence ' of any listed species on the site (i.e. endangered, threatened or special concern). Table 3: Relative Wetland Functional Assessment Ratings (the ratings are for the entire wetland assessment unit including off-site portions) Function Wetland I Wetland 2 Ecological Integrity Moderate-Hi Moderate-High Wildlife Habitat Moderate-High Moderate-High Finfish Habitat Streams N/A Moderate Ponds N/A Low Educational Potential Moderate-Hi Moderate-High Water-based Recreation N/A Moderate Flood Control Moderate-High Moderate Groundwater Use Potential Low-Moderate Low-Moderate Nutrient Retention/Sediment Trapping Opportunity Moderate-High Moderate Efficiency High Moderate-High Shoreline Anchoring&Dissipation of Erosion Forces N/A Moderate ' Noteworthiness none none Note: The Assessment is primarily based on the CT DEP Bulletin No. 9 and the Golet Method,and derived ' using best professional judgment/experience 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.D0C 12 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 5.0 STREAM HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION & ASSESSMENT In order to accurately characterize and assess the aquatic habitat quality of the site's unnamed perennial watercourse, that is a tributary to the Hockanum River, "Watercourse Physical Characterization/Water Quality Field Data Sheets" and "Watercourse Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets" were completed in the field (Appendix 6). These forms, which were adapted from a publication written by Plafkin et al. (1989), document a large number of stream characteristics and habitat variables. For the stream habitat assessment component each parameter is graded into categories ranging from "poor" to "optimal" depending on conditions encountered. The maximum score that can be given to a stream habitat is 240. The site's stream received a score of 204. This indicates that in general the available habitat is "optimal" for supporting aquatic species such as benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. It should be noted, however, that although the available habitat is optimal for insects and other small benthic organisms, habitat for a diverse fish population is limited. During the field inspection several species of "minnows" were observed within the watercourse. These included the common shiner (Luxilus cornutus) and the blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus). These and similar small sized fish efficiently utilize the stream's shallow riffles, runs and pools. However, larger species such as the brook trout (Salvenilus fontinalis) dot not find optimal habitat within this stretch of the stream due to the marginal velocity/depth regimes. Brook trout and other larger finfish require deeper water than what exists currently. 6.0 QUALITATIVE STREAM BENTHIC BIOSURVEY Stream or benthic macroinvertebrates are primarily the larvae of insects that complete some or most of their life cycle in an aquatic environment. Well known examples include mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies. In streams, their diversity and abundance is greatest in the fast-flowing waters of riffles. It has long been known that some taxa of these insects are only found in non-polluted waters, while others are associated with impaired water quality. Thus, sampling aquatic macroinvertebrates can make general inferences about stream water quality. 9851S1WN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 13 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 F_ The site's watercourse was sampled along a roughly 330-foot section (see photos in Appendix 2). This stretch is an erosional area (riffle) with the streambed consisting primarily of sands, gravel, rocks, and cobbles. Macroinvertebrates were collected primarily from the bottom of cobbles and rocks, and a fair number were gathered using the "kick" method, that is by stirring up the sediment. Organisms were identified to family-level in the laboratory using a dissecting scope. A total of 14 families were identified. Of the organisms collected the five families that were the most abundant included two mayflies (Ephemerillidae and Baetidae), stoneflies (Leucridae), caddisflies (Hydrophsychidae), and midges (Chironomidae). In general, these macroinvertebrates are characteristically found in greater abundance in waters that are considered to be only slightly impaired. Several metrics were calculated for the collected macroinvertebrates (see Appendix 6). These were then compared to metrics calculated for a reference stream, which in this case is the Salmon River. Although the aquatic habitats of the subject streams and the Salmon River are not completely similar, some inferences can be made based on the comparisons. The metrics for the site's watercourse were found to be at 56.25% of the reference site. This indicates that the stream water quality at the site is good to very good. Additional information on stream benthic biosurveys and the survey data sheets for sampling station have been included in Appendix 6. 1 i 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.D0C 14 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South lrindsor, CT December 16, 1998 70 WILDLIFE UTILIZATION AT THE SITE 7.1 INTRODUCTION In order to make environmentally responsible decisions concerning new development a methodology is essential that can accurately determine the relative value of land as wildlife habitat. Several such methodologies are available, some of which are qualitative while others semi-quantitative in nature, such as the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Flood et al. 1977). Most of these methodologies, however, are labor intensive and focus on few specific "indicator" species rather than on overall wildlife population species richness and abundance. A simple, yet we believe effective, methodology is used here to assess the quality of the wildlife habitat and arrive at reasonable estimates of the populations supported on the property. This methodology is based on two overriding assumptions: (1) habitat quality is a direct function of habitat diversity for the majority of terrestrial vertebrate species, and (2) characteristics that contribute to the diversity of wildlife habitat such as interspersion of different vegetation or cover types, canopy cover of particular cover types, vegetative form, composition and structure, quantity and quality of edge between vegetation types, presence and ' distance of water, and special habitat features (e.g. rock outcrops, cavity trees, thick leaf litter, abundant perches, vernal pools, loose soil for burrowing, etc.) can be assessed through relatively short duration field visits and use of remote sensing (i.e. aerial photograph interpretation). When a primary objective of a wildlife inventory is the assessment of potential impacts from proposed development, the size of the "study area" should be one of the first considerations. This is not an easy task because of the varied response of individual species to factors external or internal to the habitat it occupies. This response is a function of the type, frequency and duration of these factor(s), in combination with species' tolerance to 1 human activity, home range, territory size, and changes in the a variety of biotic and abiotic factors. Because site-specific models that include all of these variables for all species are very difficult to construct, it is common practice to consider a"study area" that is somewhat ilarger than the immediate area of physical disturbance. Therefore, a"study area" equal to roughly 75 acres was chosen and included a off-site areas, particularly wetlands. 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 15 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT , December 16, 1998 Once the study area was defined, the dominant vegetative cover types and features (e.g. stone walls, snags, cavity trees, etc.) were delineated. Seven (7) distinct upland and wetland cover types were delineated within the study area as classified and described in Section 3.2 of this report(see Table 1 and Figure 2). Following the determination of cover types, an in-field venification was conducted and all Tm pertinent data collected including data necessary to run WEThingS , an expert computer program used to assist in the prediction of wetland-dependent mammals and herptiles (i.e amphibians and reptiles). The data were then merged with the preferred habitat type and tterritory size requirements of possible species, and known regional and local abundance using standard reference manuals (Bevier 1994, Klemens 1993, Ehrlich et al. 1988, DeGraff and Rudis 1983, Hamilton and Whitaker 1979). This resulted in a list of expected inhabitants and users of the study area. Species that were identified by calls, song, sightings, scat,tracks and other sign were also noted(see Appendix 7). 7.1.1 Results Seventy-six (76) wildlife species that are either known or expected to utilize the study area (i.e. confirmed and probable breeders; see attached Appendix 7). Of these, seventeen (17) are considered wetland-dependent species, and are likely to occur on the development site. Wetland-dependent species are defined as: "Species that may use non-wetland habitats, but occur in wetlands a preponderance of the year, or have critical life requirements met by wetlands that are not provided by non- wetlands" (Adamus et al. 1987) These species can be broadly categorized as wetland species (i.e. obligate), for which wetlands are primary habitat, and as wetland-dependent upland species (i.e. facultative), which prefer wetlands at least equally to uplands or which live primarily in upland habitats but lay their eggs and develop through larval stages in the shallow waters of wetlands. These wetland and wetland-dependent species are the avians, herptiles and mammals associated with the site's wetlands that could be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed development. 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.D0C 16 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 7.1.1.1 Avians An extensive list of avians likely to occur on the property as permanent or temporary residents was compiled. It is estimated that up to fifty-six (56) avian species probably utilize the study area for breeding (i.e. confirmed and probable breeders), while many additional avians could use the site during migration, for feeding during the breeding season, or as overwintering habitat. Of the total expected avians, eight (8) show a preference for wetland habitats and are probably associated with the development site's i � wetlands. These are the green backed heron, mallard, American woodcock, willow flycatcher, tree swallow, common yellowthroat, yellow warbler, red-winged blackbird and common grackle. The avian species expected to breed within the property include species associated with upland deciduous woodlands, riparian wooded wetlands, and upland old fields and shrub thicket 1 situations. Many of these birds are ecological generalists with a known tolerance for habitat modifications, fragmentation and human disturbance, such as the flicker, mourning dove, blue Jay,black-capped chickadee,robin, cardinal, song sparrow,northern oriole, downy woodpecker, and many others. Many of these birds could be described as"edge"habitat species. Several of the confirmed and probable breeding birds are considered forest interior or "area-sensitive" species. These include the wood thrush, black-and-white warbler, hairy woodpecker, red-eyed vireo, and ovenbird. Since, as will be presented in a following section, the effects of the proposed development will be felt mainly by upland-type breeding birds, some discussion is merited here. In our region, "area-sensitive" birds are more frequently encountered in large, maturing forest tracts. Most of these avian species are neotropical migrants, that is, they are birds that overwinter in South and Central America and breed in the United States. Population declines have been reported for the majority of these species and habitat fragmentation and breeding-ground habitat alteration have been among the major reasons cited (Robbins et al. 1989, Askins et al. 1990, Terbough 1990). However, an emerging body of literature concludes that wintering-ground habitat loss,not breeding-ground factors, provides the best explanation for the observed declines (Rappole and McDonald 1994). The scientific literature seems to indicate that there is a positive correlation between forest tract size and the susceptibility of many of these forest interior neotropics to disturbances from outside their habitat, whether directly related to human activities or not. One of the 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.D0C 17 Mt Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 most frequently cited explanations for these species' decline in fragmented landscapes is higher noise levels, nest depredation, and parasitism rates near the edges of forests. Various studies elucidate that noise from humans and their associated activities may have a significant influence on certain species by interfering with courtship, prey location, predator detection, and homing (Brown et al. 1987). Furthermore, forest habitat occurring near edges has a higher density of predators and nest parasites. These include domestic cats, raccoons, crows, grackles, blue jays, squirrels, skunks, and brown-headed cowbirds. Several researchers have reported that depredation and parasitism is inversely related to distance from the forest edge (Wilcove 1985, Moller 1989) and can extend 300 in to 600 in (984 feet to 1,968 feet) into the forest (Wilcove 1986). Yet a recent review of the existing literature suggests nest success declines near edges, but at a smaller scale than some I authors had previously suggested. The current evidence suggests that depredation and parasitism rates are often significantly greater within 50 meters (164 feet) of an edge, and studies suggesting that significant edge effects occur beyond this potential threshold value are much less convincing (Paton 1994). Temple (1986), Temple and Cary, (1988), Bednarz (1993), and Hoover (1992), just to mention a few, found that area-sensitive birds preferred densely wooded tracts with "core areas" located 100 meters (i.e. 330 feet) to 200 meters (i.e. 660 feet) or more from the forest edge. Using the 100-meter threshold, the contiguous wooded tract associated with the study area contains only a 1.75 acre "core area." As seen in Appendix 7, a few of the ' expected area-sensitive birds were actually observed within the study area. Of these three, the wood thrush, red-eyed vireo, and ovenbird, were confirmed as breeders. The defense of a territory and courtship behavior was the primary breeding evidence considered during the site visits. It should be noted that the scarlet tanager, a species that is considered by many to be an indicator of a healthy habitat for"area-sensitive" species, was not observed breeding within the site's forested areas. The territories found occupied by the wood thrush and the ovenbird are not considered "optimal" and are likely subject to nest depredation and parasitism. 7.1.1.2 Herptiles&Mammals The WEThin gs TM (Whitlock et al. 1994) software program was used to predict the occurrence of herptiles (amphibians, reptiles) and mammals within the study area. 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 18 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South lrindsor, CT December 16, 1998 As shown on the accompanying site plans, the proposed development has succeeded in minimizing direct and indirect wetland impacts to the site's wetlands, to the extent possible. This was accomplished through an iterative alternatives analysis process whereby the site design was successively modified to reduce both direct and indirect impacts upon wetland areas. In all, approximately 25,265 square feet (0.58 acres) of direct wetland and intermittent ' watercourse disturbance are proposed at the site. Table 4 lists these activities and the respective wetland disturbance areas. Table 4: Proposed Direct Disturbances to Wetland Areas Activity 4 ' Location/Purpose Wetland I (partial) Construction of required to provide access and internal 0.55 I Entrance Roadway circulation for the proposed residential development Intermittent stream(140 linear feet)to provide 2 Roadway Crossing access and internal circulation for the 0.02 proposed residential development Wetland 2(partial) 3 Storm Drainage Outlet Large Detention Basin,to provide drainage to 0.01 wetlands for water quantity and quality purposes 1 0.58 The taking of portion of Wetland 1 and the culverting of a 140 linear foot section of an intermittent stream to provide for access and circulation to the proposed residential development is, in our view, a low-moderate intensity disturbance to wetlands and watercourses, before compensatory mitigation is considered. The function of Wetland 1 will be compensated by the proposed wetland mitigation areas and the"wet" areas that will 851 20 9 SWN5CutlerRidgeILDOC r . Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 Table 5: Impacts to Wetland-Dependent Wildlife No impact: Low Moderate impact: • no temporary impacts of wetlands • temporary auditory and visual proposed impacts associated with • low potential for sedimentation of construction. wetlands and watercourse (Remediation would be required) Low Moderate impact: Low impact: • Direct alteration of wetland habitat • some permanent auditory and visual is proposed: 0.58 acres of primarily impact associated with post- shallow water, deep/shallow marsh construction phase upon generally habitat. tolerant species. • potential of export of nonpoint (Compensatory Mitigation is source pollutants to wetlands and proposed) watercourse (Mitigation is proposed) Edge habitats or ecotones are transition areas between adjacent ecological communities. They are the places where two or more habitats meet, such as forestland, shrubland and meadow. Habitat edges, such as the ones that will be created by the proposal, are unique in that they combine some of the characteristics of two or more habitats, in this case forest and ' open field (lawn and ornamental plantings). Because of their synergistic blend habitat edges often feature a more diverse wildlife assemblage than either of the abutting ecological communities. They can be inhabited by some of the animals and plants that are characteristic of each of the habitats, plus species that are especially adapted to live at or near edges. Table 6 provides a partial list of wildlife that are expected to either increase in abundance or be attracted to the site. One final note. Forest vegetation density, particularly of the woody understory (i.e. saplings, shrubs), is negatively correlated with nest predation and parasitism rates (Rudnicky and Hunter 1993). Storch(1991) suggested that increased woody cover near the ' 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 23 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16,1998 edge of forests, a phenomenon associated to increased sunlight, provides refuge from nest predators. Therefore, vegetation density increases at the proposed forest edges will provide benefits, in the long term, to area-sensitive birds and other wildlife that thrive within transitional or"edge" (i.e. ecotone)habitat. Table 6: A Partial List of Wildlife that Prefer or are Attracted to Edge Habitat and could be Expected to Utilize the Site Post-Development 1 (7ommon Name Common Naine Common Name Common Name American woodcock* Yellow-billed cuckoo Northern flicker* Least flycatcher ' Ruby-throated Great-crested flycatcher* Eastern kingbird* Carolina wren* Hummingbird* House wren* Gray catbird* Northern mockingbird* Brown thrasher Blue-winged warbler* Yellow warbler* Chestnut-sided warbler Prairie warbler Yellow throated vireo White-throated sparrow Red fox* White-footed mouse* Common yellowthroat Northern cardinal* Indigo bunting Rufous-sided towhee Chipping sparrow* Song sparrow* Northern oriole* House finch* Americangoldfinch* White-tailed deer* Northern black racer Eastern cottontail* Eastern chipmunk* Woodchuck* Ring-necked pheasant Tree swallow *Edge species with the highest potential to utilize the site post-development 8.2.1.2 Passage Wildlife Species Several wide-ranging animals are expected to utilize the site. These include the coyote, red fox, gray fox, and white-tailed deer. These ubiquitous species and other similar species have very large home ranges and will travel to migrate, meet mates and find food. It is unlikely that a full built-out development scenario on the site will adversely impact "passage" species, particularly since habitat linkage will remain with substantial off-site habitat to the north. 8.2.2 Potential Impacts to Other Wetland Functions 8.2.2.1 Ecological Integrity The proposed development will not substantially alter the wetlands' ecological integrity. Although there will be an increase of buildings adjacent to wetland areas, sufficient buffer area will be preserved to minimize, or eliminate, inadvertent incursions into wetland areas. 9851S'WN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 24 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 ' Finally, the proposal would not affect the long-term stability and viability of the site's wetlands. 8.2.2.2 Educational Potential The sites wetlands and their educational potential will remain undisturbed. In fact, the proposed development could lead to an improvement of access to some of these areas. Furthermore, the development of the site will not detract from the educational potential of the wetlands or watercourses. 8.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION The unavoidable loss of wetland functions and values could be mitigated for through the creation of wet meadow and shallow marsh habitat at two proposed "biofilter" areas. Also in order to enhance the water quality attenuation capabilities "normal pool" or permanent pool, that is a pool below the outlet invert elevation, have been provided for the two proposed stormwater detention basins. This will provide suitable hydrology for the proliferation of wetland plants that would volunteer from the surrounding seedsource. Alternatively, if required, these basins could be seeded and/or planted with hydrophytes. ' Two suitable wetland mitigation areas were selected just south of the proposed roadway to the east and west of the existing wetland (Wetland 1). Under existing conditions these ' areas can be characterized as low-slope hardwood forest (upland) dominated by red maple in the overstory. For the most part, vegetative diversity is fairly low in these areas and the woody understory is sparsely vegetated(see photos in Appendix 2). The linear design of the wetland mitigation areas will ensure that the "screening" function provided to Wetland 1 by the low-slope hardwood forest will not be compromised. Furthermore, "hiding" the wetland mitigation areas behind a forested wetland strip that surrounds Wetland 1 will provide additional "edge" habitat and screening from nearby human activities to the wildlife that would utilize this new habitat. At present 0.44 acres of emergent wetlands would be created at the two locations. Since we anticipate that some changes in the configuration of these created wetlands could result 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 25 r Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 Ir- from the public hearing process and from further discussion with Town staff, further details are not offered herein. A Wetland Mitigation Plan could be provided to the Town in the near future. ' 8.