Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSite Plan - Conservation (44) U F SOUTH WINDSOR b n� 4,01/ y ,LAND WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION AP Application # (� P Date Received 1 1- 'O `�°Y '� qVor 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: The Metro Realty Groilp, LTD �cy M Address: 10 Executive Drive, Farmington, CT 06032 Phone: (home) (work) 674-5640 (fax) 677-6919 B. Legal owner's name: South Windsor Housing Authority; Edward & Audrey Smith 154.0 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor,CT 06074 (SWHA) Address 700 Deming Street, South Windsor CT 06074 (Smith) Smith SWHA Phone (home) 644-2889 (work) 644-3082 (fax) SWHA: 648-9486 (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. Watson Farm D. Project'Name (if any) 1. Contact Person (if further information is needed) Peter R. DeMallie/Karen Isherwood @DPI (work) 291-8755 (fax) 291-8757 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. 40 11 Assessor's map # 29 Parcel # 7 Zone RR 7 F. Names of all abutting property owners from records in Town Clerk's office. (use separate sheet if necessary) Porter's Share, LLC; Walter G. & Evelyn L. Foster; South Windsor Housing Authority 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? Yes. Letter and abutter listing attached. ** (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: No disturbance proposed in wetlands. Request conservation plan/wetlands approval for elderly apartments development, including four buildings, access drive/parking/sidewalks E & S measures/detention basin/utilities/dumpsters/community building/grading/landscaping and related improvements. Time element 2001-2002/3. Propose disturbance in wetlands buffer/ upland review area (see below) . 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. See site plans. J. Amount of regulated area disturbance and types of fill (including wetlands and regulated buffers). Within upland review area = part of water quality channel, drainage, detention basin, plantings, E&S measures, stormwater pipe. Total buffer disturbance-- K. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses in regulated areas to be altered: 11,726 sq.ft. None or 0.26 acres. L. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be created: None M. Lineal feet of proposed stream alteration: None N. Total land area of project and percentage which is wetlands: A_7 aorPs,-of uzbirjQ_ 7.89% or 0.68 acre (29,937.74 sq. ft.) is wetlands. Total buffer area=35,616 sq, ft. or 0.81 acres 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.) DEP, DOT, WPCA, PZC P. The applicant (or designated representative) hereby attests that a sign will be posted at the following location(s) along street frontage 8 By DPT Name Peter R. DeMallie on or before UA following date as directed by Town staff. 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 before and after a final decision ti as been issued. - ,Si atur�p� ner of P�ty Date / 110 Signatu of Applic nt Date 9 n n � Line Segment c�, c I p a d o a ' ro Time to Inlet i Ci1 w Time in Pipe ;j Accumulated Time ; o O D O o O G C) o p p 0 d o c O p - Al Entering Catch v- Q- o d� � m o o . O O. "+ Basin o� a p o o rn Sum of AI in System Rainfall Intciisity l,� — C► V.,+ _ oo Q in SystemCAI tD f ( , 'Ji S'f Pipe Size E7 IV t'J H 1� M o Length of Pipe o o �o o f v- o I o 'a a vn Slope 0 ° �d ed o G o 6 G Go �C o� �Ci l f 1 I r %J - i ( N Average Velocity _ W _ ! o• o - tv �. `'' F-a.11 Capacity 1 Headwater 'ON laagS � . q paXaaVa al-nog UAoy f ' Aq pauBlsaQ Sa a�o,zd 1 (� n o n - c' -i ►' Line Segment �} j7U Time to Inlet 77 tj Time in Pipe 1�1 Cr! TAcciimulated Time p o 0 a O r, o a o o a o L.! C a. w o si N d d knt;r:lnatch � 0 Q 0 0 a Q o C p _ o AlSystem `�` rv' o o p �.t aity tD ! � t Pipe Size 14 P e _ D l Su Length of Pipe pe o \� ( Uo Ob , r Slope U UrSv w I w Average Velocity Qq s U o� I a c• q ,. �' Full Capacity I � t ► r., Headwater *ON IaauS q paipago a�nog unoy AQ pauBlsaQ T:-3Qr td November 2, 2000 I/we, hereby, authorize The Metro Realty Group, LTD to make any and all land use applications for the Watson Farm elderly housing development. Owner November 3, 2000 I/we hereby authorize The Metro Realty Group, Ltd to make application for Inland Wetlands approvals as needed for the Watson Farm elderly housing development as outlined in November, 2000 site development plans for said development. Edward G. Smith B--. Marshall Terry Smith His Attorney in Fact DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis November 3, 2000 Abutters List Watson Farm, Metro Realty Group, South Windsor, CT 1) Foster,Walter G.&Evelyn L.90 Foster St.,South Windsor,CT 06074 2) Housing Authority Town of So.Windsor, 1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 3) Share's Lane,Porter's Share,LLC, South Windsor, CT 06074 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 9 Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Transmitted via certified mail Dear Current Abutting Property Owner November 3, 2000 Re: Metro Realty Group, LTD DPI Project No. 99-1270 Watson Farm, Deming Street South Windsor, Connecticut In accordance with regulations of the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Planning& Zoning Commission, we are required to notify you that applications have been filed on the property abutting yours and are subject to a hearing or meeting by the Planning &Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Agency. The applications and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department in the Town Hall. As an abutting property owner you are invited to the hearing(s)to ask questions and/or give comments, however, you are not required to attend. You may also submit written comments regarding the application(s)prior to the meeting if you so desire. For further information regarding the specific date this application(s)will be heard, please contact Debbie Wark, Recording Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner at the South Windsor Planning Department at 644- 2511, ext. 253, 252, or 229, respectively. Thank you. Sincerely, DESIGN P ESSIONALS, INC.. By: 'Illam. , Peter R. De alhe Principal cc: Peter Dunn Geoff Sager Galen B. Semprebon Karen Isherwood V Jeffrey Folger Marcia Banach 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 •Fax: (860) 291-8757 Stormwater Management Plan Watson Farm South Windsor, Connecticut Prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 DPI Project No. 99-1270 November 3, 2000 �+°Aft�r,ON raj" xyo S E Afp G b v�; ®1; Le t4 s s 6 H VeyC S/OfV AP��„4m Table of Contents: Page# Introduction 1 Existing Conditions 1 Proposed Development 1 Off-Site Analysis 1 Peak Runoff control 2 Nonstructural Drainage System 2 Riparian Buffers 2 Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems 2 Stormwater Runoff Quality 2 Conveyance System 2 Discharge at the Natural Location 2 Maintenance and Operation 2 Topographic Contour Maps 3 Floodplain Boundaries 3 Drainage Design 3 On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations 4 Conclusions 5 Appendices Site Location Map A TR-55 Existing to the West B TR-55 Developed to Basin C TR-55 Developed Directly to Wetlands D Hydrograph Plots to Basin E Detention Basin Design F Hydrograph Routings through Basin G Storm Sewer Calculations H Outlet Channel I Introduction: The proposed Watson Farm Adult community is to be located on a parcel of land 8.69 acres in size, which is situated on the northern side of Deming Street in South Windsor, Connecticut. The South Windsor-Manchester Town line is located to the east of the site. The site has approximately 350 feet of frontage on Deming Street and consists of two parcels of land. Existing Conditions: The site consists of 8.69 acres of land. The site slopes down from east to west, and there is a wetland area along the western edge of the site. The topography on the site ranges from fairly flat(1-2% slopes), to over 10% slopes in areas. According to the Hartford County soil survey, the soils on the site consist of Enfield soils along the eastern side of the site,and Manchester soils between the Enfield soils and the wetlands. Immediately to the east of the site is the Porter Share development. To the North of the site is undeveloped land, and to the west of the site is a fairly large wetland area. The front portion of the site contains 1 single family home with associated driveway and lawn. The majority of the front area of the site is wooded. The rear of the site contains a brush cover. There is a sanitary sewer easement that runs through the western end of the site. Proposed Development: The proposed development of the site consists of the construction of four sets of 3 buildings each containing a total of 72 housing units. Access roadways, parking, and sidewalks would be constructed as part of the development. The proposed development will contain a number of storm-water measures to accommodate both the increase in runoff from the development,and to address water quality of the runoff from the site. The runoff from the paved areas will be collected into a series of catch basins, and directed to an on-site detention basin. The detention basin will contain approximately 3.5' of depth below the outlet to catch the first flush from the site for treatment in the vegetation and potential infiltration. The proposed detention basin has been designed to detain the 2-100 year design storms at or below existing discharge rates. The basin will have a high level overflow for flows in excess of the 100-year storm event. The detention basin will outlet to the west through a 15"pipe into a 200-foot long swale. The swale will provide additional water treatment prior to discharging to the wetlands. Off-Site Analysis: The site presently drains down from east to west to the wetlands on the western side of the site and extending off-site. The wetlands form the beginning of Farm Brook. There is a limited area of land to the north of the site that drains onto the site. The Porter Share development was designed to eliminate any runoff onto the site from the east. _ The Farm Brook wetlands in the area of the site consist of a number of ponds and depressions. There is a reasonably large amount of natural detention in this area. Peak Runoff Control: The site has been designed to drain into a detention basin that will mitigate the increase in runoff on the site to levels at or below existing peak rates. With the design of the detention basin, any impacts to the wetlands adjacent to the site due to increases in runoff from the site will be mitigated. Nonstructural Drainage Systems: The site will make use of a number of nonstructural measures to help control the storm-water on the site, and enhance the ability for infiltration of runoff into the soil. The detention basin will have over 3 foot of volume below the outlet structure for treatment of runoff from the site. The swale leading from the detention basin will also provide added water quality benefits. Riparian Buffers: The proposed development has been designed to maximize the separation of the developed areas of the site and the wetlands. The pavement has been designed to have a 60-80' separation distance. Grading for the support of the road, and the detention basin construction will infringe upon this separation distance. Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems: An extensive erosion/sedimentation control plan has been developed as part of the site design. These measures include the following: 1. Installation of silt fence down-slope of disturbed areas. 2. Installation of silt fence around stockpiled materials. 3. Installation of silt fence around catch basins. 4. Use of the detention basin during construction as a sediment basin. 5. Seeding and mulching disturbed areas as soon as practical during construction. 6. Limiting the areas of disturbance during construction. 7. Installation of construction entrance pads, and sweeping of roadways as needed. 8. Maintenance of the above measures. Stormwater Runoff Quality: A number of water quality measures have been integrated into the site design to provide for treatment of the stormwater runoff from the site. These include the swale and detention basin which will provide extensive water quality renovation for the storm runoff. Conveyance System: The on-site conveyance system consists of a piped stormwater system discharging to a detention basin and swale.-The piped drainage system has been designed for a 10 Yr design storm. The detention basin has been designed to handle the runoff from a 100-year design storm through the outlet, and larger storm events through the emergency overflow. Discharge at the Natural Location: The site discharge to the west will be to on-site wetlands in the area of an existing depression that forms a small pond within the wetlands. The design peak flows from the site will be very low(1.60 CFS for a 100 year design storm). Maintenance and Operation: The following maintenance operations will be required to ensure the proper and efficient operation of the Storm Water Detention Basin System The following maintenance schedule is intended to be a minimum guide, and additional inspections and maintenance measures may be required following large storm events that could cause the deposition of excess debris in the system. Pipe Outlet Locations: The pipe outlets and associated riprap shall be inspected annually and cleaned of silt and or debris. The riprap shall be re-shaped and replenished as required. Catch Basins: The catch Basins within each lot shall be inspected annually. The sumps shall be cleaned when the depth of material within the sumps reaches 1'. Pavement Sweeping: The parking lots within each lot shall be swept at a minimum of twice per year. Once in the spring shortly after the end of the snow season, and once in the fall after the leaves have fallen. Outlet Structure: The detention basin outlet structure shall be inspected twice annually, and all debris and silt shall be removed. The discharge point from the outlet system shall be inspected also, and all silt and debris shall be removed. The riprap at the discharge shall be re-arranged and additional stone added as needed. All silt and debris shall be disposed of at a suitable location. Topographic Contour Maps: Topographic contour maps have been provided showing the drainage areas for the site at a scale of V=40'. The maps showing the existing and developed conditions are included in the rear of this report. Floodplain Boundaries: There are no floodplain boundaries on the site. Drainage Design: The drainage design of the site has been completed utilizing a number of computer programs and generally accepted design methods. The runoff from the site under existing and developed conditions was developed utilizing the-TR-55 computer program. The flood routing and basin modeling was completed utilizing the Hydroflow Hydrographs for Windows computer program by Intelisolve. The drainage piping on site was designed using the rational formula. Under existing conditions, the site drains overland from the east to the west. The TR-55 calculations for the existing runoff to the west are contained in appendix B. The summary of the results is as follows: Design Storm Peak Discharge 2 0 10 1 25 2 50 4 100 6 Under developed conditions, the site will continue to drain to the west. The drainage to the west under developed conditions has been divided into two components; the discharge to the west through the detention basin, and the discharge to the west directly to the wetlands. The TR-55 analysis for the discharge to the basin is included in appendix C. The TR-55 analysis for the discharge directly to the wetlands is included in appendix D. The summary of the existing and developed discharges is as follows: Storm Event Existing Developed to Basin Developed to Wetlands 2 0 4 0 10 1 11 0 25 2 15 1 50 4 18 1 100 6 22 2 Appendix E contains the hydrograph plots for the runoff to the basin for the 2 through 100-year storm events. The detention basin was designed to contain the 2-100 year storm events within the basin, and to discharge at a rate that when combined with the developed discharge directly to the wetlands, would be less than or equal to the peak rate of runoff to the west under existing conditions. Up to the 100-year storm event will discharge from the basin through a single 6" orifice, and the outlet pipe. Storms in excess of the 100-year storm event would discharge through a catch basin top on the outlet structure. The design of the detention basin is included in appendix F. The hydrograph routings of the 2-100 year design storms through the detention basin are included in appendix G. A summary of the existing and post developed drainage discharges are as follows: Storm Event Existing Developed Developed Discharge(CFS) Discharge (CFS) Discharge (CFS) (From Basin) (Direct to Wetlands) 2 year 0 * 0 10 year 1 0.72 0 25 year 2 1.09 1 50 year 4 1.32 1 100 year 6 1.58 2 * The 2-year design flow is less than 0.5 CFS. On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations: The storm sewer calculations for the storm piping within the proposed subdivision roadway are included in appendix H. The storm sewer has been designed for a 10-year design storm utilizing the rational formula. The calculations for the outlet channel from the detention basin are included in appendix I. Conclusions: The on-site stormwater system with the associated detention basin will mitigate any potential storm-water quantity impacts from the development of the site. The proposed additional capacity of the basin below the outlet structure in concert with the proposed on-site swale will mitigate water quality impacts from the proposed development. APPENDIX A 31WO 1i10 < J C QE►CH r a or 0 k add o►Qy a �9 lo Li 4' JE �y ti! l ALJO Q le 4014 s % APPENDIX B i RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County : Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing conditions Subarea : 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - .45(61) - - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .15(98) - OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good 2.4 (30) 3.36(48) - 0.46(73) Woods good 1.69(30) .71 (55) - .21 (77) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 4.09 4.67 .67 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.43 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 44* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Sheet 3.2 200 .07 f 0.251 Shallow Concent'd 400 .1 u 0.022 Time of Concentration = 0.27* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 Project : Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County : Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing conditions Data: Drainage Area 9.43 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 44 * Time of Concentration: 0.27 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE I Storm Number 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 I---------------------1------{------{------{------{------1 { Frequency (yrs) 1 2 i 10 1 25 4 50 { 100 { I I I I I i I 1 24-Hr Rainfall (in) l 3.2 { 4.7 1 5.5 1 6.2 1 6.9 1 I I I I I I I I Ia/P Ratio 1 0.80 l 0.54 { 0.46 1 0.41 1 0.37 1 I I I I I I I I Used { 0.50 1 0.50 1 0.46 1 0.41 1 0.37 1 I I I I I I I I Runoff (in) i 0.03 1 0.31 { 0.56 1 0.82 1 1.11 1 I I I I I I I l Unit Peak Discharge 10.355 10.355 10.416 10.516 10.589 1 I (cfs/acre/in) i I I I I I I I Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 l 0.0% Ponds Used I I I 1 .1 I 1----------------------I------{ ------1------{------1------{ I Peak Discharge (cfs) l 0 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX C RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County : Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Developed conditions Subarea : 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED ,URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% 1.98 (39) 2.58 (61) - - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways 1.35(98) 1.35(98) - - OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good - .735 (48) - - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 3.33 4.66 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7.995 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 67* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Developed conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------7------------------------ Sheet 3.2 70 .05 f 0.124 Open Channel 500 2 0.069 Time of Concentration = 0.19* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 Project Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Developed conditions Data: Drainage Area 7.995 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 67 * Time of Concentration: 0.19 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE I Storm Number ( 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 I----------------------1------1------1------►------1------I Frequency (yrs) I 2 I 10 I 25 I 50 I 100 I I I I I I I I 124-Hr Rainfall (in) i 3.2 I 4.7 1 5.5 ► 6.2 1 6.9 I I I I I I I I I Ia/P Ratio 10.31 1 0.21 1 0.18 1 0.16 1 0.14 1 I I I I I I I 1 Runoff (in) 10.69 11.60 1 2.16 12.68 1 3.23 I I Unit Peak Discharge 10.765 10.831 10.849 10.861 10.870 1 1 (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I I I I I i I I I I Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 I 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I ----------------------1------1------1------1------1------1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 4 1 11 1 15 I 18 1 22 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX D RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Developed conditions-directly to wetlands Subarea : 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D . Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Brush - brush, weed, grass mix good .46(30) - - .46(73) Woods good .30 (30) - - .21 (77) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .76 .67 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 1.43 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 51* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method x• TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project : Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County : Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Developed conditions-directly to wetlands ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------7------------------------ Sheet 3.2 50 .05 i 0.248 Time of Concentration = 0.25* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved: D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method i I GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 Project Metro User: GBS Date: 10-26-99 County Hartford State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: Developed conditions-directly to wetlands Data: Drainage Area 1.43 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 51 * Time of Concentration: 0.25 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Storm Number I 1 1 2 l 3 l 4 1 5 l 1----------------------I------i------i------1------1------1 l Frequency (yrs) ( 2 I 10 1 25 1 50 i 100 l I I I I I I I 24-Hr Rainfall (in) I 3.2 l 4.7 ( 5.5 1 6.2 1 6.9 l I I I i I I I I Ia/P Ratio 1 0.60 l 0.41 l 0.35 i 0.31 ( 0.28 1 I I I I I I I I Used 1 0.50 l 0.41 l 0.35 10.31 l 0.28 1 I I I I I I I Runoff (in) l 0.15 l 0.62 1 0.97 1 1.32 l 1.70 l I I I I I I I I Unit Peak Discharge 10.362 10.532 10.639 10.694 10.721 1 l (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I I I I I I I I I l Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1. 1.00 1 1.00 ► 1.00 1 1.00 1 I 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I 1----------------------1------1------I------1------1------1 l Peak Discharge (cfs) ► 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX E Hydrograph Plot English Hyd. No. 22 with buildings Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.68 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 7.99 ac Curve number = 67 Basin Slope = 7.0 % Hydraulic length = 600 ft Tc method = LAG Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.5 min Total precip. = 3.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Total Volume=18,694 cuft 22 - SCS Runoff - 2 Yr - Qp = 3.68 cfs 4 3- 2- + Hyd. 22 CY 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Hydrograph Plot English Hyd. No. 23 with buildings Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 10.53 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 7.99 ac Curve number = 67 Basin Slope = 7.0 % Hydraulic length = 600 ft Tc method = LAG Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.5 min Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 520 Total Volume=46,690 cuft 23 - SCS Runoff - 10 Yr - Qp = 10.53 cfs 15 10 0 + Hyd. 23 CY 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Hydro graph Plot English Hyd. No. 24 with buildings Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 14.81 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 7.99 ac Curve number = 67 Basin Slope = 7.0 % Hydraulic length = 600 ft Tc method = LAG Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.5 min Total precip. = 5.50 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 530 Total Volume=64,334 cuft 24 - SCS Runoff - 25 Yr - Qp = 14.81 cfs 15 10 + Hyd. 24 CJ 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Hydrograph Plot English Hyd. No. 25 with buildings 9 Run =Hydrograph type SCS off Peak discharge 17.70 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 7.99 ac Curve number = 67 Basin Slope = 7.0 % Hydraulic length = 600 ft Tc method = LAG Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.5 min Total precip. = 6.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 505 Total Volume=76,136 cuft 25 - SCS Runoff - 50 Yr - Qp = 17.70 cfs 20 15 Cl 10 + Hyd. 25 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Hydrograph Plot English Hyd. No. 26 with buildings Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 22.04 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Drainage area = 7.99 ac Curve number = 67 Basin Slope = 7.0 % Hydraulic length = 600 ft Tc method = LAG Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.5 min Total precip. = 6.90 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 520 Total Volume=94,343 cuft 26 - SCS Runoff - 100 Yr - Op = 22.04 cfs 25 20 15 + Hyd. 26 Cl 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 APPENDIX F Reservoir Report Page 1 Reservoir No. 2 - detent basin English Pond Data Pond storage is based on known contour areas Stage / Storage Table Stage Elevation Contour area Incr. Storage Total storage ft ft sqft cult cuft 0.00 178.00 3,100 0 0 2.00 180.00 6,100 9,200 9,200 4.00 182.00 9,135 15,235 24,435 6.00 184.00 12,600 21,735 46,170 8.00 186.00 15,000 27,600 73,770 Culvert/ Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise In = 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crest Len ft = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Span in = 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crest El.ft = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El.ft = 181.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 Eqn. Exp. = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length ft = 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope% = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .000 .000 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = ----- No No No Tailwater Elevation = 0.00 ft Note:All outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage / Storage / Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Discharge ft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 0.00 0 178.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.00 2.00 9,200 180.