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: QUALITY 8.4.1 Design Objectives The proposed stormwater management system (SMS) and associated mitigation plan is designed to meet two primary objectives: (1) to attenuate increases in flow velocities of stormwater discharges to wetlands, and (2) to protect the existing level of water quality from future degradation by providing a moderately high degree of urban pollutant renovation. To achieve the aforementioned objectives several Best Management Practices (BMPs)have been incorporated into the SMS. In this section of the report the SMS is discussed with respect to its second objective: water quality renovation. BMPs, as they relate both to groundwater and surface water protection, are procedures or methods that can mitigate or eliminate the potential for water quality degradation. BMPs can be divided into Structural BMPs and Procedural BMPs. The former are typically engineered solutions, while the latter include procedures or housekeeping practices such as structure maintenance and roadway sweeping. rThe current philosophy in stormwater management stresses control of stormwater where it falls and combines both structural and vegetative measures to detain and "treat" the water. rSpecific needs regarding quality of stormwater runoff addressed for this project include: (1) maintenance of baseflows to the site's wetlands, and (2) provisions for improving water quality to the highest degree possible with currently available, passive technology. 8.4.2 Structural BMPs r The stormwater management system (SMS) is the central BMP proposed for the site to ensure protection of downstream water quality. As will be explained below, the SMS is r r9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 26 1 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Kindsor, CT December 16, 1998 ' designed to filter, transform and store pollutants that could be carried in the stormwater runoff through biological, chemical and physical processes. rWater quality control BMPs assist in preventing the release of pollutants into urban runoff, or once they are released reduce the quantities that enter surface or groundwaters to levels or concentrations that are not harmful to wetland and aquatic ecosystems, and humans. Completely recapturing released pollutants is impossible, and the expense of the BMPs exponentially increases for higher and higher levels of recapture. Prevention, which is also one of the goals of the proposed SMS, is always more efficient and cost-effective. Following is a brief description of the SMS's components. 1 8.4.2.1 Catch basins Twenty-six (26) catch basins will be used for the site. These will be the standard type catch basins with minimum two-foot deep sumps. They will serve to collect stormwater off impervious surfaces. The catch basins will employed as the first step in the water quality renovation process to ' pre-treat runoff from paved areas. When properly sized and maintained, catch basin traps are effective in reducing the sediment and pollutant load in runoff. Research has shown that practically all particles larger than 246 microns are removed by catch basins (i.e. >0.25 mm; medium sands and coarser) (Sartor and Boyd 1972). However, investigations have shown that trapped catch basin sediments have a much smaller median particle size than street dirt and, therefore,have a greater potential to pollute, if not properly maintained, than do particulates removed by street sweeping. Regular catch basin cleaning and maintenance, therefore, is of paramount importance for the proper functioning of this BMP, rand to reduce the potential for sediment re-suspension and export to downstream receiving waters during rare, large volume scouring rains. 8.4.2.2 Extended Detention Basins rThe second step in the water quality renovation process, for a great majority of the site, will involve two enhanced "wet" extended detention basins. According to Doenges and others r (1993), a CT DEP publication, wet extended detention basins are "an extremely effective water quality BMP, ... which if appropriately sized and maintained, ... can achieve a high removal rate of sediment, BOD, organic nutrients, and trace metals." (emphasis added). r ' 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.DOC 27 Supplemental Report, 1 Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 IF_ These selected BMPs are environmentally effective means of controlling peak discharges, removing particulate pollutants, and controlling increases in downstream flooding and streambank erosion. Other positive features of chosen design include the creation of wetland habitat, the diversification of the local wildlife habitat, the protection of groundwater, and protection of downstream aquatic and wetland habitat. According to Schueler and others (1992) the documented benefits of a "wet" extended ' detention basin are: (1) moderate to high removal of both particulate and soluble urban runoff pollutants, (2) substantial longevity, lasting 20 years or more with modest but regular maintenance, and(3)wetland vegetation in the normal interior pool (i.e. below outlet invert ' elevation) and its perimeter increases the removal of soluble nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), trace metals, coliform bacteria and organic matter. The negative aspects of wet ponds are comparatively minor: (1) potential for downstream warming (usually only a concern if a coldwater fishery exists), and (2) a slight decrease of pollutant removal performance during ice and snowmelt runoff conditions. The basic wet extended detention basin design was augmented where possible through the incorporation of several additional features. These and some recommended features follow: 1. A roughly oblong configuration increases travel distance, and thus treatment, between the inlets and the outlet(proposed; both basins) 2. The creation of deep pools or sumps at the inlets and/or outlets traps sediments and ' minimizes the re-suspension of particulate matter during storm events (proposed; both basins). 3. The incorporation of diverter berms that force runoff to travel through a longer path from inlet to outlet(proposed; both basins) 4. The incorporation of diffuse stone berms that would produce laminar flow through the basins and minimize channelization(recommended; both basins). 5. The creation of terraces below outlet in 1( invert elevations) seeded to dense wetland emergent vegetation (wet meadow and shallow marsh) would further reduce runoff velocities and aid in pollutant attenuation through biofiltration(proposed; both basins). 9851 SWN5 GutlerRidgeII.DO C 28 Supplemental Report, ' Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16,1998 ' 6. The planting of wetland/upland shrubs on basin side slopes (flood pool) will enhance and compliment the created wetland habitat(recommended; both basins). 8.4.2.3 Biofliters/Level Spreaders ' The second or third step in the pollution renovation process for the western portion of the development site are two biofilter/level spreaders. These BMPs will excavated low enough to provide suitable hydrology for the establishment of a wet meadow/shallow marsh community. The runoff from two relative small sections of the access roadway will be directed directly to these areas for pollutant renovation. Additionally, stormwater runoff ' from a larger section of the proposed roadway will be directed here for "polishing" after first having been treated in one of the two detention basins. 8.4.3 Procedural BMPs: Long-Term i Several long-term procedural BMPs, or housekeeping practices, are proposed or recommended for the site. These are paramount for the proper and efficient functioning of the stormwater management system. ' The maintenance procedures outlined below are similar, although not as stringent, to those proposed under the CT DEP "Stormwater Management Plan" (SWMP) for the "General ' Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Commercial Activity," dated October 1, 1997. i ♦ Sweeping: All paved sidewalks, driveways and other impervious surfaces (except roofs) should be swept clean of sand, litter and any other possible pollutants at least annually, ' between April 1 and May 1 and at other times as necessary. ' Frequent sweeping of impervious areas can aid in the removal of runoff solids and contaminant loadings, increase the effectiveness of and reduce the maintenance requirements for the catch basins and water quality basin and provide aesthetics and visual benefits to the site. Sweeping removal efficiencies are dependent upon sediment particle size and the frequency of sweeping. Sweeping is generally limited to removal of only the coarser sediment particles, such as the sand typically applied during de-icing operations. Very ' 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeILDOC 29 Supplemental Report, ' Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 T_ fine-grained particles, which typically contain the greatest amounts of adsorbed contaminants, are generally not removed by sweeping and are left to be washed off ' during storm events to be treated by other BMPs. As a result, overall sweeping removal efficiencies for pollutants tend to be in the 10% to 50% range, with the higher range associated with the coarser particles (Sartor and Gaboury 1984; Bender and Terstriep ' 1984). t ♦ Maintenance of Catch Basins: The site's catch basins should be inspected on a bi- annual basis, or more frequently if necessary. These structures should be cleaned of ' sediment no less than annually between April 1 and May 1. However, if it is determined that a significant accumulation of sediment (i.e. more than 30% of the sump capacity)is present, immediate cleaning should follow. Similar to the sweeping of impervious surfaces, the effectiveness of catch basins at ' removing pollutants from runoff is a function of particle size, hydraulic factors (velocity of flow, frequency of wash-off), and maintenance of catch basin sumps. With proper ' maintenance the catch basins proposed as part of the site's drainage system will provide appreciable (>60%) reductions in suspended solids (by weight) while concomitantly removing adsorbed contaminants such as heavy metals and adsorbed hydrocarbons from ' the water column(Aronson et al. 1983). ' A study has shown (Pitt 1985) that only about 60 percent of the total available sump volume of a typical catch basin is used to detain particulates at a stable volume. The study concluded that cleaning the sumps once or twice a year will reduce lead and total ' suspended solids(TSS) concentration by 10 to 25 percent and phosphorus, nitrogen and zinc by 5 to 10 percent. ♦ Maintenance of Extended Detention Basins: The proposed extended detention basins should be inspected annually for sediment after snowmelt. If sediment accumulation of more than six (6) inches is observed at the inlet plunge pools, it should be promptly ' cleaned. 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.DOC 30 MAVM Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 8.4.4 Applicable Standards and Guidelines ' Because of somewhat sensitive downstream receiving waters (i.e. Class A surface waters), that is, the unnamed perennial tributary to the Hockanum River, proposed project must provide a moderately-high degree of pollutant attenuation. Considering this, we have provided additional information on the expected quality of the ' discharged runoff (see following section), including an estimate of the efficiency of the proposed stormwater management system to renovate runoff pollutants. ' The Connecticut DEP recommends that stormwater treatment systems for new urban development be designed to provide a minimum average annual total suspended solids ' (TSS; particulate matter)removal efficiency of 80 percent. The basis for the TSS criterion arises from data collected under the U.S. EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP)and other programs which indicate that many, but not all, of the pollutants in urban runoff(e.g., nutrients, heavy metals, hydrocarbons) are associated with particulate matter, and hence, would be removed with total suspended solids. Thus, in general, if the ' appropriate TSS criterion is met, the concomitant removal of other urban runoff pollutants will be reduced to levels that will not impair water quality. In a 1993 publication (EPA 1993) the U.S. EPA promotes the "new development measure:" a) "after construction has been completed and the site is permanently stabilized, reduce the average annual total suspended solid(TSS) loadings by 80 percent. For the purpose of this measure, and 80 percent TSS reduction is to be determined on an average annual basis based on the average annual TSS loading form all storms less than or equal to the 2-year/24-hour storm. TSS loadings from storms greater than the 2-year/24-hour storm are not expected to included in the calculation of the average annual TSS loadings." ' b) "Reduce the post-development loadings of TSS so that the average annual TSS loadings are no greater than pre-development loadings." In the same publication the EPA lists among the reasons for the selection of this "management measure"the following: 1. Removal of 80 percent TSS is assumed to control heavy metals, phosphorus, and other pollutants. ' 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.DOC 31 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 t2. A number of coastal States, including Delaware, and Florida, and the Lower Colorado River Authority (Texas) require and have implemented a TSS removal treatment standard of at least 80 percent for new development. ' 3. Analysis has shown that constructed wetlands, wet ponds, and infiltration basins can remove 80 percent of TSS, provided they are designed and maintained ' properly. ' The State of Connecticut DEP concurs with the aforementioned stormwater contaminant renovation goals. In their "General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters from Construction Activities," dated October 1, 1997, the CT DEP states: "For construction activities initiated after October 1, 1992, the permittee shall install post-construction stormwater management measures designed to remove suspended solids from stormwater. A goal of 80 percent removal of total suspended solids from the stormwater discharge shall be used in designing and installing stormwater management measures. Such measures may include but are not limited to: stormwater detention structures (including wet ponds); stormwater retention structures;flow attenuation by use ' of open vegetated swales and natural depressions, infiltration of runoff on-site; vegetated buffer strips; sediment removal chambers or structures; and sequential systems (which combine several practices). This CT DEP general permit is required for sites that expose more than five acres of soil ' during the course of a permitted proj ect. The 80 percent TSS removal goal is restated in the DEP publication entitled "Coastal Water Quality Protection, a Guide for Local Officials": "Strive to remove 80%of annual total suspended solids (TSS)loadings or reduce prost- development loadings of TSS so that the average annual loadings are not greater than post-development loadings" ' It should be noted,however,that even though the 80 percent TSS removal goal has become an established guideline, and although the theory of 80 percent TSS removal correlating with adequate overall treatment sounds appealing, it can be overly simplistic and can pose risks to water quality. Attainment of 80 percent removal rate may not always prevent ' impairment to high quality waters, thus specific assessment of the fate of other runoff pollutants is warranted in some cases. 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 32 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 ' The applicant shall demonstrate the pollutant attenuation effectiveness of the stormwater management system through the utilization of published loading rates for 1 various types of development and efficiencies of various standard BMPs (see following section). ' 8.4.5 Sizing Guidelines for Stormwater BMPs There are three generally accepted guidelines or sizing rules that can be applied to produce a stormwater management system that effectively treats runoff. These are: ' 1. The"first flush"of runoff sizing rule ' 2. The first half-inch to one inch of runoff sizing rule, and 3. The 90-percent storm capture rule The first two sizingrules, which are based on average runoff volumes developed from many � years of data collection and research,yield good working values. These,however, are averages, rand thus, do not account for site-specific variability in precipitation. The third sizing rule is more site-specific, but in terms of time and technical information it is still a simple enough analysis to conduct. All of these sizing rules deal with runoff volume, which should not be confused with rainfall volume. Although these two terms are related they are not the same. Rainfall volume is the actual precipitation. Runoff volume is that portion of the total rainfall that does not infiltrate or evaporate. Rainfall volume is related to runoff volume by a conversion factor, called the runoff coefficient. The runoff coefficient is used to calculate approximate runoff values from given rainfall volumes, expressed as a percentage. concentration The `first flush" of runoff and the first half- ; �`�` inch of runoff are often thought of being the , same. However, the "first flush" of runoff refers more to the levels of pollutant _ ' M Storm Starts concentration in runoff, than to the volume of ; runoff itself. Pollutant concentration curves or pollutographs can be compared with runoff Time ' Figure 3: Pollutant concentration-runoff curve (Source:Adapted from Horner et al. 1994) ' 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.DOC 33 Supplemental Report, ' Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 curves, called hydrographs, to determine the optimal amount of runoff that must be captured to treat the maximum amount of pollutants. A generalized pollutant concentration-runoff curve is depicted in Figure 3. The "rule of thumb" is that capturing the first flush of pollutants is equal to capturing the first half-inch of runoff for a given area. For most pollutants this assumption is valid, but recent research indicates that the assumption does not hold true for all pollutants such as nutrients. Thus, the guideline is a good place to start, providing its limitations are kept in mind. The "first flush" technique can be considered a runoff-volume approach for sizing BMPs. ' The first half-inch of runoff sizing rule is Percent of Annual Rainfall based on rainfall volumes (precipitation too 1 analysis) and runoff coefficients. Studies 8Q --tIII -- ---1II II--- of rainfll volumes across the country reveal that 90 percent of all rainfall so ---- --+---- I ----- - I I I I I I I events have an average volume of one I 40 — --1---L--'�---1-- --1---L--�---�--1--- inch. Moreover, a study of runoff I I I I I I I I coefficients reveals that, even inthe most 20 —I---1---r---+---r---�---+---r---r---r--rt--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I densely urbanized areas, the average runoff coefficient is 0.50. The smaller 0 0.00 Qas 0.60 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 ,as 2.00 z.zs 2.50 2.75 3.00 rainfall events (roughly one inch or less) Event Precipitation(Inches) that occur more frequently are the ones Figure 4: Generalized precipitation analysis 1 that must be managed in order to protect water quality (Figure 4). Thus using 0.5 inches of runoff volume to determine the size of a BMP (or system of BMPs) is a valid approach. At least two of the respected stormwater references, the first local the second national, recommend treating up to the first one inch of runoff. Milone&MacBroom(1992)state: ' "The typical criteria specify controlling the quality of the first 0.5 to 1.0 inches of watershed runoff." ' Schueler(1987),in discussing extended detention ponds, states: "At a minimum, extended detention ponds should be sized to accommodate the runoff produced by the mean storm, and preferably should be capable of storing runoff volume of a one inch storm." ' 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.DOC 34 Supplemental Report, 1 Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT ; December 16, 1998 The 90 percent storm capture sizing rule is based on precipitation volumes collected over 40 to 50 years to determine the rainfall volume at which 90 percent of all rainfall events that produce runoff occur. For example, Wanielista (1986), reported in Milone & MacBroom (1992) found that 90 percent of the rainstorms in New England and the Mid- Atlantic States have one inch or less of precipitation. Milone & MacBroom (1992) ' analyzed data from 354 precipitation events recorded at a rain gage at Lake Gaillard in Branford, and found that 88.4 percent of all precipitation events were less than or equal to ' 1.00 inch. In contrast, 71.2 percent of all precipitation events were less than or equal to 0.50 inch. Using the 90-percent storm capture guideline is a valid approach, although some assumptions must be made as to (1) which storms produce runoff and (2) the time between ' storms. However, this model provides good local value. In general, the 90-percent storm capture rule is a rainfall volume approach that can be used, along with a runoff coefficient, to determine the runoff volume. 8.4.6 Assessment of Proposed Stormwater BMPs For this project, the stormwater management system (SMS) was first designed to meet the required hydrologic criteria for the control of runoff discharge (water quantity). Then the system design was evaluated and modified as necessary to meet or exceed the desired water 1 quality treatment criteria. To aid in the design and to predict the final performance of the site's proposed BMPs, several standard reference studies and recent research were consulted (e.g. Schueler 1992, U.S. EPA 1993, WPT 1996, etc.) (see Table 7). Using best professional judgment to find the closest match with regard to the SMS's principal BMPs (i.e. detention basins), the expected average pollutant removal efficiencies were estimated (see Table 8). This assessment was also based on the fact that the proposed extended detention basins are ' capable of treating the"first flush" of runoff, since they have been designed to retain and/or detain a volume of water during each storm event ' As seen in Table 8, the overall TSS removal efficiency for the proposed treatment system is predicted to be between about 70% to 80%. Adding the effect of the catch basins and the ' coarse particle separator it is likely that the efficiency of the SMS in removing TSS is closer to 80% or more. The predicted removal efficiencies for the balance of the urban runoff ' constituents do not include the additional beneficial effects of the catch basins, and regular ' 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.DOC 35 r . Supplemental Report, r Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16, 1998 maintenance. Thus, the predicted removal efficiencies should be considered as conservative estimates. The proposed project will, therefore, meet EPA/NURP and DEP standards for treating stormwater runoff by detaining,retaining, or transforming the major portion of urban runoff rconstituents to levels that will maintain water quality for this particular site. The quality of the water leaving the proposed BMWs and the site will be treated at a level that will have no rdiscernible negative impacts on downstream receiving waters. ' Table 8: Expected Average Pollutant Removals for Stormwater Management System Pollutant '!/4) Removal Pollutant 'Vo Removal Total Suspended Solids 70-80 Oil&Grease/TPH 70-90 Iron 70-80 Lead 70-90 Total Phosphorus 40-60 Total Zinc 30-60 Total Nitrogen 30-50 Total Copper 45-55 rTPH=Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Note: The average removals are predicted from the extended detention basin alone. Additional removals are expected from the catch basins and oil and grit separators. r r 1 r 1 r r 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.DOC 36 1 Table 7: Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants by Selected Management Practice, Compiled from Literature Sources for Actual Projects Removal •r Key Stormwater Pollutants Management Practice N TSS Total P Soluble P Total N Soluble N Nitrate HC Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc Carbon « g Median o e e Reported Range (-100)-78 (-100)-60 (-25)-25 (-100)-40 (-100)-30 (-25)-15 NR NR 0-50 NR (-100)-90 (-100)-77 Probable Range (-75)-70 (-25)-50 (-30)-25 (-25)-35 (-35)-25 (-20)-10 _ _ 0-45 NR (-50)-70 40-80 9 Median Reported Range 60-100 5-99 (-45)-65 NR NR (-25)-99 NR NR (-40)-75 NR 0-99 48-99 Probable Range 60-90 10-70 (-35)-50 NR NR (-30)-80 _ _ (-5)-70 _ 5-80 45-90 r • g Median «e e Reported Range 45-100 40-100 10-90 0-70 0-60 NR NR NR NR 45-100 45-100 45-100 Probable Range 75-90 40-70 20-60 20-60 0-40 _ _ _ _ 50-90 50-90 50-95 r • 7 Median Reported Range 45-100 40-100 15-80 35-100 0-50 NR NR NR NR 45-100 45-100 45.100 Probable Range 50-80 40-70 20-60 40-80 0-40 _ _ _ _ 50-90 50-90 50-90 11 Median Reported Range 65-98 20-75 (-60)-70 30-70 0-50 NR NR NR 25-80 30-90 30-90 20-99 Probable Range 70-95 20-75 (-50)-50 30-50 0-40 _ _ _ 20-70 50-90 35-85 30-90 « 6 Median r20-75 o Reported Range 65-98 (-60)-70 30-70 0-50 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Probab/e Range 70-95 (-50)-50 30-50 0-40 a biofilters and water quality swales(wet swales,dry swales) b number(N)of performance studies. The actual number for a given parameter is likely to be slightly less excludes vertical sand filters and veg.buffer strips NR=not reported HC=hydrocarbons measured as total petroleum hydrocarbons or oil/grease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or TOC) Revised:10/20/97 Page 1 of 4 = M = M M M - M � M M = M r M = M r Table 7: Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants (continued) Removal •r Key Stormwater Pollutants Management Practice N TSS Total P Soluble P Total N Soluble N Nitrate HC Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc Carbon Median Reported Range r-20 0-10 0-1 0-10 0-1 NR NR NR NR 1-20 1-20 NR Probable Range 0-10 0-1 0-10 0-1 _ _ _ _ 1-20 1-20 _ Median Reported Range NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Probable Range • •. . • • 3 Median Reported Range 0-95 0-20 0-1 5-55 0-1 NR NR NR NR 10-30 10-30 5-10 Probable Range 20-60 0-20 0-1 0-20 0-1 _ _ _ _ 10-30 10-30 5-10 3 Median ° : :° ° ° ° •° Reported Range 30-90 30-90 50-95 20-80 0-30 NR NR NR NR 30-90 30-90 NR Probable Range 30-90 30-90 50-95 20-80 0-30 _ _ _ _ 30-90 30-90 _ m • "s • ' 2 Median ° Reported Range NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Probable Range ® • • '® + 6 Median ® ° Reported Range 5-80 18-49 (-13)-0 25-45 0-50 NR NR NR NR 0-66 (-40)-65 NR Probable Range 15-85 10-60 0 10-60 0-50 _ _ _ _ 0-66 25-60 _ a conventional detention pond b number(N)of performance studies. The actual number for a given parameter is likely to be slightly less NR=not reported HC=hydrocarbons measured as total petroleum hydrocarbons or oil/grease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or TOC) Revised:10/20/97 Page 3 of 4 Table 7: Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants (continued) Removal Efficiency for Key Stormwater Pollutants(Yo) Management - HC Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc Carbon m• • 30 Median ° Reported Range 5-99 8-92 (-5)-90 (-10)-80 0-95 (-75)-98 NR NR 40-80 10-95 18-97 7(-28 -85Probable Range 30-95 15-90 10-90 5-85 0-95 (-10)-90 _ 40-80 10-95 20-95 • '- • o• • 6 Median •° ° ° Reported Range 20-98 35-80 20-60 20-55 NR 20-65 NR NR NR 10-95 10-95 NR Probable Range 50-95' 40-90 10-70 20-70 _ 20-65 _ _ _ 10-95 10-95 _ • 14 Median Reported Range (-30)-98 (-3)-98 (-100)-65 (-2)-75 1-95 3-97 NR NR 2-78 NR 32-77 2-80 Probable Range 15-95 0-95 0-65 0-50 0-75 10-95 _ _ 5-80 20-95 20-90 10-90 Median Reported Range (-30)-98 (-8)-99 (-99)-92 (-25)-80 1-95 (-99)-99 NR NR 1-80 NR 32-77 (-30)-92 Probable Range 15-95 0-95 0-65 10-60 0-75 0-75 _ _ 5-85 20-95 20-90 10-90 Median Reported Range (-22)-97 (-8)-92 (-25)-75 (-25)-80 10-70 (-100)-70 NR NR _ _ (-20)-80 (-30)-95 Probable Range 20-95 20-90 0-80 0-85 10-70 (-45)-45 5-85 20-95 5-90 10-90 b number(N)of performance studies. The actual number for a given parameter is likely to be slightly less. SW=Stormwater Wetland NR=not reported HC=hydrocarbons measured as total petroleum hydrocarbons or oil/grease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or TOC) Compiled Primarily from: 1) Center for Watershed Protection. 1997. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs: A Reanalysis. Watershed Protection Techniques. Technical Note No. 95. Vol. 2, No. 4 2) EPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. 840-B-92-002 3) Dr. Kenneth Wagner, personal communication (Water Quality Specialist; ENSR, Northborough, MA) Revised: 10/20/97 Page 4 of 4 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge II,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT December 16,1998 ' 9.0 REFERENCES Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Vol. 2. Methodology. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Stn. Draft Tech. Rep. Y-87. 206 pp. Aronson, G.L., Watson, D.C., and Pisano, W.C. 1983. Evaluation of Catchbasin Performance for Urban Stormwater Pollution Control: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,EPA-600/S2-83-043. Askins, R.A., Lynch, J.F. and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population Declines in Migratory Birds in Eastern North America. Current Ornithology. 7:1-57. ' Bender, G.M. and M.L. Terstriep. 1984. Effectiveness of Street Sweeping in Urban Runoff Pollution Control: The Science of the Total Environment, 33:185-192. ' Bevier, Louis R. (Editor). 1994. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Connecticut. Bulletin 113; Connecticut Departmental of Environmental Protection;Hartford, CT. DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1992. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-108. DeGraaf, R.M. and G.M. Whitman. 1979. Trees, Shrubs and Vines for Attracting Birds. University of Massachusetts Press. Amherst. ' Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon& Schuster. New York. 785 pp. ' EPA, 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Flood, B.S., M.E. Sangster, R.D. Sparrowe, and T.S. Baskett. 1977. A handbook for habitat evaluation procedures. USDI. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. 132, Washington, D.C. 77 pp. ' Godin, A.J. 1977. Wild Mammals of New England. The Globe Pe not Press. g q Golet, F.C. 1973. Freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat. Pages 84-103 in M. W. LeFor, W.C. Kennard, and T.B. Helfgott, editors. Proceedings of the Third Wetlands Conference. University of Connecticut Inst. Water Recourses.Rep. 26. 9851SWN5CutlerRidgeII.DOC 41 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT , December 16, 1998 Golet, F.C. 1976. Wildlife Wetland Evaluation Model. In: Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands, J.S. Larson, Editor. University of Massachusetts Water Resources Research ' Center,Publication 32, 91 pp. Golet, F.C. and J.S. Larson. 1974. Classification of Freshwater Wetlands In the Glaciated Northeast. Bur. Sport Fish. and Wild. Res. Publ. 116. Washinghton D.C. 56 pp. Golet,F.C., and D.J. Lowry. 1987. Water regimes and tree growth in Rhode Island Atlantic white ' cedar swamps. Pages 91-110 In: A.D. Laderman, editor. Atlantic white cedar wetlands. Westview Press,Boulder Co. Golet, F.C., Calhoun, A.J.K., DeRagon, W.R., Lowry, D.J. and A.J. Gold. 1993. Ecology of Red Maple Swamps in the Glaciated Northeast: A Community Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish&Wildlife Service. Biological Report No. 12. Hamilton, W.J., Jr., and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the Eastern United States, Second Edition. Comstock Publishing Associates a division of Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. Klemens, M.W. 1993. Amphibians and Reptiles of Connecticut and Adjacent Regions. CT DEP Bulletin No. 112, Metzler, K.J., and R.W. Tiner. 1992. Wetlands of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. 113 pp. Mitsch,W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand and Reinhold,New York. Murphy, J.M. 1987. Water Quality Classifications Map of Connecticut. Water Compliance Unit, Department of Environmental Protection. State of Connecticut. Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The Effect of Edge on Avian Nest Success: How Strong Is the Evidence? Conservation Biology 8(1):17-26. Rappole, J.H., and M.V. McDonald. 1994. Cause and Effect in Population Declines of Migratory Birds. Auk 111(3):652-660. Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, R. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989. Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the Neotropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86:7658- 7662. Rodgers, J. 1985. Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey. Natural Resources Center, Department of Environmental Protection, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey,Department of the Interior. ' 9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.DOC 42 111 Supplemental Report, Cutler Ridge H,Avery Street,South Windsor, CT I December 16, 1998 Roth,R.R. 1976. Spatial Hererogeneity and Bird Species Diversity.Ecology 57:773-782. Rudnicky, T.C., and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1993. Avian Nest Predation in Clearcuts, Forests, and Edges in a Forest-Dominated Landscape. J. Wild. Manage. 57(2):358-364. Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd. 1972. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants. iNational Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. Sartor. J.D. and Gadboury, D.R.. 1984. Street Sweeping as a Water Pollution Control Measure, Lessons Learned Over the Past Ten Years: The Science of the Total Environment, 33:171-183. Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M.A. Heraty. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices: Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the ICoastal Zone.U.S. EPA,Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Stone, J. R., J.P. Schafer, E.H. London and W.B. Thompson. 1992. Surficial Materials Map - of Connecticut. U.S. Geological Survey Storch, I. 1990. Habitat Fragmentation, nest site selection, and nest predation risk In Capercaillie. Ornis Scandinavica 22:213-217. Temple, S.A. 1986. Predicting impacts of habitat fragmentation on forest birds: a comparison of two models. In: Verner, J.,Morrison, M.L. and C.J. Ralph(eds.), Wildlife 2000:Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. Univ. of Wisconsin Press. Terborgh, J.W. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program - Volume I, Final Report: National Technical Information Service Accession#PB84-185552, Washington, DC. Whitcomb,R.F,., Robbins, C.S., Lynch, J.F.,Whitcomb, B.L., Khmkiewicz, M.K. and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Avifauna of the Eastern Deciduous Forest. In: Burgess,R.L., Sharpe,D.M., eds. Forest Island Dynamics in Man Dominated landscapes. New York: Springer-Verlag: 125-205. I Whitlock, A.L., N.M. Jarman, J.S. Larson, and P.W. Shuldiner. 1994. WEThings - Wetland Habitat Indicators for NonGame Species. The Environmental Institute. Univ. of Mass. Amherst, MA. Wilcove,D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211-1214. I9851SWN5Cut1erRidgeII.D0C 43 AFTra r REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, uC REPORT DATE: December 16, 1998 19 Foster Street PAGE 1 OF 4 Manchester, CT 06040 PHONE: (860) 649-REMA FAX: (860) 647-8397 ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT i PROJECT NAME& SITE LOCATION: RES Job No.: 98515WN5 Cutler Ridge II Open Space Subdivision Field Investigation Date(s): 7/19, 8/2, 8/15/98 Avery Street Field Investigation Method(s): South Windsor, CT ® Spade and Auger ❑ Backhoe Test Pits ❑ Other: 1 REPORT PREPARED FOR: Field Conditions: Manarino Builders, Inc. Weather: mostly warm and fair South Windsor, CT Soil Moisture: low to moderate Snow Depth: n/a Frost Depth: n/a Purpose of Investigation: ® Wetland Delineation/Flagging in Field ❑ Wetland Mapping on Sketch Plan or Topographic Plan ❑ High Intensity Soil Mapping by Soil Scientist ® Medium Intensity Soil Mapping from SCS Soil Survey Maps ❑ Other: Base Map Source: Hartford County Soil 5urvev (1962) Wetland Boundary Marker Series:RE5-1 to RE5-38 (open n loon).RE5-100 to RE5-132 (opeTn_loop), KE5- 200 to RE5-230 (open), RE5-300 to RE5-350 (opera loon)_ RE5-1000 to RE5-1036�ope� n IooTp), and WC-1 to WC-8 (intermittent watercourse, open loop General Site Description/Comments: The Soils associated with the site are identified and claooffied as both undisturbed and disturbed types that are derived from glacial till and shallow glaciofluvial (i.e. outwash, oarid and gravel) deposits The site's undisturbed soils were identified as the "upland-type" Cheshire (Go), Narragansett (Na) Watchaug ( g), and W. nning_(We) 5nil oerie5 The undisturbed "wetland-type" soils were identified as the Rippowam (Ro), 5carboro (5e), and Walpole (Wc) onil aeries,and the Wilbraham and Menlo ( A soil series complex. The disturbed "wetland-type" soils were mapped as the Aauents�_Aal soils gro 1 marsh/meadow corridor and a forested riparian corridor are the site's two maior r gulated areas,, one traversing the western p .portion of the site the other the astern. Additionally, an intermittent stream was identified within the site's southern portion This has in part been ditched to drain wetland area i PAGE 2 OF 4 DATE: 12/16/98 ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT (CONTINUED) PROJECT NAME& SITE LOCATION: Cutler Ridge II, Onen 512ace Subdivision Avery Street, South Windsor. CT i SOIL MAP UNITS Wetland Soils jAquents (Act). This Soil map unit consists of poorly drained and very poorly drained, disturbed land areas. They are moot often found on landscapes that have been Subject to prior filling and/or excavation activities. In general, this soil map unit occurs where two or more feet of the original soil surface has been filled over, graded or excavated. The Aquent5 are characterized by a seasonal to prolonged high ground water table and either support or are capable of supporting wetland vegetation. Aquent5 are recently formed soils that have an aquic moisture regime. An aquic moisture regime is associated with a reducing soil environment that is virtually free of dissolved oxygen because the soil is saturated by groundwater or by water of the capillary fringe. The key feature is the presence of a ground water table at or very near to the soil surface for a period of fourteen days or longer during the growing season. 5carboro loam (5e). This series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils formed in sandy water deposited glacial outwash materials. They are nearly level soils on glaciofluvial landforms, typically in low depressions and drainage ways of outwash plains and terraces. The soils formed in a loamy sand lying over stratified sandy and gravelly outwash derived from a variety of acid rocks. Typically these soils have a 9-inch black mucky peat or very dark brown mucky sandy loamy surface layer. The subsurface layer from 9 to 16 inches is gray loamy sand. The substratum from 16 to 60 inches is olive gray, grayish brown and light yellowish brown loamy sand, loamy fine sand and coarse sand. The substratum may be stratified. Walpole Sandy loam (Wd). This series consists of deep, poorly drained soils formed in sandy water deposited glacial outwash materials. They are nearly level to gently sloping soils on glaciofluvial landforms, typically in shallow drainage ways and low-lying positions on stream terraces and outwash plains. The soils formed in loamy over stratified sandy and gravelly outwash derived from a variety of acid rocks. Typically, these soils have a very dark brown sandy loam surface layer 6 inches thick. The subsoil from 6 to 23 inches is mottled, grayish brown sandy loam. The substratum from 23 to 60 inches is mottled, light brownish gray, gravelly loamy sand and gravelly sand. Wilbraham Silt loam (Wr). This series consists of deep, poorly drained soils formed in a coarse-loamy mantle underlain by firm, compact glacial till from Triassic materials. They are nearly level to sloping soils located in drainage ways and low lying positions on till plains, low ridges and drumloidal landforms. The soils have developed in glacial till derived mainly from reddish Triassic sandstone, conglomerate and shale with some basalt. Typically, these soils have a dark brown silt loam surface layer 8 inches thick. The subsoil from 8 to 25 inches is reddish brown, mottled silt loam. The substratum from 26 to 60 inches is reddish brown, mottled,very firm fine sandy loam. projects\conn\9851SWN5\soilreport.doc 1 PAGE 3 OF 4 DATE: 12/16/95 ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT (CONTINUED) PROJECT NAME& SITE LOCATION: Cutler Ridge II, Omen 512ace 5ubdiyi5ion very treet, South Windsor, CT 1 Sort MAP UNITS Wetland Soils continued Menlo silt loam (Mo). This Series consists of deep, very poorly drained Soils formed in a coarse-loamy mantle underlain by firm, compact glacial till from TriaSSic materials. They are nearly level to gently Sloping soils located in drainage ways and low lying positions on till plains, low ridges and drumloidal landformo. The Soils developed in glacial till derived mainly from reddish Triassic sandstone, conglomerate and shale with some basalt. Typically, these soils have 3 inches of black muck on top of the Surface layer. The Surface layer from 0 to 5 inches iS black sift loam. The upper part of the subsoil from 5 to 5 inches iS gray, mottled Silt loam; and the lower part of the subsoil from 5 to 23 inches is red, mottled loam. The Substratum from 23 to 60 inches is reddish brown, mottled,very firm gravely loam. Rippowam fine sandy loam (Ro). The Rippowam series consists of deep poorly drained Soils formed in loamy, alluvial Sediments. They are nearly level Soils on floodplains. The Soils formed in recent alluvium derived mainly from Schist, gneiss or granite. Typically, these Soils have a very dark grayish brown fine Sandy loam surface layer 5 inches thick. The Subsoil from 5 to 27 inches is dark grayish brown, mottled fine Sandy loam and Sandy loam. From 27 to 60 inches the substratum iS dark gray and grayish brown, loose stratified, loamy sand and very gravelly sand. This Soil was formerly mapped in Connecticut as Rumney. Upland Soils tCheshire fine sandy loam (Co). The Cheshire Series consists of reddish, well-drained Soils that have developed on glacial till. The till was derived mainly from reddish-brown Triassic sandstone and conglomerate that contained basalt and other rocks in various amounts. It ranges from gravely Sandy loam to gravely loamy sand and iS firm to very friable. Cheshire soils occur on gently Sloping or undulating to hilly till plains. Watchaug loam (WO). This series consists of deep, moderately well drained, loamy soils formed in friable, glacial till derived from Triassic materials. They are nearly level to strongly Sloping Soils on till plains, low ridges and drumloidal landforms typically on lower Slopes and in Slight depressions. These soils have developed in glacial till derived mainly from reddish Triassic Sandstone, conglomerate, and Shale with Some basalt. Typically, the Watchaug soil has a dark reddish brown fine sandy loam surface layer eight (5) inches thick. The Subsoil from 5 to 24 inches is reddish brown fine Sandy loam that iS mottled in the lower part. The Substratum from 26 to 60 inches iS reddish brown, mottled, friable, gravelly Sandy loam. Narragansett Silt loam (Na). This Series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in silt mantled, friable glacial till on uplands. They are nearly level to very Steep soils on till plains and hills. The Soils formed in acid glacial till derived mainly from schist, gneiss or granite. Typically, these Soils have a Surface layer of dark brown Silt loam 5 inches thick. The Subsoil from 5 to 25 inches iS yellowiah brown Silt loam. The Substratum from 26 to 60 inches or more iS light olive brown gravelly fine sandy loam or loamy sand. 1 projects\cone\9851SWN5\.soilreport.doc 1 PAGE 4 OF 4 DATE: 12/16/95 ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT (CONTINUED) PROJECT NAME& SITE LOCATION: Cutler Ridge II,,Onen 512ace 5ubdivi5ion AvetU 5twet, 5out indoor, CT SOIL MAP UNITS Upland Soils �continued p ) I I Wapping Silt loam (We). This Series consists of deep, moderately well drained loamy soils formed in Silty mantled, friable, glacial till on uplands. They are nearly level to Steeply Sloping soils on till plains, low ridges and hills, being typically located on lower Slopes and in slight depressions. The Soils formed in acid glacial till derived mainly from schist, gneiss or granite. Typically, these soils have a surface layer of very dark brown Silt loam 5 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil from 5 to 19 inches is dark yellowish brown Silt loam. The lower part of the subsoil from 19 to 30 inches is mottled, dark brown silt loam. The substratum from 30 to 60 inches mottled, brown sandy loam. I f i Any accompanying soil logs, soil maps, and on-site soil investigation narrative are in accordance with the taxonomic classification of the National Cooperative Soil Survey of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and with the Connecticut Soil Legend (DEP Bulletin No.5, 1983). Jurisdictional wetland boundaries were delineated pursuant to the Connecticut General Statutes(CGS Sections 22a-36 to 22a-45), as amended. The site investigation was conducted and reviewed by the undersigned Registered Soil Scientist [registered with the Society of Soil Scientists of Southern New England (SSSSNE) in accordance with the standards of the Federal Office of Personnel Management]. Respectfully submitted, REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES,LLC .; George T. Logan,MS Registered Soil Scientist Certified Professional Wetland Scientist(No. 581) 1 projects\corm\9851SWN5\soilreport.doc i i 1.Wetland 1; marsh(shallow&deep)and meadow cover types (facing southerly) S 1 i r i 2.Wetland 1; core shallow marsh with meadow fringe; (facing southerly) a :.f ff I i,3 e !I r ^r r f t r � }• �lair \�� AW - 1 . ele -. e. l a If • el If a 1-. slip r 4/1jtic �l / iv -d "�.. J A �A ��. y+d►1 � I � fr %,/ r. j 1 1 �F IiA:Q e 00000 y/ , �•. r ✓ ?f 'S. I Ile J/(,�': Zt jl >A a• L � r,f �t,/� Y r 1.��3 1( SVl.,. � r�fY J, •� � ��1 I, ! �� >? r�•r( +r �, � !� �/te fF� rip ' �IQ� ( i� 1. n .� �r� <, yrr ��iCCC))) J 11 ����,! r ( �(t1,t o����y� ;% Ir t;.{lL� _ r9ss Y �r ��� ( i r,� .�•\ .4 1%A !'`3�'r'%�7 ' �N �� r. �'�_ _ '' �-- ✓ ��.'y�v,y � � :��J�t�, 1.'� "py•� .771 id a rL�t 1 �l IiS Y+i� d !Yt + - - 17' !' A 111� }r >•� �'S j'.(' ,'� } 7i44/i! ` ;j %r-,��•,� �. ,,,4 r+l�, �� ,, ! fit, 1 ,�.,�, + r,,,,r�� J � r �,i'- ht/'�. 7 ��_'i; .�1._ •,� .,_, `! 'l �j r ', ' \/ � Imo. `.y.:1 �r f`;�1��,_ •\��r I. , .1_.:l_ _ `�.... -,�a�;�.- _ •��[.���'`.'G��-..�i t'.',..�)�,� -,!�c l;�fi'.<���-1, iJ, a le / eee ae e.e a If • el le If a e. l la le I , xx S r. 3' k , �r� � � ' 1., �� 1 �rr,. t J If f•f I a _ _ • •- - 1 • • • 1 1 1 � 1 • 1 t �`' � �� '�u�, .'' �' ��� ;�'�• ; �1/+1� �� �f7: ilia�± ��� 1 .� � y i�r f�ti' t t,.�y � �� � f 9r,,-� ,ryi•�� �,i y'���'i raj j 1j Q,J �I AID „t ,. n� 1 � g•• � r '1 �I �;\�, y N, � t i •!l'I �'; �' �R� i!� f'jl}t'���1+� , �I •'r ? �� •�1 � ��?)Sfo-' 1:�. ' f�rr it �j:f � ,, � ,: - �?.• ,a .4 t ,I� f , j.l.y I � � � ,1 �' _�•{,�r �•`����_; mad. � � l r.,. - 5,�� . .,.,- -. {' �.�1 I�+■ rat r{j ,' �1//jj� I , itl1 1 '1rl.M�IIH'ir r+' \ 1 1,�•! FFF""" t r♦ t �t .r y ,• \ t-I ff yl�,r ,�. �.,�. - �44a , �J�+1 .� 1.�.� If�fi � 3 r, 1 \ i �- y 1 G ft )p i/j d r a ;� '� t (8 .�, f f♦. tt , �. !I j 1�at•. i 1?)f � 5 t�.,� ' �Itt _11..'�'I,YtAgi ,y` '1 �; � f,�j�f i�r .,� � 1 \�. :r y .F; �'.. 1�1t i'',1; •.`;� ?sV ,: ni� t',l �,?L� � ��' l;ytl �;._� )� ,���r)t ?j (��,:iT t ,t,�� ' ;"'�', t. 0. 1, f.�.• , � -- � t 1X r r,!,�+,s6��; Y3 two �IfY _•_ L '. ✓ .-^+�'�.� .y •wTk�S:! �pry� K \ >y � i -'� > i " � J -- �• �.et. �tyv K . �hr r r. 7 k i I } Y� r>s 71, ..yi_ }! ••+ f.'�cy .. \ 1 �' t'M Tn 41µ .,C� t <�t�CT=r 1 r6�-.' 1 1 1 •�/'1 / r � 1 ' r I ) Y y ' . PIA7 �'rr A. �t�i`, i�>, ,f.1 t — '•;� 37 i. �Y ' �. 3'2it1 s�i#,.c, �!'.�'�.v�►'"l�''S' a)� R t 2_� y -i K� . S 1 1 ,��1 t '> 1' )i �.7 ,� ' e,? a �17 �S►... � Vll'i � • x t 5, "EEI��" i ( { { y'n a �I�; �frAl ' � g F; lr.e ,i� r�,il, �Irk ,�,� eli.� i♦r� � r i� ) � _ � S �+ � r, ��b �t'.,,(jji�7�F r � t)�$!!!p� t �4, 5,�r .«;ir .• e' �'r"SJr,;� (, yy Ii I � A8 �f 4 f ,i�}\7}''Ot �.;� l!s , •� tom ' 2'� i�r s'� i 1kv Ml1 •1 1 • 1 �' • Y. 1 ' • 1 t l t f I ;t ' ` t a' 1 �',i , ` j�. •��(�,�,: ,R;, f_#yi�;-# Ilp,. rt r � :yl! I X---.`S�i���K.: �/�-�" •� di � :>'r i� r l"1��.I ' 1 .,dt� "l �r �-� '�\t7�+11�;-1 �3' �_ �e + d '; 1 •i t A '-F 5,;> 1 '. 1 �t�� li� r ,�y,F+ �, � �1 �rz: I itt t ( • /� ;. � � �Ti -,�� ��tt.,�,,b �.c• t, ,t�.2 , �� 4'1'_itw��1 �r \. !�{ �� �a 1 °, ,� �1�„t i,.- �tF'r \-. �rr�µ'r�'�>1+t�[`'� � �iY^ '7 ti� ♦ Y� i1 � ..-���`�l\ �r� � '� � it f�p\ _/� � ���!]p !r• of ' . //l ' .� �$, r f..%�_ •�+ �� >� S,r•` 7 t� '�'�t -�-L'g:r � its 1 - j�,,1..�.. 1 1 t • 11 1 � - r yA > .y M - TI L.{lyl � • L 1 - /ry* _M �_•f `;. \., I -,♦ , 1 ••1 • • 1' 11• •1 • 1 r J � J ;f'+ .( � (P '�..,' � �9! .e '� 1 �1 t 4 :"f�a•'� �7t ' ,oy} L '` D rft •-1 �1.9 � 5a � S. Q 1 H p ti� � �Y�f ,,� tg .chi J,� � i' # �• d '1 lJ4i � t• y s, 6 is t t t t � , - � fe / T.� '�j t �` ' •� t 1' :� �� ,�<�� j' /q., ,f 1 � ate.= „ /' f• \>;� \ r a ;'r �L 1,� T�Jt•� 1 ,1 ! C jti`yt `e�r �''` Y ,r-�y++pC `r tpY�6l�ai �a � 1 t S t � t��t ��� ��(a 7(� 1�,� 1 �'�•�S/p)��{�4,1� , � ,i •.�i ! 5, f1,sl��;,y,l •�►��t ','fig •, 7 :'��I? ��. !ll ,',' ,�� t 2 ��fa , �:���'������'a�.la'���� '��'�s��11 i� , , r � / � 1 • I 1 1 / 1 �• •I • 1 + • 1 ,yt S q fit �� tY /Z' -?�, ♦ � {�i '{ ,"3�s Y 5�. fi�/ 7� � d t ;�ay\� 11 7 L. � ,� 't., 11� 7l yl�/ !�t ,,/,/•A��r � ~ 71 1 , r , _ T r -y •t '.�h 6�'""•- /-'+ _ .- _ .mot v' ^.. t 1 it '^ 1� r . ! �t,t RRW � •r. „ t, '' ��� i, 1� �i� i �jp�.l 1t��rl� �' � (rile '. . ry'i, , �, ,,• ,ft� � t�u r Qr$ G 7 , I r ' 4•,t 'I j ,' art �` I Ij�' �, h,, ` �\I ,�/, 2jF-j is Ail �}r?� xi_T y+: k�4 � 6sti,7 ,i r {, • •• I 1• • 1 t •1 : •A . •1- .... ............ APPENDIX 3: Vegetative Inventory for the Proposed Cutler Ridge H Open Space Subdivision ' Avery Street,South Windsor,Connecticut FNVS Vegetative Cover p• i Scientific Name Common Name ndicato WA WB WC UA UB UC UD i Trees Acer rubrum Red maple FAC = Acer saccharum Sugar maple !FACU- Alnus serrulata Smooth alder OBL Betula alleghaniensis Yellow birch FAC Betula lenta Black birch 1 FACU - Betula populifolia Gray birch I FAC �- Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam FAC r Carva glabra Pignut hickory I FACU- Carya ovata Shagbark hickory FACU- Carya tomentosa Mockernut hickory Cornus Honda Flowering dogwood 1 FACU- Crataegus spp. Hawthorns i Fraxinus americana White ash FACU _ Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel FAC- Juniperis virgniana Red cedar i FACU Lfalus spp. Apple Pinus rigida Pitch pine FACU Pinus strobus White pine FACU I Populus deltoides Cottonwood 1 FAC Populus grandidentata Bigtooth aspen FACU- Populus tremula Quaking aspen 1, FACU Prunus pensylvanica Fire cherry FACU- Prunus serotina Black cherry , FACU Prunus spp. Cherries Prunus virginiana Choke cherry ! FACU Quercus alba White oak FACU- Quercus palustris Pin oak " FACW O_uercus rubra Northern red oak FACU- Quercus velutina Black oak ' Rhus glabra Smooth sumac Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac I Salix babylonica Weeping will FACW- Salix discolor Pussy willow 1 FACW Salix nigra Black willow FACW+ Salix spp. Willows Sassafras albidum Sassafras i FACU- Ulmus americana American elm FACW- Shrubs Alnus serrulata Smooth alder OBL Amellanchier sanguinea Round-leaved shadbush Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry I FACU Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush I OBL .. Coptonia peregrina Sweetfern - Cornus amomum Silky dogwood . FACW *for explanation of Vegetative Cover Types see Table 1 and Figure 2 in body of report Abundance Codes(%cover)Abundant(>65%) Common(40%to 64%) Moderate(20%to 39%) Uncommon(5%to 19%) Scarce(<51/6) i Not present Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) PAGE 2 OF 6 FWS Vegetative Cover Type Units Scientific Name Common Name ndicato WA WB WC UA I UC UD Cornus racemosa Grey dogwood Cornus stolonifera Red osier dogwood (FACW+ Corylus americana American hazelnut FACU- Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU- Crataegus spp. Hawthorns Elaegnus angustifolia Russian olive FACU Elaegnus umbellata Autumn olive Euonymus atropurpureus Burning bush FACU Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel I FAC- Ilex verticillata Winterberry FACW+ Kalmia angustffolia Sheep laurel FAC Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel FACU Ligustrum vulgare Privet FACU Lindera benzoin Spicebush FACW- Lonicera morrowii Morrow's honeysuckle NI Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle FACU* Lonicera spp. Honeysuckles Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry FAC Polvgonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed FACU- Pyrus melanocarpa Black chokeberry Rhododendron nudijlorum Pinxter flower Rhododendron viscosum Swamp azalea OBL Rhus copallinum Winged sumac NI Rhus glabra Smooth sumac Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac Ribes lacustre Bristly black currant 1 FACW Rosa multijlora Multiflora rose FACU Rosa palusMs Swamp rose OBL Rosa virginiana Virginia pasture rose FAC Rubus spp. Raspberries&Blackberries Sambucus canadensis Elderberry FACW- Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbriar FAC _ Spiraea latifolia Meadowsweet FAC+ Spirea tomentosa Steeplebush FACW Toxicodendron vernix Poison sumac OBL Vaccinium angustifolium Lowbush blueberry FACU- yr Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry FACW- Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaved viburnum Viburnum cassinoides Northern wild grape FACW Viburnum lentago Nannyberry FAC Viburnum recognitum Northem arrowwood FACW- t Herbs Achillea millefolium Yarrow FACU Acorus calamus Sweetflag OBL Agrostis alba Redtop FACW Ajuga reptans Bugle Alisma subcordatum Water plantain OBL Alliaria officinalis Garlic mustard Alopecurus spp. Foxtails Amaranthus spp. Pigweeds I Ambrosia artemisifolia Common ragweed FACU Ambrosia trifida Great ragweed FAC Andropogon virginicus Broom sedge FACU Anemone quinguefolia Wood anemone Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) PAGE 3 OF 6 CoverFWS Vegetative CommonScientific Name i WA WB WC UA UB UC UD Anemonella thalictroides Rue anemone Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass FACU Arctium nimus Common burdock Arisaima triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit 'FACW- r: 5 Aristida afflnis Long-leaved grass FACW+ Artemisia vulgaris Common mugwort Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed OBL Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Aster divaricatus White wood aster Aster dumosus Bushv aster FAC Aster novae-belgii New York aster FACW+ Aster spp. Asters Athyrium filix femina Ladv fern FAC Avena sadva Oats Barbarea vulgaris Yellow rocket FACU Bidens cernua Nodding bur marigold OBL Bidens frondosa Beggar-ticks FACW Boehmeria cylindrica False nettle FACW+ Brachyelytrum erectum Long-awned woodgrass Brasenia schreberi Water shield OBL 1 Brassica rapa Field mustard Bromus inermis Smooth brome Bromusjaponicus Japanese brome FACU- Capsella bursa pastoris Shepherd's purse FACU Carex comosa Bearded sedge OBL Carex crinita Fringed sedge OBL Carex intumescens Bladder sedge FACW+ I Carex lanuginosa Woody sedge OBL Carex laxiflora Loose-flowered sedge FACU* Carex lupin Hop sedge Carex lurida Shallow sedge OBL Carex scoparia Pointed broom sedge FACW Carex spp. Sedges Carex stipata Sedge Carex stricta Tussock sedge OBL Chelone glabra Turtlehead OBL Chimaphila maculata Spotted wintergreen Cicuta maculata Water hemlock OBL Cinna arundinacea Stout wood reedgrass FACW+ = Circaea lutetiana Enchanter's nightshade FACU Cirsium arvense Creeping or Canada thistle FACU Cirsium spp. Thistles Clematis virginiana Virgin's bower FAC Collinsonia canadensis Horse balm FAC+ Coptonia peregrina Sweet fern Cyperus esculentus Chufa or Nut sedge FACW Cyperus strigosus Umbrella sedge FACW Cyperus spp. Sedges Daucus carota Wild carrot Dennstaedtia punctilobula Hayscented fern # Dichanthelium clandestinum Deer-tonque FAC+ 3 Digitaria sanguinalis Crabgrass FACU- Dipsacus sylvestris Teasel NI Drvopteris intermedia Evergreen woodfern FACU i Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) PAGE 4 OF 6 FWS Vegetative Cover Type Units Scientific Name Common Name ndicato WA t WC UA UB UC UD Dryopterfs spp. Woodferns Eleocharis spp. Spikerushes Elodea canadensis Broad water-weed OBL .. Epilobium spp. Willow herbs Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC Erigeron sMgosus Daisy fleabane FACU+ Eupatoriadelphus maculatus Spotted joe-pye-weed FACW Eupatoriadelphus spp. Joe-pye-weeds Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset FACW+ Festuca elatior Meadow fescue Festuca rubra Red fescue FACU Fragaria vesca Wood strawberry Galium spp. Bedstraws Geranium maculatum Wild geranium FACU Geum canadense White avens FACU Geum laciniatum Rough avens FAC+ Geum rivale Purple avens OBL Glviceria obtusa Manna grass OBL Glyceria striata Fowl meadow grass OBL Hieracium spp. Hawkweeds Houstonia caerulea Bluets FACU Hvdrocotyle americana Water penny-wort OBL Hypericum perforatum St. John's-wort Impatiens capensis Jewelweed FACW 1 Iris spp. Irises Iris versicolor Blue flag OBL Juncus canadensis Canada rush OBL Juncus effusus Soft rush FACW+ Juncus spp. Rushes Juncus tenuis Path rush FAC- Juncus validus Round-head rush FACW Leersia orywides Rice cut-grass OBL Lemna spp. Duckweeds Linaria vulgaris Butter&Eggs Lobelia inflata Indian tobacco FACU Ludwigia alternifolia Bushy seedbox FACW+ Lycopodium complanatum Running pine FACU- Lycopodium spp. Clubmosses � Lycopodium tristrachyum Ground cedar A6 ,r Lycopus spp. Water horehound Lysimachia spp. Loosestrifes Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower FAC- Mehlotus spp. Sweet clover Mentha spp. Mints Mitchella repens Partridgeberry FACU Monotropa uniflora Indian pipe FACU- Oenothera bienis Evening primrose FACU- Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern FACW Osmunda regalis Royal fern OBL Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern FACW Panax trifolium Dwarf ginseng Panicum spp. Grasses Panicum virgatum Switchgrass FAC Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper I FACU Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) PAGE 5 OF B Scientific Name Common Name ndicato WA WB WC UA UB UC FWS Vegetative Cover Type Units ' Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass FACW+ Phleum pratense Timothy FACU Phytolacca americana Common pokeweed FACU+ ` Pilea pumila Clearweed FACWk7, Plantago spp. Plantains Poa spp. Grasses k= Polygonum amphibium Water smartweed I OBL Polygonum arifolium Halberd-leaf tearthumb OBL Polygonum hydropiperoides Swamp smartweed OBL Polygonum sagittatum Arrow-leaf tearthumb OBL Potentilla simplex Old field cinquefoil FACU- Prunella vulgaris Heal-all I FACU+ Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern FACU Pycnanthemum spp. Mountain-mints Ranunculus acris Tall buttercup FAC+ Ranunculus spp. Buttercups Rubus flagellaris Dewberry Rubus hispidus Bristly blackberry FACW Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed susan FACU- Rumex acetosella Field sorrel Rumex crispus Curly dock 1 FACU Rumex spp. Docks Sagittaria spp. Arrow-heads Schizachyrium scoparfum Little bluestem FACU- Scirpus atrovirens Dark green bulrush OBL Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass FACW+ Scirpus spp. Bulrushes Scirpus validus Soft-stem bulrush OBL Scutellmia lateriflora Maddog scullcap FACW+ Silene alba White tampion Silene cucubalus Bladder campion Smilax glauca Cat greenbrier FACU Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbrier FAC Solanum dulcamara Climbing nightshade FAC- Solidago altissima TO goldenrod FACU- Solidago gigantea Late goldenrod FACW Solidago macrophylla Large-leaf goldenrod Solidago rugosa Rough-stem goldenrod FAC r_ Solidago spp. Goldenrods Sonchus arvensis Field sow thistle Sorghastrum nutans Indian grass Spiraea tomentosa Steeplebush FACW : Sparganium eurycarpons Burreed OBL Symplocarpus foetidus Skunk-cabbage OBL Tanacetum vulgare Tansy Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion FACU- Thalictrum pubescens Tall meadow-rue FACW+ Thalictrum spp. Meadow-rue Thelypteris noveboracensis New York fern FAC =i Thelypteris thelypteroides Marsh fern FACW+ Toxicodendron radicans Poison ivy FAC Typha latifolia Broad-leaf cattail OBL Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FACU IVerbascum blattaria Moth mullein MEMORANDUM To: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission. From: Jeffrey H. Folger-Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer Date: June 1, 1999 Re: Review of the proposed Cutler Ridge II Residential Subdivision, 940 Avery Street. Plans dated 5/3/99. The project is to create a 33-lot subdivision on a 56-acre parcel. Proposed regulated activities include one wetland crossing to access the property from Avery Road ending in a cul-de-sac. Other regulated activities include locating buildings,roads, sediment and detention basins within the buffer areas, and disturbance to install a cross-country sanitary sewer, and water line. A wetland crossing is proposed to be placed just east of the Avery Street crossing to access the parcel to the north. I estimate that the proposed disturbance in the buffer will be approximately 32,000sgft(0.6 acres) and wetland disturbance will be approximately 41,000sgft(0.4 acres). Site: The site is located in the Hockanum River watershed. Presently, the site is mostly wooded with approximately 1/4 of the interior in meadow/secondary forest growth. Stonewalls are prevalent throughout the site indicating past agricultural use. There are two significant wetland belts on the eastern and western edges of the property. The wetland system is an inverted"U" shape that extends up to the Chase Farms subdivision and then descends back to the subject property and south to the Hockanum River in Vernon. A small watercourse heads south from the Cutler Ridge open space for a short way to parallel Murray Road and appears to disappear as it heads toward the Vernon town line. This area appears to act as an overflow during very high water times but otherwise does not flow. The mature forests on the site consist of an oak/hickory hardwood forest type. The western wetland belt flows to the north and consists of a two or three ponds in various stages of eutrofication (the process of being filled in by vegetation). The vegetation type would be emergent persistent with sapling red maple along the edges. I would consider this wetland system to be a high quality system due to the diversity and close proximity of the different wetland types. Major functions of this wetland area would be flood storage, nutrient and sediment trapping, a very diverse wildlife habitat, stormwater conveyance, and groundwater recharge. The esthetic values in this area are in my opinion high lending it well to passive recreation. The eastern wetland belt flows to the southeast into Vernon. The wetland type would be classified as a forested wetland with a watercourse running through the southeastern 1/4 of the property. Steep slopes (8 to 15%) abut the wetland on the west. Major functions of this wetland would be stormwater conveyance, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat. Minor functions would be nutrient/sediment retention, recreation. The edges of the wetlands are a forested transition zone dominated by red maple and white ash in the overstory and a moderate shrub understory comprised of sweet pepperbush, multiflora rose, blackberry, and red maple saplings. The area proposed for the crossing is an existing farm crossing that separates an emergent wetland to the north from a '/4 acre pond/deep water marsh to the south. The footprint of the crossing is proposed to encompass the whole pond area. Surface water passes over the crossing during times of high ground water and stays saturated during most of the year. The wetland to the south of the proposed crossing is an emergent persistent wetland comprised of canary grass. I would consider this wetland on its own to be of moderate quality due to the relative monoculture of the canary grass. The area north of the proposed crossing is a persistent emergent marsh of high quality. Wildlife: The parcel has many diverse habitat types present. Mature woodland, early successional woodland/meadow, riparian forest, shrub/scrub wetlands, open water, wooded wetland, open channel watercourse, and marsh wetland are all present. I would expect a wide variety of wildlife species to be present on this and adjoining parcels. It appears from the presence of game trails through the woodlots and meadows, and the presence of scat on the existing wood roads that there is a lot of wildlife activity happening between the two wetland belts. Impacts: The historical use of the central portion of the property (agricultural) is clearly evident with the presence of stone walls and wood roads. The forested zone along the eastern wetland edge indicates that the area was abandoned before the meadow portion. Upstream sediment and nutrient impacts probably hastened the demise of greater areas of open water on the western edge of the property. Sediment migrating during construction will be the major potential impact in the short term. The areas of proposed disturbance are mapped as Cheshire Fine Sandy Loam 3-8%eroded, and 8-15%. This soil type has erosion potential listed as medium in the Hartford County Soil Survey. Due to the Triassic sandstone parent material, reddish color will not be stopped by silt fence during heavy water loads, and settling in temporary basins will be very slow. Reinforced perimeter controls, severe restrictions in land clearing, phasing, and grading, and immediate re-vegetation will be required to minimize "red water" offsite. A very detailed grading and construction sequence must be followed. Loss of the open meadow habitat and fringe woodlands will be a long-term impact. This trend is happening wherever development occurs on former agricultural sites. Most of the area to be disturbed is outside of the regulated buffer. The proposed detention basin#2 will require large areas of clearing to accommodate the grading fills that are proposed. Fragmentation of the existing contiguous habitat between the east and west wetlands is a long-term impact. The proposed road and associated houses will bisect the property, effectively discouraging current wildlife movement west to east. The rear of the lots on the eastern side of the proposed road will steep rear yards. Limits of clearing have not been shown on the plans. Lon term nutrient, sediment, and other pollutant impacts: Nutrients, sediments hydrocarbons, and g A P � Y pathogens are all components of stormwater runoff found in residential developments. The proposed stormwater structures are designed to maximize the length of the water path to enhance non-point pollutant assimilation. Specific seed mixes in the stormwater structures have been included in the plans. Stormwater Management and Mitigation: The plan proposes to offset disturbances associated with the road crossing from Avery Street by excavating a shallow pond just west of the existing pond. Additionally two planted wet biofilters are proposed in the buffer on both sides of the wetland just south of the proposed crossing. The biofilters have level spreaders incorporated on the downhill side to attenuate storm flows. Detention basin#1 is planned to the southeast of the proposed crossing, adjacent to and flowing into the biofilter. This structure is proposed to be built outside of the 40-foot buffer. It also is proposed to be a wet bottomed basin. Detention basin#2 is a very large basin planned to receive the majority of the stormwater from the central and southern portions of the development. This basin is proposed to be built on a side hill with significant cuts and fills. This basin is proposed to have a wet bottom and the eastern slopes of the basin are proposed to be built within the 40 foot buffer of the eastern wetland. Additionally an 80-foot conservation easement is proposed to be placed on the southern portion of the lots bordering Murray Road. MEMORANDUM To: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission. From: Jeffrey H. Folger -Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer Date: June 2, 1999 Re: Appl #99-34P Review of the proposed Cutler Ridge II Residential Subdivision, 940 Avery Street. Plans dated 1/11/99. I would like to expand my comments regarding the functions and values of the western wetland system. History: This wetland originated as a watercourse flowing south to north(1946 Air Photo). During the 60s or early 70s the pond that is present was created or developed. It appears that the farm crossings on the subject property and on the property to the south contributed in the creation of the wetland corridor by impounding the flowing water. This wetland measures approximately 2000 feet from the Murray Road houses to the southern boundary of the Chase Orchards property. The elevation changes approximately 3 feet in this distance from south to north. Saturated conditions exist throughout the year with significant areas of very saturated to open water areas present. Ecological Integrit. This is the amount of disturbance present along the wetland and the level of development or other human activity adjacent to the wetland. This includes agriculture, crossings,residential development, etc. This is kind of a general assessment. It appears that this function actually increased between the 1940s and the present. Historical photos show intensive use by agriculture on both sides of the corridor up until the early to mid 1960s. When agricultural activity surrounding the corridor ceased. The land surrounding the corridor naturalized considerably. The recent residential development of Cutler Ridge, and Chase Orchards subdivisions will tend to lessen this value due to increased passive recreational activity. The current application with the larger road crossing will also lessen its value on the short term. Reestablishment of disturbed areas and keeping the integrity of buffer areas is important for long term integrity. Nutrient Retention and Sediment Trapping: This is determined by examining the wetland in relation to the existing topography, its size in relation to the watershed,the velocity of water through the system, and potential inputs. The length and relative flat slope of the wetland corridor and areas of open water act as an excellent sediment trap. The slow travel time through the corridor allows sediments suspended in stormwater entering the system to precipitate out relatively quickly. The vegetation present is dense throughout the corridor. This helps to further slow stormwater, and the plant community can utilize nutrients and some other potential pollutants present in the runoff for their life processes. Surrounding land uses, high density residential to the south and agriculture to the east, west and north would infer that the system has received impacts from both sediment and pollutants and is still a very productive and diverse. The fill for the proposed crossing would reduce the overall length of the corridor by 3%. I do not believe that the proposed crossing would significantly affect this function and the proposed biofilters will adequately mitigate pollution impacts from the development. Flood Control: This value is the wetlands ability to store and attenuate heavy storm surges and floods and minimize impacts to property up and down stream. Important attributes would be topography within the wetland. Flat areas where excess water volumes can expand. Currently the existing road crossings act as dams, slowing the velocity of water passing through the system and providing storage behind them. A site visit to the existing crossing on the subject parcel just after heavy rains showed water flowing over the steel beam present in the road bed. The water was flowing 1 inch deep and approximately 4 feet wide. There was no indication that any other areas of the roadbed had water flowing over it. The proposed roadbed up to elevation 298 will cover approximately 15400 sqft. The proposed biofilter would provide approximately 15000 sqft of additional storage up to elevation 298. This function should not be significantly affected by the proposal. Educational Value: This value concerns the potential of a wetland to be utilized as an outdoor classroom. Proximity to schools, hazardous areas, accessibility, diversity of vegetation and wildlife are examined. The corridor lies across Avery Street from Phillip R. Smith School. The existing crossing make the wetland physically accessible. The corridor supports several diverse wetland communities with estimated diverse wildlife communities as well. All these factors would give the corridor high marks. Currently the property is privately owned so trespassing would be an issue. The establishment of the road crossing (access), diverse biofilters, and town owned open space would increase the opportunity of utilizing this corridor for educational purposes. Wildlife Values: This value has been thoroughly discussed and I feel the consultant's report adequately addresses this issue. Importance of the deep marsh/shallow open water habitat is for amphibian breeding and waterfowl breeding/foraging habitat. The proposed mitigation provides for an equal amount of open water wetlands but it is fragmented into three smaller areas, two of which are located within designated stormwater structures. Finfish Habitat: The 1/4 acre open water pond is estimated at being 1 to 2 feet deep. This is too shallow to support most sport fish, either warm or cool water species. Smaller fish species such as minnows can and probably thrive in this area. Although during years of significant drought I believe that the water level in the shallow pond area could be reduced to a point where fish would not be able to survive. Disturbance of this area would not significantly affect finfish habitat. Groundwater Recharge: The porosity of the soils and parent material influences the value of this function. The surficial geology map of the Town shows this area to be glacial till. This can consist of unconsolidated material with areas to compaction so it's hard to predict how water will act. The long residence time of water within the corridor optimizes the opportunity of surface water finding its way to the groundwater system. I don't feel that the proposed regulated activity will significantly affect this function. ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,SR.,P.E.&L.S. ENGINEERS a SURVEYORS ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,JR.,P.E.&L.S. 200 PIGEON HILL ROAD ■ P.O. BOX 484 ■ WINDSOR■ CT 06095 ■ PHONE(860)688-7288 ■ FAX(860)688-3485 Proposed "Cutler Ridge II" Subdivision Prepared for Mannarino Builders, Inc. Differences of Previously Approved Plans and Presently Proposed Plans June 2, 1999 TOTAL PARCEL AREA= 56 . 146 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS Presently proposed= 32 Previously approved= 35 Decrease= 3 OPEN SPACE Presently proposed= 21 . 817 acres Previously approved= 21. 392 acres Increase= 0 . 425 acres CONSERVATION EASEMENT Presently proposed= 3 . 339 acres Previously approved= 3 . 338 acres Increase= 0 . 001 acres TOTAL INCREASE OF OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA= 0 .426 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA TO TOTAL PARCEL AREA Presently proposed 44 . 8050W Previously approved= 44 . 046% Increase= 0 . 759% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE Presently proposed= 4 . 795 acres Previously approved= 5 . 276 acres Decrease= 0 .481 acres MITIMITI -Ak, CILTILII' IXA, RICHWINU AW113 P1WW1I'9'W' LLP CITYPLACE I 185 ASYLUM STREET HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3469 NEW HAVEN OFFICE TELEPHONE (860) 240-6000 WHITNEY GROVE SQUARE FACSIMILE (860) 240-6150 TWO WHITNEY AVENUE P.O.BOX 704 NEW HAVEN,CT 06503-0704 TELEPHONE(203)772-7700 MICHAEL A. ZIZKA (860) 240-6144 MZIZKA®MCRP.COM June 2 , 1999 South Windsor Conservation And Inland Wetlands Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Re : Application of Mannarino Builders, Inc . Dear Commission Members : As you know, our firm represents Mannarino Builders, Inc . (which I will refer to as "Mannarino" in this letter) . Earlier this year, the Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission (which I will refer to as the "Wetlands Commission") approved Mannarino' s application #98-60P for regulated activities in connection with a proposed subdivision of property located at 940 Avery Street . The application, as you know, proposed a 35-lot residential subdivision with access from both Avery Street and Murray Road. The application approved by the Wetlands Commission was for an open-space subdivision. The design was consistent with the direction Mannarino had received from the Planning and Zoning Commission (which I will refer to as the Planning Commission) at a preapplication meeting. The Subdivision Regulations recommend that subdivision applicants attend such preapplication meetings so that the Planning Commission can advise them whether the Commission prefers a traditional subdivision or an open space subdivision. In this case, the proposed subdivision design allowed the preservation of substantial open space resources, which would otherwise have been incorporated into private lots under a traditional design. The Planning Commission had indicated that it favored an open space design. MILT ITMA.H.'UILLINA.RYCDDT11DR A11,T&D H'YNXIEIY LLP South Windsor Conservation And Inland Wetlands Commission June 2 , 1999 Page 2 The Subdivision Regulations generally disfavor the use of long, dead-end roads when through roads are possible. This policy is, in our opinion, very sensible and commendable from a traffic and public safety standpoint . It is our understanding that it is also favored by police and fire officials and personnel in South Windsor. However, as the Wetlands Commission observed during its hearings on the Mannarino application, numerous area residents opposed the proposed access from Murray Road, claiming that it would have a negative effect on their neighborhood. The traffic impact on the Murray Road neighborhood was the major point of opposition to the project . The opponents also appeared at the Planning Commission' s hearings on the Mannarino application, and they expressed the same concerns about traffic using Murray Road. The Planning Commission members ' general comments at the hearing were sympathetic to those residents ' concerns . There was little discussion of the proposed Avery Street access, and much discussion and questioning about Murray Road. In fact, one of the Planning Commission members flatly told a Mannarino official prior to the hearings that he would not agree to any access onto Murray Road. Ultimately, as you know, the Planning Commission denied Mannarino ' s application. The "official" statement of reasons indicated that the Commission did not have to accept the open space design (even though Mannarino was previously encouraged to use that design) , but it also "suggested" that Mannarino consider eliminating the Murray Road access . That suggestion was made even though a road stub from Murray Road had been provided in an earlier development, to be used specifically for the development of what is now the Mannarino parcel . Mannarino subsequently engaged in discussions with Town staff and the Town Attorney about designs that would address the Planning Commission' s concerns . Based on prior statements by Planning Commission members and Town staff, Mannarino was led to believe that the Murray Road access was the real issue for the Planning Commission, so Mannarino proposed, as a settlement measure, to eliminate that access . We believed the Wetlands Commission would not find the elimination of the Murray Road MURTHA,CUI.I.INA. RICHTER AXID PINNEY LLe South Windsor Conservation And Inland Wetlands Commission June 2 , 1999 Page 3 . access point objectionable, because Mannarino ' s representatives had stated many times during the Wetlands Commission' s hearings that the Planning Commission might reject the Murray Road access, and because the elimination of that access actually allowed a lessening of wetlands impacts. As part of the settlement proposal, Mannarino also agreed to eliminate three lots . The Planning Commission indicated that it was receptive to Mannarino ' s settlement proposal, and Mannarino therefore presented it to the Wetlands Commission. Because the activities in the modified application were consistent with, and within the scope of, the regulated activities the Wetlands Commission had previously approved, Mannarino applied for a modification of its wetlands approval . As you know, of course, the settlement proposal was denied by the Wetlands Commission as a simple modification. The majority of the Commission members who voted on the application for modification felt there was a need for more information on the differences in impact between the original proposal and the modified proposal . Although Mannarino disagrees with that conclusion, Mannarino has filed the current, "new" application in an effort to resolve the Wetlands Commission' s concerns and to allow all of the Commission' s questions to be answered. As we have previously discussed with the Wetlands Commission, the modified proposal would reduce the impacts to wetlands and watercourses without eliminating any of the enhancements that were previously proposed. Mannarino' s engineer, Wilson Alford, Jr. , and its environmental consultant, George Logan, are prepared to provide the Commission once again with specific details and analyses about these reduced impacts . Since the discussion of the reduction in impacts involves a comparison between the current proposal and the original proposal, we ask that the Commission incorporate, by reference, in the record of this proceeding all of the documents provided by Mannarino during the proceedings on the prior Application #98-60P. This procedure will save a tremendous amount of time for both the Commission and the applicant . Please advise Mannarino if the Wetlands Commission does not wish to incorporate the prior record, but please be aware that that will MITRTHA, CULLINA,RICHTER AXID PINNHY L-a South Windsor Conservation And Inland Wetlands Commission June 2 , 1999 Page 4 require Mannarino to read all of the prior information into the hearing record. Several members of the Wetlands Commission stated at the meeting on May 19 that the modified proposal was different from the approved application because it implied that a single access point could be provided from Murray Road. That is simply not correct, for two reasons . First, as noted above, this was not a new issue . Mannarino' s representatives stated numerous times at the hearing on the original application that, while a single, Murray Road access was technically feasible, the members of the Planning Commission had indicated that it might deny such an access due, among other things, to the opposition expressed by area residents . As we noted above, the "official" denial letter from the Planning Commission suggested the elimination of the Murray Road access. Second, the fact that a single access from Murray Road could theoretically be approved by the Planning Commission does not mean that there is any reasonable likelihood it actually would be approved. Every bit of information we have received from the Planning Commission suggests that a single, Murray Road access point would not be approved by the Planning Commission. In addition, a sole access point from Murray Road would not be prudent . Conn. Gen. Stat . § 22a-38 (18) , which is part of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, defines the term "prudent" as "economically and otherwise reasonable in light of the social benefits to be derived from the proposed regulated activity provided cost may be considered in deciding what is prudent and further provided a mere showing of expense will not necessarily mean an alternative is imprudent . " (Emphasis added) . From a traffic standpoint, the Avery Road access point is much better than the Murray Road access point . Although the Murray Road access point meets minimum safety requirements, the Avery Street access point significantly exceeds those requirements . Therefore, although a single Murray Road access is technically feasible, that alternative is much less desirable than either the originally proposed two-way access, which the Wetlands Commission approved but the Planning Commission denied, or a single access from Avery Street - the present proposal . MURTHA.CUX LIMA. RICHTER ANIT PRIVI EY &ba South Windsor Conservation And Inland Wetlands Commission June 2 , 1999 Page 5 We submit that the information provided to the Wetlands Commission has demonstrated that the impact of the proposed subdivision would be very small and that the proposed enhancements would more than offset those impacts . The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act requires commissions to "balance the need for the economic growth of the state and the use of its land with the need to protect its environment and ecology. " Conn. Gen. Stat . § 22a-36 . The statutory reference to a "balance" is important; it shows that the legislature recognized there would be times in which modest wetlands impacts would be preferable to the social impacts of other, technically feasible alternatives . This is one such time : the proposed wetlands impacts are very small indeed; the impacts are less than the Commission previously found acceptable; and the alternative of a single access from Murray Road would create an unnecessarily heavy impact to the Murray Road neighborhood and would preclude the use of the technically superior access from Avery Street . It is important to note that, in addition to Application #98-60P, the Wetlands Commission also previously approved another project on this parcel featuring a single access road from Avery Street . That proposal did not include any of the mitigation measures and open space enhancements that the present proposal includes . The Connecticut Appellate Court has dealt with several situations in which a modifed version of a prior proposal was presented to a wetlands commission. The general rule stated by the court is that a wetlands agency cannot reverse its prior decision unless there has been a change of conditions, or some other matter materially affecting the merits of the application has intervened. Bradley v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 28 Conn. App. 48 (1992) . In fact, in a case entitled Consolini v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 29 Conn. App. 12 (1992) , the court held that the Torrington Inland Wetlands Commission did not even have to issue a new permit for a project that had been reduced in scope from a previously approved project . That situation is essentially the same as Mannarino is now presenting - a scaled down project having lesser wetlands impacts. DIITItTHA,CU&MNA.RICHTI B AND PlXlVBY xe� South Windsor Conservation And Inland Wetlands Commission June 2 , 1999 Page 6 For these reasons, we respectfully ask this Commission to approve Mannarino ' s current application. Thank you for your consideration. Very t -1. , y ours, rc �r Michael A. i Subj: (no subject) f Date: 6/15/99 3:33:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Megcooks v nr To: JCohen02@snet.net INLAND wF =' CONSERVAt'C-id C� I don't really know who I am sending this to but I would appriciate sending it to the town hall of South Windsor! I am writing a letter concerning the the road that is to be built from Avery to murray for the new housing and I would like to make a few pionts I can't attend the meeting because as you probably don't relise I am 13. Well I may be young but you must agree it took alot of guts to write this letter and I would apprisiate it being passed on to the Inlands Wetlands and Planning and Zoning. Now back to my pant that I have yet to state, I feel extremity strongly about the fact that this road would deffenitly not benifit any accept for the people making money off of it!For one 1 really think that if there were to be a road here a least one child, at the least,would be hit by a car because in this nieghbor hood at least every other house has one or more children!Also almost everyone has a pet!And if you are as smart as I think you are you can do the math!And I know for a fact that no one and I mean no one wants this road. So if you really care at all about the people in your town and not just the money then you will carfully think and then rethink these pionts I have made. I will be waiting for a responce and I don't care if it is good or bad! Meg Ryan 6 Murray Road South Windsor CT 06074 I Tuesday,June 15,1999 America Online:Megcooks Page:1 S 0*N sfq 4 70-aw O-P sott44 7d, C J s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR-Co AREA CODE 860/644-2511 June 25, 1999 Certified #P462498009 Mannarino Builders, Inc. 1169 Ellington Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Madam/Sir: At the June 16, 1999 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved application #99-34P - Mannarino Builders, Inc., Cutler Ridge II. - IWA/CC application for one road crossing, and stormwater control structures associated with a 32 lot residential subdivision on 50+ acres on property located at 940 Avery Street, RR zone (Assessor's map #93, parcel #7). This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. One blueprint copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning 8s Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement. 2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use. 3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on June 16, 2004. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. Mannarino Builders, Inc. Cutler Ridge II June 25, 1999 Page 2 4. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 5. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. 6. A bond in the amount of$10,000.00 be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures and mitigation plantings. 7. A bond in the amount of 10,000.00 be submitted for proper installation of mitigation measures and will be held for two (2) growing seasons to ensure the establishment of wetland plantings. 8. Applicant shall establish an access trail from Murray Road to the proposed open space. 9. The consulting Biologist shall oversee the construction/installation of mitigation measures and vegetative plantings. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION Elizab ' A. Warren, Chairperson EAW:dr cc: Chief Building Official Planning & Zoning Commission Town Engineer Qp -1110 J' lo� \ N 0 g ---- -- 3086 -SAI F��`�g BOTjF�N�\Q40 307.9 L= 94.70' \ 302. =377107" \\ 1309.0 O 304.1 308.8 g 308.9 ` 1 I� \ 301.5 10.0 yl QN \ ` �� Ec?` \` 13.5 I . 0 Nf2 p?ems 9 ' GARAGE- 313 5 3 .0 BA SEMEN T= 30' FD FL= 305.8 RA SAN. FL= 304.0 �X 304.07 RES 119 • \ FD — `\ 301. LOT 2 63 `, 2gg 0 LOT 1 �`, 31,411 sq.ft. 30o X `� 31,484 sq.ft.' % RES 120'�, 300.so �� A723 acres ,0.721 acres ANYREGRADING, DISCHARGE `� o • \ OF STORM WATER, ETC. MAY +` \ NEED INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ ` J � ` ` g CONSERV477ON COMMISSION \61 RES 121 APPROVAL, . �� \\ � X 297.02 • `.\ \ RES 122 C RVA770N EA T RES 12 �\ RES 124 RES 125 RES 126 2gg 1```J 3pp 1 RES 127 OPEN SPACE Nl*r CUXER R/DGk HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA77ON RES 128 2g1 9 9PES 129 Medium to Large-Sized Evergreen Saplings for Wildlife Enhancement around Wetland Mitigation Areas and Detention Basins Plant Minimum Maximum Planted Proposed Code Common Name Scientific Name Installed Size Spacing Form Numbers WP White Pine Pinuo otrobuo 1.5"caliper 15' O.C. Palled and 9 burla ed EA Eastern Thuja occidentallo 1.5"caliper 15'O.C. Balled and 3 arborvitae burlapped or I otted Medium to Large-Sized Deciduous Saplings for Wildlife Enhancement around Wetland Mitigation Areas and Detention Basins Plant Minimum Maximum Planted Proposed Code Common Name Scientific Name Installed Size Spacing Form Numbers FO Pin Oak Quercuo paluotrio 1.5" caliper 12'D.C. 5alled and 3 burlappeol RM Red maple Acer rubrum 1.5"caliper 12'D.C. Balled and 3 burly ed WA White Aoh. Fraxinuo 1.5"caliper 12'D.C. Balled and 3 americana burly ppedl Medium to Large-Sized Deciduous Shrubs for Wetland Mitigation Areas and Detention Basin Sideslopes Plant Common Name Scientific Name Minimum Maximum Planted Proposed Code Installed Size Spacing Form Numbers 513 Common 5 icebuoh Lindera benzoin 2'to 3' height 5' O.C. Potted plamt 25 BS Highbuoh blueberry Vaccinium 5to 4' height b O.C. Potted plant I 50 corymbooum N13 Nannyberry Viburnum lentago 3'to 4' height 8'O.C. Potted platit 30 RC Red chokecherry Aronia arbutifolia 3'to 4' height 8'O.C. ' Potted Plant 25 WB Common Ilex verticillata 5to 4' height 8' O.C. I Potted plant 35 winterberry I CA Common Alder Alnuo ocrullata 3'to 4' height 8'O.C. Potted last 30 AW Northern Viburnum 3'to 4' height 8'O.C. ! Potted plant 30 arrowwood recognitum Small-Sized Deciduous Shrubs for Wetland Mitigation Areas and Detention Basin Sideslopes Plant Minimum Maximum Planted Proposed Code Common Name Scientific Name Installed Size Spacing Form Numbers 5D 5ilky dogwood Cornue amomum 3'to 4' height 0.0'D.C. Potted plant 40 GI) Grey dogwood Cornuo racemooa 3'to 4' height 5.0'D.C. Potted platit 50 w Live Propagules for the Wetland Mitigation Area (Zone A &Zone B) Common Name Scientific Name Hydrozone Maximum Proposed Planted Form Spacing Numbers Tussock sedge Carex stricta ZONE A 2.0' D.C. 75 Live propagule or whole I plant Hop Sedge Carex lupulina ZONE A 2.0' O.C. 100 Live propagule or whole ' I plant Sweet flag Acorus calarnus ZONE A 2.0' O.C. 50 Live propagule or whole plant Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata ZONE A j 2.0'O.C. 50 Live propagule or whole plant; River bulrush 5cirpus fluviatilis ZONE B 2.0'O.C. 100 Live propagule or whole plant Wool grass 5cirpus cyperinus ZONE B I 2.0' O.C. 75 Live propagule or whole plant Arrowhead 5agittaria latifolia ZONE 5 2.0' D.C. i 100 Live propagule or whole plant burreed 5parganium americanum ZONE D { 2.0' D.C. 100 1 Live propagule or whole } iplant Blue Flag Iris Iris versicolor ZONE D 2.0' O.C. 25 j Live propagule or whole I plant , s NOTES: 1. EXACT LOCATIONS OF PLANTING MATERIAL5 WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD, IN CON51-1- LTATION WITH TOWN 5TAFF, FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF DETENTION BASINS AND WETLAND MITIGATION AREA5. 2. SHRUB MATERIALS WILL BE PLANTED IN RANDOM, 5AME-51"ECIE5 CLUMF5 A5 INDICATED ON PLAN5. 5. ZONE A: FLANT5 TOLERATING UP TO 5"OF INUNDATION AND FREFERING 5ATURATED CONDITIONS. 4. ZONE B: FLANT5 TOLERATING OF TO 12"OF INUNDATION AND FREFERING 5ATURATED TO 5HALLOW WATER OF TO 0". " Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) PAGE 6 OF 6 FWS Vegetative Cover Type Units Scientific Name Common Name ndicato WA i WC UA UB UC UD Verbascum thaspus Common mullein Verbena hastata Blue vervain FACW+ Vernonia noverboracensis New York lronweed FACW+ Viola pallens Northern white violet OBL Viola spp. Violets t" Vines Amphicarpaea bracteata American hog-peanut FAC Apios americana Groundnut FACW Celastrus orbiculatus Asiatic bittersweet Clematis virginiana Virgin's-bower FAC Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle FAC- Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginian creeper FACU Smilax glauca Cat greenbrier FACU Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbrier FAC Toxicodendron radicans Poison ivy FAC ribs labrusca Fox grape FACU Vi#s SPP, Wild grapes j I ' t Plant WETLAND CLASSES AND SUBCLASSES IN THE GLACIATED NORTHEAST WETLAND CLASS WETLAND SUBCLASS Open Water (OW-1)Vegetated (OW-2)Floating-leaved (OW-3)Non-vegetated Deep Marsh (DM-1)Dead Woody (DM-2) Shrub (DM-3) Sub-shrub (DM4)Robust (DM-5)Narrow-leaved ' (DM-6)Broad-leaved Shallow Marsh (SM-1)Robust (SM-2)Narrow-leaved (SM-3)Broad-leaved Meadow (M-1) Ungrazed (M-2)Grazed Shrub Swamp (SS-1) Sapling (SS-2)Bushy (SS-3) Compact (SS-4) Aquatic Wooded Swamp (WS-1)Deciduous (WS-2)Evergreen Bog (BG-IA) Compact Shrub (BG-1B)Bushy Shrub (BG-2)Wooded (BG-3)Emergent Note: Subclass(OW-2)has replaced(SM4) Seasonally Flooded Class(SF-1 &SF-2)has been removed Reference: Golet, F.C.,and J.S. Larson. 1974. Classification of freshwater wetlands in the glaciated Northeast. USFWS Resour. Publ. 116. 56 pp. WETLANDS: Physical WETLAND HYDROGEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION Surface-Water Depression Wetlands: In these wetlands, precipitation and overland flow (surface runoff collect in a depression where there is little or no groundwater discharge. Water leaves the wetland principally by evaporotranspiration and infiltration (groundwater recharge). The wetland hydrologic system lies above the local or regional groundwater system and is isolated from it by an unsaturated zone; thus, it is said to be "perched." In the glaciated Northeast, surface-water depression wetlands are most likely to form over bedrock or till deposits in topographically elevated areas of landscape;however, they may develop in lowland kettles or ice-block basins that formed in glaciolacustrine or fine-textured glaciofluvial deposits. Surface-Water Slope Wetlands: These wetlands are located along the edge of stream or lake or on the sloping surface of a floodplain. They may occur on till or stratified drift but are commonly found on alluvium. While precipitation and overland flow also feed these wetlands, the principal source of water is the overflow of the adjacent water body. The sloping surface of the wetland permits water to drain readily back to the lake or river as its stage falls. As was the case with the previous class,the wetland surface usually lies well above the local water table, so groundwater discharge to the wetland is negligible or nonexistent. Groundwater recharge from the wetland is possible, depending on the permeability of underlying surficial deposits. Groundwater Depression Wetlands: These wetlands occur where a basin intercepts the local groundwater table, so that groundwater discharge as well as precipitation and overland flow feed the wetland. Classic groundwater depression wetlands have no surface drainage leaving the site; however, occasional streamflow out may occur form basin overflow. Groundwater inflow may be continuous or seasonal, I ' depending upon the depth of the basin and the degree of fluctuation of the local water table. During periods when the wetland water level is higher than the local groundwater table (e.g., after major precipitation events in dry season), groundwater recharge may occur. Groundwater may enter the 1 wetland basin from all directions, or it may discharge in one area and recharge in another. In the glaciated Northeast, groundwater depression wetlands are most likely to occur in stratified drift, particularly in coarse-textured glaciofluvial deposits where relatively rapid movement between groundwater and surface water can occur. Groundwater Slope Wetlands: These wetlands occur where groundwater discharges as springs or seeps at the land surface and drains away as streamflow. Most commonly,these wetlands occur on hillsides over till deposits or at the base of hills where stratified drift and till come into contact. Headwater wetlands are typically groundwater slope wetlands. The local water table slopes toward the wetland surface. Where groundwater flow is continuous,the soil remains saturated. At many sites,however, groundwater inputs cease during late summer or early fall as evaporotranspiration depletes soil moisture in the root zone, in which case the soil is only seasonally saturated. Permanent ponding of water is prevented by the sloping land surface, but water may collect temporarily in isolated depressions. Precipitation and overland flow provide additional water to the wetland on an intermittent basis. Groundwater recharge may occur in the wetland after such events, but amounts are likely to be negligible, especially where wetland soils have formed over dense lodgment till deposits. Where such deposits are present, groundwater slope wetlands may be fed primarily by shallow groundwater systems perched above the regional system. Reference: Golet, C.G., A.J.K. Calhoun, W.R. DeRagon, D.J. Lowry, and A.J. Gold. 1993. Ecology of Red Maple Swamps in the Glaciated Northeast: A Community Profile. USFWS. Biological Report No. 12 COMMON WATER REGIMES OF NORTHEASTERN WETLANDS Seasonally flooded. Surface water is present for extended periods, especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the season in most years. When surface water is absent,the water table is often near the land surface. Temporarily flooded: Surface water is present for brief periods during the growing season,but the water 1 table usually lies well below the soil surface for most of the season. Seasonally saturated: The soil is saturated to the surface, especially early in the growing season, but unsaturated conditions prevail by the end of the season in most years. Surface water is absent except for groundwater seepage and overland flow. Semi permanently flooded: Surface water persists throughout the growing season in most years. When surface water is absent,the water table is usually at or very near the land surface. Permanently flooded: Water covers the land surface throughout the year in all years. Vegetation is ' composed of obligate hydrophytes. I Saturated: The substratum is saturated to the surface for extended periods during the growing season,but surface water is seldom present. This water regime applies to permanently saturated,non-flooded wetlands such as bogs. References: Golet, F. C., A. J. K. Calhoun,W.R. DeRagon, D. J. Lowry and A. J. Gold. 1993. Ecology of Red Maple Swamps in the Glaciated Northeast: A Community Profile. U. S. Dep. Int. Fish Wild. Serv. Biol. Rep. 12, 152 pp. iCowardin, 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 Wild. Serv. Biol. Serv. Program FWS-OBS 79/31. 103 pp. t SOIL DRAINAGE CLASSES Excessively drained: Brightly colored; usually coarse-textured; rapid permeability; very low water- holding capacity; subsoil free of mottles Somewhat excessively drained: Brightly colored; rather sandy; rapid permeability, low water- holding capacity; subsoil free of mottles Well drained: Color usually bright yellow, red, or brown; drain excess water readily, but contain sufficient fine material to provide adequate moisture for plant growth; subsoil is free of mottles to a depth of at least 36 inches. Moderately well drained: Generally any texture, but internal drainage is restricted to some degree; mottles common in the lower part of the subsoil, generally at a depth of 18 to 36 inches; may remain wet and cold later in spring;generally suited for agricultural use. Somewhat poorly drained:Remain wet for long periods of time due to slow removal of water; generally have a slowly permeable layer within the profile or a high water table;mottles common in the subsoil at a depth of 8 to 18 inches. Poorly drained: Dark, thick surface horizons commonly; gray colors usually dominate subsoil; water table at or near the surface during a considerable part of the year; mottles frequently found within 8 inches ofthe soil surface. Very poorly drained: Generally thick black surface horizons and gray subsoil; saturated by high water table most of the year; usually occur in level or depressed sites and are frequently ponded with water. Reference: Wright,W. R., and E. H. Sautter. 1979. Soils of Rhode Island landscapes. R.I. Agric Exp. Station Bull. 429. 42 pp. ' RATIONALE FOR FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS ' In the following pages is the rationale used to rate the functions and values of the site's wetland and/or watercourse resources. The ratings are: low (L); moderate (lam; high (H); outstanding (0). Intermediates such as low-moderate (L-lam were also used where appropriate. Both the positive (+) and negative(-) criteria(factors) given below are primarily derived from the CT DEP Method for the Evaluation of InAvid Wetlands in Connecticut (a.k.a. Bulletin No. 9) (Ammann et al. 1991), the Wetland Wildlife Evaluation Model(Golet 1976), the Wetland Functions and Values. A Descriptive Approach(USACOE 1995). i This assesses the degree to which the wetlands and the adjacent areas have been disturbed by human activity(agricultural, residential development, filling, draining, crossings by roads or trails, ' etc.). In general, the greater the ecological integrity, the more valuable the wetland will be for a variety of functions(e.g. habitat, educational potential). Factors Rhich Increase or Decrease (-) lVethind Functional V'ahle Wetland Unit Evaluation + _ Factors 1 Moderate- + "~ Quality of inflow water assumed good High + Woodland or fields buffer is above average ' + Low level of activity within wetlands + _ "� Low to Moderate high level of activity adjacent to wetland ' + Wetland vegetation not being altered or disturbed + One dirt road crossing of wetland unit ' + Wetland appears to be somewhat naturally occurring + _ Several buildings within close proximity of wetland + _ "'� A small portion of original wetland has been filled i + "» More than 25 percent of wetland has very poorly drained soils + Wetland is not being drained 2 Moderate- + "'~ Quality of inflow water assumed good ' High + "» Woodland or fields buffer is above average + _ ""� Low level of activity within wetlands + _ "°� Moderate level of activity adjacent to wetland + _ "� Some of the wetland vegetation being altered or disturbed(Chase Orchards) + One road crossing of wetland unit + Most of the wetland is not naturally occurring + _ ""'� Several buildings within close proximity of wetland + _ "'y A portion of original wetland has been filled + More than 25 percent of wetland has very poorly drained soils ' + _ ""� Some of the wetland vegetation is being altered or disturbed FUNCTION oi- VALUE: E(hicutiontil Potentitil ' Wetlands, along with other natural areas, can provide an "outdoor classroom" for instruction on numerous ecological principles, and for scientific sturdy and research. For example the concepts ' of nutrient, energy, and water cycles, adaptation and competition can be illustrated in most wetlands. This section assesses the proximity of the wetland to schools, opportunities for safe ' parking and access,variety of vegetative communities, ecological integrity etc. Wetland Unit Rating + _ Factors 1 Moderate- + ""' Some of the adjacent upland areas can serve as study High sites ' + Wetland within safe walking distance or a short drive to area schools + Concerns with student safety minimal + Visual/aesthetic quality of wetland above average + Little or no disturbance occurring within wetland Wetland is not within a nature preserve or wildlife management area, or under ecological management + _ "'� Off-road parking at potential educational site suitable ' for school bus access in or near wetland with moderate expense Site is not currently used for educational or scientific _ purposes Handicap accessibility is not available + _ Public access to potential educational site is somewhat ' controlled + _ Direct access to small pond available Direct access to perennial stream not available ' + "» Wetland classes and subclasses easily accessible "» Wetland classes and subclasses not abundant ' + Wetland is considered to be an above average quality wildlife habitat + Potential educational site within safe walking distance ' to other plant communities Wetland does not contains nor is known to contain threatened, rare or endangered species ' Z Moderate- + "» Adjacent upland areas can serve as study sites High ' + Wetland within safe walking distance or a short drive to area schools ' Wetland Functional Assessment:Educational Potential(continued) + _ Some concerns with student safety ' + _ Visual/aesthetic quality of wetland is average + _ Some disturbance occurring within wetland(Orchard Chase) Wetland is not within a nature preserve or wildlife management area,or under ecological management Off-road parking at potential educational not suitable for school bus at or near wetland Site is not currently used for educational or scientific purposes Handicap accessibility is not available + Public access to potential educational site is somewhat controlled + Direct access to small pond available + r Direct access to perennial stream available ' + Wetland classes and subclasses easily accessible + _ "� Wetland classes and subclasses of average abundance + Perennial watercourse or pond available 1 + Wetland is considered to be of above average value wildlife habitat + Potential educational site within safe walking distance to other plant communities Wetland does not contain nor is known to contain threatened, rare or endangered species ' Page 2 ' Many wetlands remove pathogens, and suspended and dissolved pollutants from surface water draining through them. Dense vegetation, organic and mineral soils and microorganisms ' inhabiting the soil environment accomplish this. Thus, wetlands can improve the quality of surface and ground water. In assessing a wetland for this function two additional aspects are ' considered: opportunity and efficiency. The former considers the degree to which existing conditions allow a wetland to perform this function. A wetland that is capable of removing large amounts of these materials form stormwater is said to be highly efficient with respect to this ' function. II Wetland Unit Rating + _ Factors ' 1 High + "'� Several potential sources of sediment and pollutants g exist within wetland's watershed ' + Wetland is large relative to the size of its watershed No public or private water sources occur downstream ' + _ "» The wetland edge is somewhat broad and intermittently aerobic + The wetland is known to have existed for>50 years ' + Opportunity for sediment and pollutant trapping by slow moving water or deep water habitat is present + _ Some drainage ditches have not been constructed within ' wetland + Duration of detention time of water is expected to be above average Deep water or open water associated with wetland is limited Wetland is not associated with watercourse I + Channelized flows have visible velocity decreased within wetland + No indication of erosive forces present + _ ""� Some deep organic/sediment deposits are present + Wetland is saturated for most of the growing season ' + Effective floodwater storage in wetland is high + "» Wetland has a moderately high degree of water and ' vegetation interspersion + Emergent vegetation is dense along primary flow paths + "y Waterflow through wetland is diffuse ' + _ ""� Water retention/detention time in wetland is somewhat increased by constricted outlet or vegetation ' Wetland Functional Assessment:Sediment/Nutrient Trapping(continued) 2 Moderate- + Several potential sources of sediment and pollutants ' High exist within wedand's watershed + Wetland is large relative to the size of its watershed Public or private water sources does not occur downstream + The wetland edge is broad and intermittently aerobic ' + The wetland is known to have existed for>50 years + » Opportunity for sediment and pollutant trapping by slow moving water or deep water habitat is present + Drainage ditches have not been constructed within wetland + _ Duration of detention time of water is expected to be average(as a whole) + _ Some limited deep water or open water associated with wetland 1 + "» Wetland is associated with watercourse + Channelized flows have visible velocity decreased within wetland + °» No indication of erosive forces present Deep organic/sediment deposits are not present ' + _ Wetland is saturated for a good portion of the growing season + _ °» Effective floodwater storage in wetland is about ' average + _ "» Wedand has a moderately high degree of water and vegetation interspersion + _ "° Emergent vegetation is dense along some primary flow ' paths + _ Waterflow through portions of wetland is diffuse + _ Water retention/detention time in this wetland is in part increased by constricted outlet or thick vegetation Page 2 FUNC ION or VALUE: ffikll�fe Htibittit Wetlands provide habitat for a wide variety of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates. Wetlands offer food, water, cover, breeding areas and function as travel, migration tand dispersal corridors for wildlife. This function considers the effectiveness of a wetland to provide habitat for various types and populations of animals typically associated with wetlands ' and wetland edge. Both resident and/or migrating species are considered. Factors IfItich Increase (+) or Decrease (-) Weiland Fttnctional Value Wetland Unit Rating + _ Factors 1 1 Moderate- + "» Size of wetland ecological unit is above average for High region ' + Water quality of the watercourse,pond or lake associated with this wetland meets or exceeds Class A or Class B standards ' + _ "'� Dominant wetland class (i.e. meadow/marsh)is somewhat unfavorable There are less than three acres of shallow permanent open water, including streams in or adjacent to wetland + Wetland is not severely fragmented by development + Upland surrounding wetland within 200' is urbanized or forested/open + _ Wetland exhibits a moderately high degree in plant community structure(e.g.tree/shrub/vine/grasses/ mosses, etc.) + _ Wetland exhibits a moderately high degree of plant species diversity + _ "w Density of wetland vegetation is moderate to high No upland islands occur within wetland + _ Juxtaposition and hydrologic connection with other wetlands or waterbodies is favorable + _ "'' Wetland class and subclass richness is slightly above ' average + Wildlife overland access to other wetlands is not restricted ' + Wetland subclass edges (ecotones)are abundant + _ Moderate amount of animal signs observed(tracks, scat,nests,browse, rubs, etc.) ' + "°' Some plant/animal indicator species are present + _ Surface water to vegetation interspersion is somewhat above average for region + _ "» Few indications of less disturbance tolerant species resent Wetland Functional Assessement: FriIdlifie Habitat Potential(continued) + _ ""� Wetland has a moderately high avian utilization or its potential ' + "y Wetland does contain or has potential to contain large amphibian populations + Wetland does contain or has potential to contain a high ' population of insects 2 Moderate- + Size of wetland ecological unit is above average for ' High region + Water quality of the watercourse,pond or lake associated with this wetland meets or exceeds Class A or Class B standards + "» Dominant wetland class (i.e.forested)favorable + _ "» There are close to three acres of shallow permanent open water, including streams in or adjacent to wetland + Wetland is not severely fragmented by development ' + Upland surrounding wetland within 200' is forested or open + _ "'� Wetland exhibits a moderately high degree in plant community structure(e.g.tree/shrub/vine/grasses/ mosses, etc.) + _ "» Wetland exhibits a moderate degree of plant species ' diversity + ""'� Density of wetland vegetation is high No upland islands occur within wetland ' + Juxtaposition and hydrologic connection with other wetlands or waterbodies is favorable + Wetland class and subclass richness is about average ' + Wildlife overland access to other wetlands is not restricted + _ "» Wetland subclass edges (ecotones)are about average for region + "» A moderate to high amount of animal signs observed (tracks, scat,nests,browse, rubs,etc.) + Plant/animal indicator species are present + Surface water to vegetation interspersion average for region + Indications of a few less disturbance tolerant species present + _ "» Wetland has a moderate avian utilization or its potential t + _ Wetland contains or has potential to contain a moderately large amphibian population ' + Wetland contains or has potential to contain a high population of insects + _ "» Wetland contains or has potential to contain a Imoderately high population of insects Page 2 ' Commonly wetlands are associated with watercourses and open waterbodies. Rivers, streams, lakes and ponds provide important cover and spawning areas for fish. The assessment of this I ' function considers the effectiveness of both watercourses and open waterbodies in providing finfish habitat. The assessment considers criteria such as water quality, stream width and land use in the watershed above the resource. For open waterbodies it assesses pond size, depth, transparency, and other parameters. This function should only be evaluated if a wetland contains a waterbody or watercourse. Factors 11-hich Increase or Decrease (-) Wetland Functional 1"(111le Wetland Unit Rating + _ Factors ' 2 Moderate + Water quality assumed good(Class A or B) Forest land is not dominant in the watershed above wetland r + _ "� Waterbody(pond)does have sufficient size and depth in open water areas so as not to freeze solid and retains ' some open water during the winter + "°' Quality of the watercourse associated with wetland is able to support healthy fish populations Stream width(bank to bank)is more than 50' ' + "» Streamside vegetation provides sufficient shade(i.e. stream buffer>60') ' + Stream sinuosity is suboptimal(wetland length/watercourse length: about 0.50) + Some spawning areas are present + Abundance of cover objects present + '"'w Food sources available to fish within this wetland + Evidence of fish is present + Water velocities are not too excessive for fish usage + "'y Defined channel is present I + _ "'* Watercourse is somewhat persistent Resource is not stocked with fish Transparency of water is less than 13' (pond) Depth of waterbody is less than 20' (pond) Size of waterbody is less than 3 acres Rooted submerged or emergent vegetation within waterbody is within suboptimal range(i.e. >50%) + Physical character of stream channel is not influenced by channelization or other man-made activity _ D* There are barriers to anadromous fish 1MDLM `WLAVb OWUMOPMODW SMWEMEAN M M M M (Golet 1976) PROJECT NAME/LOCATION: Cutler Midge II Open 5 ace Subdivision, Avery Street, 5outh Windsor, Cam" WETLAND UNIT NO.: 1 USGS TOPO MAP: Manchester INVESTIGATOR: George Logan RANK: `G(-f1 SCORE: 60 • D AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: CT PEF 1995 51-24 DATE: 12/15/96 • � � POINTS WETLAND CLASS RICHNESS 5 j, 5 > 2.5 acres WS ❑ SS ❑ SM ® DM ❑ ow ❑ BG ❑ M ® F ❑ DOMINANT WETLAND CLASS 5 D S D WS ❑ SS ❑ SM ❑ DM ❑ ow ❑ BG ❑ M ® F ❑ SIZE CATEGORY(acres) + do.0 acres 5 WS-1 ® SS-1 ❑ SM-1 ❑ BG-1A❑ DM-1 ❑ DM-5 Iff SUBCLASS RICHNESS WS-2 ❑ SS-2 ❑ SM-2 ® 13G-16❑ DM-2 ❑ DM-6 ❑ 4 Q M-1 01 SS-3 ❑ SM-3 ❑ BG-2 ❑ DM-3 ❑ OW-1 ❑ > 0.5 acres M-2 ❑ SS-4 ❑ F-1 ❑ BG-3 ❑ DM-4 ❑ ow-2 ❑ Bottomland. deltaic ❑ Upland: lakeside ❑ SITE TYPE lakeside ❑ streamside ❑ 4 1.O 4. 0 streamside ❑ isolated isolated ❑ F O U M R S W o p r i e I a r e b n c t s SURROUNDING HABITAT e n a i r M t 4 3 C) �� 0 s n n e r e t g a s t h (%of border; not less than 200'wide) 60 % 3y % 5 % % % % % *Significance Coefficient SUBTOTAL 1 44.0 (Golet 1976) Continued WETLAND-UN IT NO.: 1 CRITERIONPATA S.C. RANK POINTS Class Hydrologically Linked? Distance (miles) ��!/4 WETLAND JUXTAPOSITION yes Elf no El / 3 ,3) g.a Percent Cover Distribution COVER TYPE peripheral ❑ 2 ,7•0 scattered 0 TYPE: 3 Edge Types Unit Size Unit Distribution peripheral VEGETATIVE INTERSPERSION -r scattered ❑ 2 a TYPE:1 pH WATER CHEMISTRY pH > 7.4 1 1?> 1.a (soil sample) pH 5.5 - 7.4 _r pH < 5.5 Low: 35.0- 50.0 SUBTOTAL 2 .�cl D Moderate: 50.5-60.0 SUBTOTAL 1 High: 60.5- 70.0 TOTAL SCORE 6000 Outstanding: 70.5- 105 [RANK CATEGORY Golet,F.C. 1976. Wildlife Wetland Evaluation Model. pp. 13-34, In: J.S. Larson(ed),Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands,University of Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center Publ. No. 32. f9DLM VML196 EMUMORMOM S E ELFF ! » (Golet 1976) PROJECT NAME/LOCATION: Cutler Kidge II Open Space Subdivision, Avery Street, South Windsor, CT WETLAND UNIT NO.: 2 USGS TOPO MAP: Manchester INVESTIGATOR: George Logan RANK: SCORE: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: CT DEF 1995 51-24 DATE: 12/15/95 CRITERIONDATAPOINTS WETLAND CLASS RICHNESS 5 1 5 > 2.5 acres WS 2 SS ❑ SM ❑ DM ❑ OW ❑ BG ❑ M a F ❑ DOMINANT WETLAND CLASS 5 5 WS ® SS ❑ SM ❑ DM ❑ OW ❑ BG ❑ M ❑ F ❑ SIZE CATEGORY(acres) acres 5 1 �✓" �� WS-1 SS-1 ❑ SM-1 ® BG-1A❑ DM-1 ❑ DM-5 ❑ SUBCLASS RICHNESS WS-2 ❑ SS-2 ® SM-2 ❑ BG-1B❑ DM-2 ❑ DM-6 ❑ 4 ,?0 8 M-1 W SS-3 ❑ SM-3 ❑ BG-2 ❑ DM-3 ❑ OW-1 > 0.5 acres M-2 ❑ SS-4 ❑ FA ❑ BG-3 ❑ DM-4 ❑ OW-2 ❑ Bottom/and. deltaic ❑ Upland: lakeside ❑ SITE TYPE lakeside ❑ streamside ® 4 15 6 streamside ❑ isolated ❑ isolated ❑ F O U M R S W o P r i e I a r e b n c t s SURROUNDING HABITAT e n a i r M t 4 s n n e r e t g a s t h (%of border; not less than 200'wide) 10 % 15 % % % % % "Significance Coefficient SUBTOTAL 1 ��-r'' ORDAft ALPLA3 EVLU9%O1 %oM SMURE"'MEA40 i i i i (Golet 1976) Continued WETLAND UNIT NO.: 2 CRITERIONPA POINTS Class Hydrologically Linked? Distance (miles) yes ® no ❑ < (14 WETLAND JUXTAPOSITION 3 3 a �J•D Percent Cover Distribution COVER TYPE peripheral ® 2 scattered ❑ TYPE:- Edge Types Unit Size Unit Distribution /(:tl4 =t peripheral kd VEGETATIVE INTERSPERSION scattered ❑ 2 Y.CU z C) 55'-`ol�OGv-t TYPE: ss2/�vs-t pH WATER CHEMISTRY pH > 7.4 1 Y.0 D (soil sample) pH 5.5- 7.4 )_ pH < 5.5 Low: 35.0- 50.0 SUBTOTAL 2 .1 D Moderate: 50.5- 60.0 SUBTOTAL 1 -5 High: 60.5 - 70.0 TOTAL SCORE 15 Outstanding: 70.5- 105 [RANK CATEGORY Golet,F.C. 1976. Wildlife Wetland Evaluation Model. pp. 13-34, In: J.S. Larson(ed), Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands, University of Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center Publ. No. 32. 1 i i WETLAND WILDLIFE EVALUATION METHOD (after Golet, 1976) i This system is not designed to rate the suitability of a wetland as habitat for any particular wildlife species, but it is intended to measure the capacity of the wetland to support a diverse and abundant wildlife population. The model is based upon the principle that the diversity of wildlife in a given habitat is directly related to the diversity of vegetation present. Specifically, the variety of life forms (trees, shrubs, emergents, surface vegetation, submergents) is more important in this respect than is vegetative species diversity. The model defines nine habitat i criteria and assigns each a "significance coefficient", which is a measure of the relative importance of each parameter in maximiz�inng wildlife diversity and.abundance. Each parameter ihas several possible ranks, which when multiplied by the significance coefficient, provides a subscore for the parameter. The total wetland score is obtained by summing the subscores. iThe model is not designed to be used with wetlands that are smaller than 0.5 acres due to inherently weak resolving power of models such as this one in evaluating the marginal capacity i of very small wetlands in fulfilling wetland values. Additionally, the 0.5 acre cutoff appears to be a critical threshold with regard to abundance and composition of wildlife populations due to habitat size requirements for breeding and foraging. Therefore, in general, any wetland not ievaluated by this model should be considered of low value for wildlife habitat. Below is a brief description of the parameters of the Golet model. iWetland Class Richness - Assesses the number of different wetland classes in the wetland. The model defines 8 different wetland classes (Open Water, Deep Marsh, Wooded Swamp, etc.) ibased upon the dominant vegetation types present in the wetland. Habitat value is directly related to the number of wetland classes present. iDominant Wetland Class - Based upon the principle that certain wetland classes (e.g. Deep Marsh) provide better wildlife habitat than others (e.g. Meadow). iSize Category-In general, the quality of wildlife habitat is directly related to wetland size. iSubclass Richness - Assesses the number of different subclasses present in the wetland. The model defines 26 different wetland subclasses (Sapling Shrub Swamp, Bushy Shrub Swamp, i Compact Shrub Swamp, etc.) based upon dominant vegetative types present in the wetland. Habitat value is directly related to the number of wetland subclasses present. iSite Type - Determined by the topographic and hydrologic location of the wetland (e.g. bottomland-streamside, upland-isolated). Certain topographic/hydrologic combinations (e.g. bottomland-streamside) provide better habitat than others (e.g. upland-isolated). i ' Surrounding Habitat - Habitat value increases with the amount of adjacent edge in forestland, agricultural or open land, or salt marsh. ' Cover Type - Measures the proportion of open water and cover present in the wetland and the degree to which the two are interspersed. Habitat value is generally greatest when cover and open water are present in roughly equal amounts and interspersed in a clumped fashion. Vegetative Interspersion - Assesses the amount of edge occurring between different vegetative subforms. In general, habitat value increases with the amount of edge present. Wettand Juxtaposition - Assesses the degree to which the wetland is hydrologically interconnected to other wetlands in the area. Hydrologically interconnected wetlands are more valuable to wildlife than those which are hydrologically isolated. Water Chemistry - The model considers pH as an index of potential plant productivity. It assumes that water chemistry influences the presence, abundance and distribution of aquatic ' plants and invertebrates that serve as food for wetland wildlife. Golet notes that the assignment of a numerical score to a wetland is controversial, since this may be misinterpreted as suggesting that a wetland receiving a low score may be automatically selected as a candidate for development activities. However, the scores must be compared to those obtained for other wetlands in the area for comparative purposes. Furthermore, other wetland functions must be considered since their value may be completely independent of the wildlife habitat value. For general evaluation purposes, Golet has defined the following very broad classes for the interpretation of the scores obtained from the model: 35.0 to 50.0 Low 50.5 to 60.0 Moderate I60.5 to 70.0 High 70.5 to 105.0 Outstanding Golet, F. C. 1976. Wildlife wetland evaluation model. Pages 13-34 in J. S. Larson,editor. Models for assessment of freshwater wetlands. Univ. Mass.Water Resour. Res. Cent. Publ. 32. Watercourse Physical Characterization/Water Quality Field Data Sheet Y tY (Adapted from Figure 6.1-1 in U.S. EPA 1989) Station Descriptor: 100-meter Section of uppper 1/4 of Stream within Cutler Ridge II euWivioion property Date: 1/24/9& Investigator(s): George T. Logan Weather: overcast,cold Watercourse Name: Tributary to Hochanum River i Watershed No.: Watershed Size: 200+ ac Perennial? R Yes ❑ No !Stream Type: (Cold Warm Water ? Recent Precipitation: Above❑ Below LT Average ❑ Station Type: (Riffle/Pool/Run) Station Description/Location: PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION RIPARIAN ZONE/INSTREAM FEATURES 1. Predominant Surrounding Land Uses. Forest ❑ Agricultural ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ® Field/Pasture Q Residential ❑ Other: 2. Local Watershed Erosion: ❑ None ® Light ❑ Moderate ❑ Heavy 3. Local Watershed Non-Point Source Pollution: ❑ No Evidence Some Potential Sources ❑ Obvious Sources 4. Estimated Stream Width: .JQ ft. Estimated Stream Depth: Riffle o.z ft. Run 1•S ft. Pool z•o ft. 5. High Water Mark: 6. Velocity 0 Light ❑ Moderate ❑ Heavy Measured: O 3 m/sec 7. Dam Present ❑ Yes No Location: 8. Channeized ❑ Yes No Extent/Location: 9. Canopy Cover. ❑ Open ❑ Partly Shaded ❑ Partly Open Shaded 10. Cover Objects: ® Abundant ❑ Absent ❑ Moderate ❑ Type: boulder,cobble,gravel,sand SEDIMENT/SUBSTRATE ' 1. Sediment Odors: ® Normal ❑ Petroleum ❑ Anaerobic ❑ Sewage ❑ Chemical ❑ None ❑ Other: 2. Sediment Oils: ® Absent ❑ Moderate ❑ Slight ❑ Profuse 3. Sediment Deposits ❑ Sludge ❑ Paper Fiber ❑ Relict Shells ❑ Sawdust Sand 1 Li;4wr ❑ Other. 4. Are the undersides of stones which are not deeply embedded black? ❑ Yes No WCHARACT.XLS Revised:1/17/95 Watercourse Physical CharacterizationlWater Quality Field Data Sheet:Continued SEDIMENT/SUBSTRATE: Continued INORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS bstraij � _ 5 Diaumeta�S °fn r $ampitlrtAe2 Bedrock Boulder > 10" SS Cobble 2.5- 10" 4 Gravel 0.1 - 2.5 3 Y� Sand gritty O Silt Clay Islick. ORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS Substrateype Desepio� IrtSarnpitng Area Detritus k Sticks,'wood, coarse plant materials Muck-Mud Black, very fine organic Mari Gray, shell fragments Water Quality 1. Temperature: C Conductivity: µS ��pH Dissolved Oxygen(DO):�.?7 mg/L Other: 2. Water Odors: ® Normal ❑ Petroleum ❑ None ❑ Sewage ❑ Chemical ❑ Other: 3. Water Surface Oils: ❑ Slick ❑ Globs None ❑ Sheen ❑ Flecks 4.Turbidity: Clear ❑ Turbid ❑ Water Color: ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑ Opaque 1 WCHARACT.XLS Revised:1/17/95 lWatercourse Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Riffle/Run Prevalence (Adapted from EPA/444/4-89-001) Station Descriptor: 100-m Section of upper 1/4 of Stream within Cutler Ridge II Subdivision property Date: 12/13/98 Investigator(s): George T. Logan f Weather: overcast,cold Watercourse Name: unnamed tributary to Hockanum River (Watershed No.: Watershed Size: 200+ac I Perennial /Yes❑No Stream Type: (Cold/ arm Water ?. �" Recent Precipitation: Above❑ Below 1r Average ❑ Station Type((Riffle Pool/Run) Station Description/Location: HABITAT CATEGORY PARAMETER OPTIMAL SUBOPTIMAL MARGINAL I POOR 1. Instream Cover Greater than 50%mix of 30-50%mix of boulder 10-30%mix of boulder, (Less than 10%mix of boulder,cobble, cobble,or other stable cobble,or other stable boulder,cobble,or other submerged logs,undercut habitat;adequate habitat. habitat;habitat availability stable habitat;lack of banks,or other stable less than desirable. habitat is obvious. habitat. i SCORE: 1 20 19 18 7 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 .8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2. Epifaunal Substrate Well developed riffle and Riffle is as wide as stream Run area ma g; f Riffles or run virtually run;riffle is as wide as but length is less than tow rffffe not as wide as stream I nonexistent;large boulders stream and length extends times width;abundance of and its length is less than 2 land bedrock prevalent; two times the width of cobble;boulders and gravel times the stream width; cobble lacking. stream;abundance of common. gravel or large boulders and cobble. bedrock prevalent;some cobble present. SCORE: 20 19 18 17 6 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3. Embeddedness Gravel,cobble,and boulder Gravel,cobble,and boulder Gravel,cobble,and boulder Gravel,cobble,and boulder particles are 0-25% particles are 25-50% particles are 50-75% particles are more than surrounded by fine surrounded by fine surrounded by fine 75%surrounded by fine sediment. sediment. sediment. sediment. SCORE: 20 19(IV 17 16 1 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 1 5 4 3 2 1 0 4. Velocity/Depth All four velocity/depth Only 3 of the 4 regimes Only 2 of the 4 habitat Dominated by 1 Regimes regimes present(slow- present(if fast-shallow is regimes present(if fast- velocity/depth regime deep,slow-shallow,fast- missing,score lower than if shallow or slow-shallow are (usually slow-deep). deep,fast-shallow). missing other regimes). missing,score low). SCORE: 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 8 7 6 1 5 4 3 2 1 0 5. Channel Alteration No channelization or Some channelization New embankments present Banks shored with gabion dredging present. present,usually in areas of on both banks;and 40 to or cement;over 80%of the bridge abutments;evidence 80%of stream reach stream reach channelized of past channelization,i.e., channelized and disrupted. and disrupted. dredging,(greeter than past 20 yr.)may be present,but recent channelization is not present. SCORE: 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 SUBTOTAL 1: RIFFLERUN.XLS Revised:9/30/97 Watercourse Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet: Continued Riffle/Run Prevalence HABITAT CATEGORY PARAMETER OPTIMAL SUBOPTIMAL i MARGINAL POOR 6. Sediment Deposition Little or no enlargement of Some new increase in bar !Moderate deposition of new I Heavy deposits of fine islands or point bars and formation,mostly from !gravel,coarse sand on old 'material,increased bar less than 5%of the bottom coarse gravel;5-30%of the and new bars;30-50%of development;more than affected by sediment bottom affected slight the bottom affected; 50%of the bottom deposition. deposition in pools. ;sediment deposits at changing frequently,pools obstruction,construction, almost absent due to land bends;moderate substantial sediment (deposition of pools deposition. prevalent. jSCORE: jg 20 19 1 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7. Frequency of Riffles Occurrence of riffles Occurrence of riffles ;Occasional riffle or bend; i Generally all flat water or relatively frequent;distance infrequent;distance between!bottom contours provide shallow riffles;poor habitat; between riffles divided by riffles divided by the width of!some habitat;distance distance between riffles the width of the stream the stream equals 7 to 15. !between riffles divided by I divided by the width of the equals 5 to 7;variety of 'the width of the stream is stream is between ratio habitat. !between 15 to 25. >25. SCORE: 20 1 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Q 8. Channel Flow Status Water reaches base of both Water fills>75%of the Water fills 25-75%of the Very little water in channel lower banks and minimal available channel;or<25% j available channel and/or and mostly present as amount of channel of channel substrate is riffle substrates are mostly standing pools. I substrate is exposed. exposed. exposed. SCORE: Y3 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 eq 12 11 j 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9. Condition of Banks Banks stable;no evidence Moderately stable; I Moderately unstable;up to Unstable;many eroded of erosion or bank failure. infrequent,small areas of !60%of banks in reach havelareas;'Yaw'areas frequent erosion mostly healed over. !areas of erosion. along straight sections and bends;on side slopes,60- 100%of bank has erosional scars. SCORE: 20 19 1 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10. Bank Vegetative More than 90/o of the 70-90%of the streambank 50-70%of the streambank Less than 50%of the Protection streambank surfaces surfaces covered by !surfaces covered by streambank surfaces covered by vegetation. vegetation. i vegetation. covered by vegetation. i SCORE: 20 19 18 1 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 11. Grazing or Other Vegetative disruption Disruption evident but not I Disruption obvious;patches'Disruption of streambank Disruptive Pressure minimal or not evident; affecting full plant growth of bare soil or closely vegetation is very high; almost all plants allowed to potential to any great extent; !cropped vegetation vegetation has been grow naturally. more than one-half of I common;less than one-half removed to 2 inches or less potential plant stubble height of the potential plant in average stubble height. remaining. j stubble height remaining. SCORE: 20 1 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12. Riparian Vegetative Width of riparian zone>18 Width of riparian zone 12-18 j Width of riparian zone 6-12 Width of riparian zone<6 Zone Width meters;human activities meters;human activities meters;human activities meters;little or no riparian (i.e.,parking lots,roadbeds, have impacted zone only have impacted a great deal. vegetation due to human clearcuts,lawns,or crops) minimally. activities. have not impacted zone. SCORE: Iwo 2 19 18 17 16 1 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 SUBTOTAL 2: YZ4 POOR 0-66 SUBTOTAL 1: ffO MARGINAL 67-126 TOTAL SCORE: Voq SUBOPTIMAL 127-186 OPTIMAL 187-240 RIFFLERUN.XLS Revised:9/30/97 DESCRIPTION OF WATERCOURSE HABITAT ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS (adapted from EPA/444/4-89-001) The habitat assessment approach used in this protocol is adapted from EPA's Rapid Bioassessment (Plafkin et al. 1989) approach and refined for various applications across the country. The approach focuses on integrating information from specific parameters on the structure of the physical habitat. The field data sheets that summarize the major attributes of each parameter are attached. Specific instruction and training are necessary for an adequate ' assessment of habitat quality. The following information briefly describes the various parameters used to assess the habitat based on the prevalence of the habitats within the stream: (1) riffle/run prevalent habitats, and(2) glide/pool prevalent habitats. If riffle/run habitats are prevalent, the following parameters are used to assess the stream: 1. Instream Cover for Fish:. This includes the relative quantity and variety of natural structures in the steam, such as fallen trees, logs and branches, large rocks, and undercut 1 banks, that are available as refugia, feeding or laying eggs. A wide variety of submerged structures in the stream provides the fish with a large number of niches, thus increasing diversity. 2. Epifaunal Substrate for Macroinvertebrates: are essentially the amount of niche space or hard substrates (rocks, snags) available for insects and snails. Numerous types of insect larvae attach themselves to rocks, logs, branches, or other submerged substrates. As with fish, the greater the variety and number of available niches or attachment sites, the greater the variety of insects in the stream. Rocky-bottom areas are critical for maintaining a healthy variety of insects in most high gradient streams (i.e. first to third order). 3. Embeddedness: This refers to the extent to which rocks (gravel, cobble, and boulders) are covered or sunken into the silt, sand, or mud of the stream bottom, Generally, as rocks become embedded, the surface area available to macroinvertebrates and fish (shelter, spawning, and egg incubation). is decreased. To estimate. the percent of embeddedness, the amount of silt or finer sediments overlying the surrounding the rocks must be observed. If kicking does not dislodge the rocks or cobble, they may be greatly embedded. Lifting of a few rocks to observe the extent of the dark area on their underside may be useful.. 4. Varying Velocity and Water Depth: This examines the availability of each of the four rJ' g tY P tY primary current/depth combinations: (1) slow-deep, (2) slow-shallow, (3) fast-deep, and (4) fast-shallow. The best streams in high gradient regions will have all four habitat types present. The presence of availability of these four habitats relates to the stream's ability to provide and maintain a stable aquatic environment. The general guidelines are 0.5 m depth to separate shallow from deep, and 0.3 m/sec to separate fast from slow. 5. Channel Alteration: This is basically a measure of large-scale changes in the shape of the stream channel. Many streams in urban and agricultural areas have been straightened, deepened, or diverted into concrete channels, often for flood control purposes. Such streams have far fewer natural habitats for fish, macroinvertebrates, and plants than do naturally meandering streams. Channel alteration is present when the stream runs through a concrete channel; when artificial embankments, riprap or other forms of artificial bank stabilization or structures are present; when the stream is very straight for significant distances; when dams and bridges are present; and when other such changes have occurred. 6. Sediment Deposition: This parameter measures the amount of sediment that has accumulated and the changes that have occurred to the steam bottom as a result of the deposition. Deposition occurs from large-scale movement of sediment caused by watershed erosion. Sediment deposition may cause the formation of islands, point bars (areas of increased deposition usually at the beginning of a meander that increase in size as the channel is diverted toward the outer bank) or shoals, or result in the filling of pools. Increased sedimentation also results in increased deposition. Usually this is evident in areas that are obstructed by natural man-made debris and areas where the stream flow decreases, such as bends. High levels of sediment deposition create an unstable and continually changing environment that becomes unsuitable for many organisms. 7. Frequency of Riffles: this is a way to measure the sequence of rifles occurring in a stream. Rifles are a source of high-quality habitat and diverse fauna, therefore, increased frequency of occurrence greatly enhances the diversity of the steam community. For areas where riffles are uncommon, a run/bend ration can be used as a measure of sinuosity. A large degree of sinuosity provides for diverse habitat and fauna, and the stream is better able to handle the high energy flows that result from storms than are relatively straight streams. 8. Channel Flow Status: This is the degree to which the channel is filled with.water. The flow status will change as the channel enlarges or as flow decreases as a result of dams and other obstructions, diversions for irrigation, or drought. When water does not cover much of the streambed, the amount of viable substrate for aquatic organisms is limited. 9. Condition of Banks: This measures whether the steam banks are eroded (or the potential for erosion). Steep banks are more likely to collapse and suffer from erosion than are gently sloping banks and are therefore considered to be unstable. Signs of erosion include crumbling, unvegetated banks, exposed tree roots, and exposed soil. 10.Bank Vegetative Protection: This measures the amount of the stream bank that is covered by vegetation. The root systems of plants growing on stream banks help hold soil in place, thereby reducing the amount of erosion that is likely to occur. This parameter supplies information on the ability of the bank to resist erosion, as well as some additional information on the uptake of nutrients by plants, the control of instream scouring, and stream shading. Banks that have full, natural plant growth are better for fish and macroinvertebrates than are banks without vegetative protection or those shored up with concrete or riprap. 11. Grazing/Disruptive Pressure: This is a measure of disruptive changes to the riparian zone because of grazing or human interference (e.g. mowing). In areas of high grazing pressure from livestock or where residential and urban development activities disrupt the riparian zone, the growth of a natural plant community is impeded. Residential development, urban centers, golf courses, and rangeland are the common causes of ' anthropogenic pressure on the riparian zone. 12. The Riparian Vegetative Zone Width: This measures the width of natural vegetation from the edge of the steam bank (riparian buffer zone). The riparian vegetative zone serves as a buffer zone to pollutants entering a stream from runoff, controls erosion, and provides steam habitat and nutrient input into the steam. A relatively undisturbed riparian zone reflects a healthy steam system; narrow, far less useful riparian zones occur when roads parking lots, fields, lawns, bare soil, rocks or buildings are near stream bank. The presence of "old fields" (i.e. previously farmed fields allowed to convert to natural conditions) will be rated higher than fields in continuous or periodic use. Paths and walkways in an otherwise undisturbed riparian zone may be judged to be inconsequential to destruction of the riparian zone. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington, D.C. MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY DATA Sample#: 1a Date: 12/13/98 TRUE FLIES (Diptera) Stream: Perennial Tributary to Hockanum f oot stretch, 300 upstream of prop. bound. Athericid P River Numberfound Families FeedingrPredator Tolerant O value HBivalue Location: 100 Sampled by: George T. Logan Blephariceridae Scraper 0 0 Ceratopogonidae Predator 6 0 #of organisms identified: 120 21 Chironomidae C.gatherer 6 126 Empididae Predator 1 6 0 MAYFLIES (Ephemeroptera) 7 Simuliidae C.fiterer 6 42 Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HSI value Tabanidae Predator 6 0 17 Baetidae C.gatherer 4 68 2 Tipulidae Shredder 3 6 Caeniidae C.gatherer 7 0 0 22 Ephemerellidae C.gatherer 1 22 30 TOTALS L174 Ephemeridae C.gatherer 4 0 7 Heptageniidae Scraper 4 28 BEETLES (Co/eoptera) 1 Leptophlebiidae C.gatherer 2 0 Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value Oligoneuriidae C.filterer 2 0 Dryopidae Scraper 5 0 Potomanthidae C.gatherer 4 0 3 Elmidae Scraper 4 12 Siphlonuridae C.gatherer 7 0 Psephenidae Scraper 4 0 Tricorythidae C.gatherer 4 0 Ptilodactylidae Shredder 2 0 0 0 ' 0 3 TOTALS 12 46 TOTALS 118 DRAGONFLIES/DAMSELFLIES (Odonata) STONEFLIES (P/ecoptera) Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HSI value Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HSI value Aeshnidae Predator 3 0 Capniidae Shredder 1 0 Calopterygidae Predator 5 0 Chloroperlidae Predator 1 0 Coenagrionidae Predator 9 0 Leuctridae Shredder 0 0 Cordulergastridae Predator 3 0 18 Nemouridae Shredder 2 36 Gomphidae Predator 1 0 Peftoperlidae Shredder 0 0 Lestidae Predator 9 0 Perlidae Predator 1 0 Libellulidae Predator 9 0 2 Perlodidae Predator 2 4 0 Pteronarcyidae Shredder 0 0 0 TOTALS 0 Taeniopterygidae Shredder 2 0 0 DOBSONFLIES/FISHFLIES (Mega/optera) 0 Number found Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value 20 TOTALS 40 Corydalidae Predator 5 0 Sialidae Predator 4 0 CADDISFLIES (Trichoptera) 0 Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value 0 Brachycentridae Shredder 1 0 1 0 TOTALS 0 2 Glossosomatidae Scraper 0 0 Helicopsychidae Scraper 3 0 NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 14 Hydropsychidae C.filterer 4 56 Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value Hydroptilidae Scraper 4 1 0 Crustaceans 0 Lepidostomatidae Shredder 1 0 Amphipoda C.gatherer 6 0 Leptoceridae Shredder 4 0 Decapoda C.gatherer 6 0 2 Limnephilidae Shredder 4 8 Isopoda C.gatherer 8 0 Molannidae Scraper 6 0 Leeches Predator 10 0 1 Odontoceridae Scraper 0 0 1 Earth worms C.gatherer 8 8 Philopotamidas C.filterer 3 0 Bivalves C.filterer 7 0 Polycentropodidae C.filterer 6 0 Gastropods Scraper 7 0 2 Rhyacophilidae Predator 0 0 Aracnids Predator 4 0 0 0 20 TOTALS 64 1 TOTALS 8 tMACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY METRICS CALCULATIONS Stream name: Perennial Tributary to Hockanum River Sampled by: George T. Logan Location: 100-foot stretch, 300 upstream of prop. bound. Calculations by: George T. Logan Sample#: la Calculation date: 12/13/98 #of organisms identified: 120 #of HBI %of #in dom. Dominant ORDER organisms value total family family in each order MAYFLIES (Ephemeroptera) 46 118 38.3 22 Ephemerellidae STONEFLIES (Plecoptera) 20 40 16.7 18 Nemouridae CADDISFLIES (Trichoptera) 20 64 16.7 14 Hydropsychidae TRUE FLIES (Diptera) 30 174 25.0 21 Chironomidae BEETLES (Coleoptera) 3 12 2.5 3 Elmidae DRAGONFLIES/DAMSELFLIES (Odonata; 0 0 0.0 0 No families present DOBSONFLIES/FISHFLIES (Megaloptera) 0 0 0.0 0 No families present NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 1 8 0.8 1 Earth worms TOTAL 120 416 100.0 79 Dominant family present in sample: Ephemerellidae 22 organisms Study Ref. % Ref. Study reach METRIC reach reach similarity score score Hilsenhof biotic index(HBI) 3.5 2.44 70 6 4 =sum of HBI's/total#sampled Taxa richness 14 17 82 6 6 =families represented in sample EPT index 9 12 75 6 2 =families in E, P, &T orders EPT:Chironomidae ratio 4.1 37.5 11 6 0 =#EPTs/#Chironomids Scraper:C.filterer ratio 0.6 1.6 36 6 4 =#scrapers/#C.filterers %contribution by dominant family 18.3 31 n/a 2 6 =#dominant family/total # Total stream points 32 22 Final study reach comparison versus reference reach Conclusion: Condition: Slightly impaired Water quality: Very good to good (from Plafkin, Attributes: Community structure less than expected. Loss of some of the intolerant families. et. al, 1989) Percent of tolerant forms increasing. Sample#: 1a Stream: Perennial Tributary to Hockanum River Location:I00-foot stretch, 300 upstream of prop. bound Collection Date: 12/13/98 #of organisms identified: 120 Sample Community Balance by Order ®MAYFLIES(Ephemeroptera) ■STONEFLIES(Plecoptera) ❑CADDISFLIES(Trichoptera) S OTRUE FLIES(Diptera) 3J ■BEETLES(Coleoptera) M DRAGONFLIESIDAMSELFLIES (Odonata) ■DOBSONFLIES/FISHFLIES (Megaloptera) =t' O NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES AIM i 07 REPORT DATE: December 15, 1995 REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC PAGE 1 of 4 19 Foster Street Manchester, CT 06040 Phone: (860) 649-REMA Fag: (860) 647-8397 WILDLIFE INVENTORY PROJECT NAME &LOCATION: RES Job No.: 95515WN5 Cutler Ridge II, Open 512ace Subdivision Property Field Investigation Date(s): various see report Avery 5treet Field Investigator(s): George L Logan f South Windsor, Connecticut Habitat Cover Types: riparian wooded swamp; shallow marsh shrub thickets. etc. (seeocereport) ' PREPARED FOR: Field Conditions: Manarino Builders, Inc. Weather: various ' 5outh Windsor CT Soil Moisture: various Snow Depth: n/a ' Frost Depth: n/a SIZE OF STUDY AREA: —75.0 acres FIELD INVESTIGATION INTENSITY: Low Common Naine scientific Name Status Codes ' Avians WD FI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 Least bittern♦ Robrychus exilis X X ' Great blue heron Ardea herodias X X Great egret♦ Ardea albus X X Green heron Butorides virescens _X X. Wood duck Aix sponsa X X American black duck Anas rubripes X X j Mallard Anas platyrhynchos €XJK Turkey vulture Cathartes aura I j ' Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus ✓ Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis American kestrel♦ Falco sparverius Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus Status Codes: (1)Observed; (2)Observed on Migration or Overwintering; (3)Confirmed Breeder (4)Probable Breeder; (5)Possible Breeder; (6)Probable User(all seasons;overwintering) X IX X FacaltativelWetland-Dependent(obligate)(WD)species; ✓ Forest Interior(FI)birds + Relative Disturbance Intolerance(DI)(herptiles&mammals) * Edge(ecotone)species(i.e.prefer edges or benefit from inherent or induced edges) ♦ Listed Species(i.e.endangered,threatened,special concern;breeding only) Wildlife Inventory: (continued) PAGE 2 OF 4 Common Name Scientific Name Status Codes ' Avians (continued) WD FI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Northern bobwhite Colinus virginlanus ! I ' Virginia rail Rallus limicola X X i Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia I X X i American woodcock Scolopax minor Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus ! * I ! Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus ! Eastern screech-owl Otus asio X Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Barred owl Strix varia ! X ✓ ! i Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Red-bellied woodpercker Melanerpes carolinus i Downy woodpercker Picoides pubescens j Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus I ✓ Northern flicker Colaptes auratus j Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virensmom i Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii ' Least flycather Empidonax minimus X i Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe I ! Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Northr. Rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis j X X Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus ' Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Brown creeper Certhia americana j ' Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus House wren Troglodytes aedon j Blue-gray gnatchatcher Polioptila caerulea j ' Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis j Veery Catharusfuscescens iIG''` ✓ Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina ; ✓ ; i American robin Turdus migratorius Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum European starling Sturnus vulgaris Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus ✓ Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia X Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica ! I * I Praire warbler Dendroica discolor ' Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia ✓ ! � ' American redstrart Setophaga ruticilla Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus ✓ ' Lousiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla X X Wildlife Inventory: (continued) PAGE 3 OF 4 Common Name Scientific Name Status Codes ' Avians(continued) WD FI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichasfX Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus I i 41 o f. Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erthrophthalmus. Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Field sparrow Spizella pusilla Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana X X White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicolis i Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis i Bobolink Dlichonyx oryzivorus I Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1X'X Common grackle Quiscadus quiscula X T Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Northern oriole Icterus galbula * I House finch Ca odacus mexicanus ! ', rP , Americangoldfinch Carduelis tristis � I House sparrow Passer domesticus ' Herptiles WD DI E Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum X) Northern dusky salamander Desmognathus f.fuscus X X ' North.two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata i'X'X + Redback salamander Plethodon cinereus Red-spotted newt Notophthalmus v. viridescens IIXJ i 1 Eastern American toad Bufo a. americans ' Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor i X X Northern spring peeper Pseudacris c. crucifer ! XX Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana ' Green frog Rana clamitans melanota X X Pickerel frog Rana palustris ; X X Wood frog Rana sylvatica Painted turtle Chrysemys picta 1 X X 1 Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata i X X + Eastern box turtle♦ Terrapene c. carolina ( X Common musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus ' Eastern worm snake Carphophis a. amoenus I Northern black racer Coluber c. constrictor 1.50 Northern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus edwardsii 1 ' Black rat snake Elaphe o. obsoleta I xt Eastern milk snake Lampropeltis t. triangulum Northern water snake Nerodia s. sipedon Smooth green snake Opheodrys vernalis i Northern brown snake Storeria d. dekayi Eastern ribbon snake♦ Thanmophis s. sauritus I X X Eastern garter snake Thanmophis s. sirtalis ' Mammals WD DI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 Virginia opposum Didelphis virginiana � _ Masked shrew Sorex cinereus ' Water shrew Sorex palustris X X + Northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda I I Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus I Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata : X X; Wildlife Inventory: (continued) PAGE 4 OF 4 Common Name Scientific Name Status Codes Mammals(continued) WD FI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus X X j Keen's myotis Myotis keend ! X X Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus X X I ' Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus Woodchuck Marmota monax Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis j Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus i Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans I Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus j White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Woodland vole Microtus pinetorum Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus ' Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonicus I :X _ Woodland jumping mouse Napaezaus insignis Coyote Canis latrans * i Red fox Vulpes vulpes j ' Gray fox Urocvon cinereoargenteus j Raccoon Procvon lotor Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata ' Mink Mustela vison X X Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 1 25 8 37 44 1 19 37 17 9 ' 17 2 2 9 0 6 11 9 0 11 1 8 11 0 5 16 7 4 ' 53 11 47 33 13 t .. 76 1.42 I. L tJ ti a •- rl i s � � ■ WILSON M.AVORD,SR.,P.E.&LS. ENGINEERS SURVEYORSPLAIMEPS I { A WILSON M.ALFORD,JR.,P.E.&L5. 200 PI JEON HILL ROAD ■ P.O.BOX 484 ■ WIN OR■ CT 06085 a PHONE(860)68&7288 ■ FAX(860)688-3485 Proposed "Cutler Ridge III, Subdivision Prepared for Manna no Builders, Inc. Revisions to Disturbances to Wetlands/Watercourse Areas May 4, 1999 i jThe fallowing revisions were made to the subdivision plans within the wetlands and watercourse areas: I Original plans were revi' ed to ,January 28 , 1999 Current plans have been evised to May 3, 1999 11. 'Where proposed Butler rive crosses the wetlands and pond I area at Sta. 2+95 to S a.. 6+18 Original disturbance = 0 .48 acres Present ' disturbance 0.44 acres propose The May 3 , 1999 revisions include: r ` providing an eight 1(8) foot wide shoulder on the south t side of Butler Drive instead of the previous twelve (12) toot wide shoulder. Therefore, the encroachment of the 2 : 1 side slopes intp the wetlands/pond area was reduced f by 0 . 04 acres C - the length of the 4!' concrete arch culvert was reduced by five (5) feet or; the south side of Butler Drive �2 . Proposed Butler Drive previously connected to Murray Road. The present proposal ins to make Butler Drive end at a cul-de-sac and not con ect to Murray Road. A 50-foot wide right of way in favor of the town of South Windsor is proposed between Butler Drive and Murray Road for the "possible future" co action. i a) This will eliminate t e present need to connect the proposed subdivision into Murra Road, therefore, eliminating crossing the existing stream wi h a roadway. original disturbance to stream 0 . 02 acres Present disturbance o stream = 0 . 0 acres { { i I i i ; l l � ! Cutler Midge II iMay 4, 1999 I i i b) By eliminating the adway connection to Murray Road, at the present time, this will eliminate the need for storm drainage, temporary siltation basin and permanent grass ; Swale adjacent tote stream. 3 . Proposed Lot #1 has b ' n ;roved approximately 40 feet to the east. This will ut the west Line of Lot #1 approximately 42 feetleast of Detention Basin #1. f i 14 . Summary of Wetlands / i atercourse disturbances - f i Total original disc rbance = 0 .53 acres Total present propoged disturbance = 0 .47 acres Present disturbances include: + 0 .44 acres : where Butler Drive crosses the pond/wetlands at St a . 2+95 to Sta. 6+18 + 0 . 01 acres; disturbance from creation of biofilter/marsh l area �t outlet of Flared end #4 + 0 . 02 acres: distu bance from creation of biofilter/marsh area t outlet of Flared end #5 I) I i i i i 1 I I l i i i i I i TOTAL P.a3 MRY-04-1999 17:31 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 3485 P.02 p-I I r I k I r WILSON M.ALFOR6,SR.,RE.&L.S. ' NAJERS i w"LSON M.ALFORD,JR..R.E.&L.S. " 200 PI EON HILL.ROAD ■ P.O.BOX 484 ■ WIN OR■ CT 05095 ■ PHONE(860)688-7288 ® FAX(860)688-3485 I Proposed "Cutler Ridge II" Subdivision Prepared for Manna no Builders, Inc. Revisions to Disturbances to Wetlands/Watercourse Areas ` : May 4 , 1999 i wi revisi s were made to the subdivision plans The following ac1 E g within the wetlands and wa ercourse areas: original plans were revised to ,January 28, 1999 Current plans have been revised to May 3 , 1999 1. 'there proposed Butler Drive crosses the wetlands and pond area at Sta. 2+95 to S a. 6+18 Original disturbance = 0 . 48 acres ` Present propose[ disturbance = 0.44 acres she May 3 , 1999 revislions .include : providing an eight I(8) feat wide shoulder on the south Eside of Butler Driv� instead of the previous twelve (12) j foot wide shoulder.i Therefore, the encroachment of the 2 : 1 side slopes into the wetlands/pond area was reduced by 0 . 04 acres - the length of the 4 , concrete arch culvert was reduced by five (5) feet onithe south side of Butler Drive i 2 . Proposed Butler Drive previously connected to Murray Road. The present proposal its to make Sutler. Drive end at a cul-de-sac and not con ect to Murray Road. A 50-foot wide right of way in favor of the town of South Windsor is proposed between Butler Drive and Murray Road for the "possible future" con ction. i a) This will eliminate t e present need to connect the proposed subdivision into Murry Road, therefore, eliminating crossing the existing stream wi h a roadway. Original disturbance to stream = 0 . 02 acres Present disturbance to stream = 0 . 0 acres f i I MAY-04-1999 17:31 ALFORD ASSOCIATES INC 203 688 34e5 F•03 i Cutler Ridge II May 4, 1999 I I b) By eliminating the r oadway connection to Murray Road, at the present time, this will eliminate the need for storm drainage, temporary siltation basin and permanent grass swale adjacent tote stream. 3 . Proposed Lot #1 has been moved approximately 40 feet to the east. This will t the west line of Lot #1 approximately 42 feet tastf detention Basin #1. I 14 . Summary of Wetlands / I atercourse disturbances - 'total original disc rbance = 0. 53 acres Total present propoed disturbance = 0 .47 acres Present disturbances include: + 0 .44 acres : where Butler Drive crosses the pond/wetlands at St a . 2+95 to Sta. 6+18 + o . 01 acres; disturbance from creation of biofilter/marsh area at outlet of Flared end #4 + 0 . 02 acre,: distu bance from creation of biofalter/marsh area t outlet of Vlared end #5 I 4 I 1 I i I I TOTAL F.O3 Too IWA7U ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,SR.,P.E.&L.S. ENGINEERS x SURVEYORS a WILSON M.ALFORD,JR.,P.E.&L.S. 200 PIGEON HILL ROAD ■ P.O. BOX 484 A WINDSOR E CT 06095 0 PHONE(860)688-7288 ■ FAX(860)688-3485 Proposed "Cutler Ridge II" Subdivision Prepared for Mannarino Builders, Inc. Revisions to Disturbances to Wetlands/Watercourse Areas May 4 , 1999 Revised: May 13 , 1999 The following revisions were made to the subdivision plans within the wetlands and watercourse areas : Original plans were revised to January 28 , 1999 Current plans have been revised to May 3 , 1999 1 . Where proposed Butler Drive crosses the wetlands and pond area at Sta. 2+95 to Sta. 6+18 Original disturbance = 0 . 48 acres Present proposed disturbance = 0 .44 acres The May 3 , 1999 revisions include: - providing an eight (8) foot wide shoulder on the south side of Butler Drive instead of the previous twelve (12) foot wide shoulder. Therefore, the encroachment of the 2 : 1 side slopes into the wetlands/pond area was reduced by 0 . 04 acres - the length of the 4 ' concrete arch culvert was reduced by five (5) feet on the south side of Butler Drive 2 . Proposed Butler Drive previously connected to Murray Road. The present proposal is to make Butler Drive end at a cul-de-sac and not connect to Murray Road. A 50-foot wide right of way in favor of the town of South Windsor is proposed between Butler Drive and Murray Road for the "possible future" connection. a) This will eliminate the present need to connect the proposed subdivision into Murray Road, therefore, eliminating crossing the existing stream with a roadway. Original disturbance to stream = 0 . 02 acres Present disturbance to stream = 0 . 0 acres Cutler Ridge II May 4, 1999 b) By eliminating the roadway connection to Murray Road, at the present time, this will eliminate the need for storm drainage, temporary siltation basin and permanent grass swale adjacent to the stream. c) Reduction of disturbance within 80-foot watercourse buffer area = 0 . 9 acres 3 . Proposed Lot #1 has been moved approximately 40 feet to the east . This will put the west line of Lot #1 approximately 42 feet east of Detention Basin #1 . Reduction of disturbance within 40-foot wetlands buffer area, as measured from the top of proposed Detention Basin #1 = 0 . 1 acres 4 . Summary of Wetlands / Watercourse disturbances - a) Total original disturbance = 0 . 53 acres Total present proposed disturbance = 0 .47 acres Present disturbances include : + 0 .44 acres : where Butler Drive crosses the pond/wetlands at Sta. 2+95 to Sta. 6+18 + 0 . 01 acres; disturbance from creation of biofilter/marsh area at outlet of Flared end #4 + 0 . 02 acres : disturbance from creation of biofilter/marsh area at outlet of Flared end #5 b) Total reduction of disturbances within wetlands/watercourses buffer areas = 1. 0 acres ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,SR.,P.E.&L.S. ENGINEERS a SURVEYORS m PLANNERS ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,JR.,P.E.&L.S. 200 PIGEON HILL ROAD ■ P.O. BOX 484 ■ WINDSOR■ CT 06095 ■ PHONE(860)688-7288 ■ FAX(860)688-3485 May 24 , 1999 Vernon Inland Wetlands Commission Memorial Building 14 Park Place Rockville, CT 06066 (Hand delivered) Re: Proposed Residential Subdivision 940 Avery Street South Windsor, CT Dear Commissioners : In accordance with Public Act 87-533 , we are notifying your Commission of a proposed regulated activity on property in South Windsor located within 500 feet of the boundary of Vernon. Enclosed please find a copy of the application to the Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency and Conservation Commission and a copy of the plans . Very truly yours, W ,G�7 N Wilson M. Alford, Jr. Conn. P.E. #9344 CC: South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency and Conservation Commission Mr. Frank Mannarino RECTIVED a- C HAY 24 2 40 PM '99 JOYCE '. i,�SOEINA TOWN CLERK VERNON C ` r�� T-Own aie SoirdA m 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074-2786 R.co AREA CODE 860/644-2511 FAX 860/644-3781 May 27, 1999 CERTIFIED MAIL Town Clerk Town of Vernon 14 Park Place Vernon, CT 06066 Dear Madam/Sir: Re: Notice to Adjoining Municipalities In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes concerning notification to municipalities regarding Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission applications that could affect the abutting town, we hereby notify you of the application submitted by Mannarino Builders. The applicant requests a permit for one road crossing and stormwater control structures associated with a 32 lot residential subdivision on 50+ acres on property located at 940 Avery Street, RR zone (Assessor's map #93, parcel #7). This application is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission on June 2, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. in the Madden Room of the Town Hall. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 229. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Folger, Zoning�Whds Enforcement Officer JHF/dlw Attachment