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.00 4.00 24,435 182.00 0.10 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.10 6.00 46,170 184.00 1.37 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.37 8.00 73,770 186.00 1.91 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.91 detent basin 6- 4- 2- 0 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Storage (cult) detent basin s ♦ Total g ■ Culy A � roe ♦ Culy B 4 ♦ Culv C � o Culv D ElWeir A 2 o Weir B o Weir C 0 ♦ Weir D 0.0 0.5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0 Discharge (cfs) APPENDIX G Hydrograph Plot English II Hyd. No. 34 Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.72 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 23 Reservoir name = detent basin Max. Elevation = 182.51 ft Max. Storage = 29,953 cuft Storage Indication method used. Total Volume=25,302 cult 34 - Reservoir - 10 Yr - Qp = 0.72 cfs 15 + Hyd. 23 10 CJ 5 + Hyd. 34 0 0 20 40 60 80 Hydrograph Plot English Hyd. No. 33 25-year Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.09 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow h d. No. = 24 - Reservoir name - Y detent basin Max. Elevation = 183.24 ft Max. Storage = 37,901 cuft Storage Indication method used. Total Volume=42,946 cuft 33 - Reservoir - 25 Yr - Qp = 1.09 cfs 15 + Hyd. 24 10 CY 5 + Hyd. 33 0 snow 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Hydro graph Plot English Hyd. No. 32 50-year Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.32 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 25 Reservoir name = detent basin Max. Elevation = 183.85 ft Max. Storage = 44,592 cuft Storage Indication method used. Total Volume=54,747 cuft 32 - Reservoir - 50 Yr - Qp = 1.32 cfs 20 15 + Hyd. 25 � 10 5 + Hyd. 32 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Hydrograph Plot English Hyd. No. 31 100 year Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.58 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 26 Reservoir name = detent basin Max. Elevation = 184.70 ft Max. Storage = 55,871 cuft Storage Indication method used. Total Volume=72,955 tuft 31 - Reservoir - 100 Yr - Qp = 1.58 cfs 25 20 + Hyd. 26 N 15 v U 10 5 + Hyd. 31 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 APPENDIX H F T' ' TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STORM SEWER 3Y3TEM DE316N TFORM 2.2 1 PROJECT ' W 76 v � � 7� DESIGNED By DATE la /�/ o STREET FIRM CHECKED By SHEET NO DIP r ` OF 3 ?J3IVMOV3H r �- LA - A113VdVO ilnd 2 '0 AIIDO13A 39VU3AV . a on - 'R ls} s: d4 0 0 0 0 - 3did .40 HION31 o 5 � 3ZIS 3did W31SAS N1 0 OD p AlISN31NI IIVdNIVH r� o W31SAS N1 M a,p Q IV 30 WnS v o O O z 0 0 p O p p O NISVB HD1VD ON1831N3 IV 0 0 10 o o 3W11 031VlnWnD3V o o O p a 3did NI 3NI1 131N1013W11 a o o p o r nj M 1N3W93S 3NIl u v Q J tun v II-23 FTOWN OF SOUTH WINOSOR STORY SEWER SYSTEM DEs14N TFO R IN 2.2 ' PROJECT DESIGNED Rr DATE ' ( ) Arsow FARE Gas o ao _ STREET FIRM CHECKED By SHEET N• F 3 us Z- a31VMOV3H � kll3VdVO llnd _ W A113O13A 39Va3AV . aC, ah 0 3dO1S = a n - 0 0 0 © o _ O o ' 3dld d0 H1SN31 o Uq o 3Z1S 3d1d W 31 S 1 S NI 0 m P.� A-LISN31NI 1-1VdNIVa W31SAS NI f IV -io Wns `D o ° a 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 NISVB HO1VO O �. SNIa31N3 IV 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0c 3W11 031V1mmnOOv v i O p pO 0 3 d l d N 13 W 11 o r 1 � M 131 N 1 01 3 N I I N a o r o 1<Sj b1 ra p 1N3W93S 3NI1 cr v II-23 LINE SEGMENT TIME TO INLET TIME IN PIPE ACCUMULATED TIME �AI ENTERING CATCH BASIN SUM OF AI . IN SYSTEM RAINFALL INTENSITY—j 1 0 IN SYSTEM PIPE SIZE LENGTH OF PIPE AVERAGE VELOCITY FULL CAPACITY HEADWATER mosomm HinoSio NJAO.L j 1 APPENDIX I tmp#1 Channel Calculator Given Input Data: Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trapezoidal Solving for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth of Flow Flowrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 6000 cfs Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0004 ft/ft Manning' s n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 0175 Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120000. 0000 in Bottom width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 . 0000 in Left slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 3330 ft/ft Right slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 3330 ft/ft Computed Results: Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 7217 in Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 7848 fps Flow area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 0388 ft2 Flow perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 . 8898 in Hydraulic radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .7694 in Top width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76. 3587 in Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 0388 ft2 Perimeter 77 . 8898 in Percent full 100. 0000 % Critical Information Critical depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 9628 in Critical slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 0086 ft/ft Critical velocity. . . 2 . 1780 fps Critical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 7346 ft2 Critical perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60. 4250 in Critical hydraulic radius . . . . . . . 1 . 7507 in Critical top width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59. 7886 in Specific energy . . 0. 4030 ft Page 1 tmp#1 Minimum energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .2454 ft Froude number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .2444 Flow condition Subcritical Page 2 MEMORANDUM To: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning \ !J From: Jerry C. Iazzetta, P.E., Town Engineer Date: November 8, 20001 Re: WATSON FARMS 00-53P We have reviewed the r�s and drainage calculations dated November-�{� 9 , 2 0 for the proposed Watson Farms Site Plan of Development and have the following comments: Drainage Calculations 1. Pre development drainage area map is required. 2. Gutter flow analysis was not provided. Perimeter Survey - Sheet 2 • a i e s ou . 2. The A-2 certification should indicate which year standards are utilized. Plot Plan -Sheet 3 1`The drainaQe-ROW in favor of the State of Conn should be described with bearings aNd-dWances- easement is too close to building 3. r i nts should be shown. the proposed roads should be shown. Grading and Utilities Plan - Sheet 4 2. The State Dept. of Transportation may require a bypass lane for eastbound traffic. 3. Have test pets or borings been taken? If so, please have the data forwarded. If not, these should be done in detention basin area and along the road. 4 Fyistingl otmrs should be labeled along N/F Foster so that it will be easier to deUwujne-€He-prepesed grading. -5—i+wvQi#�saAi q laterals should be shown at the buildings and at the main. i6rmeleanewts are mequired for sanitary laterals greater than 100 feet. e "wP4 Center building does not have any sanitary lateral shown nor is the r . Depending on the existing soil condition, roof leaders should drain into the groun where possible. bout 3 roof leaders being placed into a yard drain as we have n e yard drain. 10 t pipes are not identified as to size and type pipe. 11. Profiles of each road should be provided and centerline data shown. 12_ ThP ictinc sanitary manhole opposite building 3 is not shown on the Sanitary Ma . Also, the pipe from SMH1 to this existing manhole is not on the pipe-schedule. 13. Yard drain 10 is shown connected to CBS, however with all of the other pipe connected to this structure, this is not feasible to build. Either the yard drain should 7 connect to CB4A or a structure provided to connect the yard drain and roof leader from Building 1 and the outlet pipe connected to the northern face of CBS. 14. The two inlets into the detention basin do not have any energy dissipaters at the end. This should be provided. 15. The riprap pad shown at the detention basin outlet pipe is not identified nor is a detail provided. the-and of the detention outlet pipe is not identified nor is a detail pftWieltd--- Thin ^!AlPt ,- 0 to the detention basin should be eliminated and instead s to CB11. Detail Sheet— Sheet 6 1. Details are required for sanitary manhole, manhole cover (including locking cover), yard drain, handicap ramps, stone wall, energy dissipater, swale, and clay stops (if required). 2. Detail of sidewalk is incomplete — the length of slabs between expansion joints is not identified. 3. Bituminous curb detail cannot be read. 4. Storm trench detail should show stone to spring line as polyethylene pipe is used. JCl/jsv ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT submitted to the TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION with an APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT REGULATED ACTIVITIES addressing WETLANDS,WILDLIFE &WATER QUALITY for the PROPOSED WATSON FARM ELDERLY HOUSING DEMING STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT prepared by Rema Ecological Services, LLC 19 Foster Street Manchester, Connecticut (860) 649-REMA(7362) (860)-647-8397(fax) November 27,2000 Report Preparers George . Logan,MS,CPWS Principal Environmental Scientist Electronic File: c:\projects\conn\00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.doc Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTIONAND OVERVIEW................................................................3 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................7 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................7 3.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS& WETLAND DELINEATIONS.....................................................7 _ -3.2 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT........................................................................8 3.2.1 Regional Context.....................................................................................................................8 3.2.2 Vegetative Cover Types at the Site................................................................................10 3.2.2.1 Uplands................................................................................................................................11 3.2.2.2 Wetlands ....................................................................................15 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES......................................................21 5.0 REVIEW OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS............24 6.0 WILDLIFE UTILIZATIONAT THE SITE...................................................24 6.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................24 6.1.1 Results......................................................................................................................................25 6.1.1.1 Avians..............................................................................................................................26 6.1.1.2 Herptiles& Mammals.........................................................................................0......27 7.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION.........................................................................28 7.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. .........28 7.1.1 Indirect Wetland and Watercourse Impacts.................................................................28 7.2 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS TO WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES...................33 7.2.1 Wildlife Habitat.....................................................................................................................33 7.2.1.1 Impacts to Resident Wildlife Species.........................................................................33 7.2.1.2 Impacts to Passage Wildlife Species...........................................................................34 7.2.2 Potential Impacts to Other Wetland Functions.......................................................35 7.2.2.1 Ecological Integrity......................................................................................................35 7.2.2.2 Educational Potential...................................................................................................35 7.2.2.3 Nutrient Retention& Sediment Trapping. ..........................................................35 7.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: QUALITY..............................................................36 7.3.1 Design Objectives................................................................................................................36 7.3.2 Structural BMPs...................................................................................................................36 7.3.2.1 Catch Basins....................................................................................................................37 7.3.2.2 Sediment Structure (Oil &Grit Separator)..........................................................37 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 1 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 t- )- 7.3.2.3 Detention Basin.............................................................................................................38 7.3.2.4 Vegetated Swale............................................................................................................40 7.3.3 Procedural BMWs: Long-Term.......................................................................................42 7.3.4 Sizing Guidelines for Stormwater BMPs..................................................................43 7.3.5 Applicable Standards and Guidelines.........................................................................46 7.3.6 SMS Water Quality BMP Sizing.................................................................................48 7.3.7 SMS Water Quality BMP Performance.....................................................................50 8.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................56 List of Figures Figure Page 1. Site Locus(USGS Topo) ............................................................................................ 4 2. Aerial Photograph of Site............................................................................................ 12 3. Pollutant Concentration-Runoff Curve....................................................................... 44 4. Generalized precipitation analysis .............................................................................. 45 List of Tables Table Page 1. Dominant Vegetative Cover Types within Study Area............................................... 11 2. Wetlands Functional Assessment Summary............................................................... 23 3. Impacts to Wetland-dependent Wildlife..................................................................... 34 4. Estimate of TSS Removal Efficiencies for Site's SMS.............................................. 50 5. Comparison of Pollutant Removal Efficiencies per BMP .......................................... 52 004548WN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC jj Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 II' Appendices Appendix Following Page 1. On-Site Soil Investigation Report............................................................................... 58 2. Annotated Photographs............................................................................................... 58 3. Vegetative Inventory................................................................................................... 58 4. Wetland Characterization& Wetland Data Sheets..................................................... 58 5. Rationale for Wetland Functional Assessment(Golet Model Only).......................... 58 6. Wildlife Inventory....................................................................................................... 58 7. Literature and Maintenance for BaySaver Separation Systems.................................. 58 00454SWN7\Wat9on Farm-EA.DOC iii Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ♦ Both mixed hardwoods forest cover type and old-field and shrub and sapling thickets characterize the uplands of the overall property. ♦ The site's landscape includes several wetland vegetative communities including forested swamp, wet meadow, shallow marsh, and scrub shrub swamp areas. Two shallow open water areas are also associated with the property. ♦ Two (2) wetland ecological units, with a combined acreage of 0.61 acres, were delineated within the property. These were found to provide low to high quality functions and values, with the majority of them providing moderate to moderate-high quality wetland functions and values. ♦ A medium-intensity floristic inventory was conducted within the overall property. No Connecticut-listed higher plants (i.e. Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern)were observed at the property. ♦ A low-intensity wildlife inventory was undertaken on the overall property. In all 40 wildlife species (i.e. avians, herptiles and mammals) were observed, while 64 probably breed on the property. Of these wildlife species none were found to be "Connecticut-listed." ♦ No direct wetland alteration or impact is proposed on the site. The indirect long- term impacts to wetland and watercourse functions and values will be of low intensity. ♦ Many Structural Best Management Practices(BMPs) are incorporated into the plans. These include catch basins, a water quality vegetated swale, a swirl concentrator(i.e. advanced oil & grit separator), and a detention/biofiltration basin. Many Procedural Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed or recommended. These include scheduled sweeping of roadway and parking lot surfaces; inspection, maintenance and cleaning of catch basins and swirl concentrators, and others. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOG 1 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 ut - The overall performance of the site's Stormwater Management System in removing total suspended solids (TSS) from runoff off the bulk of proposed impervious surfaces will greatly exceed the State and Federal guideline of 80% removal for new development. This will ensure that the water quality of downstream surface waters will not be degraded. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 2 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW This Environmental Assessment has been prepared by REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC (RES) on behalf of The Metro Realty Group, LTD ("the applicant") for submission to the Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission ("the Commission"). The application to the 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 to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations for the Town of South Windsor. The applicant requests approval from the Commission to construct 72 elderly housing units within four distinct buildings, along with a community center and infrastructure improvements. The subject parcel of land ("the site," "the development site," "the project area") is located in South Windsor, Connecticut, on the north side of Deming Street and roughly 500 feet to the west of the Manchester— South Windsor municipal boundary (See Figure 1 and 1 a for site locus). Specifically, approval is sought from the Commission to: (1) discharge treated storm drainage to wetland areas at one location, and (2) to conduct regulated activities within the Town of South Windsor 40-foot "wetland buffer" and 80-foot"watercourse buffer"(a.k.a. "upland review areas"). The overall parcel or "property" encompasses 8.7 acres. In its present state the property contains two distinct wetland areas within its western portion, as well as wooded uplands and old-field and shrub thicket upland communities. A sanitary sewer line traverses the western section of the property. The subject property is bounded by Deming Street to the south, Porter's Share, an elderly housing community, to the east, farmland to the north, and an elderly housing community owned by the South Windsor Housing Authority to the west. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 3 ,.b y ¢ L 4 v!�F. ���7 r'4iy`� E�+,�`P'i - •a��1t.�,cal. �: t �. �'"3r �?; ��'.� r h rP +I't• _ �vf�_Rc,,-�v�� ��� r...'' ��'�El s' J �y � �'i: ,�AS I r - ti. \ e i'�E � ,�.ga't`r�{���,,dq *}i y� .G. ii�`�� e44r,i Ix` ::� 4 =•� � '��- : r� (Y 1-15i y ,j.' h ..'�Iti l �7�'.•p�\`1 '£ _fin. �f(.. 7' k 4' w. �t� e hy I a' •� �t k y,� ' �+.'bi y�T.�... _- ,Z�' ""•1 * �" � 5., _�a�'yr �'+�j7,` s.i't}+5..�"� zll -f Iry al 4 _. A t Li 6 a 41- goo tit re. t _ �13 4; 14_ .�•mow �".� �'�11•_ k g- ' r r Mimi UTU v ISO u Ifi ! it 111 Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 According to the USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map (Manchester Quad) (see Figure 1), the properly ranges in elevation from roughly 180 feet, at a clogged culvert under Deming Street, to nearly 215 feet above mean sea level at its northeast corner. The site plans confirm these elevations (roughly 179 feet to 217 feet). Slopes at the property vary from steeply sloping adjacent to one of its wetlands (i.e. Wetland 1), to nearly flat within the wetlands that occupy its western portion. This Environmental Assessment report has been prepared as a result of site investigations, review of secondary source information, and coordination with the Applicant and with the engineering, site design, and legal consultants. The primary objectives of this report are to: 1. Describe existing resource conditions(i.e. watercourses,wetlands, uplands); 2. assess the overall functional quality of the wetland resources associated with the site; 3. provide a habitat-based inventory of wildlife populations at the site and the immediate vicinity; 4. briefly analyze potential direct or indirect impacts to wetland and watercourse function, wildlife populations and surface water quality; and 5. briefly discuss proposed mitigative strategies that minimize or compensate for impacts to regulatory areas. The site was inspected on three occasions. The following table gives the dates and the purpose for each of these inspections, as well as the principal investigator. It should be noted that George T. Logan had briefly visited the site in March of 1998. The field notes from that site visit were utilized in this report. Date Purpose for Inspections Investioator 10/2/00 Initial walkthrou h,wetland delineations James McManus 10/19/00 Baseline inventory,wetland characterization Si run Gadwa 11/25/00 Baseline inventory,habitat characterization George Logan For RES, James M. McManus, Certified Professional Soil Scientist, conducted soil surveys and wetland delineations, while George T. Logan, Certified Professional Wetland Scientist and Wildlife Biologist, conducted habitat-based wildlife inventories. Sigrun 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 5 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 Gadwa, Senior Ecologist, conducted botanical surveys and collected wetland-related baseline data. For this report a set of plans entitled "Watson Farm, Site Development Plan / Special Exception (6 sheets), dated November 3`d, 2000, were reviewed. Design Professionals, Inc. of South Windsor prepared these plans. In addition, a Landscape Plan (Sheet L-1), dated November 3`d, 2000, and prepared by Raymond Jefferson, L.A., was reviewed. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC I , Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS& WETLAND DELINEATIONS According to the Geological Map of Connecticut (Rodgers 1985), the property is underlain by reddish brown arkose (i.e. brownstone), also known as the Portland Arkose. Bedrock was not found exposed on the site. The Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut (Stone et al. 1992) indicates that the site lies on one type of deposit, identified as"sand and gravel" deposits. These are defined as: "Composed of mixtures of gravel and sand within individual layers and as alternating layers. Sand and gravel layers generally range from 25 to 50 gravel particles and from 50 to 75 percent sand particles. Layers are well to poorly sorted; bedding may be distorted and faulted due to postdepositional collapse." The site's soils were found to be predominately of undisturbed nature and are derived from the types of underlying parent materials or deposits mentioned above. The upland- type soils on the property were identified as very fine sandy loams and silt loams belonging to the Enfield (Es) soil series, very fine sandy loams belonging to the Sudbury (Ss) soil series, and sandy to gravely sandy loams of the Manchester(Mg) soil series. The wetland-type soils on the overall property were identified as the Walpole (Wd) sandy loam and the Scarboro (Se) loam, soil series (see Appendix 1 for On-Site Soil Investigation Report). Field investigations for the purpose of delineating wetland resources were conducted in October of 2000 by Mr. James M. McManus, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist. Wetlands were delineated pursuant to the State of Connecticut General Statutes (CGS Sections 22a-36 to 22a-45). Wetlands are delineated based on the soil types that have been designated by the National Cooperative Soils Survey as being poorly drained, very poorly drained, alluvial or floodplain. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 7 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 3.2 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 3.2.1 Regional Context The project area is located at the southern edge of the North-Central Lowlands Ecoregion of the Northern Hills-Central Hardwoods— White Pine Zone (Dowhan and Craig 1976) in the Scantic River Regional Basin, which is part of the Connecticut River Major Basin. An ecoregion is: "An area characterized by a distinctive pattern of landscapes and regional climate as expressed by the vegetation composition and pattern and the presence or absence of certain indicator species and species groups" The North-Central Lowlands Ecoregion is a broad area in the interior of the state consisting of lowlands and extensive floodplains along the major rivers interspersed with prominent north-trending ridge systems. Layers of bedrock of Triassic age are tilted to the east: sedimentary red-brown sandstones and igneous, erosion-resistant, dark basalts. Soils in the uplands have formed on red, clayey glacial till, whereas soils clay in low-lying river valleys are derived from extensive stratified deposits of sand, gravel, silt and some clay. Dominant trees within this ecoregion include oaks, hickories, maples, ashes, black birch, and, in abandoned fields, red cedar, white pine, and gray birch. From a broader ecosystem perspective, the climax forest community or association in this area of Connecticut is also called "sprout hardwoods" (Braun 1950). There are two reasons this forest community is referred to as "sprout hardwoods." First, most reproduction occurs through sprouting. Second, these forests are dominated by secondary communities of sprout origin. This forest association covers parts of the states of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island and extends a short distance south of the glacial boundary in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania, northward in the Hudson River Valley to beyond Albany, and eastward across southern New England. All of southern and most of central Connecticut is in the "sprout hardwoods" forest. A number of forest types occur within the "sprout hardwoods" forest association. The development site and the surrounding area, which includes the Towns of East Hartford, 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 8 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 Manchester, Vernon, and other neighboring towns is dominated by the oak-hickory forest type. Most of the forest vegetation in Connecticut, particularly in upland areas, has been profoundly modified by lumbering, agriculture, and fire in the earlier historical periods, and by urbanization and earth removal in more recent years. For most of the region, the vegetation bears little resemblance to the original plant cover. Remnants of the original forest cover remain in only few places, preserved in state parks and state and national forests. Particularly in this ecoregion, agriculture was initially responsible for extensive losses of natural habitats, and suburban and urban development have continued to alter plant communities. m of which have the capacity to res rout or have very Diversity of wood species, an tY Y P � Y P tY P effective seed dispersal mechanisms, has declined less than diversity of native, herbaceous plants. Species of long-lived herbaceous plants with low rates of seed production often fail to recolonize after populations are eliminated by severe disturbance events such as farming. Severe soil disturbance may also eliminate seed banks of short-lived herbaceous species with ephemeral populations (Pickett and White, 1985). Species with specialized, scarce habitat requirements, such as moist ledges or sand plains are also declining. Specialized habitats may now be too widely spaced for colonization from other remnant populations (Chesson, 1986). Fast growing, invasive plant species now often colonize open areas, preventing establishment of less vigorous, native, ephemeral species (Denslow, 1985). Herb diversity has declined less in wetlands, which have generally experienced less soil disturbance, than in uplands. This site is an example of an area with disturbed upland forest that includes most of the common tree species in the oak-hickory forest type of the North Central Lowlands Ecoregion, but with very limited diversity of herbaceous plants. However, the large relatively undisturbed wetland in the northwest corner of the site does still have high diversity of native herbaceous plants. At a particular site, forested and non-forested plant communities can be classified into cover types, by considering site characteristics and plant species composition on a scale large enough to integrate minor differences. Whitlock et al. (1994) define a cover type as follows: 004548WN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 9 MUM Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 "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." (Emphasis added.) Plant community composition in both uplands and wetlands depends on several inter- related site characteristics. Hydrologic regime is determined by topography and drainage patterns, and also by soil type. At this somewhat disturbed site, water levels are influenced by runoff from adjacent developed areas and roads; soil profiles have been influenced by past farming. Vegetation differences also reflect the time elapsed since soil disturbance, and past landscaping or vegetation restoration activities in the site vicinity. Local seed sources, including sources of invasive, non-native species, strongly influence early successional plant communities that develop on bare, disturbed soil. Ecologists have traditionally used the cover type approach of ecosystem classification as a rapid method of habitat survey. The main assumption of this method is that structural complexity in the vegetation, as represented by the degree of layering or stratification present, can be equated with habitat diversity, which in turn encourages animal and to a lesser extent plant species diversity. Several vegetative cover types are associated with the development site. They are described in the following sections. 3.2.2 Vegetative Cover Types at the Site The major vegetative cover types on or adjacent to this 8.7-acre development site were inventoried on October 10, 2000. Table 1 provides a synopsis of the dominant cover types encountered at the site, and within each wetland, using the Golet wetland classification abbreviations. Two (2) upland and four(4) wetland major cover types occur within the site, and are briefly described below. Several cover types may occur within a single wetland unit or upland area. Where vegetation is a heterogeneous mosaic too complex to be shown in the cover type map (Figure 2), the text provides additional detail on plant distribution. Annotated photographs of some of the cover types can be found in Appendix 2. A vegetative inventory of the dominant flora within the upland cover types and within each wetland is provided in Appendix 3. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 10 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT Ik November 27,2000 Table 1: Dominant Vegetative Cover Types within Study Area Classification CON'er 'r 2-1 Upland Shrub—meadow mosaic and forest edge U 1 Mixed deciduous woodland U2 Wetland Shrub swamp SS;W2 Deciduous wooded swamp WS;W1 Wet meadow M;W2 Shallow marsh SM;W2 Open shallow water OW; W 1 &72 *See Figure 2 3.2.2.1 Uplands Upland (non-wetland) vegetative communities occupy roughly 8.09 acres of the site. They occur on medium textured soils that have developed over coarse textured water-laid deposits. These include somewhat excessively well drained Manchester gravelly sandy loams (Mg), well-drained Enfield silt loams (Es), and moderately well-drained Sudbury (Ss) fine sandy loams, adjacent to the western wetland areas. A mosaic of meadow and shrub thicket vegetation (Upland Cover Type 1, U 1) has developed on the relatively recently abandoned farm field, that occupies most the northern two-thirds of the site(see Photos 7 and 8,Appendix 2, and Figure 2). Three buildings, and a community center, are proposed in this area, which slopes gently in a westerly direction towards Wetland 2, a pond bordered by emergent marsh and shrub swamp. The southeastern corner of the site, where a fourth building is proposed, is occupied by second growth mixed deciduous forest (Upland Cover Type 2, U-2). The landscape here also drains in a westerly direction, towards Wetland 1, a forested pool. Black cherry (Prunus serotina) is dominant throughout this wood lot. The woodland community on the moister soils on the level to gently sloping terrace adjacent to Wetland 1 includes sugar maples (Acer saccharum). Black oak (Quercus velutina) and white oak are more common on the higher elevation east side of this wooded area. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 11 �:. bee 1, VI 10 •+, } 60 . low Proposed Watson Farm Deming Street, South Windsor, Connecticut Showing Wetlands and Watercourses on a 1 1 Approximate P • • Boundary • Wetland Boundary(A•• • Foster Street Manchester i .etative Cover TypeTable Envirnomental Assessment • Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 Appendix 3.0...❑0 m d Cab❑❑❑ Meadow-thicket Mosaic, early — successional (Upland Cover Type 1; U 1) Vegetation in this upland cover type has developed during the approximately 15 to 20 year period since cessation of farming (see Figure 2). Meadow areas are interspersed with low- growing woody vegetation. Scattered young trees occur at the north end of this area, and there is a narrow border of mature hardwoods along the eastern edge of this abandoned field, separating it from the elderly housing development to the east. Moisture regimes are quite variable; soils are droughty where fine textured surface horizons are relatively thin, areas occuped by soils in the Manchester series or by eroded Enfield silt loams. Enfield soils with a thicker silt loam surface horizon, mostly in level areas on the east side of the site, are well-drained; transitional soils on the west side of the site are in the moderately well-drained Sudbury series with a seasonal high water table. Diversity of woody species is high, including most of the typical woody colonizers of abandoned fields. However, plant distributions are patchy, with some areas dominated by one or a few species. In the far north end of the site there is a large patch of staghorn sumac Rhus Nina , mixed with the invasive vine bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus growing on coarse-textured soils in the Manchester series. Gray dogwood (Corpus racemosa), black cherry saplings (Prunus serotina) and blackberry (Rubus allegeniensis) are most abundant in droughty soils near the northern hedgerow. Dense patches of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) occur primarily in moist soils adjacent to the wetland. Other common shrub species include silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum), as well as two invasive shrubs, autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellate) and Morrow's honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii). Saplings of oak (Quercus spp.), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and hickory (Carya sp.) are more common on the southern and western edges of the field, near their seed sources. These include black oaks and sugar maples in the southern wood lot and mature trees in the western hedgerow, including a magnificent, mature scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea). In the north end of the overgrown field there are also scattered individuals of cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides), up to fifty feet tall; this tree species can grow very fast in fertile, moist soils. i Meadow vegetation is well-developed between clumps and patches of shrubs, but herbs are sparse within dense shrub thickets, especially where sumac and multiflora rose predominate. Vegetation structure is horizontally diverse, but does not include well- developed vertical layering. Herb diversity is moderately diverse in the somewhat 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 13 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 t_4 excessively well-drained soils in this cover type. Dominant species include little blue stem (Schyzachyrium scoparium) bentgrasses (Agrostis spp.), Canada goldenrod(Solidago canadensis), and prickly dewberry (Rubus flagellaris). Other common herbs are grasses such as poverty grass (Danthonia spicata) and petticoat grass (Eragrostis spectabilis) and herbs such as wild carrot (Daucus carota) and large mouse-ear hawkweed (Hieracium flagellare). However, herb stratum diversity is much lower in extensive areas with moderately well- drained to well-drained soils, especially on the west side of the property, adjacent to Wetland 2. These meadow areas between shrub patches are primarily occupied by dense, three to five foot high thickets of goldenrod(Solidago rugosa or S. canadensis), with few other species besides a ground-level herb layer of bristly dewberry(Rubus hispidus). Wildlife value of this early successional upland community is moderately-high, because it includes a variety of food sources, available at different times of year, and ample cover. Shrubs include persistent winter fruiting species such as sumac that provide food for winter resident birds. Fall-fruiting species like arrowwood are important duirng the fall bird migration, and summer fruiting species like blackberry are used by bird species that breed in Connecticut. A red tailed hawk and a sharp-shinned hawk (migrating) were observed flying overhead; meadow voles and cottontail rabbits are abundant in the meadow areas. Several bird nests were noted in shrub thickets. 3.2.2.1.2 Lower slope mixed deciduous woodland(Upland Cover Type 2. U2) This woodland area is bordered by Deming Street to the south, by Wetland 1 to the west, by a wooded residential lot to the east, and by the overgrown field Upland Cover Type 1)to the north (see Figure 2 and Photo 1, Appendix 2). Soils and moisture regimes are similar to those in the overgrown field, in the Enfield, Manchester, and Sudbury series. However, slopes are steeper in the central area, with the Manchester soils. Vegetation has been strongly influenced by past agricultural use, but farming ceased considerably earlier. Tree sizes indicate that field abandonment occurred about sixty to seventy years ago on the eastern hilltop portion, approximately forty to fifty years ago on the western, low-lying terrace adjacent to Wetland 1. The tree canopy is closed and moderately dense, with approximately 85%cover. i 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 14 MIA*In Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 UtI4 The tree stratum has a mixture of age classes, with maximum DBH (diameters at breast height) in the hilltop area of approximately 14 inches. Very large trees occur only along Deming Street; these include one cottonwood tree with a DBH of more than three and one half feet. Black cherry is dominant within this wood lot, and hickories occur throughout at low densities. White oak(Quercus albs) and black oak are co-dominant with black cherry on the hilltop. Red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple, and American elm (Ulmus americana) are limited to the lower western terrace. At the far eastern edge of this area is a small, dying stand of red pine (Pinus resinosa). Two species dominate the moderate density shrub stratum: black cherry saplings and Morrow's honeysuckle, an invasive species. Minor constituents include oak saplings and near the northern edge, gray dogwood and red cedar saplings (Juniperus virginiana). The herb stratum is very sparse and low in diversity; it includes some Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pennsylvanica) and small seedlings of an ornamental shrub, mountain ash (Pyrus aucuparia), probably dispersed by birds from a nearby subdivision. Many woody understory and herbaceous species, usually characteristic of the oak-hickory forest type are conspicuously absent from this wood lot, such as huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), and clubmosses (Lycopodium spp.). Ferns are also missing from this wooded community. For wildlife, the most valuable feature of Upland Cover Type 2 is its high tree diversity; wildlife foods from trees include acorns and hickory nuts, cherries, cherry blossom nectar and pollen, and in spring, maple and elm seeds, and swollen tree buds. Trees are also important insect-gleaning areas for birds. Forest leaf litter and woody debris are the energy source for a community of arthropods and oligochaetes (i.e. worms) consumed by small forest creatures such as short-tailed shrews and red-backed salamanders. However, the small size of this wood lot and the lack of adjacent forested habitat limit its value for many kinds of forest birds and mammals. Wildlife species adapted to the suburban environment, such as squirrels, blue jays, and chickadees can take advantage of these food sources. The depauperate herb and shrub stratum limit the value of this woodlot for small omnivorous wildlife of the forest floor, such as white-footed mouse. Appendix 3....El.❑❑ ❑❑❑ d ❑Jb❑1111❑ Wetlands Two (2), loosely connected wetland units were delineated on the site (see Figure 2). The off-site portions were either briefly investigated, or remote sensing (i.e. aerial photograph 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 15 Envirnomental Assessment • Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 I ut_ 6p interpretation) was used to classify and characterize them. It was necessary to look at contiguous off-site portions of these wetlands to accurately assess their ability to perform a variety of functions. The delineation of these "wetland ecological units" is consistent with guidelines set forth in the wetland evaluation models most commonly used in the region (see following section). i These wetlands are located on the west side of the property at the headwaters of Farm Brook, a perennial tributary of Plum Gulley Brook and the Podunk River. Wetland 1, located in the forested southern portion of the site, contains a woodland pool that is j approximately 4,000 square feet in area. Piped drainage enters Wetland 1 from the storm sewer system along Deming Street, to the south, but the pond currently lacks a defined outlet; prior to construction of Deming Street, it probably drained to the south. A severely clogged culvert at a headwall was observed at its southern end. Wetland 2 lies to the north of Wetland 1. Most of this wetland is off site; it includes an open water depression and adjacent emergent marsh, wet meadow, and shrub swamp, and drains in a northwesterly direction. The hydrogeologic setting of a wetland refers to the topographic, geologic and hydrologic i 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. The primary water supply for both these wetlands is groundwater from the underlying stratified drift aquifer. Therefore, their hydrogeologic setting is "ground-water depression," and both have a"bottomland" landscape position. Soils in both wetlands are mapped as Scarboro loam, a very poorly drained soil underlain by coarse textured material, with a relatively thin dark fine-textured epipedon, high in organic matter. These wetlands also include poorly drained Walpole sandy loam, in the same soil catena. Appendix 4 includes more detailed information on the classification and characterization of wetlands, in general, and specific tabulated information on each of the wetlands on the subject property. 004548WN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 16 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 3.2.2.2.1 Wetland 1 Wetland 1, which is approximately 0.3 acres in area (0.21 acres, on-site), is bordered by the site's southern wood lot (Upland Cover Type 2) to the east, by Deming Street to the south, by a dense, approximately half acre thicket of bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus)to the west, and by Wetland 2 to the north (see Figure 2). It includes two cover types (see Photos 1 through 4, Appendix 2). The wooded wetland periphery is classified as "palustrine forested wetland" (PFO 1), according to the NWI (National Wetlands Inventory) classification system. This wetland type is also known as a deciduous wooded swamp (WS-1), in the Golet classification system. The pool in the wetland interior, approximately 120 feet long by 30 feet wide, is "palustrine open water" (POW). On October 19'h, 2000 the water was at least 24 inches deep in the center of the pool. Watermarks and buttressed roots on trees at the edge of the pool, and the limits of the unvegetated drawdown zone indicated that maximum water levels had been 18 inches higher earlier in the growing season. Debris drift lines (mostly beer and soda cans) would indicated that during large storm events water rises even more here until it overflows to Wetland 2 to the north. The magnitude of water level fluctuation in this wetland is certainly increased by the runoff from the Deming Street storm drainage system, which is discharged directly into the southeast corner of this wetland via an approximately 45-foot long, rip rap-lined channel. A wetland's hydrologic regime refers to the "elevation and degree of fluctuation of the water table with respect to the land surface over time" (Golet and Lowry 1987). This wetland supports several hydrologic re ig mes. The central, deeper portion of the pool is "semi-permanently inundated." Golet et al. (1993) define the "semi-permanently inundated" hydrologic regime as follows: "Surface water persists throughout the growing season inmost years. When surface water is absent, the water table is usually at or very near the land surfac. 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." I The shallower portions of the pool and the drawdownzone are "seasonally flooded", defined below by Golet el al (1993): 004543WN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 17 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 "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." The very sparsely vegetated drawdown zone has a moderately steep slope (about 12%) and was about 8 to 9 feet wide at the time of investigation on October 19t", 2000. The outermost hydrologic zone of this wetland is mostly less than three feet wide and about 15 feet wide at the north end. This area is "seasonally saturated." Golet et al. (1993) define this hydrologic regime as follows: "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." The vegetation in Wetland 1 is limited to the pool margin. The pool itself, unlike many woodland pools in Connecticut, contains neither islands with shrubs and trees, nor hummocks, nor emergent vegetation, nor rotting fallen logs covered by mosses and other herbaceous vegetation. The tree stratum is well developed and diverse; canopy cover over the pool is about 70%. Red maple (Acer rubrum) is the dominant tree; other tree species include pin oak (Quercus palustris), American elm (Ulmus americana), and on the west side of the pool a thicket of immature aspens (Populus tremula). Trees are mostly 7 to 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) except for one 24-inch DBH red maple. Massive cottonwoods, one nearly 4 feet in DBH, are rooted in upland soil near Deming Street, but shade and overhang the pool. Arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum) and an invasive shrub, Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) are the dominant species in the moderate density shrub stratum. However, the woody understory also includes half a dozen other shrub species, and saplings of several tree species, especially at the north end, adjacent to the overgrown field (Upland Cover Type 1) and to Wetland 2. These include swamp shadbush (Amelanchier intermedia), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), and black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis). Density and diversity of herbaceous vegetation are both very low. Occasional sedges (Carex spp.) were noted on the pool margin. At the north end of the pool there is a snag and much wood debris. The wildlife value of Wetland 1 has probably declined significantly relative to pre- colonial conditions. Diverse trees and shrubs bordering the pool do provide habitat for birds and other wildlife, as in Upland Cover Types 1 and 2. However, the quality of aquatic habitat has presumably suffered from increased water level fluctuations and 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 18 M ILA-*7= Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 t�) unmitigated pollutant inputs from the road runoff from Deming Street. From a hydrologic standpoint, this fishless, isolated pool could certainly qualify as vernal pool habitat. However, it is probably now only marginally suitable for amphibian breeding. Adjacent upland habitat for the terrestrial stages of amphibians such as woodfrogs and spotted salamanders is very limited due to the small size of the adjacent wood lot. The lack of emergent vegetation limits the pool's suitability for spring peeper breeding. Nevertheless, the pool presumably supports an invertebrate-dominated aquatic ecosystem, including species such as sowbugs (isopods) that feed on leaf litter from the overhanging tree canopy, mosquitoes, predaceous beetles, rotifers, and damselflies. Fairy shrimp could possibly be here as well but none were observed at the time of the site inspection. Wetland 1 was not investigated at a suitable time of year for characterization of most aquatic or obligate fauna. 3.2.2.2.2 Wetland 2 The eastern edge of Wetland 2, which is part of an overall ecological unit that extends several hundred feet to the northwest and that is roughly 3.6 acres in size, occupies 0.40 acres on the site (see Figure 2, Photos 5 and 6 in Appendix 2, and report cover photo). An elderly housing community with a narrow upland buffer area is located immediately to the to the west of this wetland. The overgrown field, Upland Cover Type 1, lies to the east. Although Wetland 2 has the same hydrogeologic setting (groundwater depression), predominant soil type (very poorly drained Scarboro loam; Se), and constituent hydrologic regimes as Wetland 1, the ve eg_tation in Wetland 2 is very different. The unvegetated, "semi-permanently inundated "central pool in Wetland 2, classified as palustrine open water (POW), was about 65 feet long by 35 feet wide on October 19`", 2000. Its "seasonally inundated," gently sloping drawdown zone is classified as non- persistent palustrine emergent wetland (PEM2) or shallow marsh (SM-2) by the Golet system. Approximately 20 to 25 feet wide, this drawdown area supports moderately dense vegetation, dominated by marsh purslane (Ludwigia palustris) and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.). The persistent emergent (PEM1) wetland class is also very important in this wetland, and encompasses two hydrologic regimes. "Seasonally inundated" areas occur adjacent to the pool and extend northeastward into the overgrown field, supporting a very diverse shallow marsh (SM-1 according to the Golet classification system). This marsh has well- developed microtopography, indicating regular inundation of 4 to 6 inches, although no 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 19 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 t- - surface water was present during the October survey. Dominant herbaceous species include lakeside sedge (Carex lacustris), blue joint grass (Calamogrostis canadensis), purple willow herb (Epilobium coloratum), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnate), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), and smartweeds (Polygonum spp.). A dozen other herbaceous species were also noted, and a summer survey would probably double that number. One small patch of cattail (Typha latifolia) occurs at the north end of this area. The tussock sedge has formed pronounced hummocks most of which are a foot or more high. "Seasonally saturated" emergent PEM1 wetland, classified as wet meadow (M-1) according to the Golet system, occupies an approximately 10 to 20 foot wide swath along the eastern edge of this wetland. This low-diversity meadow community is dominated by rough goldenrod (Solidago spp). It grades into very similar vegetation on adjacent moderately well drained upland soils. Wetland 2 also supports a final wetland class, broad-leaved palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (PSS1), also known as shrub swamp (SS-2) in the Golet system. This class occurs in two hydrologic regimes. Thickets of multiflora rose are interspersed with goldenrod on seasonally saturated soils. Shrub swamp also occurs in seasonally inundated areas, especially adjacent to the outlet channel at the north end of this wetland. Red maple saplings are dominant, and silky dogwood (Corpus amomum) and steeplebush (Spiraea tomentosa) are also present. Most of the woody vegetation grows on tussock sedge hummocks. The wildlife habitat value of Wetland 2 is relatively high; a number of different wetland classes, including open water, are interspersed through this wetland. There is suitable habitat for wading birds, green frogs, painted turtles, and a variety of songbirds including swamp sparrows and red-winged blackbirds. Food sources include a variety of seed- producing sedges and grasses; fall-seeding, nectar-producing forbs; and fruiting, nectar- producing shrubs. Emergent plants also provide succulent foliage, eaten by deer and ducks. Emergent vegetation in the northeastern part of the wetland is used as a deer bedding area, for a sizable group of deer, based on the number of fresh tracks and the extent of matted down vegetation. Wildlife habitat components in the adjacent upland overgrown field complements the wildlife habitat in Wetland 1. The offsite portion of this wetland serves as a wildlife travel corridor, connecting this wetland to extensive areas of undeveloped farmland to the north and northeast. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 20 Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 " 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 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 II. 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 for that function. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 21 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 A somewhat formal assessment of the major functions and values of the site's major wetland(i.e. Wetland 2)was conducted. Wetland 2 is under the 0.5-acre threshold utilized by most standardized assessment methods and, therefore, was not evaluated using best any formal assessment procedures. The wetland functional assessment 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 2. The assessment forms for the wildlife habitat functional evaluation can be found in Appendix 5. A detailed rationale for the functional quality ratings can be provided upon request. Overall, Wetland 1 was evaluated as being of low or moderate quality for most functions, while Wetland 2 scored higher in the moderate and moderate-high ranking categories. Some of the reasons that Wetland 1 did not score higher included below average size for the region, limited wetland classes and subclasses, lack of perennial watercourses and extended permanent open water, unfavorable juxtaposition with other wetlands (no permanent hydrologic connection), and ongoing disturbance. Although Wetland 1 does provide some wetland functions and habitat it is acting much as a detention basin by receiving relatively untreated runoff from Deming Street and adjacent development. Wetland 2 could have scored higher for several functions if it was of larger size, contained more extensive and permanent open water (i.e. at least 4 feet in depth) and shallow marsh habitats, had a denser and wider buffer to adjacent existing development, and included at least half an acre of forested swamp. 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.) or through consultation with local experts indicating that the wetlands associated with the site are noteworthy or unique' resources in the Town or in the region. There are many other wetlands within the municipality that could be considered noteworthy or unique, that are more diverse and extensive and that offer higher quality functions. 1 A"unique" wetland is defined as"one of a kind" and a"noteworthy' wetland as one of the highest functioning wetlands in the Town or Region or a wetland that contains a natural feature or is inhabited by a species that is only found in a few wetlands in the region or the Town or which is inhabited by a "listed"species(i.e.endangered,threatened or special concern species). 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 22 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I II 11 Function Wetland 1 Wetland 2 w iio I� xs€, ;� li R, i 1 ' 1 �a, OILF� MM,�•f,�-"g��F� �S����� -� `zee' z Nu 1 1 •. WMA ,...uNKw-iE� / 1 1. "1 1 1. • "1 1• � � i • 1 1 1 Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 5.0 REVIEW OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS In October of 2000, at the Natural Resources Center of the CT DEP, RES staff conducted a review of the "State and Federal Listed Species and Significant Natural Communities Map" for the overall property and its immediate environs. It was determined that the site does not overlap any areas of concern (i.e. critical habitats, endangered, threatened or special concern species) shown on the USGS Manchester Quadrangle, Map No. 38, printed from the CT DEP Natural Diversity Data Base on July 27th, 2000. 6.0 WILDLIFE UTILIZATION AT THE SITE 6.1 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 from 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). 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 24 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 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 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 larger than the immediate area of physical disturbance. Therefore, a "study area" equal to about 12 acres was chosen and included a few off-site areas, particularly areas to the north and west. Once the "study area" was defined, the dominant vegetative cover types and features (e.g. bedrock outcrops, etc.) were delineated. Seven (7) distinct upland and wetland cover types were delineated within the study area as classified and described in Section 3.2.2 of this report(see Table 1 and Figure 2). Following the determination of cover types, an in-field verification was conducted and all pertinent data collected including data necessary to run WEThingsTM and WEThings — BirdsTM, two expert computer programs that were used to specifically assist in the prediction of wetland-dependent mammals, herptiles (i.e. amphibians and reptiles), and avians (i.e. birds). The data from the field investigations and the output of the two computer models were then merged with the preferred habitat type and territory 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 that is based predominately on the synthesis of all available information and on best professional judgment. Species that were identified by calls, song, sightings, scat, tracks and other sign were also noted(see Appendix 6). 6.1.1 Results Sixty-four (64) wildlife species that are either known or expected to utilize the study area (i.e. confirmed and probable breeders; see attached Appendix 6). Of these, nineteen (19) 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 25 M AVM Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 ut- 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. 6,I.L 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 thirty-nine (39) 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, nine (9) show a preference for wetland habitats and are probably associated with the development site's wetlands. These are the: mallard, American woodcock, eastern screech-owl, willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, swamp sparrow, red-winged blackbird, and common grackle. The avian species known or expected to breed within the property include species associated with upland deciduous woodlands, wooded and scrub shrub wetlands, shallow marshes, and upland shrub thicket and meadow 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, eastern phoebe, cardinal, song sparrow, northern oriole, downy woodpecker, and many others. Many of these birds could be described as"edge"habitat species. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 26 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 6J.L2 Herptiles&Mammals The WEThingsTM (Whitlock et al. 1994) software program was used to predict the occurrence of herptiles (amphibians, reptiles) and mammals within the study area. WEThingsTM is an expert system computer program that predicts potential habitat for wetland-dependent herptiles and mammals based upon each species' known habitat requirements and conditions found in the study area. It contains habitat models for 59 vertebrate species based upon the available scientific literature. I Information characterizing the wetland and upland cover types found on the study area was collected in the field and inputted to the WEThingsTM computer program. WEThingsTM then generated a preliminary species list (program output can be provided upon request). This list was modified based upon professional judgment and the species- specific habitat predicting models and extensive literature review provided with WEThingsTM. Finally, based on published species habitat preferences, non-wetland- dependent herptiles and mammals for which suitable habitat exists on the property were added to the master species list(e.g. redback salamander, opossum, etc.). It is estimated that the study area provides suitable habitat for up to twenty-five (25) individual herptile and mammal species (confirmed plus probable breeders), while an additional nineteen (19) could possibly breed here based on habitat type (see Appendix 6). Of the former, ten (10) are considered wetland-dependent species and are probably associated with the development site's wetlands. These are the: eastern toad, spring peeper, green frog, pickerel frog, masked shrew, little brown myotis, meadow jumping mouse, raccoon, and white-tailed deer. It should be noted that the majority of the breeding amphibians on the site would likely be associated with the site's shallow open water(i.e. Wetland 1 and 2) and shallow marsh and wet meadow(i.e. Wetland 2)habitats. 00454SWN7\Wat9on Farm-EA.DOC 27 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 7.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION According to standard wetland regulatory review procedures, mitigation should follow a prescribed format known as "sequencing." Simply stated, mitigation sequencing means that wetland impacts should first be avoided, then impacts that cannot be avoided should be minimized and, finally, impacts that cannot be further minimized, if substantial, should be mitigated through compensation (i.e., wetland restoration, enhancement or creation). Compensatory wetland mitigation, where it is required, should also follow a hierarchical order of restoration, enhancement, and finally, creation. As shown on the accompanying site plans, the proposed development has succeeded in avoiding direct impacts and in minimizing indirect wetland impacts to the site's wetlands and watercourses, to the extent possible. This was accomplished through an iterative alternatives analysis process whereby the site design was successively modified during the design phase to reduce both direct and indirect impacts upon wetland areas. 7.1.1 Indirect Wetland and Watercourse Impacts Long-term "indirect" impacts have also been considered for the development proposal. These are typically associated with urban runoff, potential hydrologic impacts and visual and auditory disturbances to the wildlife utilizing a wetland or watercourse. Since wetland and watercourse buffer zones are often touted as the land use management tool that can effectively protect these resources from indirect impacts, some discussion is merited here. The stormwater management system's water quality renovation capabilities will be elucidated in a following section. Buffer zones are natural or enhanced vegetated areas, upslope of a wetland or surface water (i.e. ponds, lakes, streams, rivers). In recent years scientific research has shown that buffer zones are an integral component of the landscape and can be important in protecting significant wetland and watercourse functions (Chase et al. 1995, Desbonnet et al. 1994, Castelle et al. 1992, Groffman et al. 1991, Welsch 1991, Brown et al. 1987). Buffer zones preserve and may even enhance the integrity of a wetland's or watercourse's water supply 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 28 IAVM Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 and quality, and protect riparian and wetland-dependent wildlife and aquatic organisms from both direct and indirect disturbances. Buffer zones offer a variety of ecological and social functions. The most widely recognized functions are: 1. Hydrologic Effects. Buffer zones can maximize groundwater recharge, store groundwater, moderate flooding by intercepting rain and snow melt, reduce sunlight penetration and slow down the rate of spring snow melt, store flood waters that overflow stream banks, lakes and wetlands, and moderate seasonal low flows. 2. Wildlife & Aquatic Habitat. Buffer zones provide foraging and nesting habitat and cover for a variety of upland, aquatic and wetland species. Buffer zones can also serve as travel routes for migratory and nomadic, as well as resident, species. They support plant diversity in the ecotones represented. Buffer zones can protect surface waters and wetlands from polluted runoff and disturbance effects such as temperature increase, which reduces water's oxygen holding capacity. Buffer zones along smaller streams supply most of the energy processed by stream organisms, in the form of leaf litter and woody debris. The woody debris also traps the leaf litter, making it available to organisms over a long period of time. These streamside buffer zones help stabilize banks as well, and naturally undercut areas beneath tree roots offer cover for fish,turtles and other creatures. 3. Water quality maintenance. Sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen can all be at least partly removed from runoff passing through naturally vegetated buffer zones. Through biological, chemical and physical processes they can filter, transform and store significant quantities of pollutants carried by surface runoff. Forested buffers also contribute to neutralization of acid precipitation, due to ion exchange that occurs as precipitation filters through the forest canopy. The percentage of pollutants removed depends on the pollutant load, the nature of the material, the amount of runoff, and the character of the buffer area. The amount of pollutant removed in a buffer zone is not the same along its entire width. Because particulates in runoff begin to settle out right away, for example, more removal will generally occur as runoff first enters the buffer than will occur further into it. Thus, a 25-foot buffer zone will generally remove more than half of what would be removed by a 50-foot buffer zone. Wider buffer zones, then, will remove more non-point pollution, but generally with less removal per foot of buffer zone width than in more narrow buffer zones. This means that wider buffer zones are more effective but less efficient than narrow ones. 004548WN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 29 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 i A number of buffer zone delineation models or procedures have been developed in the past decade. These are based on the available scientific literature and most of them designate minimum buffer zone widths necessary to safeguard wetland ecosystems from the adverse impacts of development. The most pertinent and regionally applicable procedures are: ➢ The Buffer Delineation Method produced for the State of New Jersey (RGH, Inc. 1988) (NJMethod) ➢ The Buffer Delineation Model for New Jersey Pinelands Wetlands produced for the New Jersey Pinelands Commission(Roman and Good 1985) (Pinelands Method) ➢ The Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands and Wildlife prepared for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (Brown et al. 1990) (Florida Method) ➢ The Vegetated Buffer Strip Designation Method Guidance Manual produced for the Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay Project(IEP, Inc. 1991) (RI Method) ➢ The Cromwell Buffer Zone Designation Method produced for the Town of Cromwell, Connecticut(SSES, Inc. 1995) (Cromwell Method) ➢ An Investigation into the Multiple Uses of Buffer Strips produced by the University of Rhode Island Department of Natural Resources (Groffman et al. 1991) (URI Method) Recognizing the importance of buffer zones the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) commissioned a study, of which George T. Logan of RES was the principal investigator, of the effectiveness of wetland and riparian buffer zones in protecting significant wetland and watercourse functions. The results of this study were twofold. First, the CT DEP received a comprehensive, research-based literature review that serves as the basis for buffer zone recommendations made by the Agency. Second, the CT DEP published the "Guidelines: Upland Review Area Regulations. Connecticut's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act" (June 1997). According to the CT DEP this document was: "prepared in response to inquiries from municipal wetland commissioners,the Rivers Advisory Committee, the regulated community and other interested persons for guidance on implementing setback and buffer provisions in municipal regulations adopted under Connecticut's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act. Section 22a- 42d of the General Statutes directs the department to provide guidance for the implementation of Section 22a-42d of the General Statutes." 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 30 MLAVM Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 ut� In certain situations a critical role of wetland and watercourse buffer zones are their ability to help in the maintenance of hydrology to wetlands and of baseflow to watercourses. The property's wetlands and watercourses rely on groundwater more than on overland flows to maintain their hydrologic regimes. Although specific studies were not conducted to ascertain the groundshed and the direction of groundwater flow, it is typical in wetlands that tap into saturated outwash deposits that rainfall that falls within a wetland's surface watershed is translated into groundwater to these wetlands. Therefore, increasing imperviousness within a wetland's watershed and changing existing flow patterns can have a significant effect upon wetland hydrology. In the case of this particular proposed development, however, the amount of additional impervious surface is relatively small in relation to the size of the overall watershed that likely feeds the outwash deposit that the wetlands tap. Moreover, the changes in flow patterns are not significant. Of the roughly eight acres on the property that currently "flow" towards the site's wetlands, only 2.7 acres will be made impervious, while the overall watershed is in the order of 150 to 180 acres. Runoff from these proposed impervious surfaces will be captured within a closed stormwater drainage system and be conveyed to a detention/biofiltration basin that will have anywhere from 2 to 3 feet of standing water most of the year. The basin will be built next to the easterly boundary of Wetland 2 and will be partially excavated and partially bermed. It is expected that when the basin is surcharged during a storm event above elevation 180.0 feet, which is roughly the elevation of standing water in Wetland 2, infiltration to the groundwater will take place. This recharged water will tend to break out along the eastern edge Wetland 2 or within the wetland itself. When during the larger precipitation events the basin overflows its outlet to the proposed biofiltration swale, treated runoff will be conveyed to Wetland 1, which will recharge the groundwater that flows in the direction of Wetland 2. The net result, we believe, is that there will not be a discernable change in the hydrologic regime of Wetland 2. Wetland 1 will likely receive more water during larger storms, but that should not change its function. It already has adapted to a fluctuating watertable since it receives direct runoff from many acres of impervious surfaces including Deming Street. Most of the science-based buffer zone designation methodologies that have been developed, including those sited above, consider some or all of the following key variables (discussion specific to the proposal is italicized): 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 31 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 ♦ The presence of "Special Conditions" requiring the imposition of recommended minimum buffer zone widths. None, such as the documented presence of sensitive or "listed"species, existfor the site in question. ♦ The baseline value of the regulated wetland or watercourse. As stated in an above section of the report, Wetland I was evaluated as being of low or moderate quality for most functions, while Wetland 2 scored higher in the moderate and moderate-high ranking categories. Wetland 1 currently has a wooded buffer that will remain, while Wetland 2 has a more open or at the most a scrub shrubby buffer, which will either remain or be replanted. It should be noted that much of the wildlife that utilizes these wetlands, particularly Wetland 1, is not particularly sensitive to human activities nearby, since they have already adapted to them. Wetland 1 is adjacent to a busy roadway (i.e. Deming Street), while the less intrusive yet visible elderly housing community flanks Wetland 2 to its west. ♦ The intensity and_type of the proposed development. The proposed development would generally be considered to be of moderate-high intensity. ♦ The dominant vegetative cover type and density within the potential buffer area. The vegetative cover of the proposed buffer to Wetland I can generally be characterized as being very dense in the overstory and of low to moderate density in the understory. The proposed buffer to Wetland 2 will be of low to moderate density in the overstory while of moderate to high density in the understory. Here some of the buffer will be graded for the proposed detention/biofiltration basin, but later be planted to shrubs and herbaceous cover. ♦ The average buffer width. For Wetland I the proposed buffer will be in the order of 50 to 80 feet. The great majority of this proposed buffer would be undisturbed land. For Wetland 2 the proposed buffer will be in the order of 50 to 85 feet. However, much of this buffer will be graded and then be replanted. It includes the proposed detention/biofiltration basin and the biofiltration Swale. ♦ The average slope within the potential buffer areas. The slopes within the proposed buffer areas are gentle to moderately steep. The steepest slopes exist at the undisturbed buffer to Wetland 1. Slopes within the buffer to Wetland 2 are not steeper than 3:1. ♦ The water quality renovation capability of the potential buffer zone's soils. The soils associated with the proposed wetland buffers have a moderate to moderate-high 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 32 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 infiltration capacity. This makes many of the proposed buffers capable of effectively renovating surface runoff. However, runoff will be managed within a closed system and be conveyed to a detentionlbiofiltration basin and vegetated Swale (see following section). Both BMPs will be able to infiltrate treated runoff back into the ground, thus ensuring that the wetlands'hydrologic regimes will be maintained. ♦ Whether water quality BMPs are included in the site plans. A formal stormwater management system (SMS) is proposed for the site. This uses many BMPs linked in series to provide effective runoff renovation (see following section). Based on the above discussion, it is our professional opinion that the proposed wetland and watercourse buffers zones will provide adequate long-term protection of the site's regulated recourses,particularly of the higher functioning wetlands(i.e. Wetland 2). 7.2 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS TO WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 7.2.1 Wildlife Habitat 7.2.1.1 Impacts to Resident Wildlife Species One of the primary functions offered by the site's wetlands, wildlife habitat, is briefly analyzed here in order to ascertain the intensity of potential impacts from the proposed development. Impacts to the site's wetland habitat, and the wetland-dependent species that rely upon it, can be categorized into short-term, long-term, direct and indirect. The short-term impacts are typically associated with the construction phase, while the long-term impacts have to do with the post-construction phase. Direct impacts are related to actual conversion or alteration of wetland wildlife habitat, while indirect impacts are related to the effects a proposed development can have upon a habitat and the wildlife that occupy it (e.g. water quality impacts, water quantity impacts, auditory and visual impacts, etc.) (see Table 3). The primary impact to the resident wildlife species will result from the conversion of some maturing hardwoods and old-field and shrub and sapling thickets to roadways, residential structures, lawns and other associated infrastructure improvements. Many of the wildlife species associated with the site are tolerant to human presence and "edge" habitat and, 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 33 Vn Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 ut- thus, will not only continue to utilize the site post-development but a few will likely increase in abundance. In general, the proposal will result in the reduction of both abundance and diversity for upland-type species since suitable habitat will be altered. However, impacts to wetland- dependent species will be minimal. It is not expected that proposal will significantly affect the abundance or diversity of wetland-dependent species on the property. The main reason for this is that no direct alteration of wetland habitat is proposed and indirect impacts have been kept to a minimum by maintaining adequate wetland and watercourse buffers. Table 3: Impacts to Wetland-Dependent Wildlife 1 ' 1 Low impact: Low Moderate impact: • Low potential for sedimentation of • Temporary auditory and visual impacts wetlands and watercourses associated with construction (Remediation would be required) No impact: Low impact: • Direct alteration of wetland habitat is • Some minimal permanent auditory and not proposed visual impact associated with post- construction phase upon generally tolerant species. • Potential of export of nonpoint source pollutants to wetlands and watercourse (Mitigation is proposed) 7.2.1.2 Impacts to Passage Wildlife Species Several wide-ranging animals are expected to utilize the property in its present state, including the coyote, red fox, and white-tailed deer. These and similar species have large to 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-ELDOC 34 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 very large home ranges and will travel to migrate, meet mates and find food. The site does not function as a travel and dispersal corridor for passage species. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposal will greatly effect the movement, dispersal and migration for these animals. 7.2.2 Potential Impacts to Other Wetland Functions 7.2.2.1 Ecological Integrity The proposed development will not substantially alter the wetlands' ecological integrity. Although there will be an increase of buildings and impervious surfaces adjacent to wetland areas, sufficient buffer area will be preserved to minimize, or eliminate, inadvertent incursions into wetland areas. Finally, the proposal would not affect the long- term stability and viability of the site's wetlands. 7.2.2.2 Educational Potential The site's wetlands and their educational potential will be maintained or be enhanced. Many of the site's wetlands, including the shallow pond habitat of Wetland 2 will have a higher potential of being used for educational experiences, whether organized or impromptu, by the local and regional population, since they will be more readily accessible. 7.2.2.3 Nutrient Retention& Sediment Trapping This wetland function will not be adversely impacted by the proposal. On the contrary, some of the site's wetlands will provide higher function because of the development. Those wetlands that will receive treated stormwater will have a higher opportunity to polish water of nutrients and other water-borne contaminants. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EALMOC 35 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 7.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: QUALITY 7.3.1 Design Objectives The proposed stormwater management system (SMS) is designed to meet three 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 at least 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. j 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 B1lIPs and Procedural BMPs. The former are typically engineered solutions, while the latter include procedures or housekeeping practices such as structure maintenance and roadway sweeping. The 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. Specific needs regarding quality of stormwater runoff addressed for this project include: (1) maintenance of baseflows to the site's wetlands and watercourses, and (2) provisions for improving water quality to the highest degree possible with currently available, passive technology. 7.3.2 Structural BMPs The stormwater management system (SMS) is the central BMP proposed for the site to ensure protection of downstream water quality, particularly Wetland WC5 and aquatic habitats downgradient of it. As will be explained in the following sections of the report, the SMS is designed to filter, transform and store pollutants that could be carried in the stormwater runoff through biological, chemical and physical processes. Water quality structural 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 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 36 AM Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 humans. Completely recapturing released pollutants is virtually 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. The bulk of the stormwater runoff from the site's impervious surfaces will be treated within one distinct system, utilizing catch basins, water quality inlets (i.e., oil and grit separators), a detention/biofiltration basin and a vegetated swale. 7.3.2.1 Catch Basins Numerous catch basins will be used for the site. These will be the standard type catch basins with minimum 24-inch deep sumps. They will serve to collect stormwater off the proposed internal roadways,parking areas, and a few other graded areas. The catch basins will be 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, and to reduce the potential for sediment re-suspension and export to downstream receiving waters during rare, large volume scouring rains. 7.3.2.2 Sediment Structure (Oil& Grit Separator) (RECOMMENDED) i The current plans do not show a pre-treatment BMP prior to discharge to the proposed detention/biofiltration basin. However, such a device is recommended here for incorporation onto the final plans for the major outfall to the basin. The BaySavere Separation System should be employed as the second step in the stormwater runoff renovation process prior to the major outfall to the 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 37 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 detention/biofiltration basin. This BMP is comprised of two concrete manholes, one of which acts as a storage tank, and a high-density polyethelene (HDPE) separator unit (see Appendix 7). The system is designed to remove free oils, floating debris, and suspended sediment from runoff, before it is discharged to the next BMP in the SMS "treatment train." The BaySaver® Separation System, which acts much like a traditional "oil & grit" separator, would provide efficient pre-treatment for the SMS's next BMP, the proposed level spreaders. The BaySaver® has an internal bypass that prevents the discharge of collected pollutants during large flows. According to the BaySaver® Separation System Technical and Design Manual (see Appendix 7), the treatable impervious drainage area for their 3K BaySaver® Unit is up to 4.00 acres for a storm intensity of up to 2.5" of rainfall per hour. The impervious drainage area size this unit would be treating under the current proposal would range be less than 2.7 acres. The site engineers could utilize the manufacturer's data to ascertain whether the smaller I unit could be scoped for this application. 7.3.2.3 Detention Basin Overview The third step in the water quality renovation process, for the great majority of the site's impervious surfaces (i.e., 2.7 acres), would involve a"wet" extended detention basin. The site designers and engineers felt it was necessary to use such a BMP not only for water quantity control, but also for water quality renovation. According to Doenges and others (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). 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 the chosen design include the creation of some wetland habitat within the lower portions of the basins that will promote 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 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 38 Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 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 a concern if a coldwater fishery exists), and (2) a slight decrease of pollutant removal performance during ice and snowmelt runoff conditions. Based on groundwater elevation as expressed in adjacent wetlands (i.e. Wetland 2), it is expected that about two feet of water will remain standing in this basin throughout most of a typical precipitation year. Proposed Planting of Extended Detention Basin (RECOMMENDED) The primary impact of an extended detention basin on the human environment is usually related to its aesthetic value. In consideration of this fact, a fair amount of attention could be paid to the landscaping value of this area. Currently the plans call for the seeding of the basin with various specialized wildlife enhancing seed mixes. However, the basin's side slopes and contouring of its normal pool (i.e. area below the outlets' invert elevations), will enable the establishment of several vegetational zones: (1) shallow marsh and deep marsh within the deeper areas of the normal pool, (2) wet meadow or "drawdown zone" assemblage on the terraces of the normal pool, and (3) open grassed areas on the side slopes of the flood pool (i.e. areas above the outlet's invert elevation). By creating depressional wetlands with a mosaic of wetland vegetation, and by planting some woody vegetation on the basins' side slopes and within the basin's bottom, the proposed stormwater wetland will provide habitat "edge" resulting in a net enhancement of the wetland habitat at the area where it is proposed. Detailed landscaping plans for the basin could be provided under separate cover in the near future. It is our recommendation that the Commission allow our firm to coordinate with the site Landscape Architect, Mr. Raymond Jefferson, and the Commission's staff, Mr. Jeffrey Folger to provide a plan that will satisfy Mr. Folger. The provision of such a plan could be a condition of a permit to approve the proposal. A note regarding mosquito breeding in the proposed basin should be inserted here. While it is true that the proposed basin will encourage the breeding of mosquitoes there are 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 39 I 'I Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 several inherent design features that will tend to minimize mosquito populations. First, in an average year the period between rainfall events in this region of Connecticut is in the order of two weeks or less. That means that water will enter the basin often enough to dislodge and strand or flush out mosquito larvae. This should reduce viable adult mosquitoes to some extent. Second, the proposed shallow marsh and wet meadow habitat is the preferred habitat for Odonates, that is, dragonflies and damselflies, which consume large quantities of both larval and adult mosquitoes both during their aquatic naiad and adult phases. Due to nearby suitable habitat for such species (i.e. Wetland 2 pond), natural colonization of Odonates from surrounding areas should not take long. To speed the process, inoculation of the basin with various species of somewhat pollution tolerant Odonates could be undertaken immediately after the planting of wetland emergents. Should additional measures to control mosquitoes here or in other areas around the site be desired, biological and chemical controls of larvae are commercially available that are extremely effective. 7.3.Z 4 Vegetated Swale A roughly 200-foot long vegetated swale is proposed following the detention/biofiltration basin. This will act as the fourth and final step in the pollutant renovation "treatment train." These types of devices can be highly effective in polishing runoff. Although this device is not the main BMP for the SMS —the detention/biofiltration basin is—some adjustments to its design are recommended below that would further enhance its runoff renovation capabilities. The following are some of the general criteria that are currently used for the design of water quality renovation swales. These might not apply to each site. We have included in italics discussion and recommendations as they apply to the site in question. a. During the "water quality storm" (i.e. < 1-inch storm) the grassed swale should be designed to provide a minimum of 12 minutes of residence time (from one end to the other). The slope of the Swale influences this, which should not be more than 3%, and so does the length of the swale,which should not be shorter than 200 feet. Ideally,the swale should be designed to retain the entire volume of the water quality storm, or at least the runoff from a 0.5-inch storm. The swale should also be designed to provide infiltration (see item "e" below), at least in the upper 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 40 Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 y reaches (if possible). (The proposed swale is roughly 200 feet long and very flat. It is expected that the upper one third to one half of its length will provide infiltration of runoff.) b. Swale width (at the bottom) should not be less than 8 feet (flat). (Currently the swale is approximately 4'wide at the bottom. At least 6'should be easily attained.) c. Average flow velocity should not be more than 1.5 ft/sec. (According to the engineers flows for the 10 year design storm will be 0.72 ft/sec.) d. Side slopes should not be steeper than 3:1 (4:1 is preferable). (3:1 slopes are designed for the swale) e. Where possible, for maximum water quality renovation effectiveness, the water quality grassed swale should be designed as a"dry swale"to promote infiltration. The bed of the swale should consist of a minimum of 24 inches(preferably 30 inches) of prepared soil (sandy loam)that has an underdrain pipe (slotted and wrapped in filter fabric) at the bottom. The swale would be designed to rapidly dewater during water quality storms. (Sufficient infiltration has been provided for this particular application. It would be difficult to provide a "dry"Swale for this site). f. Check dams should be provided and regular intervals (e.g. every 40'). Check dams could consist of 4" to 8" traprock, imbedded into the swale bed and not higher than 18". Another design would include 0.5" crushed traprock stone wrapped in filter fabric and overtopped with the traprock. The second one is more efficient in renovation, but could clog more readily over time if fine sediment is not taken out upgradient. (At least three such check dams are recommended for this particular application) g. A riprap plunge pool could be provided prior to the grass swale to dissipate flow velocities and trap sediment if upgradient controls are limited. (Has been provided) h. The swale, including the outlet pipe if the"dry"design is used, should be designed to handle the 2-year storm before overtopping its banks. Handling the 10-year storm is preferable. An emergency spillway(riprap)could be provided to route water around the Swale if necessary(e.g. where excess water would be a safety concern). (The swale will handle at least the 10 year storm as designed. No further adjustments are necessary.) 004548WN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 41 Envirnomental Assessment • Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 7.3.3 Procedural BMPs: Long-Term 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 to those required 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. The conditions of this General Permit would have to be complied with if this was a commercial development and more five acres of land were disturbed. ♦ Sweeping: All paved sidewalks, driveways and other impervious surfaces (except roofs) should be swept clean of sand, litter and any other possible pollutants 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 other BMPs 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 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). ♦ Maintenance of Catch Basins: The site's catch basins and sedimentation structures should be inspected on at least a bi-annual basis, or more frequently if possible (i.e. quarterly). These structures should be cleaned of sediment no less than annually between April I`and May 1st of each year. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 42 Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 Similar to the sweeping of impervious surfaces, the effectiveness of catch basins and other similar devices 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 sediment (by weight) (not to be confused with suspended solids) while concomitantly removing adsorbed contaminants such as heavy metals and adsorbed hydrocarbons from the water column (Aronson et al. 1983). A study has shown 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 (Pitt 1985). 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 BaySavee Separation Systems: The swirl-concentrators shall be inspected bi-annually for sediment deposition and proper functioning. These structures shall be cleaned of sediment no less than annually between April 1st and May 1st of each year. However, if it is determined that a significant accumulation of sediment (i.e. more than 50% of the storage capacity) is present, immediate cleaning should follow. The manufacturer recommended maintenance procedures are included in Appendix 7. ♦ Maintenance of Detention/Biofiltration Basin and Vegetated Swale: This BMP should be inspected at least bi-annually for sediment deposition and proper functioning. 7.3.4 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 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 43 Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT , November 27,2000 The first two sizing rules, which are based on average runoff volumes developed from many years of data collection and research, yield good working values. These, however, are averages, and 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 (Rr,). The runoff coefficient is used to calculate approximate runoff values from given rainfall volumes, expressed as a percentage. The " irst flush" of runoff and the first half- Concentration inch of runoff are often thought of being the same. However, the "first flush" of runoff refers more to the levels of pollutant ` concentration in runoff, than to the volume of o runoff itself. Pollutant concentration curves or pollutographs can be compared with runoff St0""� curves, called hydrographs, to determine the i optimal amount of runoff that must be Time captured to treat the maximum amount of Figure 3: Pollutant concentration-runoff curve pollutants. (Source:Adapted from Horner et al. 1994) 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. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 44 MALAVa Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 The first half-inch of runoff sizing rule is Percent of Annual Rainfall based on rainfall volumes (precipitation too I I I I I I I I analysis) and runoff coefficients. Studies I I I I I I I I I I I of rainfall volumes across the country I I I I I I reveal that 90 percent of all rainfall 60 --t-- i---t---1---+-- ---+---i---i---I---i--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I events have an average volume of a little 40 - -------------1---;---}--- --1---�--;--- over one inch (i.e. +1.25"). Moreover, a — I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I study of runoff coefficients reveals that, 20 -h--i---r--i---r--i---+---t--i---1--i--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I even in the most densely urbanized areas, o the average runoff Coefficient is 0.50. CA US U0 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 LIS 240 L75 2.00 The smaller rainfall events (roughly one Event Precipitation(inches) inch or less) that occur more frequently Figure 4: Generalized precipitation analysis are the ones 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 BUT (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." 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. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 45 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 ut��# 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 water treatment volume. 7.3.5 Applicable Standards and Guidelines Because of the somewhat sensitive downstream receiving waters (i.e. Class A surface waters), the proposed project must provide an overall 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." 004548WN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 46 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 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. 2. 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 project. 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 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 47 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 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. The applicant shall demonstrate the pollutant attenuation effectiveness of the stormwater management system through the utilization of published loading rates for various types of development and efficiencies of various standard BMPs (see following section). 7.3.6 SMS Water Quality BMP Sizing 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 in an effort to meet or exceed the desired water quality treatment criteria, specifically the achievement of a minimum 80% total suspended solids (TSS)removal. The site will rely on the effective water renovation of the recommended BaySaver separation systems, which have been documented to remove on average 75% to 80% of TSS, a detention basin, which will also act as a water quality basin, and a vegetated swale. Standards for sizing water quality basin volumes have evolved over a period of years and have been refined to be a system that captures runoff from a +1.25-inch storm (estimated to represent 90 percent of rainfall events) and uses a coefficient of runoff(Rv) based upon the development of impervious area on a site. This sizing rule for estimating a minimum treatment volume is equivalent to the "90 percent storm capture rule" described in a previous section of the report. The applicable formula for calculating the minimum treatment volume(Vt) reads: Vt(basin treatment volume in cubic feet)= [(1.25)(Rv)(A)/12] x 43,560 Rv=0.05+0.009(I) where I=percent site imperviousness A=contributing watershed area(acres) Standards for establishing the necessary sur ace area for a water quality basin are not clearly defined by the CT DEP stormwater management guidelines. However, the relationship of surface area to volume has always been an important relationship in 004548WN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 48 VM Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 creating functioning water quality biofilter basins. Natural acting systems can withstand water depths at widely spaced time intervals but will not function as efficiently if the same depths result from nearly every storm event. Required volumes can be achieved in basins that fill four to six feet in depth during low intensity storms but these will not have physical attributes that can support stable, viable plant communities. Therefore, successful water quality basins should mimic natural vegetated systems and have elevation changes that do not increase much more than 12 to 18 inches in 90 percent of the anticipated storm events (i.e. + 1.25" of rainfall). Though larger storm events will produce a deeper impoundment or overflow the water quality basin, the smaller regular water level changes will enable plant materials to function properly. Recent professional literature (Nichols 1983, Strecker et al. 1992) and personal experience indicate that a water quality basin surface area should be based upon a minimum basin surface area to contributing watershed area ratio of 0.02 (i.e. 2%). Sizingof Proposed Detention/Biofiltration Basin Contributory drainage watershed to basin= 7.99 acres Impervious surfaces= 33.79 percent Basin area (elevation 181.0 feet) = 7,340 square feet Surface Area= 7.99 acre watershed X 0.02 = 0.16 acres 0.16 acres=6,960 square feet of area desired +/- 7,340 square feet provided @ elevation 181.0 feet 90%storms—water quality treatment volume (Vt) Rv=0.05+0.009(33.79)=0.354 (1.25 X 0.354 X 7.99/12)X 43,560= 12,834 cubic feet of volume desired +/- 24,435 cubic feet provided As seen from the above, the basin meets the two criteria outlined above. As a result, on its own, the basin will be able to treat runoff at a moderate-high level of efficiency. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EAMOC 49 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 -ut, 7.3.7 SMS Water Quality BMP Performance To aid in the design and to predict the performance of the development 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 5) to determine expected percent Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal for the site's SMS system that outfalls to on-site and off-site wetlands (Table 4). Using best professional judgment to find the closest match with regard to each of the SMS's BMPs (e.g., catch basins, vegetated swale, detention basin), the expected average total suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiencies were estimated for each of the BMPs. The combined pollutant removal efficiency of BMPs in series can be evaluated using the equation: ET= [1 - (1 —El)(1 —EDO —E3)(1 —E4)(1 —E5)] x 100 Where: ET=The total efficiency of BMPs in series El =Removal efficiency of BMP #1 E2=Removal efficiency of BMP #2 E3 =Removal efficiency of BMP#3 E4 =Removal efficiency of BMP#4 E5 =Removal efficiency of BMP #5 Table 4: Estimated TSS Removal Efficiencies per Proposed BMP for Site's SMS Impervious Surface Sweeping 15% Catch Basins with annual cleanout 10% BaySaver Separation System 75% Detention/Biofiltration Basin 70% Vegetated Swale 65% ET = [1 - (1 - 0.15)(1 - 0.10)(1- 0.75)(1 - 0.70)(1 — 65)] x 100 = 97.9% (Total TSS Removal) As seen above, the overall TSS removal efficiency for the site's primary proposed treatment system is predicted to be about 97.9%. This is considered to be at or at about the empirical 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-E&DOC 50 Envirnomental Assessment , Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 maximum for TSS renovation by BAP or series of BAPs that has been documented in the field. The proposed project, therefore, meets the EPA/NURP and CT DEP standard of 80% average removal for treating stormwater runoff by detaining, retaining, or transforming the major portion of urban runoff constituents to levels that will maintain water quality for this particular site. The quality of the water leaving the proposed BAPs and the site will be treated at a level that should have no discernible negative impacts on downstream receiving waters. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 51 Table 5: 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 CarbonManagement Practice N b TSS Total P Soluble P Total N Soluble N Nitrate HC Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc 9 Median Reported Range (-100)-78 (-100)-60 (-25)-25 (-100)-40 (-100)-30 (-25)-15 NR NR 0-50 NR (-100)-90 (-100)-77 --'M Probable Range (-75)-70 (-25)-50 (-30)-25 (-25)-35 (-35)-25 (-20)-10 _ _ 0-45 NR (-50)-70 40-80 9 1 - Median Reported Range 60-100 5-99 (-45)-65 NR 7NR (-30)-80 (-25)-99 NR NR 7(-5)-70 75 NR 0-99 48-99 Probable Range 60-90 10-70 (-35)-50 NR _ _ _ 5-80 45-90 9 Median 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 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 WENE011i 6 Median Reported Range 65-98 20-75 (-60)-70 30-70 0-50 NR NR NR N R NR NR NR Probable Range 70-95 20-75 (-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 oiVgrease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or T Revised:7/9/99 Page 1 of 4 Table 5:Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants(continued) Removal . Pollutants Management Practice Nt TSS Total P Soluble P Total N Soluble N Nitrate FIC Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc Carbon 10 Median Reported Range 60-9-5 0-90 NR 20-40 NR NR NR NR NR 30-90 50-80 45-70 Probable Range 60-90 0-80 _ 20-40 _ _ _ 50-70 _ 40-80 40-80 40-70 2 Median Reported Range 80-90 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 60-90 60-90 NR Probable Range 80-90 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60-90 60-90 7 Median Reported Range 20-80 0-95 10-80 0-70 0-20 NR NR NR NR 20-90 30-90 0-80 Probable Range 40-95 20-90 10-80 20-60 0-20 _ _ _ _ 20-60 20-60 20-70 2 Median Reported Range 20-80 0-95 10-80 0-70 0-20 NR NR NR NR 60-90 60-90 60-90 Probable Range 40-95 20-90 10-80 20-60 0-20 _ _ _ _ 40-90 40-90 60-90 2 Median Reported Range 5-20 5-20 0-10 5-20 0-10 NR NR NR NR 5-20 5-20 NR Probable Range 5-20 5-20 0-10 5-20 0-10 _ _ _ _ 5-20 5-20 2 Median Reported Range 5-10 1-10 0-2 1-10 0-5 NR NR NR NR 5-10 5-10 NR Probable Range 5-20 1-10 0-2 1-10 0-5 _ _ _ _ 5-10 5-10 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 oiVgrease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or TOC) Revised:7/9/99 Page 2 of 4 Table 5:Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants(continued) ManagementRemoval Efficiency for Key Stormwater Pollutants (Vo) .. 2 Median Reported Range 1-20 0-10 0-1 0-10 0-1 NR NR NR NR 1-20 1-20 NR Probable Range 1-20 0-10 0-1 0-10 0-1 _ _ _ _ 1-20 1-20 _ 1 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 _ 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 oittgrease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or TOC) Revised:7/9/99 Page 3 of 4 Table 5:Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants(continued) PollutantsRemoval Efficiency for Key Stormwater Management .. 30 Median Reported Range 5-99 8-92 (-5)-90 (-10)-80 0-95 (-75)-98 NR NR 40-80 10-95 18-97 (-28)-85 Probable Range 30-95 15-90 10-90 5-85 0-95 (-10)-90 _ _ 40-80 10-95 20-95 10-90 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 5 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 11 Median Reported Range (-22)-97 (-8)-92 (-25)-75 (-25)-80 10-70 (-100)-70 NR NR 2-80 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 oilIgrease 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.840-13-92-002 3)Dr. Kenneth Wagner,personal communication(Water Quality Specialist; ENSR, Northborough,MA) Revised:7/9/99 Page 4 of 4 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor, CT November 27,2000 8.0 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. 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. 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 Pequot Press. Golet, F.C. 1973. Freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat. Pages 84-103 in M. W. LeFore, W.C. Kennard, and T.B. Helfgott, editors. Proceedings of the Third Wetlands Conference. University of Connecticut Inst. Water Recourses. Rep. 26. Golet, F.C. 1976. Wildlife Wetland Evaluation Model. In: Models or Assessment o — f f 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. Washington D.C. 56 pp. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 56 Enviroomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 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. 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. Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd. 1972. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants. National 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 Coastal 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 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. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 57 Envirnomental Assessment Watson Farm Elderly Housing,South Windsor,CT November 27,2000 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. 00454SWN7\Watson Farm-EA.DOC 58 REMIA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC REPORT DATE: November 7, 2000 19 Foster Street PAGE 1 OF 3 Manchester, CT PHONE: (860) 649-7362 ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROJECT NAME& SITE LOCATION: RES Job No.: 004545WN7 Watonrn Farm Field Investigation Date(s): 10/2/00 Deming Street Field Investigation Method(s): Knuth Windsor Connecticut ® Spade and Auger ❑ Backhoe Test Pits ❑ Other: REPORT PREPARED FOR: Field Conditions: MPtrn RPalty ro Up Inc Weather: Sunny; 690 10 Executive Drive Soil Moisture: low-moderate Farmington, CT 0 032 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: ua'tfQrd County Soil 5urvey Wetland Boundary Marker Series: RE5-A-1 to RE5-A-9 and RE5-13-1 to RE5-13-16 General Site Description/Comments: The Site io located on the north Side of Deming Road in South Windsor, near the Manchester South Windsor Town Line The soils were identified ar161 clao5ified as undisturbed uplanJ and wetland soil tuner The undisturbed upland and wetland soil tymeo were derived from glacial outwaoh (Le', stratified sand and gr_w_el) dencolta_ The soils identified ao "upland yreo_ conoiot of excessively well-drained Manchester soil series Mal,th w II drained Enfield soil series (Eo),and the a oomewh_t poorly to moderately well drained 5�_rvoil series (��. The disturbed upl_ _ and soils were_mapped as the dorthents 1 and are aoanriatP6l with an exiotina redid .n The "wetland-t pe" soils were mapped ao poorly drained Walpol,.__e onil series (W61) and ve o_po_orly drai.ric6i 5carborn snil series (54 The"regulated areas"are located along the west re n bow n6l _ of the site and consist of a woodland pool an d_frige near its southwestern corner (Wetland lulu and with a more extensive wetland that contains open n water, ohallow marsh, wet meadow and o rub ohrub ompo.� nents (Wetland 2) This latter wetland extends off- PAGE 2 OF 3 DATE: 11/7/00 ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT (CONTINUED) PROJECT NAME& SITE LOCATION: Watoon Farm Deming Road, 5auth Windsor, CT SOIL MAP UNITS Wetland Soils 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. 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. Upland Soils .Enfield Silt loam (Eo). This series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in a coarse-silty mantle underlain by sandy water deposited glacial outwash materials. They are level to very steep soils on outwash plains and high stream terraces. The soils formed in loamy over stratified sandy and gravelly glacial outwash derived mainly from a variety of acid rocks. Typically these soils have a dark grayish brown silt loam surface layer 8 inches thick. The subsoil from 8 to 26 inches is strong brown and light olive brown silt loam. The substratum from 26 to 60 inches is brown to reddish brown is stratified sand and gravel. Manchester gravely Sandy loam (Me). This series consists of very deep, excessively drained soils formed in a Shallow, loamy Sand mantle underlain by gravelly sand, water deposited glacial outwash materials. They are level to very steep soils on outwash plains, terraces, deltas, kames and eskers. The soils formed in loamy over stratified sandy and gravelly glacial outwash derived mainly from Triassic sandstone, Shale, conglomerate and basalt. Typically these soils have a reddish brown gravelly sandy loam surface layer 6 inches thick. The subsoil layer from 6 to 16 inches is yellowish red gravelly sandy loam. The substratum from 16 to 60 inches is yellowish brown stratified sand and gravel. projects\conn\00454S WN7\soilreport-metro.doe PAGE 3 OF 3 DATE: 11/7/00 ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT (CONTINUED) PROJECT NAME& SITE LOCATION: Watoon Farm Deming Road, South Wincioor, CT SOIL MAP UNITS Upland Soils 5udbury fine Sandy loam (5o). The 5udbury Series consists of deep, moderately well drained soils formed in a coarse- loamy mantle underlain by Sandy water deposited glacial outwash materials. They are nearly level to Strongly Sloping Soils on glaciofluvial landformo,typically in Slight depressions and broad drainage ways. The Soils formed in loamy over Stratified Sandy and gravelly outwash derived from a variety of acid crystalline rocks. Typically,these Soils have a dark brown Sandy loam surface layer 10 inches thick. The Subsoil from 10 to 26 inches is yellowish brown sandy loam with mottles below 16 inches. The Substratum from 28 to 60 inches is mottled, light brownish gray and dark gray, Stratified sands and gravels. Lidorthento (Lld). This soil mapping unit consists of well drained to moderately well drained soils that have been altered by cutting,filling,or grading. The areas either have had two feet or more of the upper part of the original Soil removed or have more than two feet of fill material on top of the original Soil. Udorthente or Made Land Soils can be found on any Soil parent material but are typically fluvial on glacial till plains and outwash plains and Stream terraces. Any accompanying soil logs and soil maps, and the 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/or reviewed by the undersigned Registered Soil Scientist(s) [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) projects\conn\00454S WN7\soilreport-metro.doc .{iz / s s a L iia 6 R tv1 "•.t. - - - TV � i r I I • I I i Oli Jib' I J 1i � : y ,r .�� �I �{�1h,'+ '(. � !`-� '��r/�`�ij�_�i (�r�r�e y. / a .i'f�> ia_�l r •i��� �1' � �n;�l�� 1 1 i-. ,y �? � �! •r���{����������a1 ���i ite a�.a} e _ 's���s')►��' r f/� +;fi IN + s� i.3,i �� ''►91 0� ij ' �:)�,c 1��!° '�` .'�.�s .�8= � `��'b�° y � �`�L sir:' • I r , r� y ��1• r` t ;, s ,fi. , � 4�{ ±�1 t � retr/ d r r 1• f y , • � ,� ,r . � 1� ` S��t a t� r�uvAt Al 1 f r'A, 1 I' 1 ,{ Photo 5:Wetland 2(W2)"pond"seen from its northern marshy edge ;fikl Photo 6:Wetland 2 seen from the south; senior citizen complex and farm buildings in background 54 � r� text '` 11 ter•. Photo 7:Cover Type U1 (shrub-meadow mosaic and forest edge);facing northwesterly :t tN � Photo 8:Cover Type 1.11;facing westerly VEGETATIVE INVENTORY Proposed Watson Farm Elderly Housing Development,South Windsor, Connecticut Trees Acer rubrum Red maple Acer saccharum Sugar maple Amelanchier spp. Shadbush Betula lenta Black birch Betula o uli olia Gray birch Carya cf.glabra Pignut hickory Carya spp. Hickories Cornus Florida Flowering dogwood Juniperus virginiana Red cedar Malus spp. Apple Pinus resinosa Red pine Pinus strobus White pine Populus deltoides Cottonwood Populus tremula Quaking Aspen Prunus serotina Black cherry Quercus alba White oak Quercus coccinea Scarlet oak Quercus palustris Pin oak Quercus rubra Northern red oak Quercus velutina Black oak Sassafras albidum Sassafras Ulmus americana American elm Abundance Codes(%cover): Very abundant(>50%) 1 Wetlands: Wl =Wetland 1 W2=Wetland 2 Abundant(25%to 50116) Wetland Cover Type symbols: WS=wooded swamp,SS=scrub shrub, Common(12%to 25%) M=wet meadow,SM=shallow marsh,OW=open water Moderate(5%to 12916) Uplands: U-1=Upland Cover Type 1 (mixed deciduous forest); Occasional(<5%) U-2=Upland Cover Type 2(meadow/shrub mosaic and field edge) Absent Appendix 3 Page 1 Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) Shrubs Alnus serrulata Smooth alder Acer rubrum Red maple saplings Amelanchier intermedia Swamp shadbush Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Betula spp. Birch saplings Carya spp. Hickory saplings Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Cornus racemosa Grey dogwood Eleagnus umbellata Autumn olive Euonymuss Euonymus Ilex verticillata Winterberry Lonicera morrowii Morrow's honeysuckle Juniperus virginiana Red cedar sapling Prunus spp. Cherry saplings uercus spp. Oak sapling/seedlings Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac Rosa multiora Multiflora rose Rosa palustris Swamp rose Rubus alle heniensis Allegheny blackbeny Rubus occidentalis Black raspberry Salix spp. Willows Sambucus canadensis Elderberry Sorbus aucuperia European mountain ash Spirea tomentosa Steeplebush 1 Vaccinium vacillans Early blueberry Viburnum dentatum Northern arrowwood Abundance Codes(%cover): Very abundant(>50016) 'Wetlands: W1=Wetland 1 W2=Wetland 2 Abundant(25%to 50016) Wetland Cover Type symbols: WS=wooded swamp,SS=scrub shrub, Common(12%to 25%) M=wet meadow,SM=shallow marsh,OW open water Moderate(5%to 12%) Uplands: U-1=Upland Cover Type 1 (mixed deciduous forest); Occasional(<5916) U-2=Upland Cover Type 2(meadow/shrub mosaic and field edge) Absent Appendix 3 Page 2 Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) Herbs Achillea millefolium Yarrow Agropyron repens Quackgrass Agrostis alba Redtop Agrostis spp. Bentgrasses Antennaria ne lecta Field pussy-toes Asclepias incarnata Red milkweed Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Aster eroicoides Heath aster Aster novae-belgii New York aster Aster viminius Small white aster Aster spp. Asters Bidens spp. Beggar-ticks Calamogrostis canadensis Blue joint reedgrass Carex lacustris Lake-bank sedge Carex lurida Lurid sedge Carex pennsylvanica Pennsylvania sedge Carex stricta Tussock sedge Carex spp. (Ovales) Broom sedges Carex spp. Sedges IC erastium vul atum Mouse-ear chickweed irsium spp. Thistles ommelina communis Asiatic dayflower yperus strigosus Straw-color flat-sedge actylis glomerata Orchard grass Daucus carota Wild carrot Danthonia spicata Poverty grass Echinochloa cruz-galli Barnyard grass Eleocharis obtusa Blunt spikerush Eleocharis spp. Spikerush Epilobium coloratum Purple-leaved willow-herb Abundance Codes(%cover): Very abundant(>50%) 1 Wetlands: W1 =Wetland 1 W2=Wetland 2 Abundant(25%to 50016) Wetland Cover Type symbols: WS=wooded swamp,SS=scrub shrub, Common(12%to 25%) M=wet meadow,SM=shallow marsh,OW=open water Moderate(5%to 1291o) Uplands: U-1=Upland Cover Type 1 (mixed deciduous forest); Occasional(<5%) U-2=Upland Cover Type 2(meadow/shrub mosaic and field edge) Absent Appendix 3 Page 3 Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) Herbs,continued Eragrostis spectabilis Purple lovegrass Erechtites hieracifolia Pilewort Eupatorium maculatus Spotted joe-pye-weed Eupatoreum perfoliatum Boneset Euthamia graminifolia Flattop fragrant goldenrod Festuca spp. Fescues Fragaria virginiana Strawberry Galium mollugo Wild madder Hieracium flagellare Large mouse-ear hawkweed Impatiens ca ensis Jewelweed Juncus effusus Soft rush Juncus tenuis Path rush Lemna spp. Duckweed Linaria vulgaris Butter&eggs Ludwi is palustris Marsh seedbox Lycopus virginicus Bugleweed Mimulus ringens Monkeyflower Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern Oxalis europea Woodsorrel Panicum spp. Panic grasses Phleum pratense Timothy Pilea pumila Clear weed Plantago lanceolata English plantain Poa spp. Grasses Polygonum sagittatum Arrow-leaf tearthumb Polygonum spp. Smartweeds Potentilla simplex Old field cinquefoil Prunella vulgaris Self-heal Ranunculus acris Tall buttercup Rubus hispidus Bristly dewberry Abundance Codes(%cover): Very abundant(>50016) 'Wetlands: W1=Wetland 1 ; W2=Wetland 2 Abundant(25%to 50016) Wetland Cover Type symbols: WS=wooded swamp,SS=scrub shrub, Common(12%to 25%) M=wet meadow,SM=shallow marsh,OW=open water Moderate(5%to 12%) Uplands: U-1=Upland Cover Type 1 (mixed deciduous forest); Occasional(<5916) U-2=Upland Cover Type 2(meadow/shrub mosaic and field edge) Absent Appendix 3 Page 4 Appendix 3:Vegetative Inventory(continued) Herbs,continued Ranunculus recurvatus Hooked buttercup Rubus a ellaris Dewberry Rumex acetosella Field sorrel Rumex crispus Curly dock Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass Scir us validus Soft-stem bulrush Setaria spp. Foxtails Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Solidago juncaea Early goldenrod Solidago gigantea Late goldenrod Solidago rugosa Rough-stem goldenrod Taraxacum o icinale Common dandelion Thelypteris palustris Marsh fern Trifolium pratense Red clover Trifolium repens White clover Verbascum thaspus Common mullein Verbena hastata Blue vervain Veronica spp. Speedwells Viola s Vines Celastrus orbiculatus Asiatic bittersweet Toxicodendron radicans Poison ivy Vitis labrusca Fox grape Abundance Codes(%cover): Very abundant(>50%) 'Wetlands: W1 =Wetland 1 W2=Wetland 2 Abundant(25%to 50016) Wetland Cover Type symbols: WS=wooded swamp,SS=scrub shrub, Common(12%to 25%) M=wet meadow,SM=shallow marsh,OW=open water Moderate(5%to 12%) Uplands: U-1=Upland Cover Type 1 (mixed deciduous forest); Occasional(<5%) U-2=Upland Cover Type 2(meadow/shrub mosaic and field edge) Absent Appendix 3 Page 5 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY Wetland Plants List for the State of Connecticut Frequency Indicator: Represents the frequency of occurrence in wetlands versus non-wetlands in the northeast region of the country. For example, a frequency of 67%-99% (Facultative Wetland) means that 67%-99% of all individuals of a species that occur in the region occur in wetlands. Obligate (OBL): Always found in wetlands under natural (not planted) conditions (frequency greater than 99%), but may persist in non-wetlands if planted there by man or in wetlands that have been drained, filled, or otherwise transformed into non-wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW): Usually found in wetlands (67%-99% frequency), but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative (FAQ: Sometimes found in wetlands (34%-66% frequency) but also occur in non-wetlands. Facultative Upland (FACU): Seldom found in wetlands (1%-33% frequency) and usually occur in non-wetlands. Non-wetland (UPL): Could occur in wetlands in another region, but infrequently found (<l% frequency) in wetlands in the region specified. If a species does not occur in wetlands in any region, it is not on the NWI list. Drawdown (DRA): Typically associated with the drier stages of wetlands, such as mudflats,vernal pools, and playa lakes. A positive (+) or negative (-) symbol was used with the Facultative Indicator categories to more specifically define the regional frequency of occurrence in wetlands. The positive symbol indicates a frequency toward the higher end of the category (more frequently found in wetlands), and a negative symbol indicates a frequency toward the lower end of the category (less frequently found in wetlands). NA indicates that no agreement was reached by the regional panel. NC or NI indicates that the species was not considered by the panel. Reed, Porter B. Jr. 1986 Wetland Plant List, Connecticut. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. WELUT-86/W 12.07 May 1986. WETLAND WILDLIFE EVALUATION METHOD (after Golet, 1976) 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 criteria and assigns each a "significance coefficient", which is a measure of the relative importance of each parameter in maximizing wildlife diversity and abundance. Each parameter has 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. The 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 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 evaluated by this model should be considered of low value for wildlife habitat. Below is a brief description of the parameters of the Golet model. Wetland 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.) based upon the dominant vegetation types present in the wetland. Habitat value is directly related to the number of wetland classes present. Dominant Wetland Class - Based upon the principle that certain wetland classes (e.g. Deep Marsh)provide better wildlife habitat than others (e.g. Meadow). Size Category -In general, the quality of wildlife habitat is directly related to wetland size. Subclass Richness - Assesses the number of different subclasses present in the wetland. The model defines 26 different wetland subclasses (Sapling Shrub Swamp, Bushy Shrub Swamp, 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. Site 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). 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. Wetland 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: Score Rating 35.0 to 50.0 Low 50.5 to 60.0 Moderate 60.5 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. (Golet 1976) Proposed Watson Farm Elderly Housing, Deming 5treet,South Windsor,GT W2 Manchester,CT George Logan CT DEP 1995 50-25 11/26/00 The evaluation i5 for existing conditions. 1.0 5.0 WS ❑ SS ❑ SM ❑ DM ❑ OW ❑ BG ❑ ME F ❑ WS ❑ SS ❑ SM M DM ❑ OW ❑ BG ❑ M M F ❑ 2.0 10.0 + 3.60 acres 1.0 5.0 WS-1 SS-1 SM-1 M BG-1A DM-1 DM-5 WS-2 ❑ SS-2 M SM-2 M BG-1 B❑ DM-2 ❑ DM-6 ❑ 2.0 8.0 M-1 a SS-3 ❑ SM-3 ❑ BG-2 ❑ DM-3 ❑ OW-1 M M-2 ❑ SS-4 ❑ F-1 ❑ BG-3 ❑ DM-4 ❑ OW-2 ❑ Bottomland. deltaic ❑ Upland. lakeside ❑ lakeside ❑ streamside ❑ 2.0 6.0 streamside ❑ isolated ❑ isolated F O u M R S W o p r i e I a r e b n c t s e n a i r M t 2.0 8.0 s n n e r e t g a s t h % 60.00% 40.00% % % % % *Significance Coefficient 44.0 (Golet 1976) (Continued) WETLAND UNIT NO.: W2 yes no 2.5 7.5 Hydrologic connection is weak peripheral ❑ 2.0 4.0 scattered TYPE: 3 peripheral [� scattered 1.5 3.0 TYPE: 2 pH >7.4 1.0 1.0 pH 5.5-7.4 X pH < 5.5 15.5 44.0 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. WETLAND DATA SHEET 004545WN7 Town: South Windsor 1 Date: 10/19/00 Investigator: S.N.G. Golet: W51 Wooded Swamp, broad-leaved deciduous; OW-3, Open water, unveoetated ZNWI- :Faluotrine,forested, broad-leaved deciduous; POW, Palustrine open water, unknown bottom Trees/saplings: Shrubs/Vines: Herbs: Density: Low/Moderate/High Density., Low/Moderate/High Density., Low/Moderate/High Acer rubrum Viburnum dentatum Carex opp. Quercus palustris Berberis thunbergii Bidens opp. Nopulus deltoides Also noted: Populus tremula Ilex verticillata Amelanchier intermedia Surface Water Depression: ❑ Groundwater Depression: ■ Surface Water Slope: ❑ Groundwater Slope: ❑ Seasonally Flooded: ■ Temporarily Flooded: ❑ Seasonally Saturated: ■ Semi-permanently Flooded: ■ Permanent) Flooded: ❑ Saturated: ❑ Ridgetop: ❑ Upper Slope: ❑ Midslope: ❑ Lowslope: ❑ Bottomland: ■ Outwash: ■ Alluvial: ❑ Red Till: ❑ Till: ❑ Glaciolacustrine: ❑ Fill: ❑ Poorly Drained: ■ Very Poorly Drained: ■ Somewhat Poorly Drained: ❑ Moderately Well Drained: ❑ None: LJ Few: ❑ Some: ■ branches Many: ❑ Yes: ❑ No: ❑ Perhaps: ■ Via Intermittent Watercourse: ❑ Isolated: ■ Via Perennial Watercourse: ❑ <50' : ■ 50'- 100' ❑ 100'-200' : ❑ >200' :❑ Disturbed: 0% Wooded: 40% Shrub Thicket: 30% Open Field: 18% Open water 2% Urban/Suburban:10% Approx 5000 act.ft. oblong pool is likely not productive amphibian habitat,since there is limited nearby forested habitat, several acres to east. Bittersweet thicket to west. No emergent vegetation. All trees&shrubs on pool perimeter, mixed age classes. Very large (>3'dbh) cottonwoods at south end. No islands or fallen loos in pool; snags. Tree cover averages 70%, lower at south end. No outlet. Wide water level fluctuations, > lb ". 5torm drain discharges through 45 ft. long rip rap owale into south end of pool. Narrow seasonally saturated wooded perimeter and sparsely vegetated, steeply sloping drawdown zone, Rema Ecological Services,LLC Revised:January 1999 WETLAND DATA SHEET 004545WN7 Town: South Windsor 2 Date: 10/19/00 Investigator: 5.N.G. Golet: OW-3,Open water, unvegetated;55-1 Sapling shrub swamp 55-2 Bushy shrub swamp; M-1 Meadow, ungrazed; 5M-2 Shallow marsh,emergent NWI: POW, Paluotrine open water, unknown bottom; P551 Paluotrine shrub owamp,broad-leaved deciduous FEM1, Paluotrine emergent, persistent; PEM2, Paluotrine emergent, non- eroistent Trees: Shrubs/Saplings/Vines: Herbs: Density: Low/Moderate/High Density. Low/Moderate/High Density. Low/Moderate/High Acer rubrum saplings (55-1) 5olidago rugooa (M-1) Ludwigia paluotrio (51vl-2, PEM2) Cornuo amomum (55-2) Calamagrootio canadenoio (5M-1) Kooa multiflora (55-2) Carex lacuotrio (5M-2, PEM1) Carex otricta (5M-2, PEM1) Epilobium coloratum (5M-2, FEM1) Polygonum opp. Surface Water Depression: ❑ Groundwater Depression: ■ Surface Water Slope: ❑ Groundwater Slope: ❑ Seasonally Flooded: ■ Temporarily Flooded: ❑ Seasonally Saturated: ■ Semi-permanently Flooded: ■ Permanent) Flooded: ❑ Saturated: ❑ Ridgetop: ❑ Upper Slope: ❑ Midslope: ❑ Lowslope: ❑ Bottomland: ■ Outwash: ■ Alluvial: ❑ Red Till: ❑ Till: ❑ Glaciolacustrine: ❑ Fill: ❑ Poorly Drained: ■ Very Poorly Drained: ■ Somewhat Poorly Drained: ■ Moderately Well Drained: ❑ None: Few: ■ Some: ❑ Many: ❑ Yes: ❑ No: ■ Perhaps: ❑ Via Intermittent Watercourse: ❑ Isolated: ❑ Via Perennial Watercourse: ■ Perennial nature not verified < 50' : ■ 50'- 100' : ❑ 100' -200' : ❑ >200' :❑ ME[Disturbed: 0% Wooded: 15% Shrub Thicket: 35% Open Field: 25% Open water 5% Urban/Suburban:20% Wet meadow,shrub thicketo, oapling ohrub swamp thicket,&emergent marsh border pond. Pond wao 65' X 35'with a 20'wide drawdown zone on 10-19-00. Emergent march io very diverse with well-developed microtopography. Much used ao a deer bedding areas. Pond drains northweotward into Farm Brook. Overgrown field to eaot, reoidential oubdivicion to weot,and wooded pool (Wetland 1)to oouth. Farmland to north (off-site). Wide water level fluctuationo. Pond did not appear eutrophied. Goldenrod and multiflora rooe dominant in low-diveroity, oeaoonally saturated perimeter zone. Rema Ecological Services, LLC Revised:January 1999 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 of the 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. WETI.4 ND GLASSESAND S UECL4SSES IN THE GL4 CIA TED 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 (DM-4)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(SM-4) 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. WETLAND HYDROGE®L®GIC 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, 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 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: olet, 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 NOR THE4STERN 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 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. 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. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Fish Wild. Serv. Biol. Serv. Program FWS-OBS 79/31. 103 pp. REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC 19 Foster Street REPORT DATE: Nov mb r 27, 2000 F. Manchester, CT 06040 Phone: 860.649.REMA WILDLIFE INVENTORY PROJECT NAME &LOCATION: PREPARED FOR: Watson Farm Eld rly Housing The Metro Kealty Group 1.1D RES Job No.: 004 4 WN7 Deming Street(KDutfP 30) Farmington,CT Field Investigation Date(s): Oct. - Nov mb.2000 South Windsor,Conmeatimit Field Investigator(s): urge T. Logan Field Conditions: Weather: various Snow Depth: n/a SIZE OF STUDY AREA: -12 A r oo Soil Moisture: Mnekmtc to High Frost Depth: n/a FIELD SURVEY INTENSITY• Low Habitat Cover Types: mixed d .id uo i for scrub shrub thicket upland old field- mcdow, o<lanw marEih,wo+ meadow orrub i;r�;�- watrip wood d wamp shallow open water(see Tablen 1 of Aro ) Green heron Butorides virescens W2, 1998 observation Canada goose Branta canadensis off-site to west Mallard Anas la r nchos p �' �' R # W2, 1998 observation Turkey vulture Cathartes aura S, M # Sharp-shinned hawk♦ Accipiter striatus S, W, M r, # fly-over; during migration Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis R, W, M # U 1 American kestrel♦ Falco sparverms S, W, M # suitable habitat to north Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus R Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo R Wildlife Inventory: (continued) PAGE 2 OF 4 M onTum Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus R Killdeer Charadrius vociferus U 1 Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia American woodcock Scolopax minor S, M # W 1, off-site 1998 observation Mourning dove Zenaida macroura R # U 1 Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus !Is, M # Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus S, M # Eastern screech-owl Otus asio Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica S, M # Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris S, M # Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon W2, 1998 observation Red-bellied woodpercker Melanerpes carolinus R, M # U2 Downy woodpercker Picoides pubescens R # U2 Northern flicker Colaptes auratus S, W, M # U 1 Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii _ S, M # W2, 1998 observation Least flycather Empidonax minimus S, M Eastem phoebe Sayornis phoebe S, M # U2, 1998 observation Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus S, M # Eastern kingbird Tyrannus Tyannus S, M # Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor S, M # Northr.Rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis S # Barn swallow Hirundo rustica S, M # Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata R, W, M U2 American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos R # U 1, U2 Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus R, M # U2 Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor R, M # U2, 1998 observation White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis R, M # Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus R # House wren Troglodytes aedon S, M # Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis S, W, M # American robin Turdus migratorius S, W, M # U1, U2 Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis S, W, M # U1 Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos R # U 1 Brown thrasher♦ Toxostoma rufum S, M # known from similar habitat to N Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S, W, M # European starling Sturnus vulgaris R, I # U 1 Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus Is, M # Yellow warbler Dendroica etechia p � . Is, M # W2, 1998 observation Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica S, M # Praire warbler Dendroica discolor S # Common Name Scientific Name Status Codes MIR M ino MI In, MFM i Red-spotted newt Notophthalmus v. viridescens Eastern American toad B a. americanus b , ' toad Bufo woodhousiifowleri Green "- Rana clamitans melanota �� �� ////%////%//ice%%%%/%////W2, 1998 observation Pickerel fr'= Rana PalustrisWood frog Rana sylvatica Black rat snake Elaphe o. Painted turtle Chrysemys picta Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata Common musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus Northern black racer Coluber c. constrictor obsoletai '/ 1 ' Common Name Scientific Name Status Codes Water shrew Sorexpalustris Northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda Eastern - Scalopus aquaticus6 j j Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata I . Big brown bat Eptesicusfuscus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagusfloridanus Eastern chipmunk Tainias striatus Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Lowly Milli us Meadow vole Microtuspennsylvanicus e.. Meadow-jumping mouse Zapus hudsonicus Coyote Canis latrans ME Stripef skmk Mephitis mephitis White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus MM Status Codes Group WD FDh1 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 Birds Herptiles Mammals Totals!I 40 1 0 64 o Prohah/e Breeders Total sxix ' �' Species Grand Total TSS Removal The University of Maryland at College Park conducted a field study of a 3K BaySaver Separation System which is located at a Montgomery county school bus depot in Rockville, Maryland. The unit was installed in the winter of 1998 when some stormwater renovations were being done at the site. The unit is being utilized as a hydrodynamic pretreatment for a detention pond. Samples from the installed BaySaver(D system were taken during six storm events during a period from June 30, 1998 until June 14, 1999. The bus depot houses approximately 128 buses and is composed of 3.67-acre drainage area. This area is composed of approximately 3.51 acres of impervious cover (asphalt) and 0.16 acres of grass, which drains into an inlet and is located just upstream from the BaySaver® system. Input samples were taken just upstream of the primary manhole for the 3K BaySaver® system. The output samples were taken just past the outlet of the separator system. These samples were collected using two ISCOS 6700 Compact Portable samplers that contained twenty-four 500-ml propylene bottles each and stored in one-liter HDPE or Nalgene LDPE bottles. At the beginning of each storm, samples were taken at two-minute intervals in order to capture the first flush. After the first eight samples, the sampling interval was increased to as much as 10 minutes. Standard Method 209C was followed to measure the Total Suspended Solids in each sample. Gelman® Supor® 1.0 um pore diameter A/E glass type filters were rinsed; dried and weighed before they were used to capture the suspended solids from 100 ml influent and effluent samples. The filters were then dried at—1041C for at least one hour until consecutive weightings were within 0.5 mg (Table l through 4). Rainfall and flowrate data were recorded and printed automatically by an ISCO3 Model 4250 flow meter. Flowrate was computed using depth and velocity data obtained by a flowmeter probe mounted just inside the inlet to the primary manhole. The rainfall intensity was measured using a tip bucket. Table 5 shows the average values for the TSS concentrations as well as the averages for four of the six storms. Two of the storm concentrations were omitted due to equipment failure. The averages and percent removal rates in Table 6 are from a studv performed by BaySaver®. These input and output concentrations as well as removal rates are from a 5K unit installed at Sherwood High School in Sandy Spring, MD (Table 7 through 9). BaySaver° Separation System Total Suspended Solids Removal Data Table 5. BaySaver°3K System Suspended Solids Data* Storm Date Averaage-In Average-Out Average Removal (Mg L) (mg[�) (%) 7/30/98 47. 20 57 4/1/99 503 41 92 5/22/99 2019 59 97 6/14/99 524 122 77 Average Removal 81 Table 6. BaySaver°5K System Suspended Solids Data** Storm Average-In Average-Out Average Removal (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) 1 17 5 71 2 16 4 75 3 46 5 89 Average Removal 78 ' University of Maryland data ** BaySavero, Inc.data Table 1.TSS Data for 7/30/1998 Table 2. TSS Data for 4/1/1999 TSS TSS TSS TSS Time In Time Out Time In Time Out Sample (min) (mg/L) Sample (min) (mg/L) Sample (min) (mg/L) Sample (min) (mg/L) 1 2 77 1 2 10 1 0 7600 1 0 160 2 4 74 2 4 41 2 2 570 2 2 28 3 6, 80 3 6 14. 1 (TPH) 4 1 (TPH) 4 34 4 8 42 4 8 17 4 6 75 4 6 16 51 10 42 5 10 17 5 8 87 5 8 22 6 12 .28 6 12 21 6 10 380 .6 10 27 7 14 20 7 14 16 2 (TPH) 12 130 2 (TPH) 12 87 8 16 120 8 16 15 8 14 16 9. 18 98 9 161 13 9 16 28 9 21 320 10 21 57 10 20 34 10 .23 43 11 23 40 11 24 200 11 24 66 11 25 20 12 25 33 3 (TPH) 25 340 3(TPH) 28 54 12 27 15 13 27 22 13 32 190 13 32 92 14 29 20 14 36 190 14 36 48 13 31 17 15i 31 16 4 (TPH) 37 5(TPH) 37 14 33 10 16 35 12 15 40 270 15 40 81 15 35 - 5 17 37 131 16 44 75 16 44 12 16 37 4 18 39 18 8 (TPH) 45 8 (TPH) 45 17 39 3. 19 41 11 17 48 240 17 48 74 18 41 15 20 45 10 18 54 110 18 54 16 21 471 6 19 1 340 191 1 39 22 51 4 20 1061 41 20 106 20 221 52 2 23 55 7 21 112 86 21 112 25 23 56 2 24 59 7 6 (TPH) 113 6(TPH) 113 Avg. In 47 Avg. Out 201 22 118 29 22 118 $ 23 124 41 23 124 17 24 130 33 24 130 9 25 142 26 25 142 21 Avg.In 503 —,Avg. Out 41 Table 3.TSS Data for 512211 9 9 9 Table 4.TSS Data for 611411999 TSS TSS TSS TSS Time In Time Out Time In Time Out Sample (min) (mg/L) Sample (min) (mg/L) Sample (min) (mg/L) Sample (min)_1 (mg/L) 1 (TPH) 1 53000 1 (TPH) 3 35 1 (TPH) 0 1700 1 (TPH) 1000 1 2 470 1 4 50 1 2 7100 1 3 910 2 4 350 2 (TPH) 6 54 2 4 690 2 5 310 2 (TPH) 6 490 3 8 200 3 6 150 3 7 288 4 8 320 4 10 190 2(TPH)- 7 100 2(TPH} 8 5 10 360 3(TPH) 12 140 4 9 42 3(TPH) 11 140 6 14 120 5 10 120 5 11 79 12 60 7 14 380 4(TPH) 16 110 3 {TFH} 11 56 3(TPH) 4(TPH) 16 200 8 18 83 7 14 61 7 15 73 9 18 180 5(TPH) 21 89 4(TPH) 15 31 4 (TPH) 16 49 10 22 97 10 24 79 9 18 32 9 19 22 36 5(TPH) 23 78 11 28 56 5(TPH) 22 20 5(TPH) `11 26 91 6(TPH) 29 41 10 23 26 6(TPH) 27 53 12 32 28 11 26 19 11 28 44 12 30 31 7 (TPH) 34 45 34 6 (TPH) 28 19 6(TPH} 13 34 48 13 36 35 12 30 9 12 31 20 7(TPH) 35 23 14 40 20 13 34 9 13 35 14 14 38 12 8(TPH) 41 20 7 (TPH) 36 16 7(TPH) 36 39 15 42 23 15 44 34 14 38 22 14 39 35 8(TPH) 43 17 16 48 5 8(TPH) 40 690 8(TPH) 40 160 16 46 10 9(TPH) 49 12 15 42 3400 15 43 130 9 (TPH) 48 14 17 52 26 16 46 3d0 16 47 42 17 50 14 18 58 23 17 50 29 17 51 7 18 56 8 10(TPH) 59 12 18 54 22 18 55 23 10 (TPH) 58 11 19 104 22 19 58 10 19 59 10 19 102 18 20 110 14 20 104 10 20 105 13 20 108 26 21 110 20 21 111 16 Avg. in 2091 Avg. Out 59 22 116 13 22 117 14 23 122 11 23 123 12 24 128 10 24 129 21 Avg. In 524 Avg. Out 122 Tab Table 9.TSS Data for 213198 Table 8.TSS Data for 1123198 TSS TSS Table 7.TSS Data for 1117198 TSS TSS TSS TSS Out Time In Out Out Time In m 1L mg1L) Time In Sample {min { 9 ) Sam Ie (min) mg (:nglL) Sample {min (m /L) (mg/L1 0 132.4 22.3 46.5 5.5 1 0 22.5 2 128.9 5.5 1 0 2 2 19.7 2 2 2 2 2 19.8 5.6 4 19.6 2 3 4 118.6 2.8 3 4 16.7 5.6 3 4 6 101.1 2 4 6 25.4 2 4 6 25.3 2 5 8 95.5 2 5 8 20 5.5 5 8 22.3 8.2 6 10 76.1 11 6 10 25_1 2.1 6 10 25.7 5.5 7 12 69.1 8.2 7 12 3S_4 8.4 7 12 25.4 5 5 8 14 67 $2 g 14 22.5 2.8 8 14 30.8 2.8 9 16 61.3 82 g 1.� „ 30.6 2 9 16 19.9 5.5 10 18 65.9 5.5 10 18 33.5 5.6 10 18 22.9 5.4 11 20 61.2 2.7 11 20 16.8 5 5 12 22 60.5 2.7 11 24.9 5.4 12 22 22.7 2 12 22 17.2 8.3 13 24 49.6 2.7 13 24 19.5 8.3 13 24 22.3 2 14 26 2 2.7 14 26 16.6 2.8 15 28 2 2 '14 26 11.1 5.6 15 28 24.7 5.4 15 28 16.8 5-4 16 30 2 3.1 . 16 30 6.3 6.6 16 30 19.2 3.2 17 60 2 3.1 17 60 2 6.4 17 60 19.8 3.2 18 90 2 3.2 90 3.2 2 18 90 9.8 2 2 2 18 1 g 120 3.3 6.4 19 120 19 120 fi.6 - --- 3.2 2 20 150 2 2 20 150 2 2 20 150 2 21 180 2 2 21 180 3.3 2 21 180 6.5 2 22 210 2 3.2 2 2 22 210 2 6.4 2 22 210 23 240 2 3.2 23 240 2 23 240 2 3.2 24 300 2 2 6.4 24 300 2 2 5 24 300 2 Avera a 16 4 Average 4S Avera a 17 5 MEMORANDUM To: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission. From: Jeffrey H. Folger—Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer Date: November 27, 2000 Re: Appl # 00-53P - Review of the proposed Watson Farms elderly housing complex. Plans dated 11/21/00. The project is to create a 72 unit Senior Housing Facility on an 8.7-acre site. Activities within the upland review areas include the installation a stormwater management system including a detention basin, biofiltration swale with stone check dams and vegetative plantings, sediment chambers, and catchbasins with 2' sumps. Erosion controls are proposed during construction. No work is proposed to be done within a regulated area. Site: The site is located in the Podunk River watershed, within the Farm Brook subwatershed. The parcel at this time is comprised of 8.7 acres. The site is 1/3 wooded on the southern side with the majority of the northern in old field/wet meadow/marsh. Historically, the site has been used as an agricultural field. The site slopes moderately to the west into a wetland system. The wetland area in the western portion of the property originates from subsurface water and runoff from the adjacent upland areas surrounding it, as well as Deming Street. The wetland boundaries appear to be accurate. The wetlands on the property are comprised of two areas: (1) a wooded pond area adjacent to Deming Street, and (2) a larger, more open wetland area farther to the north consisting of open water, shallow marsh, shrub/scrub, and wet meadows. Major functions of wetland area(1) would be nutrient and sediment trapping; stormwater routing, and flood storage; wildlife habitat [(probable vernal pool habitat for some species), on its own the habitat potential would be low because of the proximity to the road and adjacent development but the fact that it is connected with the larger wetland to the north increases its value]; and possible groundwater recharge. Major functions of wetland area(2) would be nutrient and sediment trapping to a higher degree; stormwater routing and flood control; a high value for wildlife habitat due to the diversity of cover, available food, and wetland types present; ecological integrity; and groundwater recharge. Impacts: No activities are proposed to occur in the wetlands. Stormwater quantity is proposed to be managed by the installation of a detention basin. Water quality concerns are being addressed by the installation of a wet basin, grassed swale which would serve as a biofilter and stone check dams in a design that maximizes travel time through the system. A sediment structure and catch basin sumps in the driveway/parking lot area would serve to capture larger sediment particles. Catch basin sumps should be increased in depth to maximize storage capacity. Details should be provided on the BaySaver unit and availability should researched. With minor tweaks (planting details)the stormwater management system should minimize stormwater borne pollution impacts after the project is completed. Short-term impacts during construction are a major concern. The soils identified on the site, Enfield and Manchester will provide challenges to the builder during construction. Enfield soils have an erosion potential listed as severe by the Hartford County Soil Survey. While Manchester soils are listed as having a low erosion potential their Triassic sandstone origins will result in red particles suspended in runoff water. The E&S plan proposed will not adequately prevent sediment impacts to the neighboring wetlands. Increased perimeter controls are needed to intercept fine particles transported by storm events. The proposed nature of the grading (terracing the site in a step configuration) results in the whole site being open at once. The applicant must include interior controls such as diversion berms to temporary settling basins to intercept and contain waterflow through the site. The upland wildlife habitat will be impacted b the project. Temporary impacts within P P Y p J p Y A the upland review area(URA) to accommodate the detention basin and swale will not significantly affect wildlife usage on the site. The upland area on the rest of the site will be removed to accommodate the proposed buildings. Landscape plantings proposed have duel usage as food plants for birds. Perimeter grading on the north and east boundaries will result in the elimination of most of the vegetation on the property lines, especially the existing immature and mature trees. By utilizing retaining walls along these areas the developer can maximize the width of the undisturbed vegetation existing along the property boundaries. By supplementing these areas with additional plantings, the integrity of the hedgerow to the north can be preserved and a more effective buffer between the Porter's Share development and this development can be achieved. Traffic pattern changes (making some of the drives one way) can result in narrower driveway widths which can also minimize disturbance to the perimeter of the property. The current plan does not show the existing tree line or limits of clearing. The applicant should also consider utilizing infiltration of roof runoff wherever possible. Test pit data has not been submitted to determine if infiltration is feasible. towN sE� y ~ 7-0-� � "V w� ve�� O 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074-2786 sOR'-CO AREA CODE 860/644-2 5 1 1 FAX 860/644-3781 To: Design Professionals 165 So. Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 From: Jeffrey H. Folger - ZQning/Wetland Enforcement Officer fbo-'c n-,iR/ - Date: Deeetnber 27, 2000 Re: App. #00-53P - Review of the proposed Watson Farms elderly housing complex - Plans dated 11/22/00. I have reviewed the proposed plan with the following initial comments: Proposed catch basins should have 4-foot sumps incorporated to maximize sediment retention prior to the detention basin. CB #1 shows an icon for a sediment structure. The plans should include a detail of the structure. A detailed planting plan for the swale and detention basin should be submitted. The expected water depth of two feet in the basin is probably too deep for the proposed seeding plan. No planting plan for the swale has been submitted. Perimeter erosion controls on the western side of the site will have to be reinforced to provide maximum protection to the adjacent wetland areas. Is any test pit data available? A stake denoting TP #7 is present in the field. What is the meaning of that stake? Interior erosion controls are needed, with phasing of earth moving included. The existing tree line should be shown with proposed limits of clearing. - cc. Town Engineer Director of Planning 0' REMA ecological s sae 006 cam- ,s _)o _ ! MEMORANDUM To: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission. From: Jeffrey H. Folger—Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer Date: November 27, 2000 Re: Appl # 00-53P - Review of the proposed Watson Farms elderly housing complex. Plans dated 11/21/00. The project is to create a 72 unit Senior Housing Facility on an 8.7-acre site. Activities within the upland review areas include the installation a stormwater management system including a detention basin, biofiltration swale with stone check dams and vegetative plantings, sediment chambers, and catchbasins with 2' sumps. Erosion controls are proposed during construction. No work is proposed to be done within a regulated area. Site: The site is located in the Podunk River watershed, within the Farm Brook subwatershed. The parcel at this time is comprised of 8.7 acres. The site is 1/3 wooded on the southern side with the majority of the northern in old field/wet meadow/marsh. Historically, the site has been used as an agricultural field. The site slopes moderately to the west into a wetland system. The wetland area in the western portion of the property originates from subsurface water and runoff from the adjacent upland areas surrounding it, as well as Deming Street. The wetland boundaries appear to be accurate. The wetlands on the property are comprised of two areas: (1) a wooded pond area adjacent to Deming Street, and (2) a larger, more open wetland area farther to the north consisting of open water, shallow marsh, shrub/scrub, and wet meadows. Major functions of wetland area (1) would be nutrient and sediment trapping; stormwater routing. and flood storage; wildlife habitat [(probable vernal pool habitat for some species), on its own the habitat potential would be low because of the proximity to the road and adjacent development but the fact that it is connected with the larger wetland to the north increases its value]; and possible groundwater recharge. Major functions of wetland area (2) would be nutrient and sediment trapping to a higher degree; stormwater routing and flood control; a high value for wildlife habitat due to the diversity of cover, available food, and wetland types present; ecological integrity; and groundwater recharge. Impacts: No activities are proposed to occur in the wetlands. Stormwater quantity is proposed to be managed by the installation of a detention basin. Water quality concerns are being addressed by the installation of a wet basin, grassed swale which would serve as a biofilter and stone check dams in a design that maximizes travel time through the system. A sediment structure and catch basin sumps in the driveway/parking lot area would serve to capture larger sediment particles. Catch basin sumps should be increased 1 O'NN aft o � -0� O-P S-0� vzn� ci V 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074-2786 soe.Co AREA CODE 860/644-2511 FAX 860/644-3781 To: Design Professionals 165 So. Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 From: Jeffrey H. Folger - Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer fbo-'c'-,Pw,- Date: Deeember 27, 2000 Re: App. #00-53P - Review of the proposed Watson Farms elderly housing complex - Plans dated 11/22/00. I have reviewed the proposed plan with the following initial comments: Proposed catch basins should have 4-foot sumps incorporated to maximize sediment retention prior to the detention basin. CB #1 shows an icon for a sediment structure. The plans should include a detail of the structure. A detailed planting plan for the swale and detention basin should be submitted. The expected eater depth of two feet in the basin is probably too deep for the proposed seeding plan. No planting plan for the swale has been submitted. Perimeter erosion controls on the western side of the site will have to be reinforced to provide maximum protection to the adjacent wetland areas. Is anv test pit data available? A stake denoting TP #7 is present in the field. What is the ineamm, of that stake? Interior erosion controls are needed, with phasing of earth moving included. The existing tree line should be shown with proposed limits of clearing. cc. To%.\n Engineer Director of Planning REMA ecological in depth to maximize storage capacity. Details should be provided on the BaySaver unit and availability should researched. With minor tweaks (planting details) the stormwater management system should minimize stormwater borne pollution impacts after the project is completed. Short-term impacts during construction are a major concern. The soils identified on the site, Enfield and Manchester will provide challenges to the builder during construction. Enfield soils have an erosion potential listed as severe by the Hartford County Soil Survey. While Manchester soils are listed as having a low erosion potential their Triassic sandstone origins will result in red particles suspended in runoff water. The E&S plan proposed will not adequately prevent sediment impacts to the neighboring wetlands. Increased perimeter controls are needed to intercept fine particles transported by storm events. The proposed nature of the grading (terracing the site in a step configuration) results in the whole site being open at once. The applicant must include interior controls such as diversion berms to temporary settling basins to intercept and contain waterflow through the site. The upland wildlife habitat will be impacted by the project. Temporary impacts within the upland review area (URA) to accommodate the detention basin and swale will not significantly affect wildlife usage on the site. The upland area on the rest of the site will be removed to accommodate the proposed buildings. Landscape plantings proposed have duel usage as food plants for birds. Perimeter grading on the north and east boundaries will result in the elimination of most of the vegetation on the property lines, especially the existing immature and mature trees. By utilizing retaining walls along these areas the developer can maximize the width of the undisturbed vegetation existing along the property boundaries. By supplementing these areas with additional plantings, the integrity of the hedgerow to the north can be preserved and a more effective buffer between the Porter's Share development and this development can be achieved. Traffic pattern changes (making some of the drives one way) can result in narrower driveway widths which can also minimize disturbance to the perimeter of the property. The current plan does not show the existing tree line or limits of clearing. The applicant should also consider utilizing infiltration of roof runoff wherever possible. Test pit data has not been submitted to determine if infiltration is feasible. DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers . planners . surveyors . gis December 5,2000 Ms.Marcia Banach Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor,Connecticut Dear Marcia: Re: Watson Farm Deming Street South Windsor,Connecticut DPI Proj No. 99-1270 As per your request,net buildable acreage for the Watson Farm elderly housing development is 7.73 acres (8.7 acres less wetlands/watercourses(0.68 acre),less slopes greater than 15%(0.01 acre),less flood plain zones(0.0 acre),less utility easements(0.28 acre)=7.73 net buildable acres).Allowable density is 10 units per net buildable acre,which translates into 77.3 units. The project is proposing 72 units or 5 units lower than that allowed under the regulations. Thank you. keterR. onals Inc. By: a ie Principal Cc: Geoff Sager Peter Dunn Edwin Lassman,Esq. Janet Prior 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 - Fax: (860) 291-8757 f �4pwM 8f+�� Town ate S-OUL4 Vz;eul y C., 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 soR•co 4 AREA CODE 860 /644-2511 December 7, 2000 Certified #P462498138 Design Professionals Attn: Peter DeMallie 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Appl. #00-53P, Watson Farms Dear Mr. DeMallie: At the December 6, 2000 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved application #00-53P - Watson Farms - 700 Deming Street - Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application for a site plan to construct a 72-unit elderly apartment complex, parking lot, drainage structures and associated improvements on a 8.7 acre parcel located northerly of Deming Street and easterly of Foster Street (Assessor's map #40, 29, parcel #11, 7) RR zone. 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 prior to the issuance of the building permit and to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning & 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 December 6, 2005. It is the landowners)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. t" Watson Farms December 7, 2000 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. We recommend a bond in the amount of$20,000 be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures. The bond will be released when the site is stable. 7. We recommend a bond in the amount of$25,000 be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the establishment of the stormwater control structures (detention basin and vegetative swale). The bond to be held for two growing seasons to insure proper establishment of proposed vegetation. 8. Town Engineer and Environmental Planner to review the location of the discharge from the detention basin to determine the best option for the discharge point of the proposed swale. 9. A phasing and comprehensive erosion & sedimentation control plan to be submitted to the Commission for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Retaining wall to be installed along the northerly property line in order to preserve existing vegetation. Final grading plan to be reviewed by Town Staff. 11. The feasibility of connecting roof leaders to drywells is to be examined. Test pit data to be submitted to Town Staff for review. 12. Recommendations of Section 7.3.3 of the environmental assessment document entitled Proposed Watson Farm by REMA Ecological Services dated November 27, 2000 must be adopted and shown on the plan. s t Watson Farms December 7, 2000 Page 3 13. A planting scheme be devised for the detention basin and the filter swale. Final plan to be reviewed by Jeff Folger Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION L{ , El' /eth Warren, Chairperson EW:dr cc: Chief Building Official Town Engineer Watson Farm DE'1-- le '00 01:48PM METRO REALTY P.1/7 g, (�, r E V DEC is 20(a P1 V U, Date., Monday,December 18,2000 To: Town of South Windsor AICP Marcia A.Banach Phone: 860-644-2511 Fax: 860-644-3781 From: The Metro Realty Group LTD. Geoffrey W. Sager Phone., 860-674-5641 Fax: 860-677-6919 Email: gsager@mttro-realty.com Pages: Subject: Watson Farm In performing some of my due diligence in connection with the CHFA funding for our proposed development, I identitled a "snag": with the State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management Conservation and Development Policies Plan for the State of Connecticut(1998-2003). As a result,we are seeking to amend the plan to accommodate our proposed development and preliminary indications are that this should not be a problem. We do however,have to go through the process and I wanted to apprise you of what we will,be doing since I presume at some point your office may be involved.This will also impact the South Windsor Housing Authority's plans regarding the development of an assisted living facility to the extent that the Housing Authority will be seeking State funding for all or any portion of the cost. I have attached a copy of what OPM sent for the re-designation of our land from "Conservation" to "Growth." Based on my discussion with John Radacsi from OPM,we need to pursue both alternatives set forth in his letter. The first would be a finding by the Department of Agriculture that a "Conservation" designation is not needed to protect this land as "active agricultural land or prime agricultural soils." I just completed 9L phone call with our engineer,Peter DeMallle of Design Professionals, and we have concluded that we have a very strong case for the re- designation. The second would be to seek an interim change to the Plan from the legislative committee which has oversight over such matters. I don't know what committee that would be. Patrick Sullivan of Sullivan and Leshane is researching that for me. DEC 18 '00 01:49PM METRO REALTY P.2/7 Peter AeMallie will be putting together the application. I will write the Housing hart of the application to demonstrate the proposed housing is consistent with the State of Connecticut Housing Needs as set forth in the housing chapter of the OPM Plan. It will be helpful to have the State Representative and the State Senator behind this as well and I have asked the Towns Manager if he could assist us with enlisting their support. Please give me a call to discuss when you have a chance. 'Thank you. cc: Ms Janet prior I2,UECr Ib '00 N1 49PM h1ETRU F,F�L7fe I)OLICY/MGM. PDFD P.:3/7)021006 4 STATE GF CONNTZ'1' CUT OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENU WrWW.oPM.statext s To: Goof Sager From John Radacsi Subject: Flan of Conservadon and Developraent—South Windsor I have confirmed that the reason fix the Conservation designation on the Pdaa°s Ucational Guide Map for the pwA' along Route 30 in South Windsor is due to active agricultvrAll laud ar prime agricultural soils of 25 or more acres of contiguous,land., As we discussed on Friday,December 15,2000,there are two alternative courses that may lead to approval of state V=M for nonagriculftu-4 develogMORt of this area. tine alternative is to seek au interim change to the plan from the legisladvc comtWuee, which has oversisht of such mat . Attached are the state regulations that gov=such prod. As you will see they are somewhat complex and involve the town,,,this office,and other wtomted parties with the ultimate decision resting with the legislative committee. The second alternative is to demonstrate in your application for state funding t The proposed ptojca Meets the exception criteria provided in the-Plan for considering develop of agricultural land,and,that the project is trot inconsistent with other policies of the Plan. Exception criteria are discussed in tk Food Production chapter of the flan under Policy A and Al and on page 133 of the Plan as follows: a) rainb iziag developmwt pressure created by the placement and deaiga of major pudic fa�.ilititee; b) permitting state actions that result in iarevexsible conversion to other uses only when dwn is a dwastraftd overriding need,alternative sites are not technically feasible or economk4 ly justified,and the impact of conversion is weigi a) continuing support and funding for the State@s Purchase of Developm ut Rights progmm Consistency with local housing needs, the Housing chapter of the Plan,with municipal planning and zoning, and with needed inh-astf ate should also be demonstrate in the application. A copy of the text of the plan is on the Internet at www o ware ct usiP /Rh'v5v f ay/+&1 PJ,?tVC&D1nbM.h m.. If I can be of further assistance my telephone raym is (960)418-6373. 450 CAPIW Aveam 0614&IM _12,LiEC' 1R '®® 1:50PM METRO REALTY 1'OLTCY/XGT. PDPD P.c�7lo310tD8 ME 'i j -- rwe•• utdrim Chop to � i t pan" PIM Ber...lgik, L �` mol (b) ' mEYa� ! 38 n0•IaT�'i tbr+ • yearts sa mgmt to ply+is f rd■dvpw in ocwd- an*Wei the psooesI in Chmpter 297 of &nasal � at had evray third� W the IM adoption. - '�"r . - �'�C+aa ee cal PIaaning gad Development estsbui pm t•to F -14) "btnim any „ IW �-P a.wbm to a A n tar� d op< mentmeaas*epka a�+�►�' 1 M fi �� map a!whidi era tpacftftw In the as=ad the�said8eeret�Y. (� "Irou"Flan"means the hit ad*t$►tee of �and Etvalupmmt Pabom Flaw by dw Cvm=W Aasam- hlq,wh'ah it the bW We amhg'oed to tba state plait of�e►had deve3o�eat in*a of sti&glen amd my momm- �oWcal =m MW fawn,oit9'or baroq*af*0 Sty "mama the of OSiae of Poft end.I g+e meat of tbs of Ce "6tst6e�"seven am mu d%mrftent.=bbftn,bmT4 cmtl ' miasian ar - •. . maft-d"Numb6"• im) Bee. 16*4d L AppUn ion fw p,.a tatedw d mee pohtial mbdivb--'a a�the nuts,state aglany or*e tU7.upon US awn e.MW twPly for Wmmge m the gah- des - ' . In tho ease of s politieai tabdivieiea,the t shall bo the mistfm=I hl ofSioee wits apprsval of she low body, in a town . gcve:nK+d 49 towam , wb easethe the l . of$relectnsea.?a dw tale of l�stye ageaey,the ehatl be the adudai�sati3ro ofl�ial oi'the ag+mey. ) An=WMatiom for iatspim d►rnge be kW in ttHcntAi with A W f-sa isim change whi6inealves a amp in the t u of W dW=FIm."bo CPWW In the huowbg WAT fate pew mambem(s) who-! the mfemh ebsage(R)b�' the entire pa�ah(s vea where flee a) m sa e axgt�ae+. ►a>dxh . ' �.t o=oar�mnoiaM�.` the peeeest mad a .� 12tDEC 16 '00 01 a 51PM METRO REALYY 1)4LI.CYAWT. PDPD P.5."'104/006 a Owes at•Po1�.7�t�rmwt�t 2!r•�b� • t(D � � Ch "�dmp mthe k*Aft amp ( } OC� '= I 185 ap$y(8) t R � , tm had is 16, lbw% Pmmt lmd=jgM u dwm w the=0 pd nee the I lose"fat i � ed bye mmm aw do- AA as tar an maim t�a-W wh d m aaaooedia Ls) tins won e i wirer of the comp a aE the,P ° afu` #fie s�sawhtch� 8a�.t�l • ta} ' KAMW 4�rtboa tea txa} �� reodyt d I anmterina + t ) bo t3�Cady tip IG&24b.4 the,S=0097e? 11:Cd) and en tbawgPow�cW i ject of as ebkw m,wors the]amhoa�i g�•m � w 'am S°d the " *v i • in the ect a an g byte he Boost",mow belAw to tbe Cozn- Mates Isne the s ;`. ias an m , mlt Of the C4mnddm Ul. sad sPprap�atr �4e� ��� ''�a, pima s�+el► ' nwg „ "a'my �' Ski o='t0'�a of a for ��� •� dam�30 o of the vo*dPt Of tM V4146 6 dw8V tO � ebsbWda,� in odor to bw �a� for the Fww the Sim FNV od d1up.own"MAwn aj rbichsaw in the k"dow gaffe gap DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers . planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. 3 (PVMT.) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 13' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 5" Topsoil 5" 2' Tan silty loam 2' 13' Red sandy silty gravel w/very large rocks(red rock)-Till DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: N/A PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC.HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC. RATE= (MIN.IIN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 • Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. 15 LOT NO. DEPTH—TO I V From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 5" Topsoil w/roots to 12" 5" 2.5' Tan silty loam 2.5' 8' Red sandy silty gavel w/large rocks 8' 11' Very compact(a, 8' and below(red rock)-Till DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: 2.5' PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC. HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC.RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 •Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KNII OBSERVATION PIT NO. 11 LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 8' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 4" Topsoil 4" 3' Tan silty loam 3 7' Red compact sandy silty gravel w/large rocks(red rock)—Till DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: 3' PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC. HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC. RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860)291-8755 • Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers . planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KNII OBSERVATION PIT NO. 10(drywell) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 7.5' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 2" Topsoil 2" 8" Brown silty loam 8" 7.5' Red sandy gravel(wet) Vert/compact w/large rocks(red rock)-Till DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: N/A PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC. HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC.RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 • Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. 6(Det. basin) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 7' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 7" Topsoil 7" 34" Tan silty loam w/rocks 34" 46" Red sandy silty gravel(loose) 46" 7' Decomposed ledge(red rock) DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: 6.5' to standing water DEPTH TO MOTTLING: 26" PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC.HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC.RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 •Fax: (860)291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. 14(drywell) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 10' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 3" Topsoil 3" 8' Red silty sandy gavel w/large rocks 8' 9' Red coarse sand(wet) 9' down Decomposed ledge(very compact red gavel w/rocks) NO FURTHER(VERY COMPACT)DECOMPOSED LEDGE DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: 8' DEPTH TO MOTTLING: 8' PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC.HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC. RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 • Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. 13 ( ell) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 6' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 6" Topsoil 6" 19" Tan silty loam 19" 42" Red sandy gavel w/rocks _ 42" —> Decomposed ledge w/rocks (No Sample) DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: 42" PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC.HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC.RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 9 Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. TP#5 (PVMT.) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 6' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 12" Topsail w/roots to 3' (minimal) 12" 38" Tan silty loam 38" 6' Red sandy gravel DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: N/A PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC.HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC.RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 •Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers . planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. 17(Drywell) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 8.5' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 7" Topsoil w/roots 7" 3' Tan silty loam(very compact) 3' 6' Red sandy gravel w/large rocks 6' 8' Red gray rock(ledge w/rocks intermittent) Can't go further DEPTH TO LEDGE: 6' NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: N/A PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC.HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC.RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 • Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. 16(Dry ell) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 6' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 7" Reddish brown topsoil w/roots& litter 7" 18" Tan silty loam(compact) 18" 4' Red sandy gravel w/large rocks 4' 6' Red silty sand w/large rocks(very compact)-Till DEPTH TO LEDGE: N/A NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: N/A PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC.HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC.RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860)291-8755 •Fax: (860) 291-8757 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis Project No.: 1270 Project Name: Watson Farm Date: 7/18/01 Testing By: KMI OBSERVATION PIT NO. 4(PVMT) LOT NO. DEPTH—TO 6' From To SOILS DESCRIPTION 0" 12" Topsoil w/roots to 2' Brown silty loam w/roots 2' 3.5' Red sandy gravel w/large rocks 3.5' 6' Decomposed Ledge(red rock) DEPTH TO LEDGE: 3.5' NOTES: DEPTH TO WATER: N/A DEPTH TO MOTTLING: N/A PERCOLATION TEST: TIME=MINUTES DEPTH OF PERC. HOLE: READING=INCHES TEST DATA TIME READING TIME READING CALCULATED PERC.RATE= (MIN./IN.) 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 • Fax: (860) 291-8757 I New England Roadside Matrix Mix The New England Roadside Matrix Mix is a specialty mix designed for use along roads and high- Typical Soil Bioengineering Cross Section Using Biologs and Brush Lae ' ways. The mix is unusual in that it contains native grasses, wildflowers and shrubs blended together as a native matrix seed mix.In areas which receive frequent mowing,such as those areas Y nng closest to the roadway shoulder,the warm season grasses will road,which may be mown only once each year, or in hard t dominate.In areas farther from the o mow areas, such as around sign U ��. �u°'� 1 4 .Along cuts and side slopes which may posts,the wildflower component will become dominant ° never be mown,the shrub component will add diversity,beauty,and wildlife habitat to the road- side plantings.This versatile seed mix uses plant genotypes from the Northeastern states.It is a 9u ° particularly appropriate seed mix for roadsides, industrial sites, or cut and fill slopes.The best results are obtained with a Spring or Summer seeding.Summer seeding can be successful with a light mulching of weed free straw to conserve moisture.This mix is not well suited to late Fall o° and Winter dormant seeding. a APPLICATION RATE:35 LBS/ACRE r COST:$16.00/LB ° SPECIES GRASSES Meadow Fescue Festuca( pratensis), Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum), Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum BigBlues tein m Andr - o0 nutans),and Little Bluestein(Andropogon scoparius)gerardi),Indian Grass(Sorghastrum _ WILDFLOWERS Black-eyed Susan(Rudbekia hirta),Lance-leaved Coreopsis(Coreopsis lanceolata),Ox- eye Daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), Partridge Pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), and Showy Tick-trefoil(Desmodium canadense). SHRUBS Soil Bioengineering and Streambank Stabilization Materials Arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), Gray Dogwood (Cornus racemosa), Nannyberry(Viburnum lentago),Choke Cherry(Prunus virginiana),Staghom Sumac(Rhus typhina), New England Wetland Plants,Inc.provides slope and bank stabilization plants and products for Black Chokeberry(Aronia melanocarpa),and Winterberry Holly(Ilex verticillata). use in soil bioengineering and slope stabilization projects.NEW?provides dormant woody brush ` from our cutting blocks and nursery for use in brush layering,live fascines,and stakes.NEWP also provides erosion control blankets for use in erosion control on slopes, and Coconut fiber New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix products manufactured by BonTerra America.NEWP produces several species of erosion control (for Dry Sites) plants as tubelings (see page 33)which extend the installation period beyond that of dormant The New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix for dry sites provides an appropriate selec- plants root from dormant cuttings.�The a tube]ngs have and permit the la significant ishment of ladvant advantage over dormant of read- The of grasses to ensure that dry and recently disturbed sites will be quickly re vegetated and the in that the extend soil surface stabilized.This seed mix uses ]ant disturbed I Y their existing roots stem and he g nt stakes P genotypes from the Northeastern states.It is a unroo Y ]p stabilize soils more d M than appropriate seed mix for road cuts,pipelines,detention basin side sloe n ted cuttings. le at any cuttings are available between November quickly dormant ecologicalslopes,and areas undergoing cuttings er 15 and March 1 .resto n s are available 5 Rooted ration.This mix g g g ble at an t'x may be applied at any time of the year.A light mulching of wee Y time of the year. free straw to co g d conserve moisture and to a' 'id in slope stabilization and fertilization recommended. "t zation with 10 10-10 is Live Fascines/Wattles APPLICATION RATE:35 LBS/ACRE COST$6.00/I,13 NEWP Provides unrooted dormant cuttings in a cylindrical bundle of easy to root species such as SPECIES dogwoods and willows.Specifications vary from project to project,but these are typically 3"-6" in diameter and 6'-20'in length.These are tied together with baling twine.Meadow Fescue (Festuca pratensis), Annual Rye-grass (Lolium temulentum , Timothy I are typically planted in horizontal shallow trenches alongthe face Fascines and Wattles (Phleum pratense),White Clover Tri olium re ) Y slopes,and are staked ' of a strecustom, or wa ( .f ens Into la g rep ens),Little Bluestein(Andropogon sco ar- I place with either a live or dead stake.NEWP will custom grow wat- tus Red To A mstis a antea p tles in soil and burlap wraps for installation during the growing season. Please call for a price P( g g g ),and Side-oats Gramma-grass(Boutiloua curpenula). f tid quote based on your project specifications. New England Wetland Plants,Inc.,800 Main St.,Amherst,MA 01002 Phone(413)256-1752 New England Wetland Plants,Inc.,800 Main St.,Amherst,MA 30 FAX(413)256-1092 Phone(413)256-1752 01002 z1 FAX(413)256-1092 10 u to ',' ,� /of to j I I to of ,Is r r to to ,Ir to of to to of , / 1. //f/\ lo ,%' -tea-,x�\,\ \ ` `,. �;,r• . ,'r ....__.._. ,, ,/. o %'• � , 1-999 1000+ 5000+ ` Typha latifolia Size 00+ (common cattail) New England Seed Mixes for Mitigation A very important wildlife food source, this Bare Root g plant also provides good cover.Cattails take u $60 $'S0 $'40 Conservation and 'heavy metals and other pollutants, improving 2„peat pot $.75 $.70 $.6g Era ion Control water quality.(OBL) This year NEWP is offering a choice of seed mixes for various applications.The species for each seed mix were selected to provide the best vegetation cover with the most suitable native plants Vallisneria americana available. A description of each seed mix, including species composition, appropriate site (Wild Celery) conditions and application rates follows. A perennial submerged aquatic plant.Provides Tubers $.40 $.35 $.30 excellent cover for small fish, and food for waterfowl and adult fish. Excellent in wet New England WetmiX detention basins.(OBL) The 1997 wetland seed mix contains a wide variety of native seeds which are suitable for most wetland mitigation and restoration sites which are not permanently inundated.All species are best Verbena hastata i suited to moist disturbed ground as found in most wet meadow,scrub shrub,or forested wetland (Blue Vervain) I mitigation and restoration areas. This mix is well suited for detention basin borders, the i bottom of detention basins not generally under standing water.The seeds will not germ oatenunder A plant with small blue flowers. Foliage pro- 2"peat pot $.75 $.70 $65 inundated conditions.If planted during the fall months,the seed mix will germinate vides food for rabbits,muskrats,mice and larval spring.During the first season of growth,several species will produce seeds, the following Verbena moth.Seeds eaten by birds.(FACW+) will produce seeds after the g while other species second growing season. Not all species will grow in all wetland situations.This mix is composed of the wetland species most likely to grow in created/restored ernonia noveboracensis wetlands,and should produce more than 75%ground cover in one full owing sea (New York Ironweed) gr g Son. When to Plant.Wetland seeds require moisture to germinate.We have found that seeds have the Similar in form to Joe-pye Weed,the flowers of 2"peat pot $.75 $.70 $65 highest germination success if planted in the fall,up to the time of snow cover.The advantage of this ironweed range from pink to blue and form fall sowing is that by having the seeds over up after sowing, man of t more open clusters. This species is usually g inhibitors associated with these plants are broken down,allowing increased germination germination success. shorter than Joe-pye Weeds(3-7').(FACW+) If the plants are sown too early in the fall(before October 15 in most areas ),many of the seeds will germinate within 10 days.This will lead to winter kill of the new seedlings.Spring seeding will work well,but germination success is slightly reduced as compared to Fall seedings. The wetland seeds in this mix can be hand sown,used with a hand-held spreader,or hydro-seeded on large or hard to reach sites,as long as there is no permanent snow cover.Lightly rake to ensure proper soil-seed contact. Seeding can take place on frozen soil, as the freezing and thawing weather of late fall and early winter will work the seed into the soil.When planting in the spring, plant early so that there is sufficient rainfall. If spring conditions are drier than usual, watering may be required. All seed sold in the spring/summer is moist stratified prior to shipment to improve germination.If planting during the summer months,watering may be required for at least 2-3 weeks after planting to insure germination.A non-invasive annual such as winter rye may be added to the mix to obtain soil stabilization cover in the fall. Do not add annual ryegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass or perennial ryegrass as these species are very aggressive and they will inhibit the growth of the wetland seeds.A light mulch of clean weed-free straw is recommended. c APPLICATION RATE; i LB/5000 SQ.FEET AS AN UNDERSTORY SEEDING 1 LB/2500 SQ.FEET AS A WET MEADOW { COST.$125.00/L,B Saltmarsh Bulrush(Scirpus robustus) New England Wetland Plants,Inc.,800 Main St.,Amherst,MA 01002 Phone(413)256-1752 24 FAX(413)256-1092 New England Wetland Plants,Inc.,800 Main St.,Amherst,MA 01002 d, Phone(413)256-1752 2� FAX(413)256-1092 New England Wetmix New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix (Wetland Seed Mix*) is Sites) SPECIES The New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix contains a selection of native grasses and wild- Fringed Sedge(Carey crinita), Canada Manna Grass (Glyceria canadensis),Three-way flowers designed to colonize generally moist,recently disturbed sites where quick growth of vegeta- Sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum), Blue Vervain (Verbena hastata), Woolgrass (Scirpus tion is desired to stabilize the soil surface.This seed mix uses plant genotypes from the Northeaster cyperinus), Lurid Sedge (Carer lurida), Soft Rush (Juncus ejfusus), Joe-pye Weed states.It is an excellent seed mix for ecologically appropriate restorations on moist sites which require (Eupatoriadelphus maculatus),Green Bulrush(Scirpus atrovirens),Bearded Sedge(Carer quick stabilization as well as long-term establishment of native vegetation.This mix is particularly comosa),Tussock Sedge(Carer stricta Boneset Eu atorium appropriate for detention basis which do not normally hold standing water.The plants in this mix can )� ( p perfoliatum),Broomsedge tolerate infrequent inundation, but not constant flooding. In New England, the best results are (Carey tribuloides),Fox Sedge(Carey vulpinoidea),Barberpole Sedge(Scirpus microcar- pus),Rusty Flatsedge(Cyperus ferrugineScens),Bladder Sedge(Carer lupulina),Swamp obtained with a Spring seeding.Summer and Fall seeding can be successful with a light mulching of Candle sty Fl ased t(Cypris),Marsh St.John's-wort r Sedge(C r r inicum weed free straw to conserve moisture.Late Fall and Winter dormant seeding require( g ),Norther g g f e a slight increase Bugleweed(Lycopus uniflorus),and Fowl Manna Grass(Glyceria striata). in the seeding rate.Fertilization is not required unless the soils are particularly infertile. *All of these species are used in New England Wetmix.The proportions vary on a APPLICATION RATE:35 LBS/ACRE COST$10.00/1,13 yearly basis depending on seed production. SPECIES Tioga Deertongue(Panicum clandestinum),Alsike Clover(Trifolium hybridum),Rough Bluegrass (Poa trivialis), Meadow Fescue (Festuca pratensis), Red Top (Agrostis gigantea),Creeping Bentgrass(Agrostis stolonifera),Switchgrass(Panicum virgatum), Meadow Foxtail(Alopecurus pratensis),Eastern Gama-grass(Tripsacum dactyloides), Fox Sedge (Carey vulpinoidea), Virginia Wild-rye (Elymus virginicus), Plains Coreopsis (Coreopsis tinctoria), Grass-leaved Goldenrod' (Euthamia graminifolia), Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Blue Vervain (Verbena hastata), Joe-Pye Weed (Eupatoriadelphus maculatus),Boneset(Eupatorium perfoliatum),and Flat-top Aster(Aster umbellatus). New England Conservation/Wildlife Mix The New England Conservation/Wildlife Mix provides a permanent cover of grasses,forbs,wild- flowers,legumes and grasses to provide both erosion control,and wildlife habitat value.This mix - is designed to produce a no-maintenance cover,and is an appropriate application for cut and fill - slopes,detention basins,and disturbed areas adjacent to commercial and residential projects. APPLICATION RATE:25 LBS/ACRE COST$16.00/LB $400.00/ACRE SPECIES s Little Bluestein (Andropogon scoparius), Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum), Fox Sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), Pennsylvania Smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), Canada Wild-rye (Elymus canadensis), Partridge Pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), Annual Sunflower (Helianthus annuus), Cup-plant (Silphium perfoliatum), Nodding Bur- marigold (Bidens cernua), Showy Tick-trefoil (Desmodium canadense), Ox-eye Sunflower(Heliopsis helianthoides),and Butterfly Milkweed(Asclepias tuberosa). Northern Bugleweed(Lycopus uniflorus) New England Wetland Plants,Inc.,800 Main St.,Amherst,MA 01002 New England Wetland Plants,Inc.,800 Main St.,Amherst,MA 01002 Phone(413)256-1752 Phone FAX(413)256-1092 413 256-17 26 ( ) 52 27 FAX(413)256-1092 New England Wildflower Mix The New England Wildflower Mix provides a selection of native wildflowers and grasses to ensure that a variety of the species will survive in all conditions encountered from dry to moist. This native grass and wildflower seed mix uses plant genotypes from the Northeastern states.It is an appropriate seed mix for roadsides,commercial landscaping,parks,golf courses,industrial sites and areas undergoing ecological restoration.In New England,the best results are obtained with an early Spring seeding.Summer seeding can be successful with a light mulching of weed free straw to conserve moisture.Late Fall and Winter dormant seeding requires a slight increase in the seeding rate.Fertilization is not required unless the soils are particularly infertile. APPLICATION RATE: 15 LBS/ACRE COST:$30.00/LBS SPECIES Meadow Fescue (Festuca pratensis), Lance-leaved Coreopsis (Coriopsis lanceolata), Little Bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), Partridge Pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata), Indian Grass(Sorghastrum nutans),Roundhead Bush Clover(Lespidesa capitata),Wild Blue Lupine(Lupinus perennis),Black-eyed Susan(Rudbekia hirta),Purple Coneflower (Echinacea purpurea), Canada Wild-rye (Elymus canadensis), Ox-eye Sunflower (Heliopsis helianthoides),Canada Goldenrod(Solidago canadensis),New England Aster (Aster novae-anglia),Blue Vervain(Verbena hastata),Beard Tongue(Penstamon digital- is), Showy Tick-trefoil (Desmodium canadense), Butterfly Milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa),Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Grass-leaved Goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia),Zig-zag Aster(Aster prenanthoides),Bush Clover(Lespedeza bicolor),and Wild Bergamot(Monarda fistulosa). Burreed(Sparganium americanum) New England Native Warm Season Grass Mix The New England Native Warm Season Grass Mix contains a broad spectrum of native warm sea- son grasses to ensure that a variety of the species will survive in the sandy and droughty condi- tions typically found along roadsides,gravel mine reclamation areas,and other low-fertility well- drained soil conditions.This mix is somewhat slow to germinate and establish during the first year of planting,but will produce good cover by the end of the second growing season to produce long-lived native stands.This mix has excellent heat and drought tolerance,and grows well in well-drained soils.Warm season grasses provide excellent year-round cover and food for wildlife, particularly as winter cover for small animals.This is an excellent seed mix for roadsides,gravel pit restorations, and other sandy/droughty sites. In New England, the best results are obtained with a mid-late Spring seeding. APPLICATION RATE:25 LBS/ACRE COST:$10.00/LB SPECIES Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum), Shelter Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), Eastern Gama-grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), Indian Grass(Sorghastrum nutans),Little Bluestem (Andropogon scoparius),Meadow Fescue (Festuca pratensis), Canada Wild-rye (Elymus canadensis), Side-oats Gramma-grass (Bouteloua curtipendula),and Purple Love-grass(Erigrostis spectabilis). Sensitive fern (Onaclea sensibilis) New England Wetland Plants,Inc.,800 Main St.,Amherst,MA 01002 New England Wetland Plants,Inc.,800 Main St.,Amherst,MA 01002 Phone(413)256-1752 FAX(413)256-1092 Phone 413 256- ( ) 1752 FAX 413 256-1092 28 29 ( ) DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis RECEIVED September 5, 2001 SEP 0 5 2001 South Windsor Town of South Windsor CO SER ATION COMMISSION Planning Department 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, CT 06074 Attn: Ms. Marcia Banach Town Planner Re:Watson Farm Dear Marcia We are submitting herein,three sets of revised plans for the above referenced site. The plans have been revised to address a number of outstanding items including comments by the engineering department, and approval conditions by both the inland wetlands and planning and zoning commissions. We are also including herein, revised drainage calculations supporting the changes to the storm drainage system,and soil test logs. We performed a number of deep hole test pits on the site and found that the sub-soil conditions were not conducive for drywell installations. In general the soils on the site had shallow depths to till, and ledge,and or shallow mottling. Due to the shallow depths to the till, ledge and or mottling,the installation of drywells on the site would not be expected to function adequately. In order to help minimize the cost of the project,building number 3 was shifted out of the existing sanitary casement thereby eliminating the need to relocate the existing sewer line through the site. The site was regarded to generally provide for a cross slope on the roadways to the inside of the curves on the roadways. The storm drainage on the site was adjusted accordingly. Please review the revised plans. We look forward to completing this project so that we may schedule a pre- construction meeting. Sincerely, Galen Semprebon, P.E. Director of Engineering CC4ff Folger Michael Gantick Enclosures: