Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Site Plan - Conservation (60)
` y RECEIVED R CCindsor D TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR MAY 12002 DE01 South Windsor utINLAND WETLANDS AGENCY INLAND WENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION CONSERVATSION INLAND WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION APPLICATION Application# Date Received f //-17 INSTRUCTIONS 1. Fifteen applications (15) 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. South Windsor Housing Authority and A. Applicant's Name: The Metro Realty Group, LTD, c/o Geoffrey Sager, President 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor; CT 06074 '(SWHA) Address: 6 Fxerutive Drive., ar Fmi n!:I on, CT0603� SWHA 644-3082 SWHA 648-9486 Phone: (home) _(work)860-674-5641 (fax) 860-677-6919 B. Legal owner's name: Donald S. Dzen, Donald S. Dzen, Jr. , Joseph M. Dzen Address 129 T rl ook Road, South Wi nrl. or, CT 06074 Phone(home) 648-0608 (work) 648-1355 (fax) 872-3677 (List additional owners, addresses, and phone numbers on back of application) C. If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property; a letter by the owner(s) authorizing the proposed regulated activity set forth in the application must accompany this form and will be part of the application. D. Project Name (if any) Berry Farm 1. Contact Person(if further information is needed) Peter R. DeMallie, Design Professionals, __.(work) 291-8755 (fax) 291-8757 Inc. E. The geographical location of the property which is to be affected by the proposed regulated activities including a description of the land in sufficient detail to allow identification of the property on the Inland Wetland and Watercourse Map. Assessor's map # 52 Parcel# 92 Zone AA-30 F. Names of all abutting property owners from records in Town Clerk's office. (use separate sheet if necessary) See attached sheet 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 J ** (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: Time element: 1-2 construction seasons. Total wetlands disturbance is 510+/- sg ft ,or 0.11 acres, including retaining wall (49 l.f.) and grading, 28 l.f. curb, 68 c.f. proc gravel base, and 17 c.f. bit. pavement. Total upland review area disturbance is 2.0+/- acres, including stone berms, rip rap. 1011, 1511, & 18" pip, f1 rends, rat-c-h ba.in ,_-anitary manholes, pavement, boulderwalls, foundation drains, landscaping, grading, curbing, .(OVERy.__ I. A class A-2 map of the property drawn to I"=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 attached map J. Amount of regulated area disturbance and types of fill(including wetlands and regulated buffers). 0.11+/- acre wetlands disturbance;2.0+/- ac. upland review area disturbance;see above for types of K. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses in regulated areas to be altered: 51 o+,/- i_ft_ or 0.11+/- an fill. L. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be created: 0 M. Lineal feet of proposed stream alteration: 0 N. Total land area of project and percentage, which is wetlands: 14+/- acres total area, of which 1.59 acres, or 11.350, is wetlands O. Identify all other permits or approvals that have been issued, applied for, or required with respect to the proposed activity set forth in this application. (These may include but not be limited to, local Planning & Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, D.E.P.,F.E.M.A., D.O.T., The Army Corps of Engineers, and any other State, Local or Federal Permits.) DO, DEP, PZC, WPCA, Housing Authority P. The applicant (or designated representative) hereby attests that a sign will be posted at the following location(s) Oakland Road & Felt Road frontage B sign Pro essi mina 1-Name P car R_ DeMallie on or before the following date as directed by Town Staff 8 � a 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 a l'cation both before and after a final decision has been issued. ,0 Signature of wner of Property Date 12/6/01 L� Signature o cant Date 9 HI GHLAND SOILS LLC December 11, 2001 Pet+ r DeMallie Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor CT 06074 RE. BERRY FARM FELT ROAD & OAKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CT Dear Peter: The inland wetland boundaries on the above-referenced property were field delineated in July 1998 and November 2001. The wetlands were field delineated in accordance with the standards of the National Cooperative Soil Survey and the definition of wetlands as found in the Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 440, Section 22A-38. I have reviewed the plans prepared by your office (dated December 10, 2001) and have found the representation of the field delineated wetlands to be substantially correct. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at(860) 742-5868. Very truly yours, Y,v John P. Ianni Professional Soil Scientist MAY 1 20o2 auum VVIllasoi INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION c A1et2001`255.doe P.O. Box 337, Storrs,Connecticut 06268 (860) 742-5868 r DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers • planners • surveyors • gis Transmitted via certified mail Dear Current Abutting Property Owner May 1, 2002 Re: Berry Farm(Elderly Housing) DPI Project No. 01-1521 Oakland Road(Route 30) &Felt Road South Windsor, Connecticut In accordance with regulations of the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Planning &Zoning Commission, we are required to notify you that an application has been filed on the property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing(s) by the Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning &Zoning Commission. 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 will be heard,please contact Kelli Holmes, Administrative Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeffrey Folger, Environmental Planner, at the South Windsor Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 253, 252 or 229,respectively. Thank you. Sincerely, DESIGN OFESSIONALS, INC. ` f By: Peter R. DeMallie Principal cc: Jeffrey Folger Marcia Banach Geoffrey Sager MAY 1 200Z South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 Telephone(860)291-8755 Fax(860)291-8757 Direct Abutting Property Owners DPI Project No. 01-1521 Metro/Felt Road Man/Lot Abutting Property Owned sl Mailing Address 38/2 Calvary Church of the Assemblies 400 Buckland Road South Windsor, CT 06074 39/53 Robert N. &Amy L. (Surv) Gamache 25 Grandview Terrace South Windsor, CT 06074 39/54 Karen A. &Edward J. O'Connor 35 Grandview Terrace South Windsor, CT 06074 39/55 Robert&Penelope P. (Surv)Torrani 39 Grandview Terrace South Windsor, CT 06074 39/64 Michael J. &Kristina G. Suppicich 65 Summit Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 51/32 Fred S. Katten 115 Beverly Road West Hartford, CT 06119 51/33 The Village at Buckland Court 432 Buckland Road South Windsor, CT 06074 52/91 Lois H. Petersen 440 Deming St. South Windsor, CT 06074 52/93 Pauline G. Johnson 195 Oakland Road, Box 453 South Windsor CT 06074 Road 52/94 Mildred S. Lu&Kenneth Simler 151 Oakland R o South Windsor, CT 06074 RECEIVED MAY 12002 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION SowN 8f� ol 9 � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 Ab Orr TL- v� B60-291-8757 P®�v�l��® Dec 06 01 10:40a MAY 12002 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION December 6,2001 To Whom It May Cow° i professionals,Inc.is bercby authorized Phase be NdvImd that Peter R.DeMallie velapmicnt of our PmP �0wn as any end all applications assoc We further eutho�ft sub�s�n of to sigxl Y iA South Windsor.Connectic 205 O"nd Rod fated With the devcloPmeut of this prop y Ind use aPFt�iO�aasoc 5'lIIL'etCly, By: CC. PEdwi Marilyn Dun GeoffivY gager R Stormwater Management Plan Berry Farm South Windsor, Connecticut RECEIVED MAY 12002 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION Prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 DPI Project No. 0 1-1521 December 10, 2001 Table of Contents: Page# Introduction 1 Proposed Development 1 Off-Site Analysis 1 Peak Runoff control 1 Nonstructural Drainage System 1 Riparian Buffers 1 Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems 1 Storm-water Runoff Quality 2 Conveyance System 2 Discharge at the Natural Location 2 Maintenance and Operation 2 Topographic Contour Maps 2 Floodplain Boundaries 2 Drainage Design 2 On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations 4 Conclusions 4 Appendices Watershed Drainage Map A TR-55 Existing Conditions To Pond B TR-55 Existing Conditions—Down-slope of Pond C Pond Modeling D Pond Routing Summaries E Existing Conditions-Pond Routings F TR-55 Pond-Developed Conditions G Developed Conditions-Pond Routings H Storm Sewer Calculations I Introduction: The site is located on the south side of Oakland Road in South Windsor, Connecticut, and consists of a single parcel totaling 14 Acres. The site is bordered on the east by Slater Street, on the south by single-family homes, on the west by assisted living elderly housing, and on the north by Oakland Street and residential lands. The site is presently being utilized for agricultural purposes. Proposed Development: The proposed development of the site includes the construction of 102 elderly housing units contained within 5 buildings. As part of the development, access roadways, parking, and driveways will be constructed. The site will be serviced by public sanitary sewer and water. The Storm drainage system proposed for the development includes the installation of storm-sewers within the proposed access street, vegetated drainage swales, and a piped storm drainage system. The drainage discharge from the development of the site will be to the existing pond via vegetated swales. The existing pond on site has a weir for discharge of water from the pond. The pond acts as a natural detention basin, and will be utilized to mitigate any increase in peak storm flows from the site. Off-Site Analysis: The majority of the site presently drains to the existing pond on site that is part of the Farm Brook drainage basin. The remainder of the site drains directly to Farm Brook either upstream or downstream of the pond. The site will continue to drain to Farm Brook under developed conditions. Peak Runoff Control: The peak runoff from the site will be controlled by discharging directly into the existing pond on site, and using the pond as a natural detention basin. Nonstructural Drainage Systems: The site will make use of a number of nonstructural measures to help control the runoff on the site, and help treat the runoff. The most important measures are the water quality swales that will collect the runoff from the piped drainage system, and help treat the runoff prior to discharge to the existing pond. Riparian Buffers: An extensive planted berm area will be developed between the existing homes on the north side of the site, and the developed site areas. 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 temporary sediment basins during construction. 5. Seeding and mulching disturbed areas as soon as practical during construction. 6. Limiting the areas of disturbance during construction. r 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 water quality swales that will treat the runoff from the site prior to discharge. Conveyance System: The on-site conveyance system consists of a piped stormwater system discharging to the water quality swales. The piped drainage system has been designed to accommodate the runoff from a 10 Yr design storm. Discharge at the Natural Location: The site presently drains to the existing pond on site and the Farm Brook. The site under developed conditions will continue to drain in the same directions. Maintenance and Operation: The following maintenance operations will be required to ensure the proper and efficient operation of the Storm Water System, and Water Quality Swales. 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. Topographic Contour Maps: Topographic contour maps have been provided showing the drainage areas for the site at a scale of 1"=40'. The maps showing the existing and developed conditions are included in the rear of this report. A drainage area map for the entire watershed is included in appendix A. Floodplain Boundaries: There are 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 and entire watershed under existing and developed conditions was developed utilizing the TR-55 computer program. The drainage piping on site was designed using the rational formula. The detention basin was sized using a computer program by Hydrographs called Hydroflow. The program allows for the development of hydrographs representing the developed flows into the basin, and the modeling of the basin with 1 + 4 elevation/storage/discharge curves to represent the basin. The program than provides the routing of the hydrograph through the basin, and provides peak discharge and storage information. Under existing conditions portions of the site presently drains to the existing pond on site. The remainder of the site drains directly to Farm Brook. Under developed conditions, the pond will be utilized for its natural detention to mitigate the increase in peak runoff from the site. In order to detain the peak runoff rates, a portion of the site that presently drains down stream of the pond directly into Farm Brook will be diverted under developed conditions to drain to the pond. The utilization of the existing pond as a detention basin required the modeling of the pond under both existing and developed conditions. Under existing conditions, the drainage area for the pond is 595 acres. The TR-55 analysis for this area is included in appendix B. Under developed conditions, an additional 2.75 acres of land that presently drains down slope of the pond directly to Farm Brook is diverted into the pond. This 2.75 acres has been modeled using the TR-55 under existing conditions, and is included in appendix C. A summary of the results is as follows: Storm Freq. Existing to pond Existing Down slope of Pond 2 100 1 10 279 3 25 394 4 50 502 5 100 618 7 The existing flows have then been routed through the existing pond to determine the existing outflow from the pond using the Hydroflow computer program. The summary of the modeling of the pond including the stage storage and stage discharge tables is included in appendix D. The summary of the pond routing for both existing and developed conditions is included in appendix E. The actual routings of the pond under existing conditions is included in appendix F. A summary of the results is as follows: Storm Frequency Discharge from Pond Discharge to Brook Total 2 95.21 1 96.21 10 275.28 3 278.28 25 391.05 4 395.05 50 500.36 5 505.36 100 614.32 7 621.32 The pond was then analyzed under developed conditions. The Tr-55 Analysis for the pond under developed conditions is included in appendix G. The discharge to the pond under developed conditions includes the additional 2.75 acres of land that presently discharges directly to the Farm Brook under existing conditions. The Routing of the storm flows under developed conditions was developed, and is included in appendix H. The summary of the total flow under existing and developed conditions is summarized herein: Storm Frequency Total Existing Developed Total Leaving Pond 2 96.21 95.65 10 278.28 276.56 25 395.05 392.87 50 505.36 502.68 100 621.32 617.16 As can be seen from the results, the total flow leaving the pond under developed conditions is less than the total existing flow from the pond plus the additional 2.75 acres that presently discharges directly to the Farm Brook that will be diverted into the pond under developed conditions. Therefore, there will not be any increase in peak rates of runoff due to the development of the site. On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations: The storm sewer calculations for the storm piping within the proposed private roadway are included in appendix I. The storm sewer has been designed for a 10-year design storm utilizing the rational formula. Conclusions: The on-site stormwater system with the associated water quality swales and existing pond will mitigate any potential water quality and quantity impacts from the development of the site. 1 a L APPENDIX A - • 1 �e/. a© ' �'kY •'. V�� � , C"' _� .��/ i �/k/�/ o' Q\ Q'�`7 ,?;w� r Jf Ul °��'\. ` �v 1 i J 04 If �•,�,`.'!IN '. '/ '• �• / r ice• �) JJ. {�V \ �� '!r ', �/i/•. i _i�r n ��� 100.�) � �\��• .\�., _ , ',•, ,, •. .\ .1 � .,•, t/S It ,•C':�I '"� '1. !.� tlti �� ,<:; \N - J. \ .a%' vr� • -•J�IfJ J �'t�, , 666 • rll � /\ r l ,l �' • ri4 \ :{ls ��� � i' � 'J. -- tic4 �) \\ \``�,:�'��� os�\`` I �% � � � 1 \ �•, yl' •�\ � �\�. � �.. ir ' 17 ": ' mri.//� .. ... \• 't�n ( (' t.;lc. <1\���\ �, /�i., -.��d ( '�� •�' :,ul 1 g ,/ // .,. ,.,��t� . \ s � s��� ;,,, \ ;? ` \ ,, \ > . .'�. --•.._. \ � I „ pf _ � .. •..off\ J. .r 7�,,t1 -�:_s`. ' �IfJ) `.. .(,, .5.i �\ \` Sit tt ,�i'i �� i' •O■ \ , , • •1 �J ` / 1 J I`2'� ;.' / •• ,, :T. \ ( \ ,"� �\Ci' r"JV/'. `/ //I/':/ 1 / "� �._!' � //t ` I r� r / �� PS' \ o , 1 UY �r� �/ l,� �� ` 1 �, Yf:r-J/. 1 > I J /\_ �! �� / /•�f ""% /1 , \ 41 \ / .i�\ �� �� li.� � h ^I. JI , ! ~•� n, � 1 (. ,nlr� I 3Jb3/dp � (' �I' -) d'- / r ,,1,( l., Jl r.> \.!I 4�x /�• ! ` i \\�\\t /.: , .'.�. " " f - l i all)( l AI It "\ {' � � � � C,�D,� 1i�'J /t y��'lo �y,-r�\ .-�:-���1,�''•� ,) !J �!J/ \, '� . .�..••� (. .�r,j1 iG 'J � ',� , n , % U J' n 1 ' I'�1 \" —� I.\z t ,J \��'.y •.'�` \ (.',I. .��fl I / / a`\ %V n �_ d � � 1 APPENDIX B J Y RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : METRO User: GBS Date: 11/28/99 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. ) Residential districts Avg % impery (by average lot size) 1/2 acre 25 94 (54) 355(70) - 19(85) CULTIVATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS Close-seeded Straight row good - 7 (72) _ - legumes or rotation meadow OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Woods - grass combination good 24 (32) 91(58) - 5 (79) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 118 453 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 595 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 65* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method • i TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project : METRO User: GBS Date: 11/28/99 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 0.05 F 0.287 Shallow Concent'd 400 0.05 U 0.031 Open Channel 4500 2 0.625 Time of Concentration = 0.94* --- 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 L M ] GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 Project : METRO User: GBS Date: 11/28/99 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS Data: Drainage Area 595 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 65 * Time of Concentration: 0.94 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area -------------------------- 1 Storm Number I 1 1 2 I 3 1 4 1 5 1 1----------------------I------I------1------1------1------1 Frequency (yrs) I 2 I 10 1 25 I 50 I 100 I I I I I I I I 124-Hr Rainfall (in) i 3.2 1 4.7 I 5.5 I 6.2 i 6.9 I I I I I i I I Ia/P Ratio 10.34 10.23 1 0.20 1 0.17 1 0.16 1 1 I I I I I I I Runoff (in) 10.60 1 1.46 11.99 12.50 13.03 1 l I I I I I I 1 Unit Peak Discharge 10.375 10.429 10.442 10.451 10.458 I 1 (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Pond and Swamp Factorl 0.75 1 0.75 1 0.75 ► 0.75 1 0.75 1 i 3.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I ----------------------I------I------1------i------I------i 1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 ► 279 1 394 i 502 1 618 1 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines J F f � APPENDIX C r t a RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : METRO User: GBS Date: 11/28/99 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS AFTER POND Subarea : 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CULTIVATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS Close-seeded Straight row good 1.5(58) 1.25(72) - - legumes or rotation meadow Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 1.5 1.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 2.75 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 64* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method 1 A TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project : METRO User: GBS Date: 11/28/99 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS AFTER POND ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 .05 D 0.218 Shallow Concent'd 200 0.05 U 0.015 Time of Concentration = 0.23* --- 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: 11/28/99 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS AFTER POND Data: Drainage Area 2.75 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 64 * Time of Concentration: 0.23 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 1----------------------1------1------1------1------1------1 Frequency (yrs) 1 2 1 10 1 25 1 50 1 100 1 I I I I I I I 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3.2 1 4.7 1 5.5 1 6.2 1 6.9 1 I 1 I I I I I I Ia/P Ratio 1 0.35 1 0.24 1 0.20 1 0.18 1 0.16 I I I I I I I Runoff (in) 10.56 11.39 1 1.91 1 2.41 1 2.93 1 I i I I I I I I Unit Peak Discharge 10.654 10.765 10.786 10.800 10.811 1 I (cfs/acre/in) I I 1 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 l 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I 1----------------------1------1------1------1------1------1 1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 1 l 3 1 4 1 5 1 7 1 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines d � APPENDIX D 1 t Reservoir Report Page 1 Reservoir No. 1 - POND Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Pond Data Bottom LxW = 300.0 x 120.0 ft Side slope = 0.5:1 Bottom elev. = 120.00 ft Depth = 10.00 ft Stage/Storage Table Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sgft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft) 0.00 120.00 36,000 0 0 0.50 120.50 36,421 18,053 18,053 1.00 121.00 36,844 18,158 36,210 1,50 121.50 37,269 18,263 54,474 2.00 122.00 37,696 18,369 72,843 2.50 122.50 38,125 18,475 91,318 3.00 123.00 38,556 18,581 109,899 3.50 123.50 38,989 18,688 128,587 4.00 124.00 39,424 18,795 147,381 4.50 124.50 39,861 18,902 166,283 5.00 125.00 40,300 19,009 185,292 5.50 125.50 40,741 19,116 204,408 6.00 126.00 41,184 19,224 223,632 6.50 126.50 41,629 19,332 242,964 7.00 127.00 42,076 19,440 262,404 7.50 127.50 42,525 19,549 281,9W 8.00 128.00 42,976 19,658 301,611 8.50 128.50 43,429 19,767 321,377 9.00 129.00 43,884 19,876 341,253 9.50 129.50 44,341 19,985 361,236 10.00 130.00 44,800 20,095 381,333 Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise in = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crest Len ft = 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span in = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crest El.It = 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El.It = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Riser - - - Length ft = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope% = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .000 .000 .000 .000 Orif.Coeff. = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exflltration Rate = 0.00 in/hr/sgft Tailwater Elev.= 0.00 ft Stage Storage Discharge Table Note:All outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. / / Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Extil Total ft cuft It cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 0.00 0 120.00 - - -. - 0.00 - - -- --- 0.00 0.50 18,053 120.50 -- --- -- - 14.13 - -- - - 14.13 1.00 36,210 121.00 - --- - - 39.96 - -- - - 39.96 1.50 54,474 121.50 - - - - 73.41 - - - -- 73.41 2.00 72,843 122.00 - - - - 113.02 - -- -- -- 113.02 2.50 91,318 122.50 - - - - 157.96 - - - -- 157.96 3.00 109,899 123.00 - -- - - 207.64 - - - - 207.64 3.50 128,587 123.50 - - - - 261.65 - - - - 261.65 4.00 147,381 124.00 - - - -- 319.68 -- - - - 319.68 4.50 166,283 124.50 - - - - 381.46 - -- - -- 381.46 5.00 185,292 125.00 - - - -- 446.77 -- - - 446.77 5.50 204,408 125.50 - - - - 515.43 -- -- - - 515.43 6.00 223,632 126.00 - - - - 587.29 - - --- - 587.29 6.50 242,964 126.50 - - - -- 662.21 - - .- - 662.21 7.00 262,404 127.00 - -. - - 740.07 - -- - -- 740.07 7.50 281,953 127.50 - - - - 820.76 - - -- 820.76 8.00 301,611 128.00 - - - - 904.19 - - -- - 904.19 8.50 321,377 128.50 - - - - 990.27 - - __ - 990.27 9.00 341,253 129.00 - - - - 1076.92 - - - - 1078.92 9.50 361,238 129.50 - - - - 1170.07 - - - - 1170.07 10.00 381,333 130.00 - - - - 1263.65 - - - - 1263.65 A x � APPENDIX E s � x i Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hydl. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type now interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 96.51 6 780 1,293,546 — — EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 SCS Runoff 96.95 6 780 1,299,524 — — DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 3 Reservoir 95.21 6 792 1,293,545 1 121.78 64,901 EXIST 4 Reservoir 95.65 6 792 1,299,523 2 121.79 65,105 DEVEL Proj. file: 1521.gpw Return Period: 2 yr Run date: 12-05-2001 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type now Interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cult) 1 SCS Runoff 277.58 6 774 3,139,773 — -- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 SCS Runoff 278.86 6 774 3,154,287 — — DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 3 Reservoir 275.28 6 780 3,139,772 1 123.62 133,113 EXIST 4 Reservoir 276.56 6 780 3,154,285 2 123.63 133,534 DEVEL Proj. file: 1521.gpw Return Period: 10 yr Run date: 12-05-2001 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Page, Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow Interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 393.68 6 768 4,297,728 — -- -- EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 SCS Runoff 395.50 6 768 4,317,591 --- DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 3 Reservoir 391.05 6 774 4,297,727 1 124.58 169,137 EXIST 4 Reservoir 392.87 6 774 4,317,591 2 124.59 169,676 DEVEL Proj. file: 1521.gpw Return Period: 25 yr Run date: 12-05-2001 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow Interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 503.22 6 768 5,381,594 — --- — EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 SCS Runoff 505.54 6 768 5,406,470 ---- - --- DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 3 Reservoir 500.36 6 774 5,381,595 1 125.39 200,288 EXIST 4 Reservoir 502.68 6 774 5,406,469 2 125.41 200,926 DEVEL Proj. file: 1521.gpw Return Period: 50 yr Run date: 12-05-2001 Hydrafim Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type now interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 617.68 6 768 6,518,469 — — — EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 SCS Runoff 620.53 6 768 6,548,596 — — DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 3 Reservoir 614.32 6 774 6,518,466 1 126.18 230,695 EXIST 4 Reservoir 617.16 6 774 6,548,596 2 126.20 231,433 DEVEL Proj. file: 1521.gpw Return Period: 100 yr Run date: 12-05-2001 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve APPENDIX F Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 3 EXIST Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 95.21 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 121.78 ft Max. Storage = 64,901 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=1,293,W cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Civ A Civ B C{v C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.40 52.23 120.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- 24.91 ----- ----- ----- ----- 24.91 12.50 67.68 121.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- 40.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- 40.07 12.60 80.43 121.26 ----- ----- ----- ----- 56.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 56.30 12.70 88.28 121.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 70.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 70.68 12.80 93.30 121.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 81.42 ----- ----- ----- ----- 81.42 12.90 95.84 121.70 ----- ----- ----- ----- 88.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 88.62 13.00 96.51 << 121.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- 92.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- 92.83 13.10 96.08 121.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 94.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 94.78 13.20 95.02 121.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.21 << 13.30 93.41 121.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 94.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- 94.65 13.40 91.31 121.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- 93.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- 93.36 13.50 88.78 121.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- 91.51 ----- ----- ----- ----- 91.51 13.60 85.91 121.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.19 13.70 82.73 121.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 86.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 86.50 13.80 79.25 121.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 83.48 ----- ----- ----- ----- 83.48 13.90 75.47 121.59 ----- ----- ----- ----- 80.15 ----- ----- ----- ----- 80.15 14.00 71.38 121.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- 76.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 76.53 14.10 66.99 121.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.63 14.20 62.33 121.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- 68.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 68.44 14.30 57.46 121.37 ----- --- ----- ----- 64.01 ----- ----- - -- ----- 64.01 14.40 52.57 121.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 59.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- 59.43 14.50 48.32 121.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- 54.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 54.95 14.60 45.25 121.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 50.95 ----- ----- ----- ----- 50.95 14.70 42.86 121.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 47.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 47.63 14.80 41.03 121.08 ----- ----- ----- ----- 44.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 44.94 14.90 39.63 121.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.78 15.00 38.44 121.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- 41.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- 41.05 15.10 37.35 120.99 ----- ----- ----- ----- 39.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- 39.60 15.20 36.34 120.97 ----- ----- ----- ----- 38.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- 38.35 15.30 35.41 120.95 ----- ----- ----- ----- 37.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- 37.23 15.40 34.52 120.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 36.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- 36.22 15.50 33.66 120.92 ----- ----- ----- ----- 35.27 ----- ----- ----- ----- 35.27 15.60 32.82 120.90 ----- ----- ----- ----- 34.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 34.37 15.70 31.98 120.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 33.51 ----- ----- ----- ----- 33.51 15.80 31.16 120.87 ----- ----- ----- ----- 32.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 32.67 15.90 30.35 120.86 ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.84 16.00 29.55 120.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.02 ----- ----- ----- ---- 31.02 16.10 28.75 120.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- 30.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- 30.22 Continues on next page... EXIST Page 2 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A CIv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EMI Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 16.20 27.96 120.82 ----- ----- ----- ----- 29.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- 29.43 16.30 27.18 120.80 ----- ----- ----- ----- 28.64 ----- ----- ----- ----- 28.64 16.40 26.43 120.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 27.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- 27.88 16.50 25.69 120.77 ----- ---- ----- ----- 27.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 27.12 16.80 24.99 120.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 28.39 16.70 24.32 120.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.68 16.80 23.68 120.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.00 16.90 23.07 120.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- 24.34 ----- ----- ----- ----- 24.34 ...End Hyd. No. 3 - Reservoir- 2 Yr- Qp = 95.21 cfs - EXIST 100 80 60 CY 40 20 0 0.0 2.7 5.4 8.0 16.7 13.4 16.1 18.8 21.4 24.1 26.8 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 3 Hydrograph Report Page 7 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 3 EXIST Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 275.28 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 123.62 ft Max. Storage = 133,113 cult Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=3,139,772 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EMI Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.30 146.32 121.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.35 12.40 187.17 122.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 137.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 137.37 12.50 226.05 122.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- 181.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- 181.05 12.60 254.46 123.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 220.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 220.30 12.70 269.01 123.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 248.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 248.67 12.80 276.30 123.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 265.41 ----- ----- ----- ----- 265.41 12.90 277.58 << 123.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 273.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- 273.52 13.00 274.43 123.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 275.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 275.28« 13.10 268.74 123.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- 272.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 272.67 13.20 261.60 123.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- 267.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 267.39 13.30 253.16 123.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- 260.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 260.38 13.40 243.62 123.41 ----- ----- ----- ----- 252.01 ----- ----- ----- ---- 252.01 13.50 233.14 123.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- 242.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- 242.57 13.60 221.91 123.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- 232.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- 232.24 13.70 210.05 123.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 221.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 221.18 13.80 197.58 123.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- 209.51 ----- ----- ----- ----- 209.51 13.90 184.54 122.90 ----- ----- ----- ----- 197.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- 197.23 14.00 170.97 122.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- 184.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 184.44 14.10 156.98 122.64 ----- ----- ----- ----- 171.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- 171.21 14.20 142.82 122.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 157.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 157.68 14.30 128.85 122.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- 144.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 144.03 14.40 115.53 122.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 130.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 130.67 14.50 104.73 122.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- 118.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 118.39 14.60 97.27 121.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 108.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 108.20 14.70 91.56 121.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 100.26 ----- ----- ----- ----- 100.26 14.80 87.25 121.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- 94.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 94.12 14.90 83.93 121.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.35 15.00 81.14 121.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- 85.59 ----- ----- ----- ----- 85.59 15.10 78.59 121.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 82.46 ----- ----- ----- ---- 82.46 15.20 76.26 121.58 ----- ----- ----- ----- 79.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- 79.73 15.30 74.10 121.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- 77.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 77.28 15.40 72.06 121.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- 75.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- 75.04 15.50 70.10 121.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.94 15.60 68.18 121.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- 70.93 ----- ----- ----- ----- 70.93 15.70 66.31 121.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 69.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- 69.00 ...End Reservoir Report Page 1 Reservoir No. 1 - POND Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Pond Data Bottom LxW = 300.0 x 120.0 ft Side slope = 0.5:1 Bottom elev. = 120.00 ft Depth = 10.00 ft Stage/Storage Table Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cult) Total storage(cult) 0.00 120.00 36,000 0 0 0.50 120.50 36,421 18,053 18,053 1.00 121.00 36,844 18,158 36,210 1.50 121.50 37,269 18,263 54,474 2.00 122.00 37,696 18,369 72,843 2.50 122.50 38,125 18,475 91,318 3.00 123.00 38,556 18,581 109,899 3.50 123.50 38,989 18,688 128,587 4.00 124.00 39,424 18,795 147,381 4.50 124.50 39,861 18,902 166,283 5.00 125.00 40,300 19,009 185,292 5.50 125.50 40,741 19,116 204,408 6.00 126.00 41,184 19,224 223,632 6.50 126.50 41,629 19,332 242,964 7.00 127.00 42,076 19,440 262,404 7.50 127.50 42,525 19,549 281,953 8.00 128.00 42,976 19,658 301,611 8.50 128.50 43,429 19,767 321,377 9.00 129.00 43,884 19,876 341,253 9.50 129.50 44,341 19,985 361,238 10.00 130.00 44,800 20,095 381,333 Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] W [BI [C] [D] Mae in = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crest Len It = 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span In = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crest El.ft = 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El.It = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Riser - - --- Length It = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope% = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N Value = .000 .000 .000 .000 Orif.Coeff. = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration Rate = 0.00 in/hr/sgft TaINWer Elev.= 0.00 ft Stage Storage Discharge Table Nate:All outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. / / Stage Storage Elevation Civ A Clv B Civ C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Total ft cult ft cis cfs cis cis cis cis cis Cis cis Cfs 0.00 0 120.00 --- --- - - 0.00 - __ - ._ 0.00 0.50 18,053 120.50 - -- -- - 14.13 - - - --- 14.13 1.00 36,210 121.00 - - -- - 39.96 - __ 39.96 1.50 54,474 121.50 - - - 73.41 --- -- - -- 73.41 2.00 72,843 122.00 - - _-- - 113.02 - - --- - 113.02 2.50 91,318 122.50 - - - - 157.96 - - -- -- 157.96 3.00 109,899 123.00 - - - - 207.64 - - - - 207.64 3.50 128,587 123.50 - - - - 261.65 - - - -- 261.65 4.00 147,381 124.00 - - - - 319.68 - - - 319.68 4.50 166,283 124.50 - - -- - 381.46 - - - -- 381.46 5.00 185,292 125.00 - - - - 446.77 - - - - 446.77 5.50 204,408 125.50 - - - - 515.43 - - - - 515.43 6.00 223,632 126.00 - --- - - 587.29 - - - --- 587.29 6.50 242,964 126.50 - - - - 662.21 - -- - - 662.21 7.00 262,404 127.00 - -_ -- - 740.07 - - -- - 740.07 7.50 281,953 127.50 - - - - 820.76 -- - - -- 820.76 8.00 301,611 128.00 - - - - 904.19 - - --- 904.19 8.50 321,377 128.50 - - -- - 990.27 __ - -._ - 990.27 9.00 341,253 129.00 - - - - 1078.92 - - - - 1078.92 9.50 361,238 129.50 - --- - - 1170.07 -- -- - - 1170.07 10.00 381,333 130.00 - - --- - 1263.65 - -- - -- 1263.65 Hyd. No. 3 - Reservoir - 10 Yr-Qp = 275.28 cfs - EXIST 300 250 200 C7 150 100 50 0 77� 0.0 2.6 5.3 7.9 10.6 13.2 15.8 18.5 21.1 23.8 26.4 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 3 y Hydrograph Report Page, Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 3 EXIST Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 391.05 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 124.58 ft Max. Storage = 169,137 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=4,297,727 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfi1 Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.20 168.13 121.96 ----- ----- ----- ----- 110.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- 110.04 12.30 223.20 122.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- 162.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 162.20 12.40 279.17 123.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 220.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 220.56 12.50 331.54 123.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- 279.34 ----- ----- ----- ----- 279.34 12.60 368.47 124.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- 330.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- 330.31 12.70 386.04 124.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 365.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- 365.04 12.80 393.68<< 124.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- 383.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 383.68 12.90 393.21 124.58 ----- ----- ----- ----- 391.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- 391.05« 13.00 386.84 124.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- 390.27 ----- ----- ----- ----- 390.28 13.10 377.10 124.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- 384.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- 384.01 13.20 365.48 124.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 374.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 374.44 13.30 352.19 124.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- 362.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- 362.75 13.40 337.49 124.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- 349.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- 349.43 13.50 321.60 124.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 334.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- 334.77 13.80 304.78 123.99 ---- ----- ----- ----- 319.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- 319.01 13.70 287.20 123.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 302.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 302.32 13.80 268.90 123.70 ----- ----- ----- ----- 284.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 284.94 13.90 249.92 123.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- 266.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 266.89 14.00 230.32 123.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 248.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 248.20 14.10 210.31 123.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 229.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 229.03 14.20 190.25 123.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- 209.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 209.63 14.30 170.68 122.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- 190.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 190.28 14.40 152.19 122.64 ----- ----- ----- ----- 171.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 171.56 14.50 137.44 122.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 154.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- 154.60 14.60 127.37 122.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 140.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 140.79 14.70 119.88 122.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 130.26 ----- ----- ----- ----- 130.26 14.80 113.90 122.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- 122.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 122.18 14.90 109.45 122.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 115.96 ----- ----- ----- ----- 115.96 15.00 105.70 121.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- 111.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- 111.05 15.10 102.30 121.93 ----- ----- ----- ----- 106.95 ----- ----- ----- ----- 106.95 15.20 99.19 121.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- 103.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 103.37 15.30 96.30 121.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 100.15 ----- ----- ----- ----- 100.15 ...End Hyd. No. 3 - Reservoir- 25 Yr-Qp = 391.05 cfs - EXIST 400 300 Cy 200 100 0 0.0 2.6 5.3 7.9 10.5 13.1 15.8 18.4 21.0 23.7 26.3 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 3 Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisoive Hyd. No. 3 EXIST Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 500.36 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 125.39 ft Max. Storage = 200,288 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=5,381,595 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Civ A Civ B Civ C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfll Outflow (hrs) Cfs ft cfs cfs cfs Cfs Cfs Cfs cfs cfs Cfs cfs 12.20 227.73 122.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 160.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 160.68 12.30 296.99 123.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- 227.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- 227.54 12.40 366.68 123.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 300.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 300.62 12.50 431.17 124.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- 372.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 372.89 12.60 475.58 124.91 ----- ----- ----- ----- 434.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- 434.10 12.70 495.57 125.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 474.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- 474.10 12.80 503.22 << 125.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- 493.99 493.99 12.90 500.87 125.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 500.36 ----- ---- ----- ----- 500.36<< 13.00 491.30 125.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 496.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- 496.98 13.10 477.64 125.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 487.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- 487.11 13.20 461.71 125.20 ----- ---- ----- ----- 473.42 ----- ----- ----- ----- 473.42 13.30 443.79 125.08 ----- ----- ----- ----- 457.29 ----- ----- ----- ----- 457.29 13.40 424.17 124.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 439.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- 439.21 13.50 403.15 124.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 419.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 419.53 13.60 381.06 124.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 398.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 398.62 13.70 358.08 124.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 376.70 ----- ----- ----- ----- 376.70 13.80 334.28 124.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 353.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 353.89 13.90 309.73 124.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- 330.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 330.38 14.00 284.50 123.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 306.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 306.18 14.10 258.86 123.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 281.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- 281.47 14.20 233.32 123.45 ----- ----- ----- ----- 256.58 ----- ----- ----- ----- 256.58 14.30 208.53 123.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- 231.95 ----- ----- ----- ----- 231.95 14.40 185.30 123.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- 208.29 ----- ----- --... ----- 208.29 14.50 166.93 122.80 ----- ----- ----- ----- 187.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- 187.00 14.60 154.46 122.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 169.99 ----- ----- ----- ----- 169.99 14.70 144.98 122.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- 157.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 157.13 14.80 137.88 122.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 147.29 ----- ----- ----- ----- 147.29 14.90 132.38 122.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 139.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- 139.77 15.00 127.77 122.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- 133.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 133.85 15.10 123.59 122.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 128.90 ----- ----- ----- ----- 128.90 ...End Hyd. No. 3 - Reservoir- 50 Yr- Qp = 500.36 efs - EXIST 600 500 400 Cy 300 200 100 0 0.0 2.6 5.2 7.9 10.5 13.1 15.7 18.3 21.0 23.6 26.2 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 3 Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 3 EXIST Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 614.32 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 126.18 ft Max. Storage = 230,695 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=6,518,466 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Civ A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EMI Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.20 291.35 123.08 ----- ----- ----- ----- 215.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 215.50 12.30 375.28 123.81 ----- ----- ----- ----- 297.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- 297.54 12.40 459.08 124.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 385.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- 385.72 12.50 535.99 125.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 471.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 471.68 12.80 587.94 125.70 ----- ----- ----- ----- 543.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- 543.25 12.70 610.22 126.01 ----- -:--- ----- ----- 588.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 588.39 12.80 617.68 << 126.15 ----- ----- ----- ----- 609.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- 609.22 12.90 613.21 126.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 614.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 614.32<< 13.00 600.16 126.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- 608.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- 608.07 13.10 582.29 126.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- 594.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- 594.33 13.20 561.75 125.92 ----- ----- ----- ----- 576.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- 576.19 13.30 538.90 125.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 555.27 ----- ----- ----- ----- 555.27 13.40 514.07 125.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 532.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 532.18 13.50 487.64 125.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 507.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- 507.25 13.60 459.97 125.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- 480.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 480.84 13.70 431.31 125.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- 453.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- 453.36 13.80 401.74 124.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 424.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 424.89 13.90 371.34 124.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 395.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 395.63 14.00 340.21 124.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 365.64 ----- ----- ----- ----- 365.64 14.10 308.69 124.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 335.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 335.12 14.20 277.43 123.87 ----- ----- ----- ----- 304.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 304.50 14.30 247.23 123.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 274.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 274.38 14.40 219.07 123.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- 245.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 245.56 14.50 196.97 123.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 219.90 ----- ----- ----- ----- 219.90 14.60 182.04 122.92 ----- ----- ----- ----- 199.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 199.56 14.70 170.71 122.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- 184.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 184.32 14.80 162.21 122.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- 172.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- 172.76 14.90 155.69 122.56 ----- --... ----- ----- 163.95 ----- ----- ----- ----- 163.95 15.00 150.19 122.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- 156.99 ----- ----- ----- ----- 156.99 ...End Hyd. No. 3 - Reservoir- 100 Yr- Qp = 614.32 cfs - EXIST 800 600 ty 400 200 0 0.0 2.6 5.2 7.9 16.5 13.1 15.7 18.3 21.0 23.6 26.2 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 3 APPENDIX G RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : METRO User: GBS Date: 11/28/99 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. ) Residential districts Avg % impery (by average lot size) 1/8 acre (town houses) 65 1.5 (77) 8.25(85) - - 1/2 acre 25 94 (54) 355(70) - 19(85) OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Woods - grass combination good 24 (32) 91(58) - 5(79) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 119. 454. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 597.75 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 65* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project : METRO User: GBS Date: 11/28/99 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) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3.2 200 0.05 F 0.287 Shallow Concent'd 400 0.05 U 0.031 Open Channel 4500 2 0.625 Time of Concentration = 0.94* --- 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: 11/28/99 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Data: Drainage Area 597.75 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 65 * Time of Concentration: 0.94 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area I Storm Number I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I 5 1 1----------------------1------1------1------1------I------1 I Frequency (yrs) i 2 1 10 1 25 ( 50 1 100 1 I I I I I I i 124-Hr Rainfall (in) I 3.2 1 4.7 1 5.5 1 6.2 1 6.9 1 I I I I I I I I Ia/P Ratio 1 0.34 10.23 1 0.20 1 0.17 1 0.16 1 i I I I I I I I Runoff (in) 1 0.60 1 1.46 1 1.99 1 2.50 1 3.03 1 I i I I I I I I Unit Peak Discharge 10.375 10.429 10.442 10.451 10.458 1 I (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I I I I I I I f I I Pond and Swamp Factorl 0.75 1 0.75 1 0.75 1 0.75 1 0.75 1 I 3.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I 1----------------------1------I------1------1------1------1 I Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 101 1 280 1 395 1 505 1 621 1 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX H ti Hydrograph Report Page 1 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 DEVEL Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 95.65 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 121.79 ft Max. Storage = 65,105 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=1,299,523 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfl1 Outflow (hm) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.40 52.47 120.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.06 12.50 67.99 121.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- 40.29 ----- ----- ----- ----- 40.29 12.60 80.80 121.26 ----- ----- ----- ----- 56.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 56.61 12.70 88.69 121.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- 71.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- 71.04 12.80 93.73 121.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 81.82 ----- ----- ----- ----- 81.82 12.90 96.28 121.71 ----- ----- --- ----- 89.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.06 13.00 96.95<< 121.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- 93.27 ----- ----- ----- ----- 93.27 13.10 96.52 121.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.22 13.20 95.46 121.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.65<< 13.30 93.84 121.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.09 13.40 91.73 121.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- 93.80 ----- ----- ----- ----- 93.80 13.50 89.19 121.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- 91.92 ----- ----- ----- ----- 91.93 13.60 86.31 121.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.60 13.70 83.11 121.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 86.90 ----- ----- ----- ----- 86.90 13.80 79.62 121.64 ----- ----- ----- ----- 83.86 ----- ----- ----- ----- 83.86 13.90 75.81 121.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- 80.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- 80.52 14.00 71.71 121.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- 76.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- 76.88 14.10 67.30 121.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- 72.96 ----- ----- ---- ----- 72.96 14.20 62.62 121.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 68.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- 68.75 14.30 57.73 121.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 64.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 64.30 14.40 52.81 121.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- 59.69 ----- ----- ----- ----- 59.69 14.50 48.55 121.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- 55.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- 55.19 14.60 45.46 121.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 51.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- 51.18 14.70 43.05 121.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 47.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 47.84 14.80 41.22 121.08 ----- ----- ----- ----- 45.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- 45.14 14.90 39.81 121.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.97 ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.97 15.00 38.61 121.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- 41.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- 41.24 15.10 37.52 121.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- 39.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 39.78 15.20 36.51 120.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- 38.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 38.53 15.30 35.57 120.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- 37.40 ----- ----- ----- ----- 37.40 15.40 34.68 120.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 36.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 36.38 15.50 33.82 120.92 ----- ----- ----- ----- 35.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- 35.43 15.60 32.97 120.91 ----- ----- ----- ----- 34.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 34.53 15.70 32.13 120.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 33.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- 33.66 15.80 31.31 120.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- 32.81 ----- ----- ----- ----- 32.81 15.90 30.49 120.86 ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.98 16.00 29.68 120.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- 31.16 16.10 28.88 120.83 ----- ...- ----- ----- 30.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- 30.36 Continues on next page... DEVEL Page 2 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Civ A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EMI Outflow (hrs) dfs ft Cfs Cfs cfs Cfs cfs Cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 16.20 28.09 120.82 ----- ----- ----- ----- 29.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 29.56 16.30 27.31 120.80 ----- ----- ----- ----- 28.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- 28.77 16.40 26.55 120.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 28.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- 28.00 16.50 25.81 120.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- 27.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- 27.25 16.60 25.11 120.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.51 ----- ----- ----- ----- 26.51 16.70 24.43 120.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.79 16.80 23.79 120.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.11 16.90 23.17 120.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- 24.45 ----- ----- ----- ----- 24.45 ...End u Hyd. No. 4 - Reservoir- 2 Yr- Qp = 95.65 cfs - DEVEL 100 80 60 tat 40 20 0 0.0 2.7 5.4 8.0 16.7 13.4 16.1 18.8 21.4 24.1 26.8 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 2 / Hyd. 4 t a Hydrograph Report Page 1 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 DEVEL Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 276.56 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 123.63 ft Max. Storage = 133,534 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=3,154,285 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Civ B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EAU Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.30 147.00 121.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.86 ----- ----- ----- ----- 95.86 12.40 188.03 122.29 ----- ----- ----- ----- 138.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- 138.09 12.50 227.09 122.75 181.97 181.97 - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 12.60 255.63 123.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 221.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 221.39 12.70 270.26 123.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 249.87 ----- ----- ----- ----- 249.87 12.80 277.58 123.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- 266.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 266.67 12.90 278.86<< 123.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 274.80 ----- ----- ----- ----- 274.80 13.00 275.70 123.63 ---- ----- ----- ---- 276.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 276.56 « 13.10 269.98 123.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 273.93 ----- ----- ----- ----- 273.93 13.20 262.81 123.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 268.62 ----- ----- ----- --- 268.62 13.30 254.33 123.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 261.58 ----- ----- ----- ----- 261.58 13.40 244.74 123.42 ----- ----- ----- ----- 253.17 ----- ----- ----- ----- 253.17 13.50 234.21 123.34 ----- ----- ----- ----- 243.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 243.67 13.60 222.93 123.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- 233.29 ----- ----- ----- ----- 233.29 13.70 211.02 123.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- 222.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- 222.19 13.80 198.49 123.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 210.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 210.46 13.90 185.39 122.91 ----- ----- ----- ----- 198.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 198.13 14.00 171.76 122.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 185.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 185.28 14.10 157.70 122.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- 171.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- 171.98 14.20 143.48 122.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 158.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 158.39 14.30 129.45 122.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- 144.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 144.67 14.40 116.06 122.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- 131.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- 131.25 14.50 105.21 122.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- 118.92 ----- ----- ----- ----- 118.92 14.60 97.72 121.95 ----- ----- ----- ----- 108.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 108.68 14.70 91.98 121.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 100.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- 100.71 14.80 87.65 121.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 94.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- 94.54 14.90 84.32 121.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- 89.76 15.00 81.51 121.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 85.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- 85.98 15.10 78.96 121.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 82.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- 82.83 15.20 76.61 121.59 ----- ----- ----- ----- 80.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- 80.09 15.30 74.44 121.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 77.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 77.63 15.40 72.39 121.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 75.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 75.38 15.50 70.42 121.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 73.27 ----- ----- ----- ----- 73.27 15.60 68.50 121.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- 71.26 ----- ----- ----- ----- 71.26 15.70 66.62 121.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 69.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- 69.31 ...End i . Hyd. No. 4 - Reservoir - 10 Yr -Qp = 276.56 cfs - DEVEL 300 250 200 Cy 150 100 50 0 0.0 2.6 5.3 7.9 16.6 13.2 15.8 18.5 21.1 23.8 26.4 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 2 / Hyd. 4 Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 DEVEL Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 392.87 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 124.59 ft Max. Storage = 169,676 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=4,317,591 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Civ B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D E>fiI Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.20 168.91 121.97 ----- ----- ----- ----- 110.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 110.62 12.30 224.23 122.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- 163.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- 163.04 12.40 280.46 123.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 221.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 221.68 12.50 333.07 123.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- 280.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- 280.72 12.60 370.18 124.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- 331.91 ----- ----- ----- ----- 331.91 12.70 387.83 124.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 366.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 366.78 12.80 395.50 << 124.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 385.48 ----- ----- ----- ----- 385.48 12.90 395.03 124.59 ----- ----- ----- ----- 392.86 ----- ----- ----- ----- 392.87« 13.00 388.63 124.58 ----- ----- ----- ----- 392.08 ----- ----- ----- ----- 392.08 13.10 378.84 124.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- 385.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 385.78 13.20 367.17 124.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 376.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- 376.16 13.30 353.82 124.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- 364.42 ----- ----- ---- ----- 364.42 13.40 339.05 124.26 ----- ----- ----- ----- 351.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 351.03 13.50 323.08 124.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- 336.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 336.30 13.60 306.19 124.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- 320.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- 320.47 13.70 288.53 123.87 ----- ----- ----- ----- 303.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- 303.71 13.80 270.14 123.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- 286.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- 286.23 13.90 251.07 123.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- 268.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- 268.10 14.00 231.39 123.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 249.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- 249.33 14.10 211.28 123.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- 230.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- 230.07 14.20 191.13 123.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 210.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- 210.57 14.30 171.45 122.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 191.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- 191.14 14.40 152.89 122.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- 172.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 172.32 14.50 138.08 122.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- 155.29 ----- ----- ----- ----- 155.29 14.60 127.96 122.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 141.42 ----- ----- ----- ----- 141.42 14.70 120.23 122.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- 130.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 130.84 14.80 114.42 122.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- 122.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- 122.73 14.90 109.96 122.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- 116.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- 116.49 15.00 106.19 121.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- 111.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- 111.55 15.10 102.78 121.93 ----- ----- ----- ----- 107.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 107.44 15.20 99.65 121.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 103.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 103.84 15.30 96.75 121.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 100.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- 100.60 ...End Hyd. No. 4 - Reservoir- 25 Yr- Qp = 392.87 cfs - DEVEL 400 300 Cy 200- 100- 'N 0 0.0 2.6 5.3 7.9 10.5 13.1 15.8 18.4 21.0 23.7 26.3 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 2 / Hyd. 4 Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 DEVEL Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 502.68 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 125.41 ft Max. Storage = 200,926 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=5,406,469 cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Ell Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.20 228.78 122.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- 161.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 161.50 12.30 298.36 123.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 228.69 ----- ----- ----- ----- 228.69 12.40 388.37 123.85 ----- -- ----- ----- 302.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- 302.12 12.50 433.16 124.45 ----- ----- ----- ----- 374.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- 374.71 12.60 477.78 124.92 ----- ----- ---- ----- 436.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- 436.19 12.70 497.86 125.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- 476.34 ----- ----- ----- ----- 476.34 12.80 505.54 << 125.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- 496.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- 496.31 12.90 503.19 125.41 ----- ----- ----- ----- 502.69 ----- ----- ----- ----- 502.68<< 13.00 493.57 125.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 499.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 499.28 13.10 479.85 125.31 ----- ---- ----- ----- 489.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- 489.35 13.20 463.84 125.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- 475.59 ----- ----- ----- ----- 475.59 13.30 445.84 125.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- 459.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- 459.38 13.40 428.13 124.96 ----- ----- ----- ----- 441.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- 441.23 13,50 405.02 124.81 ----- ----- ----- ----- 421.45 ----- ----- --- ----- 421,45 13.60 382.82 124.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- 400.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- 400.44 13.70 359.74 124.48 ----- ----- ----- ----- 378.42 ----- ----- ----- ----- 378.42 13.80 335.83 124.29 ----- ----- ----- ----- 355.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 355.50 13.90 311.16 124.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- 331.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- 331.88 14.00 285.82 123.90 ----- ----- ----- ----- 307.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- 307.57 14.10 260.06 123.69 ----- ----- ----- ----- 282.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- 282.74 14.20 234.40 123.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 257.74 ---- ----- ----- ----- 257.74 14.30 209.49 123.24 --- ----- ----- ----- 232.99 ----- ----- ----- ----- 232.99 14.40 186.16 123.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- 209.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- 209.22 14.50 167.70 122.81 ----- ----- ----- ----- 187.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 187.84 14.60 155.18 122.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 170.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- 170.75 14.70 145.85 122.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 157.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- 157.83 14.80 138.49 122.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 147.95 ----- ----- ----- ----- 147.95 14.90 132.99 122.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- 140.40 ----- ----- ----- ----- 140.40 15.00 128.36 122.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- 134.45 ----- ----- ----- ----- 134.45 15.10 124.16 122.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- 129.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- 129.49 ...End F Hyd. No. 4 - Reservoir- 50 Yr - Op = 502.68 cfs - DEVEL 600 500 400 Cy 300 200 100 0 0.0 2.6 5.2 7.9 10.5 13.1 15.7 18.3 21.0 23.6 26.2 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 2 / Hyd. 4 F X Hydrograph Report Page 1 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 4 DEVEL Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 617.16 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Reservoir name = POND Max. Elevation = 126.20 ft Max. Storage = 231,433 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=6,W,&%cult Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EXHI Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.20 292.70 123.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- 216.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- 216.60 12.30 377.02 123.83 ----- ----- ----- ----- 299.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 299.04 12.40 461.20 124.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- 387.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 387.61 12.50 538.46 125.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 473.97 ----- ----- ----- ----- 473.97 12.60 590.65 125.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- 545.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 545.85 12.70 613.04 126.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 591.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- 591.16 12.80 620.53 << 126.17 ----- ----- ----- ----- 612.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- 612.07 12.90 616.04 126.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- 617.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- 617.16 « 13.00 802.94 126.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- 610.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- 610.88 13.10 584.98 126.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- 597.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- 597.06 13.20 564.35 125.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 578.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 578.84 13.30 541.39 125.80 ----- ----- ----- ----- 557.82 ----- ----- ----- ----- 557.82 13.40 516.45 125.64 ----- ----- ----- ----- 534.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 534.61 13.50 489.89 125.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 509.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- 509.57 13.60 462.10 125.27 ----- ----- ----- ----- 483.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 483.03 13.70 433.31 125.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- 455.42 ----- ----- ----- ----- 455.42 13.80 403.60 124.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- 426.82 ----- ----- ----- ----- 426.82 13.90 373.06 124.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 397.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- 397.43 14.00 341.79 124.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- 367.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 367.30 14.10 310.12 124.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- 336.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- 336.63 14.20 278.71 123.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- 305.87 ----- ----- ----- ----- 305.87 14.30 248.37 123.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 275.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 275.62 14.40 220.09 123.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- 246.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- 246.66 14.50 197.88 123.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 220.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- 220.88 14.60 182.88 122.93 ----- ----- ----- ----- 200.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 200.46 14.70 171.50 122.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 185.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- 185.14 14.80 162.96 122.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 173.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- 173.54 14.90 156.40 122.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- 164.69 ----- ----- ----- ----- 164.69 15.00 150.89 122.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- 157.70 ----- ----- ----- ----- 157.70 ...End r Hyd. No. 4 - Reservoir- 100 Yr- Op = 617.16 cfs - DEVEL 800 600 C 400 200 0 0.0 2.6 5.2 7.9 10.5 13.1 15.7 18.3 21.0 23.6 26.2 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 2 / Hyd. 4 APPENDIX I I I � Inlet i :Lstiol. d 0 ro Time to Inlet 1� h ;o d (kc - ,� O w Area in Acres I o a o A "14 Runoff Coefficient o AI -n ��„ a o e a� Sum of AI W K'i I°' �• c2 N � +o Total AI 1 °' Rainfall Intensity © O O i I- ' O , d I°� O ob4 W "n Q to Inlet I ; , Yu v _ _ _ C+ Ia Q e o Grade of Gutter \ (N ! 1-• d * d a y yy M 0 Q o c �-• Cross Slope of Shoulder p r Depth of Flow °Q ro at Gutter �1 w Width of Flow too Bypassing Inlet I � o AI Bypassing Inlet + W G a 4 p O p �• Al Entering Catch Sv o O a\ Basin di 'ON 4aayS q paXzayD ainog uwoy f Aq pauBleaQa��d h I _ 4 (�,r ~ Inlet i 0 0 o ry Time to Inlet Area in Acres w ; I°4 w ` I o j (:20 W 0 �� - - c� Runoff Coefficient f� 6 O ri AI °` Sum of AI o � Total AI 6, gip. .r J - Rainfall Intensity i° Q - I ° d G to Inlet �, Q 0 o Q a Grade of Gutter +n Cross Slope of b 1 Shoulder w Depth of Flow N at Gutter w Width of Flow 4 i H Q Bypassing Inlet AI Bypassing Inlet 4 r AI Entering Catch Basin 'ON 4aagS q paX:)ayD a3nog UAoy f ,kq pauBlsaG Parojd £Z-II t + + t 1 LINE SEGMENT ra a r Ia ^' TIME TO INLET ZA + 1 1 + 1 �++ TIME IN PIPE vi � r- t 46 ACCUMULATED TIME AI ENTERING too CATCH BASIN O p o O o - SUM OF AI IN SYSTEM O Q N -c _ ti RAINFALL INTENSITY 0 m 0 IN SYSTEM 0 PIPE SIZE o I d I W e a• p LENGTH OF PIPE © 1 o <r SLOPE 0 0 p U+ �. W _ AVERAGE VELOCITY Sv r. w FULL CAPACITY A HEADWATER 'n' �N 133HS AS 03X03M3 111r13 133a1S 31r0 AS 03W91530 103f Oad Z'Z waoA NOIC3Q R3JL$Ikg V3M3S AYO-LS HOSONIM HinoS .40 NMol TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STORY SEINER SYSTEM DESIGN FORM 2.2 PROJECT DESIGNED BY DATE STREET FIRM CHECKED BY SHEET N• V — e 831VMOV3H l A 113 Vd VO lln3 AIIOO13A 39VS3AV N DQ 0 o v c \ 0 0 3 d O l S 3did d0 H19N31 I 3ZIS 3dld Ll> j� - - W31S A S NI 0 CD — -� O AIISN31Nl 11VdNIVU �► ° o 0 W31SAS NI Z 0° o IV jo Wns a NISVS H31VO 1� 9NIN31N _ 0 3 IV - o 3W11 O31VinwnOOV -w o N t � � — •a 3did NI 3W11 131NI0131411 1N3W93S 3Nil XN NM t / J _ II-23 LINE SEGMENT TIME TO INLET ACCUMULATED TIME SUM OF Al IN SYSTEM RAINFALL INTENSITY 111111111111211 mills Ism al PIPE SIZE LENGTH OF PIPE AVERAGE VELOCITY FULL CAPACITY HEADWATER HOSONIM Hinos jO N*01- DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. RECEIVED Y 12002 civil engineers • planners • surveyors • gis MAY Transmitted* ,4 j 'gV�ail CONSERVATIONCY N COMMISSION Dear Current Abutting Property Owner December 10, 2001 Re: Berry Farm(Elderly Housing) DPI Project No. 01-1521 Oakland Road(Route 30) &Felt Road South Windsor, Connecticut In accordance with regulations of the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Planning &Zoning Commission, we are required to notify you that an application has been filed on the property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing(s) by the Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning &Zoning Commission. 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 will be heard, please contact Kelli Gaetano, Administrative Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeffrey Folger, Environmental Planner, at the South Windsor Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 253, 252 or 229,respectively. Thank you. Sincerely, DESIGN P FESSI ALS, INC. By: Peter R. DeMallie Principal cc: Jeffrey Folger Marcia Banach Geoffrey Sager 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 Telephone(860)291-8755 Fax(860)291-8757 Adp HIGHLAND SOILS LLc December 11, 2001 Peter DeMallie Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE. BERRY FARM FELT RO AD & OAKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CT Dear Peter: The inland wetland boundaries on the above-referenced property were field delineated in July 1998 and November 2001. The wetlands were field delineated in accordance with the standards of the National Cooperative Soil Survey and the definition of wetlands as found in the Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 440, Section 22A-38. I have reviewed the plans prepared by your office(dated December 10, 2001)and have found the representation of the field delineated wetlands to be substantially correct. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at(860) 742-5868. Very truly yours, John P. Ianni Professional Soil Scientist c:11et20011255.doc P.O. Box 337, Storrs,Connecticut 06268 (860) 742-5868 RECEIVED Direct Abutting Property Owners MAY 1 2002 DPI Project No. 01-1521 Metro/Felt Road South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION Map/Lot Abutting Proaerty Owner(s) Mailing Address 38/2 Calvary Church of the Assemblies 400 Buckland Road South Windsor, CT 06074 39/53 Robert N. &Amy L. (Surv) Gamache 25 Grandview Terrace South Windsor, CT 06074 39/54 Karen A. &Edward J. O'Connor 35 Grandview Terrace South Windsor, CT 06074 39/55 Robert&Penelope P. (Surv)Torrani 39 Grandview Terrace South Windsor,CT 06074 39/64 Michael J. &Kristin.G. Suppicich 65 Summit Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 51/32 Fred S. Katten 115 Beverly Road West Hartford, CT 06119 51/33 The Village at Buckland Court 432 Buckland Road South Windsor,CT 06074 52/91 Lois H. Petersen 440 Deming St. South Windsor, CT 06074 52/93 Pauline G. Johnson 195 Oakland Road, Box 453 South Windsor, CT 06074 52/94 Mildred S. Lu&Kenneth Simler 151 Oakland Road South Windsor, CT 06074 �0*K 8F7 N r I_0� O-P S u� ?dbl� O � �C� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 ��Osoa•co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 To: Design Professionals 165 So. Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 From: Jeffrey H. Folger—Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer Date: May 13, 2002 Re: App. #02-22P - Review of the proposed Berry Patch elderly housing complex- Plans dated 12/10/01. 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. Trap hoods should be installed on all catchbasins receiving runoff from asphalt. A detailed planting plan for the swale should be submitted. This should include planting bed composition,plant types, and a specification for the proposed seed mix. Please provide specifications for the proposed conservation mix for slope planting. A detail of the stone check dam should be included on the plans. A soil report has not been received showing soil types present on the site. This should include both upland and hydric soil types. A report on the wetland functions and values should be submitted evaluating the project's potential impacts to wetland function and water quality. The majority of the 14-acre site is proposed to be disturbed to accommodate the construction of the dwelling units and parking lots. Perimeter erosion controls on the northern side of the site will have to be reinforced to provide maximum protection to the adjacent wetland areas. Interior erosion controls are needed, with detailed phasing of earth moving included. This should include the establishment of earthen berms, and temporary sediment basins to intercept sediment-laden runoff from the site. Please refer to the 2002-CT E&S Guidelines for specifications. Winged Euonimous and Barberry should be removed from the planting plan. These plants are listed a invasive exotics by DEP and should not be included in the landscaping plan. Please provide test pit data to determine if infiltration of roof runoff is possible. CC. Town Engineer Director of Planning REMA ecological 1 1I� 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT submitted to the ' TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION with an APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT REGULATED ACTIVITIES iaddressing ' WETLANDS, WILDLIFE & WATER QUALITY for the PROPOSED BERRY FARM ELDERLY HOUSING FELT ROAD AND OAKLAND ROAD (Rt. 30), SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT ' prepared by Rema Ecological Services, LLC ' 164 East Center Street Manchester, Connecticut (860) 649-REMA(7362) ' (860)-647-8397(fax) May 31,2002 ' Report.& r: �qetv,George T.Logan,MS, CPWS Principal Environmental Scientist Sigrun N. Gadwa,MS Principal Ecologist Electronic File: c:\projects\cone\01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EAla.doc ' Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT ' May 31,2002 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................... ...................................... J 2.0 INTRODUCTIONAND OVERVIEW.......o........—.....o........o.......................o......3 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 3.2.2.1 Wetlands...........................................................................................................................16 3.3 STREAM CHARACTERIZATION....................................................................................23 ' 3.3.1 Habitat Assessment.............................................................................................................24 3.3.2 Stream Macroinvertebrate Qualitative Biosurvey.................................................24 3.3.3 Water Chemistry.....................................................................................................0.............26 ' 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES......................................................28 5.0 REVIEW OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS............32 6.0 WILDLIFE UTILIZA TION A T THE SITE...................................................32 6.1 INTRODUCTION..........::...:..........::............................:......:................................................32 6.1.1 Results. .33 6.1.1.1 Avians..............................................................................................................................34 ' 6.1.1.2 Herptiles &Mammals................................................................................................34 7.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION......... ............................................................35 ' 7.1 INTRODUCTION.,..........o...............................................o....................o...o.......o..................35 7.1.1 Indirect Wetland and Watercourse Impacts.................................................................35 7.1.2 Impacts Upon Wetland Functions and Values............................................................36 7.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: QUALITY..............................................................37 7.2.1 Design Objectives................................................................................................................37 ' 7.2.2 Structural BMPs...................................................................................................................37 7.2.2.1 Catch Basins....................................................................................................................38 7.2.2.2 Vegetated Swales..........................................................................................................38 ' 7.2.3 Procedural BMPs: Long-Term...............................................................................0.......40 7.2.4 SMS Water Quality BMP Performance.....................................................................41 ' 8.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................47 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 1 AM Envirnomental Assessment , ! Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT M 'ay 31,2002 List of Figures Figure Page i ! 1. Site Locus (USGS Topo) ............................................................................................ 4 ! 2. Aerial Photograph of Site............................................................................................ 12 List of Tables ! Table Page ! 1. Dominant Vegetative Cover Types within Study Area....................................... ! 2. Water Quality Data for Farm Brook............................................................................ 27 3. Wetlands Functional Assessment Summary............................................................... 31 ! 4. Estimate of TSS Removal Efficiencies for Site's SMS.............................................. 42 5. Comparison of Pollutant Removal Efficiencies per BMP .......................................... 43-46 ! Appendices Appendix Following Page l. Annotated Photographs............................................................................................... 49 2. Wetland Characterization&Wetland Data Sheets..................................................... 49 3. Stream Characterization and Assessment................................................................... 49 ! 4. Rationale for Wetland Functional Assessment(Golet Model Only) .......................... 49 ! 5. Wildlife Inventory....................................................................................................... 49 ! 01561SWN51Berry Farm-EAUBOC H Envirnomental Assessment , ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 3I 2002 ' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ♦ Uplands on the site are predominantly active farmland, a large field of row crops ! (strawberries) bordered by strips of mowed field. Scrub shrub and forest vegetation occupy field edges and the steep banks of Farm Brook and the site's ! Farm Pond. Compacted bare soil with very sparse annual weeds occurs in the vicinity of the farm stand and the dirt roadway at the base of the hill, on the south side of the pond. ♦ Wetland vegetative communities are all associated with Farm Brook, a southwest- flowing tributary of the Podunk River. They include open water in the pond,and wet meadow, scrub-shrub, and forested cover types bordering the stream and pond. ♦ Three delineated (3) wetland ecological subunits, have a combined acreage of 1.43 acres on-site. They provide low-moderate to low quality wetland functions and ! values. The on-site wetlands are part of larger wetland system or assessment unit that is roughly 12.5 acres in size. ♦ A medium-intensity to sity floristic inventory was conducted on the site. No Connecticut- listed higher plants (i.e. Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern) were observed. ♦ A low-intensity wildlife inventory resulted in observation of 38 wildlife species (i.e. avians, herptiles and mammals), while 72 probably breed on the property or utilize it ' on regular basis. None were found to be "Connecticut-listed." ♦ Sampling of several water quality parameters and benthic macroinvertebrates within ! Farm Brook show that water quality is significantly impaired, the likely result of an urbanized watershed. ♦ Direct wetland alteration or impact will not occur as a result of the proposed project. ' Indirect long-term impacts to wetland and watercourse functions and values are expected to be of low intensity. ! 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EAUBOC 1 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT Ir May 31,2002 ♦ Many Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) are incorporated into the plans. ' These include several catch basins, two water quality vegetated infiltration swales, and others. 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 others. ♦ The proposed Stormwater Management System will remove in excess of 80%of total suspended solids (TSS) from runoff from proposed impervious surfaces. This level of overall performance will exceed the State and Federal guidelines for sediment removal in new development. The proposed BMPs will prevent degradation of downstream surface waters. ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 2 AFTM Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor,CT �# May 31,2002 ' 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC (RES) has prepared this Environmental Assessment ' for The Metro Realty Group, LTD ("the owner and co-applicant") for submission to the Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission ("the Commission"). This 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 elderly housing units within five building clusters, along with two access roadways and infrastructure improvements. The development site is located in South Windsor, Connecticut, southwest of Oakland Street (Route 30) and west of Felt Road (See Figure 1 for site locus). Specifically, the applicant is seeking permission from the Commission to: (1) discharge treated storm`drainage towards wetlands at three locations, and ' (2) to carry out regulated activities within the Town of South Windsor's 80-foot"wetland and watercourse buffer" (a.k.a. "upland review areas"). The "property" as a whole encompasses 13.66 acres. A wetland corridor follows its ' northern perimeter. A channelized and relocated watercourse enters the northeast corner of the property, bordered by a narrow, intermittent fringe of trees and shrubs. The stream is piped under the entry roadway,just prior to entering an elongated, crescent-shaped farm ' pond, which discharges under an earthen causeway into a deep excavated gully. The steep banks of the pond and the gully support early successional scrub-shrub vegetation. Mature ' trees are on the northern pond shore, and a mature, forested wetland borders the stream, as it exits the northwestern corner of the subject property. The subject property is bounded by idle farmland and by Oakland Street to the northeast; by residential land buffered by a narrow strip of woodland to the southeast, by an elderly housing community to the southwest; by a several hundred foot-wide corridor of undeveloped, forested land to the tnorthwest, and by medium density residential land to the north of the pond. 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 3 r` ly -t4Y},` � 4 T •j ' �l }yq� .y,,ty� f •: .,Ay 1 � �t:�t . t, �+•1 'fir .; — .A 1� • Ja'���,,—; • Witf Isi tz�. ter, y 4i CAP Wl. po skAL 4 t DL1 E 11 MIi Envirnomental Assessment , ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 , e South of the pond, the property slopes gradually upward, ranging in elevation from roughly 100 feet to 150 feet, according to the USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map (Manchester Quad) (see Figure 1). The site plans confirm these elevations (roughly 110 feet to 154 feet). Slopes at the property range from steeply sloping on the excavated banks of the farm pond and watercourse to nearly flat in the immediate vicinity of the pond and farmstand just south of the pond. The hillside currently occupied by strawberry rows has ' a gentle to moderate slope, as does the forest on the southwestern perimeter of the site. This Environmental Assessment report is based on site investigations, secondary source information, and coordination with the Applicant and with the engineering, site design, and legal consultants. The principal goals of this report are to: 1. Describe existing t ng natural resources (i.e. watercourses,wetlands, uplands); ' 2. assess the overall functional quality of the wetland and watercourse resources at 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 regulated resources. 1 The site was inspected on five occasions. The following table gives the dates and the purpose for each of these inspections, as well as the principal investigator. 11/10/01 Baseline inventory,wetland h c aractenzation Sigrun Gadwa 11/15/01 Baseline inventory George Logan 5/10/02 Spring baseline inventory Sigrun Gadwa 5/13/02 Water quality data collection, wildlife George Logan inventory 5/23/02 Stream bioassessment Sigrun Gadwa John Ianni, Certified Soil Scientist with Highlands Soils, LLC, conducted soil surveys and wetland delineations. Sigrun Gadwa, Senior Ecologist, conducted botanical surveys and collected wetland-related baseline data. George T. Logan, Certified Professional Wetland ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 5 AM Envirnomental Assessment , Berry Farm,South Windsor,CT May 31,2002 Scientist and Wildlife Biologist, conducted habitat-based wildlife inventories and collected water quality data. For this report RES reviewed a set of plans entitled "Berry Farm, The Metro Realty Group, LTD / Special Exception (10 sheets), dated December 10`h, 2001. Design Professionals, Inc. of South Windsor prepared these plans. A Landscape Plan (Sheet L- 1),prepared by Raymond Jefferson, L.A., was also reviewed. I r i i 1 ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 6 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 1 y 3 ,2002 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS& WETLAND DELINEATIONS iThe property is underlain by reddish brown arkose (i.e. brownstone), also known as the Portland Arkose, according to the Geological Map of Connecticut (Rodgers 1985). Bedrock was not found exposed on the site. The Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut(Stone et al. 1992) shows two types of deposit on the site: "sand and gravel" deposits in the lower elevation, northern areas by the pond and"thin till" on the remainder of the site. Sand and gravel deposits 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." ' Thin glacial till is defined as: "areas where till is less than 10-15 ft thick and including areas of bedrock outcrop where till is absent. Predominately upper till; loose to moderately compact, generally sandy, commonly stony." The site's soils were found to be predominately of disturbed nature due to the long history p Y g of row-cropping on the site, and are derived from the types of underlying parent materials or deposits mentioned above. The upland-type soils derived from sand and gravel deposits 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, at the west end only, sandy to gravely sandy loams of the Manchester (Mg) soil series. Narragansett (Na) silt loams derived from glacial till deposits are found on the south side of the site, higher on the hillslope. The wetland-type soils on the site have all been disturbed by stream channelization and pond excavation, and were identified as man-altered Aquents. Saco silt loams were the original wetland soils at the site, according to the Hartford County Soil Survey, and occur in the forested wetland just northwest of the site. Wetland resources were delineated in 2001 by Mr. John Ianni, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist, pursuant to the State of Connecticut General Statutes (CGS Sections 22a-36 to 22a-45). The criteria used to determine wetland status are the soil types designated by ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 7 AMM ' Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT , May 31,2002 a the National Cooperative Soils Survey as being poorly drained, very poorly drained, alluvial or floodplain. ' 3.2 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 3.2.1 Regional Context The project area is located in the North-Central Lowlands Ecoregion of the Northern Hills f -Central Hardwoods — White Pine Zone (Dowhan and Craig 1976) in the Podunk River Regional Basin, which is part of the Connecticut River Major Basin (Basin Number 4004). 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. Critical habitats include basalt ridges and sand plains, neither of which occurs at this site. 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. 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EAUBOC 8 ' Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor,CT , May 31,2002 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, Manchester, East Windsor, Vernon, and other neighboring towns area dominated by the oak-hickory forest type. Most of the forest vegetation in Connecticut, particularly in upland areas, has been profoundly modified by agriculture, lumbering, and fire in the earlier historical periods, and by earth removal and urbanization in more recent years. At this site, agriculture and earth removal have altered vegetation so that it bears little resemblance to the original plant cover. 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. Severe and prolonged soil disturbance reduces even the potential for regeneration of a diverse forest community. It may eliminate seed banks and the root systems of perennial herbaceous forest species (Pickett and White, 1985). Woody species on abandoned fields ' include a high proportion of species with very effective seed dispersal mechanisms, such as cottonwoods, maples, and fruiting shrubs. 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 wooded strips along field edges. Diversity of herbaceous forest plants is low, but a variety of meadow and shrub species with high light requirements are present, and the level of infestation by non-native invasive plant species, probably because these forest edges were established and stabilized before populations of invasive species began to burgeon in the 1980's. 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: ' "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 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 9 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT , May 31,2002 change in either hydrologic or ve vegetation characteristics indicates a change in cover g � g types." (Emphasis added.) Ecologists traditionally use 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 is a key factor influencing the type of fauna that a vegetation community is able to support. Plant community composition and structure in both uplands and wetlands depends on several inter-related site characteristics. These include disturbance history, especially the time elapsed since soil disturbance, local seed sources (including invasive,non-native species), topography, drainage patterns, and soil type. The vegetative cover types associated with the development site are described below. 1 3.2.2 Vegetative Cover Types at the Site ' The major vegetative cover types on or adjacent to this 13.66 -acre development site were inventoried on November 10`h, 2001. Table 1 provides a synopsis, including five (5) upland cover types, and four (4) wetland cover types, using the Golet wetland classification abbreviations. Annotated photographs of some of the cover types can be found in Appendix 1. Table 1: Dominant Vegetative Cover Types within Study Area Upland Cultivated land and bare soil U1 Mowed grass U2 Shrub—meadow mosaic and forest edge U3 Moist deciduous woodland U4 Wetland Shrub wetland SS; W1,W2 Wet meadow M;W 1 Deciduous wooded swamp WS;WI,W3 Open water OW; W2 *See Figure 2 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 10 ' Envirnomentat Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 3.2.2.1 Uplands tUpland (non-wetland) vegetative communities consist of approximately 12.2 acres of highly man-altered vegetation, with a limited area of more natural vegetation on the site perimeter. tUpland Cover Type 1 consists of bare soil with sparse weeds and cultivated row crops: the rows of strawberries on the large, gently sloping field and compacted bare soil on farm roadways and parking areas at the base of the hill. Upland Cover Type 2 is the grassy border around the strawberry field and parking areas. Natural upland (non-wetland) vegetative communities include a variety of types of edge habitat; meadow-shrub mosaic (Upland ' Cover Type 3) and mixed evergreen/deciduous wooded edge (Upland Cover Type 4). The far northwestern corner of the site includes a small portion of the moist, deciduous forest (Upland Cover Type 5), part of the forested Farm Brook stream corridor, downgradient of the pond. Plant communities occur on a variety of soil textures and drainage regimes. Coarse to fine textured soils that developed from coarse textured water-laid deposits include somewhat ' excessively well drained Manchester gravelly sandy loams (Mg) at the west end of the pond; moderately well-drained Sudbury (Sb) fine sandy loams, adjacent to the northern wetland and watercourse areas; and well-drained Enfield silt loams (Es) on lower hill slopes. Narragansett silt loam(Na) on the upper hill slopes is a till-derived soil, and small pockets of moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained till-derived soils also occur along the ' upper field edge, in seepage areas where there is a cut in the hillside. ' 3.2.2.1.1 Cultivated crops,bare soil, and sparse weeds The proposed buildings and roadways will occupy this highly man-altered cover type. Rows ' of strawberry plants in the large field are spaced approximately 2.5 feet apart, and at the time of the spring survey, the soil between rows was spread with straw, with almost no weeds ' apparent. More weeds were noted during the November inspection, predominantly fall dandelion (Leontodon autumnalis) along with foxtails (Setaria spp.) and perennial rye grass ' (Lolium perenne). Sparse weeds are also found in compacted bare soil in parking and roadway areas near the pond that are not covered with blue stone; they include plantains (Plantago major), yarrow(Achillea millefolia), and Queen Anne's Lace(Daucus carota). 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 11 tit, 40 - I t �,X �. AA MIS. n Proposed Felt Road andOakland Road Route 1 '••` South Connecticut Showing Wetlands, Watercourses and Points of Interest on a Date: 5/31/02 Approximate Property Boundary Watercourse/Waterbody Wetland Boundary(A•• • R®ESRerna Ecological Services,LLC vegetative • • • _ Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 Wildlife certainly consumes a portion of the strawberry crop, and bees harvest nectar of strawberry flowers. In addition, the large seeds of weeds such as foxtails and plantains are a fall and winter food source for songbirds, such as native sparrows and mourning doves. ' White-throated sparrows were observed here in November 2001, and song sparrows in May 2002. However, weed seed quantities are low on this well-kept farm. Farmland used to grow row crops always has the potential to release sediment, fertilizer and pesticides into downgradient aquatic resources. At this site, the placement of straw over the bare soil between rows has significantly reduced the erosion hazard. The fact that weeds were sparse overall at both fall and spring site visits is indicative of herbicide use. However, no signs of herbicide damage and discoloration from drift were noted on vegetation adjacent to fields. This particular farming operation has a low, grassed berm that crosses the entire field downslope of the cultivated area. This is an outstanding Best Management Practice (BMP) that has been preventing or minimizing release of surface runoff containing suspended sediment or potentially pesticides, either adsorbed to soil t particles or dissolved in water. Risk is also reduced by the fact that the slope of the strawberry field is gentle to moderate (less than 10%). Potential for release of the more mobile herbicides into Farm Brook via groundwater is low at this site because the fine ' textured Enfield and Narragansett soils in the cultivated field have low permeability. The grassed borders around the tilled field (Upland Cover Type 2, described below) are ' another excellent best management practice that filters sediment, fertilizer, and potentially pesticides. ' 3.2.2.1.2 Grass borders (Upland Cover Type 2; U2) ' Fifteen to 20 foot wide grass swaths surround the strawberry field and wider grassed areas border the parking areas and the base of the hill. The protective earthen berm described above is also planted in grass. Grass height was less than four inches high at both site visits; mowing has maintained the density of the grassed strips and their filtering capacity. They are presumably comprised of fescues and bentgrasses, but lack of seed heads hindered identification. Grass-dominated meadow provides habitat (forage and cover) for the meadow vole, a keystone species in the meadow food chain, prey for predators such as red foxes and great horned owls. 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 13 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 3.2.2.1.3 Meadow-shrub mosaic and forest edge (Upland Cover Type 3• U3) ' At the upper southern end of the field and al pp (southern) so in the southwest corner of the site, edge vegetation merges into deciduous upland forest. Elsewhere, on the banks of the stream ' and pond, this cover type abuts a similar wetland cover type. The edge vegetation at this site appears to be stable, having developed well over 20 years ago, when field borders were initially established and the watercourse channel was altered. Brush cutting to prevent encroachment of woody vegetation into the fields has presumably helped to maintain the herbaceous meadow component of the cover type. Invasive, non-native r woody and vine species are present, but at significantly lower levels than along newer forest edges and abandoned fields, based on field observations by RES personnel. For example, the field just offsite to the east, between Oakland Avenue and the stream, is heavily infested with Autumn Olive (Eleagnus umbellata), listed as "widespread and ' invasive" in Connecticut (Mehrhoff et al, 2000). Diversity of trees is relatively high, but plant distributions are patchy, with some areas tdominated by one or a few species. Along the southern field edge, at the edge of a hardwood forest dominated by oaks (Quercus spp.) is dense, planted rows of young white pine (Pinus strobus), and arbor vitae (Thuja occidentalis). They are associated with typical woody colonizers such as black cherry (Prunus serotina), box elder (Acer negundo), mulberry (Morus alba) and mature staghom sumac (Rhus typhina). This is the edge of a wooded buffer between the farm and residential landuses to the south. Trees on the bank of Farm Brook, upstream of the pond, are limited to two cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) until the brook bends to the east. In this segment a mature (over 20 foot high) alder thicket (Alnus serrulata) grows in both upland and wetland soils, along with box elder and white ash (Fraxinus alba). Further east and offsite is a large grove of the clonal tree, black locust, regarded as potentially invasive (Mehrhoff et all, 2000). Non-wetland portions of the banks of the pond support a variety of trees. Box elder is also present on the eastern pond bank. Mature trees up to 80 feet in height border the entire northern shore of the pond, including sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red pine (Pinus resinosa), black walnut (Juglans nigra), ' and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). The southern bank of the pond lacks trees, unfortunate because the pond is poorly shaded which reduces the quality of water and habitat. Trees are also lacking on the excavated stream banks downstream of the ' causeway that impounds the pond. ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 14 Mra Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 The shrub and vine lavers in this upland edge cover type are dominated by a few species. In particular Blackberries and wild raspberries (Rubus spp.) are common along all the upland edges. Other shrub species include silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum), gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa), black cherry saplings ' (Prunus serotina) as well some invasive shrubs: Morrow's honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), multiflora rose (Rosa mult flora), and occasional autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata). A six to eight foot high hemlock hedge is at the east end of the upper, southern field edge Morrow's honeysuckle is dominant at the west end. Nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) is a dominant species on the eastern stream segment, bur cucumber ' vine (Sicyos angulatus) and the invasive vine, bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus). The latter is a codominant species on the upper southern bank of the pond. Meadow vegetation is well-developed between clumps and patches of shrubs but herbs g P p are sparse within dense shrub thickets, especially where sumac and multiflora rose predominate. Dominant meadow herbs are rough and Canada goldenrod (Solidago rugosa and S. canadensis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), heath aster(Aster ericoides) ' and wild madder (Galium mollugo). Some forest herbs occur along the upper, southern field edge, including wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), spinulose woodfern (Dryopteris spinulosa), kidneyleaf buttercup (Ranunculus abortivus), and violets (Viola spp•) rAdditional herb species occur in a small area with moderately well-drained to somewhat poorly-drained soils at the center of the upper field edge: Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) is dominant, intermixed with horsetail (Equisetum arvense), Joe Pye weed (Eupatorium dubium), umbrella sedge (Cyperus strigosus), lurid sedge (Carex lurida), and New York Aster(Aster novaebelgii). Wildlife value of this edge 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 during the fall bird migration, and summer fruiting species like blackberry are used by bird species that breed in Connecticut. Goldenrods are an important pollen source for bees. A red tailed hawk ' was observed flying overhead; woodchucks are abundant; three burrows were noted along the upper field edge. Birds heard or observed in shrub thickets include catbirds, goldfinch, cardinal, blue Jay and red-winged blackbird. ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 15 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 3.2.2.1.4 Lower slope mixed deciduous woodland(Upland Cover Type 4• U4) Onlysmall a portion of this woodland cover type at the far northwestern corner of the site is on the property. It adjoins the forested wetland associated with Farm Brook and is bordered ' to the south by open land recently developed into multi-family housing. Soils are moderately well-drained to somewhat poorly drained in the Sudbury series. The tree canopy is closed, with approximately 85% cover, and consists of sugar maple up to 18 inches in diameter (DBH) red maple (Acer rubrum), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Shrub and herb ' density and diversity are low. For wildlife, trees provide cherries, cherry blossom nectar and pollen, 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. r 3.2.2.1 Wetlands Three 3 delineated wetland units ( ) u is were characterized on the site, all associated with Farm ' Brook, a perennial tributary of Plum Gulley Brook and the Podunk River. Off-site portions of wetlands and watercourses were also briefly investigated, and remote sensing(i.e. aerial photograph interpretation) was used to classify and characterize them. Characterization of contiguous off-site portions of these wetlands was needed 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). ' These wetlands are all located on the north side of the property. Wetland Unit 1 is the up- stream, eastern segment of Farm Brook, which is offsite, but closely borders 560 feet of the eastern property boundary. It has been relocated and channelized to the perimeter of 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 16 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 the field owned by Lois Peterson, more than 30 years ago, based on the sizes of trees in the new channel. The wetland corridor averages only 20 feet wide. A narrow fringe of ' wetlands, including wet meadow, scrub-shrub, sapling, and forested cover types, which adjoin similar upland vegetation, described above in the section on Upland Cover Type 3, ' borders the stream. The brook is piped under the entry roadway to the farmstand, and discharges into Wetland Unit 2 (W2), an approximately 500 foot long crescent-shaped excavated pond. At the west end of the pond, Farm Brook is again piped under an earthen, fill roadway, and discharged into a deep, excavated stream gully (the upstream portion of Wetland Unit 3; W3). At the edge of the site, Farm Brook enters the forested area to the ' southwest of the site, and its channel regains a natural configuration. In this lower offsite stretch, Farm Brook flows though a forested corridor up to several hundred feet wide with ' a broad wetland terrace. Characteristics of the Farm Brook watershed, upstream of the site, influence the water quality and hydrology of the brook. Farm Brook originates approximately 3/4 miles to the north and northwest of the site. Landuses in the watershed are predominantly residential, ' with most units serviced by sanitary sewers. The old Foster Farm, where a moderate scale farming operation with approximately 30 head of cattle is on the eastern perimeter of the ' watershed, east of Foster Road. Potential water pollutants from these land uses include nutrients (lawn fertilizers and possibly cow manure), turf pesticides, and road sand. Active construction (sediment sources) is currently occurring in a only few areas of the upper ' Farm Brook watershed, including a site off Deming Road; the watershed includes extensive areas of fine-textured, erodible Wapping silt loams, as well as less erodible Manchester gravelly sandy loams. A portion of the Farm Brook watershed remains in a forested condition. The proportion of impervious surface is moderate, consisting mostly of roads and roofs in housing subdivisions; commercial land uses are minimal. Farm Brook is impounded at a minimum at one location upstream of the site, as well as at the site itself. ' The hydrogeologic setting of a wetland refers to the topographic, geologic and hydrologic conditions in which the wetland occurs (Golet et al. 1993). Golet et al. (1993) state that wetlands in Southern New England are found in four hydrogeologic settings: surface- water depression, surface-water slope, groundwater depression, and groundwater slope. The primary water supply for this wetland system is groundwater from the underlying stratified drift aquifer and groundwater seepage from upslope, for a hydrogeologic setting ' of"ground-water depression." However, the hydrogeologic setting of the pond (wetland ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 17 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 Unit 2) also includes a "surface water depression" component. The upstream segment of ' the Farm Brook (Wetland Unit 1) includes a "surface water slope" component. These wetlands also receive water inputs during periods of elevated water levels associated with ' rain events, especially where pipes constrict flow. Vegetation adjacent to in the Brook was observed to be "flooded out" during a field inspection on May 13`h, 2002, after approximately 0.7 inches of rain. The pond and outlet stream segment Wetlands Units 2 and 3) have a "bottomland" landscape position; the inlet stream (Wetland Unit 1) is on a "lower slope." Soils in these excavated wetlands are the man-altered Aquents; the channel of the inlet stream (Wetland Unit 1) appears to have been cut mostly though till derived soils; the ' Aquents of the pond and outlet stream segment Wetland Units 2 and 3) are poorly drained and very poorly drained soils derived from sandy/gravelly outwash surficial materials. Soils in the off-site wooded swamp are mapped as Saco silt loams Appendix 2 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. 3.2.2.1.1 Wetland Unit 1 ' Wetland Unit 1 is off site, but has been characterized due to its close proximity to proposed activities. This relocated stream now stream follows the eastern property boundary. It includes two cover types. ' Roughly 200 feet of the southern end of this stream segment (upstream of the sharp bend to the east) is classified as "palustrine forested wetland" (PF01), 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 lower, northerly portion, approximately 300 feet long, is a "wet meadow" by the Golet system ("persistent palustrine emergent wetland" by the NWI system.). Shrub and vine cover is greater than 25% in a central transitional area, which qualifies as "palustrine shrub ' swamp" (NWI) or"shrub swamp" (Golet). 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). The 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 18 AFTM Envirnomental Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT . May 31,2002 wetland associated with this perennial stream supports several hydrologic regimes. The ' center of this approximately 6-foot wide stream channel is "permanently flooded"; water depth averaged 8 inches on May 10`h, 2002. The margins of the channel are "seasonally flooded, " exposed when stream flows drop during the latter part of the growing season. Golet et al. (1993) define seasonally flooded as follows: "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." ' Stream flo w is rapid and stream channel inundation is sufficiently long-lasting that very ' little vascular, macrophytic vegetation grows within the channel. Wetland soils on the banks of the stream may be "temporarily flooded" (during and immediately after storm events) and also experience "seasonal saturation", defined below by Golet el al (1993): "The soil is saturated to the surface, es especially earl in the growing season but P Y Y S' g unsaturated conditions prevail by the end of the season in most years. Surface water is absent except for groundwater seepage and overland flow." ' Vegetation in Wetland Unit 1 reflects the hydrologic regime and soil drainage class. Plant species on the banks of the watercourse in seasonally saturated, poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained soil include many of the same species of upland scrub shrub and ' forest edge vegetation, already described for Upland Cover Type 3. I Woody vegetation is much denser in the southern portion of the wetland unit. Trees include cottonwood, box elder, red maple, black willow (Salix nigra), and white ash; trees and a 20 foot high stand of alders (Alnus serrulata) form a closed canopy at the south end ' of the stream segment. A few cottonwoods shade portions of the northern meadow and scrub shrub cover types. The low shrub stratum is dominated by silky dogwood and wild raspberries (Rubus spp), with some multiflora rose. Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) is the dominant vine, though only moderately abundant. In the herb stratum, goldenrods, reed canary grass are dominant s, associated with a variety of meadow species including Blue vervain (Verbena hastata) and climbing ' nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). On lower banks, Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus, and yellow rocket (Barbarea vulgaris) are the dominant herbs on the lower banks in very poorly drained to poorly drained soils, ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 19 Envirnomental Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 accompanied by sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis). In meadow and scrub shrub cover ' types stream banks are densely vegetated and stable, though steep, with only a few small eroded areas. This is consistent with the moderate amount of impervious surface in the upper watershed of Farm Brook. Few vascular plants grow within the stream channel, rooted in flowing water, only ' occasional clumps of Pennsylvania cress (Cardamine pensylvanica). However, brown, decomposing algae coats most cobble and boulder surfaces, a stong indicator that the ' stream receives excessive nutrient inputs, at least on an intermittent basis. This is consistent with upstream landuses, with potential sources of fertilizers and cow manures. Much of the wildlife usage associated with stream bank vegetation in this Wetland Unit has largely been described in the section on edge habitat in Upland Cover type 1; the wetland provides food sources, cover, and nest sites for songbirds and small mammals,but its value is limited by the narrowness of the habitat corridor. The stream itself provides additional wildlife habitat components, linked to aquatic habitat. A Great Blue heron was observed foraging the stream, and several two-lined stream salamanders were noted during sampling for macroinvertebrates. Green frogs likely use the stream margins. No fish were observed, but an in-stream habitat characteristics and hydrology suggest that it could support a small fish population, consisting mostly of minnows such as the black nosed dace. This is a fast-flowing perennial watercourse, averaging six feet in width and eight inches in depth, with an abundance of cobbles (approximately 70%) and boulders. The dissolved oxygen level was 8.74 mg/L, ample to support a variety of types of aquatic life, and other water quality parameters were also consistent with a fish population. Rock upper surfaces are covered with the remains of algae and a thin coating of sediment (probably recent construction sediment). However, rocks are not embedded with sediment and under surfaces of rocks are smooth and clean, providing habitat for stream macroinvertebrates, a food supply for fish. A macroinvertebrate sample was collected on ' May 23rd, 2002, which showed that the benthic invertebrate community includes mostly midges and caddisflies. 3.2.2.1.2 Wetland Unit 2 ' Wetland Unit 2 includes three wetland classes: the wooded north shore is a "palustrine forested wetland" (NWI system). The south shore supports a moderately dense shrub ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EAUZOC 20 Envirnomental Assessment ' ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT ' May 31,2002 -)4t thicket ("palustrine shrub swamp"by the NWI classification system). The inundated pond itself is "palustrine open water." The vegetation in Wetland Unit 2 is limited to the pond margin. The pond itself contains ' neither islands with shrubs and trees, nor hummocks, nor emergent vegetation except for a several narrow fringes at the far eastern end. The tree stratum overhanging the north side ' of the wetland is largely rooted in upland soil, and has been described above in the section 3.2.2.1.3 on Upland Cover Type 3. It is tall, well developed and diverse, including ' evergreens (red pine and a hemlock hedge) as well as deciduous species such as box elder, red maple, and elm, but provides little shade for the pool because it is on the north side. Canopy cover over the pond is less than 25%. The lack of shade results in elevated water ' temperatures compared to the inlet stream, as reflected in the temperature of the water quality data collected along with other water quality parameters on May 131h, 2002. Temperature in the inlet stream was 11°C; in the outlet stream it was 14°C. During warmer weather, later in the growing season, these differences would be more pronounced. The shrub stratum on the lower pond banks is rooted in wetland soils; dominant species include alders (Alnus serrulata), raspberry (Rubus spp.), and silky dogwood. Patches of staghorn sumac and occasional elderberry (Sambucus americana), multiflora rose (listed as widespread and invasive), and willow (Salix spp) were also noted. Two vines were noted, another invasive species, bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) as well as Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) is also present in this cover type, but it is not dominated by invasive species. ' Herbaceous vegetation is very similar to that in Wetland Unit 1, including skunk cabbage and yellow rocket near the waters edge and goldenrods higher on pond banks. The eastern end of the pond has a better developed fringe at the waters' edge. A striking patch of ' Dame's Rocket (Hesperis matronalis), a non-native, but non-invasive species, adds to the aesthetic appeal of the pond. The wildlife value of Wetland Unit 2 is closely tied to the species composition of its edge zone. It supports some songbirds that utilize edge habitats and fragmented suburban landscapes, such as cardinals, titmice, Baltimore Orioles, and goldfinches. The diverse trees bordering the pond include evergreens for cover during inclement weather; mast- producing hickories (food for squirrels and blue jays); however, there are only a few ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 21 Envirnomental Assessment , ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT ' May 31,2002 species of fruiting shrubs and vines, and shrub density is low to moderate on the steep ' slopes. The quality of aquatic habitat has presumably suffered from the lack of shade and excessive nutrient-loading. The pond lacks emergent vegetation and a gently sloping . terrace adjacent to the pond, except to a limited extent at the far east end, which limits its ' suitability for many amphibians, painted turtles, and various invertebrates. Mallard ducks were observed on the pond, and barn and tree swallows were noted flying over the pond, hawking for insects. From a hydrologic standpoint, this pond can support fish and pond invertebrates. Its maximum depth is 10 to 15 feet, and water levels are controlled by an ' outlet structure. 3.2.2.1.3 Wetland Unit 3 The westernmost segment of Farm Brook on the site, begins just west of the farm road crossing over the pond. Water is discharged from the pond into this watercourse via twin approximately 15-inch culverts. The wetland unit occupies less than 8,000 square feet on-site, but is part of a much larger (i.e. roughly 12.5 acre) overall ecological unit that extends hundreds of feet to the northwest of the site, a forested wetland buffered by upland forest. A multifamily housing community is located to the to the southwest of this wetland. On- site the stream corridor is severely disturbed, a steep-sided (2:1 slopes), sparsely vegetated ' gully, approximately 10 to 12 feet deep. The stream channel at the bottom of the gully is approximately 3 feet wide, with moderate flow over a stony substrate. The classification of ' the on-site portion of this wetland is "palustrine shrub swamp"; off site to the west it is a "broadleaf palustrine forested wetland." Trees on the north side of the wetland, rooted in ' upland soil, include a mature shagbark hickory, hemlocks, and red maples. Here in contrast to Wetland Units 1 and 2, two invasive shrub species are dominant: multiflora rose and Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), and elm saplings, staghorn sumac, and ' brambles were also noted. Shrub and herb cover is low to moderate because much of the ground is armored with stones, perhaps dating back to the original earth mining operation. Common species in the sparse, weedy herb stratum include pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), reed canary grass, and mullein (Verbascum thapsus) as well as goldenrods and jewelweed. The vegetation and stream channel morphology in the contiguous offsite forested portion ' of Wetland 2 is very different, and will be briefly described. The stream channel flows ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 22 AFTM Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor,CT ' May 31,2002 along the northern side of the wetland, where fill has been placed. The channel meanders ' and is 10 to 12 feet wide and approximately 6 inches deep. The substrate is cobbly with more than 80% cover of decomposing algal residues. Banks are stable, gradual, and less ' than 18 inches high. The south side of this stream corridor is a red maple dominated wooded swamp, with poorly drained, level to gently sloping soils on the wetland terrace. Elms, up to 18-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) are also present. Multiflora rose ' is dominant in the low-density shrub stratum. The moderate to high-density herb stratum is dominated by skunk cabbage, Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). Trout lily ' (Erythronium americanum), Jack-in-the-Pulpit (Arisaema atrovirens) and false hellebore (Veratrum viride) are among the other herb species noted. ' Wildlife habitat usage in Wetland Unit 3 is different in the off-site and on-site portions. On-site, usage is similar to that already described for pond bank habitat, but quality is ' lower, with even lower shrub density and lower species diversity. The unshaded stream segment immediately below the pond has warmer water than Wetland Unit 1. Water quality data, to be further discussed in a subsequent section, was collected on May 13`h, from this wetland and from Wetland Unit 1. Readings for all parameters were indicative of lower water quality in Wetland Unit 3. The dense coating of rotting algae noted on the ' rocks in the wooded portion of the wetland is also indicative of impaired instream habitat. The off-site forested wetland and its upland wooded buffer provides some suitable habitat for a variety of woodland songbirds, bats, and other wildlife species, including species such as fox or great horned owl that may venture out to forage in the open habitat on the site. However, it is a small tract of woodland, in a fragmented generally open landscape. ' 3.3 STREAM CHARACTERIZATION In addition to the qualitative observations of the wetlands on the site, with emphasis on ' vegetation and soils, additional quantitative data was gathered in May of 2002 in order to accurately characterize and assess the aquatic habitat quality of the Farm Brook. Farm ' Brook is mapped as a perennial stream on the USGS Topographic map and has a watershed of about 2.047 square miles at its confluence with Plum Gully Brook. ' On May 13`h, 2002, water quality data was collected during a rain event using hand-held meters, from stations both upstream and downstream of the pond. For the stream segment ' upgradient of the pond (Wetland Unit 1) Habitat Assessment form was completed on May 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 23 MMMK Envirnomental Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31 2002 23Td, 2002, and a bioassessment was done using the EPA Rapid Bioassessment protocol,based on a collection of benthic macroinvertebrates. ' 3.3.1 Habitat Assessment A "Watercourse Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet" was completed in the field for the stream segment upstream of the pond (Wetland Unit 1) (Appendix 3). This data sheet, which was adapted from a publication written by Plafkin et al. (1989), is recommended by the iConnecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP). It documents a large number of"primary,""secondary"and"tertiary"stream characteristics and habitat variables. Using the aforementioned method, the habitat of the stud stream can be compared with the Y p ' habitat of a reference stream. This comparison is key to excluding habitat limitations as being the major factor for any apparent water quality impairment that results from a stream macroinvertebrate biosurvey, which was also done for this stream segment. As shown in the data sheets, stream habitat was rated excellent or very good for most parameters. The point score was 96% of the reference stream, indicating that the study stream is "comparable" to the reference stream, and that "water quality may be the major factor affecting the benthic macroinvertebrate community." Stream substrate consists mostly of cobbles and is not embedded by sediment. Riffles are abundant, the stream channel is stable, and there is little ' evidence of bank erosion, sandbars, or bottom scour. Deciduous streamside vegetation provides shade and leaf litter, upstream of the macroinvertebrate sampling station, located approximately 260 feet southeast and upgradient of the site's farm pond. As mentioned in the previous section, there is a coating rotting algae over most of the rocks, a habitat parameter not included on the form because it is usually the direct result of excessive nutrient loading. 3.3.2 Stream Macroinverteb rate Qualitative Biosurvey Stream or benthic macroinvertebrates are primarily the larvae of insects that complete some or most of their life cycle in an aquatic environment. Well known examples include mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies. In streams, their diversity and abundance is greatest ' in the fast-flowing waters of riffles. It has long been known that some taxa of these insects are only found in non-polluted waters, while others are associated with impaired water quality. Sampling aquatic macroinvertebrates can assist in making general 1 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EAU DOC 24 ARTM Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31 2002 �+ inferences about stream water quality. Appendix 3 includes a "primer" on stream ' biosurveys prepared by Rema Ecological Services, LLC. Along a representative thirty-foot stretch of riffle we collected data on physical stream ' habitat (see previous section) and the benthic macroinvertebrate community. The macroinvertebrate bioassessment followed the U.S. EPA family-level rapid bio- assessment (RBA) protocol, recommended by the CT DEP; this protocol involves comparison of the study stream with a reference stream in the same major basin (the Salmon River in this case). Sample collection and insect processing and identification followed the standardized methods for an EPA family-level RBA, and a voucher collection has been preserved in alcohol. Habitat quality is also quantitatively assessed relative to that of the reference stream, using a nine-parameter point system adapted for Connecticut by the CT DEP. Only if habitat in the study stream is rated comparable or ' somewhat comparable to that in the reference stream, are the bioassessment results (based on the composition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community) likely to be caused by ' water quality,rather than habitat. The composition of the macroinvertebrate community was analyzed using six metrics: ' 1 the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index based on the pollution tolerance scores and relative abundanc e ce of each family in the macroinvertebrate sample; 2) taxa richness; 3) EPT index (the number of families in the three least pollution tolerant aquatic insect orders (i.e., Ephemenoptera,Plecoptera,Trichoptera, or stoneflies,mayflies, and caddisflies); 4) proportion of'EPT" insects relative to chironomids (midges), which tend to be abundant in ' polluted streams; 5) proportion of insects in the "scraper" feeding group to insects in the collector-feeder feeding ' group. (Scrapers are common in clear rocky streams, whereas collector-filterers are abundant in streams with much fine, suspended nutrient material); ' 6) % contribution of the dominant family. 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 25 Envirnomental Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 � The study stream receives point scores for each metric that are then compared to the ' reference stream, and the total point score is also compared with that for the reference station. ' The bioassessment results are shown in Appendix 3. They indicate that water quality in this Farm Brook station is severely impaired, with poor to very poor water quality. The ' HBI index of 5.6 is very high (poor) because the sample contained large numbers of pollution tolerant Chironomid (midge) larvae - which have a pollution tolerance score of ' 6; this is a strong indicator of poor water quality in this stream as is the absence of pollution intolerant mayflies, stone flies, and case-bearing caddisflies. It should be noted that several two-lined salamander larvae were collected and released; these vertebrates are ' moderately pollution intolerant, but might be able to handle pesticide pollution more readily that smaller aquatic insects. ' Relativelyfew es of insects were types collected (only 9taxa) and these included a total of only 2 families in the EPT group, no mayflies at all and very few organisms in the ' "scraper" feeding group. The low number of taxa could also possibly be caused by compounds (perhaps residential pesticides), selectively toxic only to certain taxa, which perhaps could have been released from the upstream subdivisions. However, the physical smothering of cobble surfaces by rotting algae contributes to the low taxa richness at this ' stream station. 3.3.3 Water Chemistry Limited baseline water quality sampling was conducted at the site during a significant, runoff-producing storm, to assist in choosing the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater renovation, but also to help in the assessment of the environmental quality of the site's perennial stream, namely Farm Brook. Water chemistry data was collected downstream as well as upstream of the pond. The first station (FB-1) is located ' immediately upgradient of the culvert under the existing farm road that allows access to the site. The second (FB-2) is at the outlet to the site's farm pond. According to the National Weather Service approximately 0.7 inches of precipitation had fallen by the time the readings were taken,half of which had fallen just three hours prior. At the time of the site inspection flows in the brook were moderate. Bank vegetation was starting to get flooded out(see photos in Appendix 1). ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 26 Envirnomental Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 Readings for pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, and turbidity were taken with hand-held portable electronic meters: YSI-55 (DO, temp.), Hanna 9023 (pH), Hanna 9033 (Cond.), and LaMotte (turbidity). They indicated that water quality deteriorates further within the pond, as shown below in Table 2. Data is consistent with an impaired stream. Although DO and pH were within normal ranges (see Table 2), specific conductivity was elevated,more so downstream of the pond. Table 2: Water quality data from the Farm Brook South of Oakland Road, South Windsor ' (sampled:May 13, 20020) ' Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.74 7.49 Conductivity(mS/min) 260 327 pH 6.8 7.5 Temperature(Celsius) 11.0 14.0 Redox Potential (mV/ +7.8 -27.5 Turbidity(NTU) (average) 2.34 4.06 Note: Measurements were taken using the following hand-held meters: pH and redox potential - Hanna HI 9023; dissolved oxygen - YSI 55; conductivity - Hanna HI 9033; turbidity -- LaMotte turbidmeter Specific conductive reflects h p conductivity ec the overall concentration of ions in the water and is used as a ' non-specific pollution indicator. It is directly related to the concentration of total dissolved solids, but does not indicate the type of ions in solution. In our region, conductivity in non-polluted soft water streams generally ranges from 70 to 120 mS/cm. Even in areas where bedrock geology contributes to higher readings, anything more than 300 mS/cm typically indicates that waters are too fertile or otherwise are contaminated. ' In conclusion, although the Farm Brook has favorable habitat characteristics and is not experiencing erosion or sediment deposition, its overall water quality appears to be poor. Although this means that the proposed project is unlikely to cause additional significant 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 27 i Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 + degradation, it suggests that efforts to reduce upstream pollution sources may be desirable. The fact that no fish were observed in the stream is consistent with the bioassessment rating and elevated specific conductivity levels. The benthic invertebrates ' community consist largely of small chironomids, which not a preferred prey for fish. One positive indicator is the presence of a two lined salamanders population in the stream, considered a species of non-polluted streams. As discussed above, on-site agricultural practices are unlikely to be the primary cause of stream water quality problems, due to the soils and topography of the site and various best management practices employed. Non- point source pollution from the upper watershed is a more likely culprit. 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 six procedures are the following: 1. Golet, F.C. 1976. Wildlife Wetland Evaluation Model. pp. 13-34 in: J.S. Larson (ed), Models for ' Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands.Univ.of Mass.Water Resources Research Center Publ.No.32. 2. Ammann, A.P., R.W. Franzen, and J.L. Johnson. 1991. Method for the Evaluation of Inland Wetlands in Connecticut: A Watershed Approach. CT DEP Bulletin No.9 3. Hollands,G.G.and D.W.Magee. 1986.A method for Assessing the Functions of Wetlands.pp. 108- 118 in:J.A.Kusler and P.Riexinger(eds). National Wetland Assessment Symposium Proceedings. ' 4. WET 2: Wetland Evaluation Technique. Volume H. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Wetlands Research Program. 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 28 Envirnomental Assessment • ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May y 31,2002 5. Hollands, G.G. and D.W. Magee. 1995. A Hydrogeomorphic Procedure for Assessing the I Functional Capacity of Wetlands: In press, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.Vicksburg,Mississippi. 6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), New England Division. 1995. The Highway Methodology Workbook.,Wetland Functions and Values,a Descriptive Approach. 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. 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 major functions and values of the Farm Brook wetland system in the vicinity of the site were formally assessed. This wetland ecological unit included the on-site wetlands, described in detail above, as well as the more extensive riparian wetlands to the northwest. Functional ratings for wildlife utilization for the entire 12.5- ' acre wetland system, using the Golet method, are shown in Appendix 4. The three delineated subunits (separated by roadways) were combined for this assessment. It should be noted, however, that the on-site components of the evaluated wetland system have significantly lower functions and values than the larger system. Table 3 provides a ' summary of ratings of the functional values of the on-site wetlands. The rationales for the wildlife habitat and aquatic habitat functions have already been addressed in the wildlife usage section in the characterization of each wetland unit and adjacent upland cover types ' and in Section 6.0 on Wildlife Utilization. A detailed rationale for the other functional quality ratings can be provided upon request. Overall, the on-site wetlands were evaluated as being of low to moderate quality for most ' functions, whereas the larger wetland system scored higher, mostly in the moderate and moderate-high ranking categories. Due to several factors, the onsite wetlands would have scored higher for several functions, including aesthetics, recreational value, and wildlife habitat. First, the stream banks and pond banks are too steep, hindering access for 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 29 Envirnomental Assessment • Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 ivk education and recreation. A snow fence around the pond perimeter restricts access and Iblocks views, reducing recreational and aesthetic value. The pond does function as a flood storage area and as a sediment trap. Streamside ' vegetation serves a bank stabilization function. However, the lack of emergent vegetation in the pond or a shallow vegetated shelf at the edge of the pond reduces its pollutant and nutrient trapping function as well as its aquatic and wildlife habitat function. The fact that specific conductance was higher at the pond outlet than at its inlet is a clear indicator that pollutant attenuation of dissolved pollutants is not taking place. Better water quality ' entering the site would significantly increase aquatic habitat function as well as aesthetics. It is unclear whether the wetland system currently provides some finfish habitat, but it is clearly not a productive fish area. The suburban setting of the site, with nearby residential landuses limits not only ecological integrity and wildlife habitat value, but also recreational value; opportunities for bird watching and nature study are moderate. The proximity of residential areas precludes hunting. However, the wooded buffers on the site perimeter screen adjacent residential areas to a considerable extent, and the stream flowing past farmland itself is attractive, as shown on the cover photo of the report. Overall aesthetic value of wetlands on the site is moderate. Even wider naturally vegetated buffers adjacent to wetlands with a higher diversity of shrubs would enhance wildlife habitat value and ecological integrity. r 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 30 1 Envirnomental Assessment , 1 Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 1 1 Table 3: Relative Wetland Functional Assessment Ratings 1 1 Ecological Inte rit Low Modera te Wildlife Habitat Low-Moderate Moderate-High 1 Finfish/Aquatic Habitat Low Low-Moderate Educational Potential Low-Moderate Moderate 1 Recreation — Water-based Low Low-Moderate Non-water-based Moderate Moderate Flood Control Low-Moderate Moderate Groundwater Use Potential Low-Moderate Low-Moderate Nutrient Retention& Sediment Trapping- Opportunity High Moderate-High 1 -Efficiency Low-Moderate Moderate-High Shoreline Anchoring&Dissipation of Erosion Forces Moderate Moderate-High 1 Noteworthiness I None I None Notes: The Assessment is primarily based on the CT DEP Bulletin No. 9 and the Golet Method, and derived using best professional judgment/experience Possible functional quality ratings include: low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high, high, outstanding. 1 i 1 1 1 01561SWN51Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 31 Envirnomenta[Assessment , Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 ! 1 ' 5.0 REVIEW OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS In November of 2001, 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 in February of 2 00 1. 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). ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 32 Envirnomental Assessment ' ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 (�A _ '� ' ' 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 16 to 17 acres was chosen and included a few off-site areas, ' particularly areas to the north and east. 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 several field visits were conducted. The data from the field investigations 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 5). ' 6.1.1 Results Seventy-two (72) wildlife species that are either known or expected to utilize the study area (i.e. confirmed and probable breeders; see attached Appendix 5). Of these, twenty- three (23) are considered wetland-dependent species, and are likely to occur on the ' development site. Wetland-dependent species are defined as: 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 33 AFTM ' Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT ' May 31,2002 "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. ' 6.1.1.1 Avians tAn extensive list of avians likely to occur on the property as permanent or temporary residents was compiled. . It is estimated that up to forty-six (46) avian species probably tutilize 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, seven (7) show a preference for wetland habitats and are probably associated with the development site's wetlands. These are the: mallard, eastern screech-owl, willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, red-winged blackbird, and common arse. The avian species known or expected to breed within the property include species associated with upland deciduous woodland edges, wooded 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. 6.1.1.2 Herptiles & Mammals ' It is estimated that the study area provides suitable habitat for up to twenty-six (26) individual herptile and mammal species (confirmed plus probable breeders) (see Appendix ' 5). Of these twelve (12) are considered wetland-dependent species and are probably 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EAU DOC 34 AFTM ' Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT .� May 31,2002 ' associated h with development -t the de elopme t site's wetlands. These are the. two lined salamander, ' eastern toad, spring peeper, bullfrog, green frog, pickerel frog, painted turtle, northern water snake,little brown myotis, muskrat,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 farm pond and perennial stream(Farm Brook). 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 p rY g � q 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. ' Indirect impacts are often correlated with the size and quality of the buffer zones proposed, the intensity of the proposed activities adjacent to these resources and the functional quality and/or sensitivity of the resource to be potentially affected. Typically, flowing and standing waters are considered to be more sensitive to development within close proximity of their ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 35 Envirnomental Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT # May 31,2002 boundaries than are most vegetated wetlands. However, in this particular case, the farm I ' pond and perennial watercourse on the site are not considered sensitive or highly functioning. As was discussed in an above section, the urbanized landuses upstream of the site have resulted in significant impairment of water quality. Therefore, even if sub-standard water quality renovation was offered at the site, which is not, it would be unlikely that surface water quality would be further impaired to the point of affecting generally pollution ' tolerant aquatic species. Similarly, indirect impacts to wildlife are expected to be minimal as a result of the proposal. Due to surrounding landuses, the wildlife that utilize the site's resources, including wetland- dependent species, are not sensitive to human activities and would not likely be displaced. Moreover, the proposed plan would preserve and plant-out a large percentage of the regulatory wetland/watercourse buffer, so that it would function to further protect the resources from adverse impacts. Another factor that influences the potential severity of impacts is the type of proposed use. ' Elderly housing, such as the proposal, generates relatively low traffic and low activity next to wetlands when compared to a typical residential subdivision or most commercial/industrial proposals. ' 7.1.2 Impacts Upon Wetland Functions and Values Under proposed conditions wetland functions and values are not anticipated to diminish significantly. No wildlife habitat within wetlands and little in wetland buffer areas will be lost, since construction will take place largely in currently cultivated or bare areas. The pond will continue to provide flood storage. It is likely that inputs of fertilizer and possibly other pesticides will diminish with cessation of farming, which would improve ' water quality and aquatic habitat. In particular human use values will increase. The robust proposed landscaping will enhance the appearance of the pond, and the level of recreational use and aesthetic appreciation will significantly increase as residents stroll along the pond and Farm Brook. Vehicle traffic is will be at a relatively low level. However, the ecological integrity of the offsite wetland will diminish to a small extent, ' following completion of the project. ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 36 MUM Envirnomental Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT . May 31,2002 7.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: QUALITY 7.2.1 Design Objectives The proposed stormwater management system (SMS) is designed to meet two primary objectives: (1) to attenuate increases in flow velocities of stormwater discharges to wetlands, ' and (2) to protect the existing level of water quality from future degradation by providing 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. BMPs, as they relate both to groundwater and surface water protection, are procedures or methods that can mitigate or eliminate the potential for water quality degradation. BMPs can be divided into Structural BMPs and Procedural BMPs. The former are typically engineered solutions, while the latter include procedures or housekeeping practices such as ' structure maintenance and roadway sweeping. ' 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. ' 7.2.2 Structural BMPs The stormwater management system (SMS) is the central BMP proposed for the site to ensure protection of downstream water quality, particularly the Farm Pond and Farm Brook. 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 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 37 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 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 and enhanced vegetated swales. It should be noted, however, that in an effort to increase the efficiency of the proposed BMPs, water ' off the roofs of the proposed units would be infiltrated into the ground (see plans). 7.2.2.1 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. 7.2.2.2 Vegetated Swales ' Two long vegetated swales, with a combined length of over 425 feet, are proposed at the site. These will act as the second and final step in the pollutant renovation "treatment ' train." These types of devices can be highly effective in polishing runoff. ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EAU DOC 38 1 ' Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 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, but are implemented as conditions warrant. We provide discussion in italics relating to the specific site and ' application. 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 reaches (if possible). (The proposed swales are at least 200 feet long and very flat (0.85% and 1.5%, respectively. It is expected that these swales will provide infiltration .of runoff over a significant portion of their length) b. Swale width (at the bottom) should not be less than 8 feet (flat). (Both swales have 8-foot wide ' bottoms) c. Average flow velocity should not be more than 1.5 ffi/sec. (According to the engineers flows for ' the 10 year design storm will not exceed this specification) ' d. Side slopes should not be steeper than 3:1 (4:1 is preferable). (3:1 to 4:1 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. No further adjustments are necessary.) 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. (Nine such check dams are proposed for this particular application) ' 01561SWN51Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 39 Envirnomental Assessment • ! Berry Farm,South Windsor,CT May 31,2002 ' +k 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. (Have 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.) ! 7.2.3 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 y p ous 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 ' 01561SWN51Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 40 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 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 1 St and May 1st of each year. 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 Vegetated Swales: This BMP should be inspected at least bi-annually for sediment deposition and proper functioning. 7.2.4 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, ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 41 En virnomentai Assessment , ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 , irk ' detention basin ex ), the expected ed 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 - (I —Ei)(1 —E2)(1 —E3)(1 —E4)(1 —E5A x 100 Where: ET= The total efficiency of BMPs in series ' E1 =Removal efficiency of BMP#1 E2 =Removal efficiency of BMP#2 E3 =Removal efficiency of BMP#3 E4=Removal efficiency of BMP#4 ' Table 4: Estimated TSS Removal Efficiencies per Proposed BMP for Site's SM S BMP Impervious Surface Sweeping Removal • ate J 15% ' Catch Basins with V h annual cleanout 10% Vegetated Swales 85% ET= [1 - (1 - 0.15)(1 - 0.10)(1- 0.85)) x 100=89.8% (Total TSS Removal) ' As seen above, the overall TSS removal efficiency for the site's primary proposed treatment system is predicted to be about 89.8%. Even if consideration is given to the fact that portions of the two access areas are not been treated by the enhanced swales, the overall TSS removal will still be above 80%. 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 BMPs and the site will be treated at a level that should have no ' discernible negative impacts on downstream receiving waters. ' 1 The swales are oversized based on their contributing watershed, therefore, treatment is expected at the high end of the reported range. ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EAUMOC 42 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 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 RemovalPollutants CarbonManagement Practice N b TSS Total P Soluble P Total N Soluble N Nitrate HC Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc Grassed Channels 9 Median >. .,. 0. (-14) (-15) 0 NR 55 14 30 29 18 Reported Range (-100)-78 (-100)-60 (-25)-25 (-100)-40 (-100)-30 (25)-15 NR NR 0-50 NR (-100)-90 (-100)-77 Probable Range (-75)-70 (-25)-50 (-30)-25 (-25)-35 (-35)-25 (-20)-10 _ _ 0-45 NR (-50)-70 40-80 wales,� 12 Median ': 81^" 34 38 25_ 38 62'` .42 51.. ;,,r, 67 .r r 71 67 ,..... Reported Range 60-100 5-99 (-45)-65 NR NR (-25)-99 NR NR (-40)-75 NR 0-99 48-99 Probable Range 60-90 10-70 (-35)-50 NR NR (-30)-80 _ _ (-5)-70 _ 5-80 45-90 Hip 9 Median '80 77M77 777W7 1 �"" _ n x 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 80-70 20-90 20-60 0-40 _ _ _ _ 50-90 50-100 50-95 Infiltration Basin 7 a � +arrr xw T M Median , . ru, �s70, 85. 80 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 40-80 20-90 40-80 0-40 _ _ _ _ 50-90 50-100 50-90 Filters tura 19 ^aargvr Median mow, .,..�%,...L+aahv. Reported Range 65-98 20-75 (-60)-70 30-70 0-50 NR NR NR 25-80 30-96 30-99 20-99 Probable Range 70-95 20-75 (-50)-50 30-50 0-40 _ _ _ 20-70 50-90 35-95 30-90 Surface SandrFilter� 6 Median . >83 (37) Reported Range p 65-98 NR NR NR NR 20-7 d.4 " -60)-70 30-70 0 50 NR NR.' 4 . � _ ;',k . ..r.,>67 NR 5 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 oil/grease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or T( Revised:2/11/01 Page 1 of 4 r r rr r rr rr �r r r rr rr ■r r r� r r r r r Table 5: Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants(continued) SolubleRemoval Efficiency for Key Stormwater Pollutants(Y.) . Sand Filter/Basin 10 Median . .. 80 60 40 35 0.. 60 Reported Range 60-95 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 Organic Fiffi*f n SXs 2 Reported Ran Mean 70 50 75 76 ge 80-90; 50 5..: . NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 60-90 60-90 NR Probable Range 80-90 60-90 60-90 VegefaBu"ffe�tn'p 4 7 Medians ..: ., . ; . .,20."r 0 N. ' _ 5 0 . 40_tiA 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 Porous Pavement 2 Median ,>ry , w 4 S0 Reported Range 20-80 0-95 10-80 0-70 0-20 NR NR NR NR 60-90 60-90 .91 N Probable Range 40-95 20-90 10-80 20-60 0-2060-90 - - _ _ 40-90 40-90 60-90 Street Sweeping 2 Median 15 10 5 105 Reported Range 5-20 m 5-20 0-10 5-20 0-10 > . ~4NRY � NR ~...,.��NR NR 5-20 5-20 NR Probable Range 5-20 5-20 0-10 5-20 0-10 5-20 5-20 �!3!""• a �M^m.,,,r Nwcv_wl�°tW'u�+'"au<ar. 7�.-.;.K — 6tch Basin Cleaning 2 Median 7 5 5 1 2 ..H . . . _. 1-10 0-2 Reported Range 1-10 0-2 1-10 05 NR NR.,., .. ....NR„: . .. .NR ' . .. 5-10 .., ,.5 3 0 Probable Range 5-20 NR 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 oil/grease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or TOC) Revised:2/11/01 Page 2 of 4 Table 5: Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants(continued) Removal Soluble . Catch Basins 2 Median ,.,.. ) 25rC 0 :f,wn�'RReported Range 1-2 010 0-1 0-10 0-1 NR NR NR NdF`+Rfm 1-1200- 1-7200: NR Probable Range 1-20 0-10 0-1 0-10 0-1 1-20 1-20 Modified Catch Basins 1 Median 25 10 0 10 0 _ _ Reported Range NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Probable Range NR 3 Median `. Reported Range 0-95 0-20 0-1 5-55 0-1 NR NR NR NR 10-30 1 5 5 Probable Range 20-60 0-20 0-1 0-20 0-1 15 0-30 5-10 10-30 10-30 5-10 Chemical yTreatmeIt''' 3 Median p ""�* y0 >�,: _ , � ,.... ., ..,. . •r�..k..,. 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 Detention Pond a 2 Median , � c ,wtlWs.UJ.a,µ�,k.d.-h...ris ..,Or$nd F1.o w.r.s..x+S:M,..2,.,.w. nrnx w..s " ,..� Y r,l !1'OM1{� q '4►1c ;� °'.�.y7.xCY n 4 „)yfr4 mpwfT'F N ...,...r.a. ,4 .,r,J n,. �.�i:41., +Nxwlrct,d ,..bwetat...�. k�:.J��c:u+,,� 4v4 i .f..3wa ew:; ie ' �4 wY.,uyaT:t'�Yj) .-p..: Reported Range NR NR NR NR Probable Range NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR ' Dry Extd. Detention Pond 8 Median 47 19 (-6) 25 20 g 54 ....: 26 Reported Range 5-80 18-49 ' (-13)-0 25-45 0-50 NR NR NR NR 0-66 (-40)-65 NR Probable Range 15-85 10-60 0 10-60 0-50 0-66 25-60 _ a conventional detention pond b number(N)of performance studies. The actual number for a given parameter is likely to be slightly less NR=not reported HC=hydrocarbons measured as total petroleum hydrocarbons or oil/grease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or TOC) Revised:2/11/01 Page 3 of 4 r Table 5: Comparison of Reported Ranges and Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Key Urban Runoff Pollutants(continued) RemovalPollutants SolubleManagement Practice N TSS Total P Soluble P Total N N Nitrate HC Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc Carbon Wet Pond 33 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 Wet Extd. Detention Pond 8 Median 60 58 58 35 _ 42 83 24 57 40 20 27 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 19 Median ° " ,7 9 6r Reported Range e0 63 , 44. 21(-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 Extended Detention SW ;; 8 Median OEM 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 Pond/SW Combination 11 Median „ 72 < 39 :. 13 .,....I 5 <., ..': 90 . . �;69 .,. 39.. ,.. �.,.,:63-. ,,. ... w A 4 r.. 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 oil/grease Carbon=measure of organic carbon(BOD,COD or TOC) Compiled Primarily from: 1)Center for Watershed Protection. 1997.Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs:A Reanalysis. Watershed Protection Techniques.Technical Note No.95.Vol.2, No.4 2)EPA. 1993.Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.840-13-92-002 3)Dr. Kenneth Wagner, personal communication(Water Quality Specialist; ENSR,Westford, MA and Willington, CT) 4)Center for Watershed Protection.2000. National Pollutant Removal Performance for STPs.2nd Edition. Revised:2/11/01 Page 4 of 4 1 Envirnomental Assessment Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 8.0 REFERENCES 1 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 Performan for Urban Stormwater Pollution Control: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,ce Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA-600/S2-83-043. Bender, G.M. and M.L. Terstriep. 1984. Effective ness of Street Sweeping Pollution Control: The Science of the Total Environment, 33 185-192 in Urban Runoff Bevier, Louis R. (Editor). 1994. The Atlas of Breeding Connecticut Departmental of Environmental Protection;Bird Hartford of , CT. ut. Bulletin 113; DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1992. New England Distribution. USDA Forest Service General T chnicalfReport1tNE-lpgural History, and Ehrlich,P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Whe e. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon& Schuster.err. New York. 785 p to Ipp 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. Ba k for habita evaluation procedures. USDI. Fish and Wildl. ServetResour. ubl. 1d32,oW sh ngtont 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 . LeFore, W.C. Kennard, and T.B. Helfgott, editors. Proceedings 8of th4-103 e Third WWetlands Conference. University of Connecticut Inst. Water Recourses.Rep. 26. Golet, F.C. 1976. Wildlife Wetland Evaluation Model. In: Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands, J.S. Larson, Editor. University of Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center,Publication 32, 91 pp. Golet, F.C. and J.S. Larson. 1974. Classification of Freshwater Wetlands in the Glaciated Northeast. Bur. Sport Fish. and Wild. Res. Publ. 116. Washington D.C. 56 pp. i 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1a.DOC 47 Envirnomental Assessment ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 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 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. of Connecticut. U.S. Geological Survey P Surficial Materials Map U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983. Results of the Nationwide an Runoff Program - Volume I, Final Report: National Technical Information Service ' Accession#PB84-185552, Washington, DC. ' 01561SWN5\Berry Farm-EA1 a.DOC 48 Envirnomental Assessment AIUM ' Berry Farm,South Windsor, CT May 31,2002 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. ' 01561SWN51Berry Farm-EAUBOC 49 WETLANDS: �'he Physical Environment �V a�.} �„�..�����c .ate. S.. 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 usuallybright ellow, red, or brown; drain excess water readily, but contain Y Y� 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. WFEFEANDS• The'�lant�C`vmm�cnity= _'� �'�T��� �4 _� .. ���•" _•i#"z-,>.,nMi t ..,.: ,r,,_;. wrr +'c+k h r.� vrnd"��.. ; 4 r WETLAND CLASSES ANVD SUBCLASSES IN THE GLACIATED NORTHEAST WETLAND CLASS WETLAND SUBCLASS Open Water (OW-1)Vegetated (OW-2)Floating-leaved (OW-3)Non-vegetated ' Deep Marsh (DM-1)Dead Woody (DM-2) Shrub ' (DM-3) Sub-shrub (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 Swanep (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 ( ) P ( ) 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. r ':F ET'LANDS: The Physical E vi nronment ° _ Aii WETLAND HYDROGEOMORPHIC 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. ' Sctrface-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 r glaciated Northeast, groundwater depression wetlands are most likely to occur in stratified drift, particularly in coarse-textured glaciofluvial deposits where relatively rapid movement between ' groundwater and surface water can occur. Groundwater Slope Wetlands: These wetlands occur where groundwater discharges as springs or seeps at the land surface and drains away as streamflow. Most commonly, these wetlands occur on hillsides ' over till deposits or at the base of hills where stratified drift and till come into contact. Headwater wetlands are typically groundwater slope wetlands. The local water table slopes toward the wetland surface. Where groundwater flow is continuous, the soil remains saturated. At many sites, however, groundwater inputs cease during late summer or early fall as evaporotranspiration depletes soil moisture in the root zone, in which case the soil is only seasonally saturated. Permanent ponding of water is prevented by the sloping land surface, but water may collect temporarily in isolated ' depressions. Precipitation and overland flow provide additional water to the wetland on an intermittent basis. Groundwater recharge may occur in the wetland after such events,but amounts are likely to be negligible, especially where wetland soils have formed over dense lodgment till deposits. ' Where such deposits are present, groundwater slope wetlands may be fed primarily by shallow groundwater systems perched above the regional system. ' Reference: Golet, C.G., A.J.K. Calhoun, W.R. DeRagon, D.J. Lowry, and A.J. Gold. 1993. Ecology of Red Maple Swamps in the Glaciated Northeast: A Community Profile.USFWS.Biological Report No. 12 ' 'WE'TLANDS:The- ysteal Environment z r }a ' COMMON IVA TER REGIMES OF NORTHEASTERN WETLANDS Seasonally flooded: Surface water is present for extended periods, especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water table is often near the land surface. Temporarily flooded: Surface water is present for brief periods during the growing season, but the water 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. MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY DATA Sample#: Date: TRUE FLIES (Diptera) Stream: Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value Location: Athericidae Predator 2 1 0 ampled by: SEMI Blephariceridae Scraper 0 0 Ceratopogonidae Predator 6 0 #of organisms identified: ==Chironomidae C.gatherer 6 486 Empididae Predator 6 0 MAYFLIES (Ephemeroptera) Simuliidae C.filterer 6 0 Number found Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value Tabanidae Predator 6 6 Baetidae C.gatherer 4 0 Tipulidae Shredder 3 33 Caeniidae C.gatherer 7 0 0 Ephemerellidae C.gatherer 1 0 93 TOTALS 525 Ephemeridae C.gatherer 4 0 Heptageniidae Scraper 4 0 BEETLES (Coleoptera) Leptophlebiidae C.gatherer 2 0 Number found Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value Oligoneuriidae C.filterer 2 0 Dryopidae Scraper 5 0 Potomanthidae C.gatherer 4 0 Elmidae Scraper 4 4 Siphlonuridae C.gatherer 7 0 Psephenidae Scraper 4 0 Tricorythidae C.gatherer 4 0 Ptilodactylidae Shredder 2 0 7 0 0 0 1_j TOTALS 4 0 TOTALS 0 DRAGONFLIES/DAMSELFLIES(Odonata) STONEFLIES (P/ecoptera) Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value Numberfound Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value Aeshnidae Predator 3 0 Capniidae Shredder 1 0 Calopterygidae Predator 5 5 Chloroperlidae Predator 1 0 Coenagrionidae Predator 9 0 Leuctridae Shredder 0 0 Cordulergastridae Predator 3 0 Nemouridae Shredder 2 0 Gomphidae Predator 1 0 Peltoperlidae Shredder 0 0 Lestidae Predator 9 0 ' Perlidae Predator 1 0 Libellulidae Predator 9 0 Perlodidae Predator 2 0 0 Pteronarcyidae Shredder 0 0 1 TOTALS 5 Taeniopterygldae Shredder 1 2 0 IBM ..__ ,7 °t Fa 0 DOBSONFLIES/FISHFLIES (Megaloptera) Ilij, li 0 Number found Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value 0 TOTALS 0 CorydaIidae Predator 5 0 Sialidae Predator 4 0 CADDISFLIES(Trichoptera) 0 Number found Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value 0 Brachycentridae Shredder 1 0 0 TOTALS 0 Glossosomatidae Scraper 0 0 Helicopsychidae Scraper 3 0 NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES ' Hydropsychidae C.filterer 4 28 Number found Families Feeding group Tolerance value HBI value Hydroptilidae Scraper 4 0 Crustaceans 0 Lepidostomatidae Shredder 1 0 Amphipoda C.gatherer 6 0 Leptoceridae Shredder 4 0 Decapoda C.gatherer 6 0 Limnephilidae Shredder 4 0 Ilsopoda C.gatherer 8 0 Molannidae Scraper 6 0 Leeches Predator 10 0 Odontoceridae Scraper 0 0 Earth worms C.gatherer 8 8 Philopotamidae C.filterer 3 0 1111MBivaives C.filterer 7 0 Polycentropodidae C.filterer 6 66 Gastropods Scraper 7 21 ' Rhyacophilidae I Predator 1 0 0 Aracnids Predator 4 0 0 0 18 TOTALS 94 4 TOTALS 29 MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY METRICS CALCULATIONS Stream name: Farm Brook(Drainage Basin#: 4004-02-1) Sampled by: S.N.G. of RES, LLC Location: Oakland Rd, 260' SE of pond, South Windsor Calculations by: Sample#: F-DZ1-5-02 Calculation date: #of organisms identified:r- 113 i #of HBI %of # in dom. Dominant ORDER organisms value total family family in each order MAYFLIES (Ephemeroptera) 0 0 0.0 0 No families present STONEFLIES (Plecoptera) 0 0 0.0 0 No families present ' CADDISFLIES (Trichoptera) 18 94 15.4 11 Polycentropodidae TRUE FLIES (Diptera) 93 525 79.5 81 Chironomidae BEETLES (Coleoptera) 1 4 0.9 1 Elmidae DRAGONFLIES/DAMSELFLIES (Odonata) 1 5 0.9 1 Calopterygidae DOBSONFLI ES/FISH FLIES (Megaloptera) 0 0 0.0 0 No families present NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 4 29 3.4 3 Gastropods TOTAL 117 657 100.0 97 Dominant family present in sample: Chironomidae 81 organisms Study Ref. % Ref. Study reach METRIC reach reach similarity score score Hilsenhof biotic index(HBI) w� 60 =sum of HBI's/total#sampled Taxa richness 9 °' 38 6 0 =families represented in sample EPT index 2 13 6 0 1 =families in E, P, &T orders EPT:Chironomidae ratio 0.2 Mine= 1 6 0 =#EPTs/#Chironomids Scraper:C.filterer ratio 0.2 logo= 1 6 0 1 =#scra ers/#C.filterers %contribution by dominant family 69.2 jX#Wn/a 6 0 _#dominant family/total# Total stream points 36 2 Final study reach comparison versus reference reach = 5.6 * See comments on next page. Conclusion: Condition: Severely impaired Water quality: Poor to very poor (from Plafkin, Attributes: Few families present. If there are any high density organisms, it is by a few tolerant et. al, 1989) families. Sample#: F-DZ1-5-02 ' Stream: Farm Brook(Drainage Basin#: 4004-02-1) ' Location:Oakland Rd, 260 ' SE of pond, South Windso Collection Date: 5/23/02 COMMENTS: Station is 260 feet southwest of the pond, by a cottonwood tree Impaired community is unlikely to be due to habitat constraints, rather than water quality. The stream segment has a high proportion of riffles, and fast-flowing water. Stream banks are very stable, with negligible erosion, and substrate is minimally embedded by sediment. Substrate is mostly cobbles, with some boulders, gravel &sand. Decomposing algae covers rocks. There is little coarse or fine organic matter or leaf litter. The stream is shaded upstream of the sampling station. No fish were observed. Dissoved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and redox potential were measured with hand held portable meters on May 13, 2002: DO: 8.74 mg.l; pH: 6.08; spec. cond.: 260 usec/cm. Redox potential +7.8. Specific conductivity is elevated. Upstream landuses are mostly single family, sewered residential subdivisions with one moderate-sized livestock farm farm. Lawn fertilizers and other turf chemicals and farm fertilizers, manure, and pesticides are possible pollutant sources. Station is downgradient of the northeastern corner, approximately 0.8 acres, of the Dzen Farm. However, a low berm prevents surface runoff from reaching the stream and soils are fine textured and slowly permeable. 1 Sample Community Balance by Order ■MAYFLIES (Ephemeroptera) ■STONEFLIES(Plecoptera) OCADDISFLIES (Trichoptera) OTRUE FLIES(Diptera) ■BEETLES(Coleoptera) ®DRAGONFLIES/DAMSELFLIES (Odonata) ■DOBSONFLIES/FISHFLIES (Megaloptera) ®NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet ' Stream Name: Farm Brook, Basin 4004-02-1 Site Code: F-Dzl Date: 5-23-02 ' Location of the site:—5Quth Windeor, Dzcn-Earm wcot of Oakland Rd.- 260 ft. 5E of fond 5chool.._Nof ft, 66 & E. of Rt. 85 STEP 1. Select a study area to be evaluated and fill in the site information above. STEP 2. Using the descriptions found on the following pages, award points to each of the primary, secondary, and tertiary habitat parameters. STEP 3. Write the total the points for each of the parameters here. I STEP 4. Select the appropriate reference site. Your reference site is the stream that is contained in the same major basin as your study site. 4J Stream Name Town Major Basin Habitat Point Total Shepaug River Roxbury Housatonic 119 Natchaug River Chaplin Thames 111 Saugatuck River Redding Southwestern coastal 127 1 Eightmile River Southington South central and South eastern coastal 114 STEP 5. Divide the habitat total for your site by the habitat total for the reference site and multiply by 100%. Record the value here. (Your habitat total/reference habitat total)X(100%) = 96 % STEP 6. What is the comparability of your site to the reference site? Use the ' table below and the percent calculated in step 5. ftV ' Percent(step 5) Site Comparability Bioassessment Conclusion > 89% Comparable to each other Water quality may be the major 1 75% - 88% Somewhat comparable factor affecting the benthic community 60% -74% Limited comparability Habitat may be the major factor < 60% Not comparable to each other affecting the benthic community 1 1 1 Primary Habitat Parameters (point scale 20 to 0) 1 1.) Substrate =The material which makes up the bottom of the stream. It can be either organic(living or once living) or inorganic (never was living). Determine the different substrate types and their ' abundance in the study area. Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 21,11,18,11,11 11,14,13,12,11 10,9,8,7,6, 5,4,3,2,1,0 Points awarded 1 The study area has an 50%of the study area 50-75%of the study area Almost 100%of the even mixture of has a mixture of is sand or small gravel study area is made up of boulders,cobbles,and boulders,cobbles,and with an occasional rock. sand or small gravel. gravel.Most of the rocks gravel.Most of the rocks There is only 1 type of Only one or two larger are cobble size.There is are larger than cobbles. rock present(either rocks are present. Lt very little if any sand Up to 50%of the boulder,cobble,or large ' present. substrate is sand. gravel). 2.) Embeddedness=How much an object is covered, surrounded, or buried. To measure embeddedness, 1 try to flip over a few rocks. If the rocks are loose they have little or no embeddedness, if the rocks are difficult to move the embeddedness is high. Estimate the amount of fine sediment surrounding the larger substrates in the study area. 1 Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 20,19,18,17,16 15,14,13,12,11 10,9,8,7,6, 5,4,3,2,1,0 Points awarded 1 <25%of the larger 26%to 50%of the larger 51%to 75% of the >75%of the larger substrate is buried by substrate is buried by larger substrate is buried substrate is buried by fine sediments like sand fine sediments like sand by fine sediments like fine sediments like sand and silt.Most of the and silt.Some of the sand and silt. None of or silt. The rocks are rocks are very easy to rocks are easy to move. the rocks are easy to impossible to move. move. move 3.) Stream size = The size of the stream influences the amount of habitat available for the benthic community. In small streams the amount of water can limit diversity while in large streams the number of microhabitats can limit diversity. A Small stream is defined as < 5 in bank to bank and a Large stream > 5 in. If your site is at a small stream, estimate the % of the stream bottom covered by flowing water. If your site is at a large stream determine which of the following 4 microhabitats are 1 present (Fast & Shallow, Fast & Deep, Slow & Shallow, Slow & Deep). Shallow= <knee deep and Deep=>knee deep Excellent Very Good Fair Poor 1 Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 20,19,18,17,16 15,14,13,12,11 10,9,8,7,6, 5,4,3,2,1,0 Points awarded Small stream:>90%of Small stream: 50%to Small stream: 10%to Small stream:<10%of the streambed is filled 89%of the streambed is 49%of the streambed is the streambed is filled with water. filled with water. filled with water. with water. Large stream:All 4 Large stream:3 of the 4 Large stream:2 of the 4 Large stream: 1 of the 4 micro-habitats are microhabitats are present microhabitats are present microhabitats is present present in the study area in the study area. Fast& in the study area.Fast& in the study area.Fast& shallow receives highest shallow receives highest shallow receives highest rank. rank. rank. 1 2 Secondary Habitat Parameters (point scale 15 to 0) 4.) Channel Stability = The substrate of an unstable streambed is easily moved during periods of high flow while the substrate of a stable streambed is not. In an unstable streambed large bars of sand and ' gravel are formed in areas of slow flow or on the stream bank. Determine the size and material of the sediment bar(s)within the study area and the potential for the stream channel to shift upstream of the study site. ' Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 15,14,13,12 11,10,9,8, 7,6,5,4 3,2,1,0 Points awarded There are no sediment There is a small There are medium size There are large sediment bar(s)within riffle area. sediment bar(s)primarily sediment bar(s)formed bar(s)formed of fine The streambed does not formed of large gravel. of a mix of coarse sand sediment,coarse sand, No appear to shift at all. The streambed may shift and gravel. The and gravel. The The streambed is slightly during very high streambed shifts during streambed may shift primarily boulders or flows. The streambed is high flows. The stream continually. The bottom & dobbift large cobbles. primarily large cobbles. bottom is primarily small is primarily gravel and cobbles and gravel. sand. 5.) Bottom scouring and deposition = Scouring is the removal of substrate by water cutting into the ' stream bottom. Deposition is the addition of new substrate to the stream bottom from upstream scouring. Estimate the % of the study area that is affected by either scouring or deposition. Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 15,14,13,12 11,10,9,8 7,6,5,4 3,2,1,0 Points awarded Less than 5%of the Between 6%and 10%of Between 11%and 50% Greater than 51%of the 14 study area appears to the study area appears to of the study area appears study area appears to experience either experience either to experience either experience either scouring or deposition, scouring or deposition. scouring or deposition. scouring or deposition. 6.) Riffle Area = Riffles are sections of streams with fast flowing shallow water. Other sections of a jstream are slow deep water (pools) and moderately flowing and deep water (runs/glides). Estimate the ■ amount of riffle area within 100 meters upstream and downstream of the study site. Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 15,14,13,12 11,10,9,8 7,6,5,4 3,2,1,0 Points awarded Over 90%riffle in either Between 50%and 89% Between 25%and 49% Less than 24%riffle in direction. riffle in either direction. riffle in either direction. either direction. More More riffle than pool Equal amounts of riffle pool than riffle upstream upstream of the site. and pool upstream of the of the site. site. ' 3 ' Tertiary Habitat Parameters (point values 10 to 0) 7.) Bank Stability = Measures the potential for stream bank to be eroded by the stream. In general, gradual sloping banks are not subject to erosion while steep banks are. Observe the type and amount of ' erosion occurring upstream of the study site. Also make note of the potential for erosional problems like steep banks upstream of the study site. Excellent Very Good Fair Poor ' Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 10 or 9 8,7,6 5,4,3 2,1,0 Points awarded The stream banks have The stream banks have The stream banks have The entire bank has ' no evidence of erosion. some small areas of many areas of erosion. erosional problems. Both banks have a erosion that are mostly These areas are eroded Several trees are falling gradual slope. near tree root systems. I when there are increased into the stream. 1 or of the banks has gradual flows. I or both of the both of the banks is very slope. banks are steep. steep. ' 8.) Vegetative Stability = The amount of the bank covered by plant roots. Root systems help to prevent erosion of the stream bank. Estimate the percent of the bank covered by vegetation around and ' upstream of the study site. Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 10 or 9 8,7,6 5,4,3 2,1,0 Points awarded Over 80%of the stream Between 50%and 79% Between 25%and 49% Less than 25%of the bank contains an of the stream bank of the stream bank stream bank contains an 1 established root network contains an established contains an established established root network or has very large rocks. root network or has very root network or has very or has very large rocks. or I large rocks. large rocks. 9.) Streamside Cover= The type of vegetation growing along the stream. It provides both shade and a ' food source. Estimate the dominant type of streamside vegetation upstream of the study site. Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: Point Range: 10 or 9 8,7,6 5,4,3 2,1,0 Points awarded The dominant vegetation The dominant vegetation The dominant vegetation The bank has little 19 type around the study type around the study is around the study area is vegetation most of the area is shrubs and brush. trees. Deciduous trees herbaceous and grass- bank is covered by 1 receive a higher score. like. inorganic material. pig 4 �_:oSTRE` 0SURVE rr Introduction Organic pollution in As human populations have grown, more and more pollution of our waters streams can result in the has occurred, both from point source discharges and as nonpoint or"diffuse" ' loss of many desirable pollution. There are several categories of pollution associated with the aquatic environment (e.g. toxic pollution), but one of the most common aquatic species including categories is organic pollution. This is caused by oxygen-demanding wastes fish and mussels such as domestic sewage, leachate from landfills, and agricultural and urban runoff. The natural processes of ' chemical oxidation and biological decomposition g p that occur within water- courses, consume dissolved oxygen. Decomposition of materials is a normal 1 process in all aquatic . ecosystems and is a function of decomposers such as bacteria and fungi. These organisms play an important role by metabolizing organic matter as an energy and nutrient source and use dissolved oxygen in the process. ' However, serious consequences to aquatic organisms can result if the natural mechanisms that clean the water are overloaded by large influxes of organic Ipollution. Severe oxygen depletion can result in the loss of many desirable aquatic species including fish(e.g.trout)and mussels,and aquatic organisms such as stoneflies and mayflies. i Water Quality Testing Traditional Methods The long-term effects of nonpoint source pollution, such as from urban runoff, have often been determined through chemical monitoring. In recent years, however, a growing body of literature has emerged that points to the importance of biological monitoring. Many states are now selecting RES, LLC- (1198) 1 ' biological and physical monitoring over traditional chemical monitoring in their efforts to determine the health of aquatic ecosystems and of general ' watershed quality. A single sampling of Traditional water quality sampling methods have emphasized analyses of ' stream chemical physical and chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, pH, constituents only provides temperature,nitrates,phosphates, and others. Although useful,this approach has several limitations. There are many chemical constituents that could ' a "snapshot"of water theoretically result in water quality degradation. Not only are some of these quality very expensive to analyze, but their sheer number increases the likelihood that a pollutant will not be identified. A single sample can only provide a ' "snapshot" of water quality on the day of sampling, and may provide no information on recent degraded conditions which have since cleared up, but whose effect upon aquatic biota may be more lasting. Benthic Organism Sampling Biosurvey Methods The technique of stream Benthic organism or macroinvertebrate sampling was developed more than 50 years ago to complement traditional chemical water quality approaches,as well as to provide new information not available through other methodologies. This includes information about effects from multiple stressors (e.g. chemicals, sedimentation, exotic species, etc.)arising from point sources, nonpoint sources, habitat alteration, and hydrological modification. For example,ecological responses to such disturbances can be ' observed at the community level of organization of Benthic macroinvertebrates, offering dependable and readily observable indicators that integrate the impacts of multiple,and often subtle,stressors. What Are Benthic The term "benthic" means bottom-dwelling. Benthic macroinvertebrates are ' Macroinvertebrates? organisms without backbones that live in,crawl upon,or attach themselves to bottom substrates (e.g. sediments, debris, logs, plants, filamentous algae, etc.). The term "macroinvertebrate" refers to those organisms that are large ' Benthic organisms can enough to be viewed without the aid of a microscope and that are retained by serve as biological a sieve with mesh sizes greater or equal to 200 to 500 micrometers. Benthic indiclors of water macroinvertebrates include immature insects (larvae and nymphs), worms, pollution crustaceans,mollusks, (clams and mussels), leeches,mites and snails. Insect larvae tend to be the most abundant macroinvertebrates in freshwater aquatic systems. ' The majority of benthic macroinvertebrates are found in the riffles (i.e. erosional areas)of streams. ,Riffles range from uneven bedrock to cobbles to boulders. The optimum riffle area contains gravel-sized(1-inch diameter)to ' 2 RES, LLC- (1198) ' cobble-sized (10-inch diameter) substrate. The flow of water over these areas provides plentiful oxygen and food particles. Riffle-dwelling ' communities are made up of macroinvertebrates that generally require high dissolved oxygen levels and clean water. Most of these organisms are intolerant to pollution. In slow flow areas such as runs and pools ' (depositional areas), decomposer communities, which tolerate lower dissolved oxygen levels and higher organic matter and sedimentation, are typically more abundant. Riffle-dwelling communities are more sensitive to ' increasing pollution than communities in the pools or slow flowing areas of the same stream. There are four primary feeding groups of benthic macroinvertebrates: shredders, filter collectors, grazers, and predators. Shredders such as stoneflies (Plecoptera) feed on plant material and some animal material, which is generally dead, and break it down into smaller particles through their feeding and digestive process. Collectors, such as caddisflies (Trichoptera) and blackflies (Diptera), feed on fine particulate matter that they filter from the water. Grazers, such as snails and beetles (Coleoptera), feed on algae and other plant material living on rocks and on plant surfaces. Predators such as dobsonflies (Megaloptera) or dragonflies (Odonata) feed ' on other macroinvertebrates. Individual species may be generalists, and fit into more than one of these groups(as opposed to specialists). Benthic macroinvertebrates, as a group, exhibit a relatively wide range of response to chemical and physical water quality stressors (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, organic pollutants, heavy metals, sedimentation, etc.) and thus can serve as biological indicators of water pollution. Some organisms ' are tolerant of degraded water quality conditions, while others are pollution- sensitive. Many snails,worms and midge larvae belong to the former group, while the most widely recognized members of the latter group are the ' Plecoptera (Stoneflies), Ephemenoptera (Mayflies) and Trichoptera (Caddisflies). ' In most cases, unpolluted Some pristine streams have a low diversity of macroinvertebrate fauna streams will support a because of the cold temperature and/or relatively low nutrient levels. diverse population of Headwater streams may have only two or three dominant species. In most ' macroinvertebrates cases, however, an unpolluted stream will support a diverse population of macroinvertebrates, with pollution-sensitive species well represented. However, species diversity declines as water quality deteriorates and ' pollution-tolerant organisms become increasingly dominant. Advantages of Plafkin et al. (1989) list several advantages of sampling stream Mac roi nverterb rate macroinvertebrates in order to make inferences about water quality: Sampling 1. Since most stream macroinvertebrates have limited migration patterns or are ' sessile and spend much time clinging to rocks or the stream substrate, and do not move long distances,they are good indicators of localized water conditions. ' RES, LLC- (9/98) 3 ' 2. Aquatic organisms integrate the effects of chemical, physical and biological parameters. Conducting an aquatic biosurvey will thus increase the likelihood that a degraded condition will be detected,if present. 3. Since most of these species have a relatively short life cycle(approximately one year), they will respond to stressors more rapidly than other longer-lived components of the community(e.g.fish). 4. Sampling techniques are rapid and inexpensive. An experienced biologist can detect degraded water conditions with only a cursory, or qualitative, ' examination of the macroinvertebrate community. 5. Benthic macroinvertebrates are a primary food source for fish, and as such can provide valuable information on the relative health of the fish community. 6. Benthic macroinvertebrates are common to abundant in most streams. ' Sampling Methods The simplest method of collecting stream macroinvertebrates is to inspect in- stream rocks for attached organisms, or disturb the stream substrate while placing a net downstream to gather dislodged biota. Depending upon the nature of the study,the organisms are identified to either the family,genus or species level. Family-level identification is most expeditious, and is the ' technique most commonly used. However, it is less precise since members of some stream macroinvertebrate families show a range of pollution tolerances, and the sensitivity of these families can only be expressed as an average(Hilsenhoff 1988). ! Measuring Biological Health ' The Biotic Index A variety of useful indices or measurements (metrics) have been developed for assessing the health of streams through benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. These include: taxa richness, EPT Index or richness, percent ' abundance of EPT, percent dominance, percent dominance of scrapers, Hilsenhoff s Biotic Index (HBI), EPT:chironomid ratio, Pinkham and Pearson community similarity index,and many others. ' Of these,and there are many,Hilsenhoff s(1988)"biotic index"(HBI)is one of most commonly used. Hilsenhoff developed a rapid stream biosurvey methodology that requires identification of macroinvertebrates to family- level. This method assigns a numerical score (biotic index) ranging from 0 to 10 to the most common stream macroinvertebrate taxa. The biotic index is directly related to the degree of pollution-tolerance and is based on field and ' laboratory responses of organisms toward organic pollution. Approximately 100 organisms are collected and randomly sampled from a ' variety of habitats within the stream, including erosional and depositional ' 4 RES, LLC- (1198) ' areas (e.g. riffles and runs). The organisms are identified to family-level and the total number(ni)of each is recorded. The following formula is then used ' for the estimation of the Family-level Biotic Index(FBI): E ni ai FBI= N where: ni = the number of specimens in each taxonomic group ai = the pollution tolerance score for the taxonomic group(see Table 1) ' N = the total number of organisms in the sample(usually 100). Ideally, the Family-level Biotic Index should be calculated during several different times of a year (e.g spring, summer and fall) and compared with ' reference sites within the particular watershed or in the region for more accurate conclusions to be drawn. Who Can Take This Pollution? Introduction It is well documented that pollution of streams reduces the number of species of the aquatic ecosystem, (i.e. species diversity), while frequently creating an environment that is favorable to only a few species (i.e. polluton-tolerant forms). Thus, in a polluted stream, there are usually large numbers of a few species,while in a clean stream there are moderate numbers of many species. For instance, turbidity reduces light penetration and submerged aquatic plant productivity. Thus turbidity will affect those macroinvertebrates depending ' on plant matter for food and those that rely heavily on visual location of prey (predators). Filter feeders' filtering mechanisms may also be blocked by sediment particles associated with turbid waters. Turbidity also tends to increase temperature in waters and is often associated with higher organic decomposition. These are conditions that reduce oxygen levels and may result in impacts to many gill-breathing mayfly, stonefly, and caddWy larvae ' that thrive only where there is abundant oxygen in the water. As turbidity increases - and turbidity is often associated with other pollutants such as nutrients and heavy metals- rock dwelling or attaching macroinvertebrates such as mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies, will be replaced by silt-tolerant and pollution tolerant macroinvertebrates that can tolerate low oxygen levels in the water or that can breath atmospheric oxygen. For example, rat:tailed maggots have snorkel-like breathing tubes, some snails have lungs(e.g.Physa spp.), and midges (chironomids) and worms (oligochaetes) have respiratory pigments which enable them to more efficiently obtain oxygen that is in low concentrations. Pollution Intolerant The following are some typical macroinvertebrat groups (taxa) commonly Macroi nverteb rates encountered in streams and that usually indicategood water quality. RES, LLC- (1198) 5 Mayflies ' Mayfly nymphs are often the most numerous organisms found in clean streams. They are sensitive to most types of pollution, including low dissolved oxygen (less than 5 ppm), chlorine, ammonia, metals, pesticides ' and acidity. Most mayflies are found clinging to the undersides of rocks. Stoneflies Stonefly nymphs are most limited to cool, well-oxygenated streams. They are sensitive to most of the same pollutants as mayflies except acidity. They are usually much less numerous than mayflies. The presence of even a few stoneflies in a steam usually suggests that good water quality has been maintained for several months prior. Caddisflies Caddisfly larvae often build a portable case of sand, stones, sticks, or other debris. Many caddisfly larvae area ' sensitive to pollution, although a few are moderately tolerant. One family spins nets to catch drifting plankton,and is often numerous in recovery zones below sewage discharges. Beetles iThe most common beetles in streams are riffle beetles and water pennies. Most of these require swift current and an adequate supply of oxygen, and are generally considered to be clean water indicators. ' Pollution Tolerant The following are some typical macroinvertebrate groups that are commonly M acroi nverte b rates encountered in streams and which usually indicatepoor water quality. 6 RES, LLC- (1198) 1 Midges ' Midges are the most common aquatic flies. The larvae occur in almost any aquatic situation. ' Many species are very tolerant to pollution; most of these are red and are called "bloodworms". Other species filter suspended food particles,and are numerous in sewage outfall recovery zones. Worms The segmented worms include the leeches and the small aquatic earthworms. The latter are more common,though usually unnoticed. They burrow in the substrate and feed on bacteria in the sediment. They can thrive under conditions of severe pollution and very low oxygen levels. Sowbugs ' Aquatic sowbugs are crustaceans that are often numerous in situations of high organic content ' and low oxygen levels. When abundant they can indicate a stream segment in the recovery ' stage of organic pollution. Black Flies Black fly larvae have specialized antennae for filtering plankton and — bacteria from the water, and require a strong current. Most species are numerous in the decomposition and recovery zones of sewage outfalls and are generally indicative of at least moderate levels of organic pollution. RES, LLC- (1198) 7 What Can We Do for You? Benthic Rema Ecological Services, LLC (RES) performs instream macroinvertebrate Macroinvertebrate studies to assess existing water quality conditions. Instream biomonitoring Studies can be used to assess baseline water quality conditions prior to development or alteration within the contributing watershed. These studies can also be used as part of a National Pollution Discharge System (NPDES) permit modification. Our basic services include: ➢ Benthic faunal sampling and analysis ➢ Water quality assessments of streams and rivers ➢ Macroinvertebrate identification to genus or species ➢ Historical data comparisons ➢ Quantitative studies using multrplate samplers Depending on the level of analysis required, any combination of the following analyses can be incorporated to provide comprehensive assessments: ➢ Rapid Bioassessment(US EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III) ➢ EPA Pollution Tolerance Index ➢ Invertebrate Community Index(ICI) ➢ Functional Feeding Group Analysis ' ➢ Diversity Analysis ➢ Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Fisheries Studies In addition, RES can perform a variety of fisheries studies to determine the effects of point and nonpoint pollution on aquatic communities. Quantitative studies of fish communities can be used to assess general water quality and ' stream health. Because fish are large,highly visible organisms,they are usefil when relating water quality issues to the general public and to the regulated community. Hilsenhoff,W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family- level biotic index. J.N.Am.Benthol.Soc.7(1):65-68. Plafkin,J.L,M.Barbour,K.D.Porter,S.K.Gross,and R.M.Hughes. 1989.Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in streams and rivers.US EPA. EPA/440/4-89/001 8 RES, LLC- (1198) WILDLIFE WETLAND EVALUATION MODEL SCORE SHEET (Golet 1976) Fropooed Berry Farm, Oakland and Felt Roads, 5outh Windsor, CT W1-W3 Manchester, CT George Logan CT DEF 2000-3&-80 5/31/02 The eva/uation is for existing conditions. Moot of the evalution unit is off-site. Dominant wetland oubd000 on Site is Open Water (OW-1) CRITERIONDATA POINTS A ® ,a 1.0 5.0 WS M SS ❑ SM ❑ DM ❑ OW ❑ BG ❑ M ❑ F ❑ 2.5 7.5 WS M SS ❑ SM ❑ DM ❑ OW ❑ BG ❑ M ❑ F ❑ * f s �YM�4 + 12.50 acres 1.5 7.5 WS-1 M SS-1 SM-1 Lj BG-1ALj DMA DM-5 WS-2 ❑ SS-2 ❑ SM-2 ❑ BG-1 B❑ DM-2 ❑ DM-6 ❑ 1.5 6.0 r M-1 M SS-3 ❑ SM-3 ❑ BG-2 ❑ DM-3 ❑ OW-1 M M-2 ❑ SS-4 ❑ F-1 ❑ BG-3 ❑ DM-4 ❑ OW-2 ❑ l I, Bottomland: deltaic ❑ Upland: lakeside ❑ lakeside ❑ streamside ❑ 5.0 12.0 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 5.0 s n n e r e t g a s t h 10.00% 40.00% 50.00% % % % % *Significance Coefficient 4 6.0 CRITERION I DATA ( S.C.* I RANK I POINTS 2`7-1 '"'"k, Z�- �' ,t x u +y, .G ..�. .i i� �F';+i,� L f c� ��r^- I" L:=�- f 'l _ __ •Y r„ r ,1 Ir, }_. .. ,. b w �, ,z�. y � y Tscafterperipheral *" � T -• 4tk K4�"w `< p'. }". 0 5 '�t .:':v s � ��J4a�`^�,^ �€ d s�Nl, .i ,. �..:���� v""!'� >'"�,'. A.,, L�II��s�.�if I�'Z.i� JL� � � �, N• peripheral � N ]a ere. s��� TYPE: 1 ,.�k�.n?��.,R�, w`•N +�kr �2Y 9 4 e_� u,��"X�. Gr`*'� ?y�y � S+ _ f T • r 3 FS • LJ 1� 3 3 [�l� s��t 12_ 1 . • DU�29f,Ijf�1 71M I0 Reference: REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC ' 164 East Center Street, Suite 8 Manchester, CT 06040 Phone: 860.649.REMA ' WILDLIFE INVENTORY sec es,Observed Directly Qr�ndarectly at o,adjac toaFhePro 'ufth ,�.�ranased Ber_ri�Farfn.:Felt and�0alrland;RQ.a��ninds`art�neclicu '° ' Balance of Species are those that are expected to use the Site Avians Common Name Scientific Name -x .r•- -i..e �i.. a r •' "` fda.'s'=e - € " i la Iarc� i, ' P glue Green heron Butorides virescens ' Canada goose Branta canadensis Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia Mounmg dove s._ ' Zenada macroura � ` Eastern screech-owl Otus asio Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica ' Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon a lied Meane �� �fl wood ercker Y p 4 h� a i � 6'acoides pubsCe � , _ a arlhern flicker? Cfllapes u at Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii ' Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Trey wallow 3 'achy�cin�eta t v . ' Northr. Rough winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis x \aar�p Gino u.y`k 4':. "r b .Y 9k T'� Ff 4tSI�� .4� ,S!. 4� Sid 1 M. 5 RIM �tiftaPPed clikade � ` #'�riis d . ct€P : �'v�,ell�s3.a:�ac i}M.•!�'.$,.i��s�i�s x3�.six' .�-^� i;s.�rs`:8!d��i' 7C (� Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis t e -_ = Syr ' Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica ' Wildlife Inventor (continued) > CommonName Scientific Name Avians(continued) ' Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas ' Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea ' RAN o kleM115 .iSe-.Spa1TUw- r 5 4 ,Kt a"Et,y'3' Pa Ser`Ql l&'S � %9 = Herptiles _ Northern spring peeper] Pseudacris c. crucifer Bullfrog G ern frog a � Y , 4f =Rana zitta ac `'" �� Pickerel frog Rana palustris ' Painted turtle Chrysemys picta Eastern milk snake Lampropeltis t. triangulum Northern water snake Nerodia s. sipedon ' , orthern brown snake Y �� ,stvrn� Yti"� yrR}§ Eastern garter snake Yhanmophis s. sirtalis Mammals Virginia opposum e� Didelphis virginiana ' Little brown myotis 4 Myotis lucifugus Keen's myotis Myotis keenii cgtlPUtalr, I-MAU .ate ce3 '+'.. g�5�raa- h. �(azy>y..�E. R/r�€ w./a °'v. �' Q�lhu¢li �aii�a. - �` Su.,r.. "ffs cl�!fSQ.tr3.�a :_ - - OWN ;54� RUN 1 Beaver Castor canadensis Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus ` - �. Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Red fox Vulpes vulpes ^ON"R rv..>N _ W. ai White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus g REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC 7w� 164 East Center Street Suite 8 Manchester,CT 06040 (860)649-REMA(7362) (860)647-8397(fax) rema8@aol.com June 13, 2002 Mr. Jeffrey Folger Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Application of Berry Farm Oakland Street, South Windsor Dear Mr. Folger: In response to your memo dated May 13, 2002, we provide additional information pertaining to the proposed infiltration swales, perimeter embankments, and pondside plantings. 1.0 Infiltration swale The basic design and pollutant removal performance of the two proposed grassed infiltration swales have already been discussed in Section 7.2.2.2 of the May 31st RES Environmental Assessment. The western Swale, about 200 feet long, and will discharge into the west end of the site's permanent pond. The eastern Swale is roughly 240 feet in length and will discharge into the eastern end of the pond. Swale design is consistent with the recommendations for a water quality Swale in Article #116, Technical Note #79 in Watershed Protection Techniques', based on empirical pollutant removal data from a ' Tom Schueler. Ditches or Biological Filters?Classifying Pollutant Removal in Open Channels,Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2):379-383. s Mr.Jeffrey Folger RE.Berry Farm Proposal June 14r4,2002 Page 2 "1 variety of swale types. Shape will be trapezoidal, side slopes will be 3:1 to 4:1, and bottom width will be 8 feet. The amended substrate, to a depth of 30 inches, is to have a sandy loam texture, with a sand percentage ranging from approximately 52% to 60%. Unless the texture of the existing soil in the swale bed is already a sandy loam (e.g. Manchester sandy loam), soil in the bed should be excavated to a depth of 34 inches, mixed with sufficient sand to achieve a sandy loam texture 2, and backfilled into the swale. Alternatively, soil can be excavated from the swale and replaced with sandy loam from elsewhere. Four inches of topsoil will be placed over the Swale to realize final grades. The specified texture is intended to provide sufficient porosity for infiltration, with a sufficient proportion of the fine particle size fraction for effective adsorption and filtering of pollutants. Flow velocities are not anticipated to be high enough to warrant installation of geosynthetic turf reinforcement mat, because the gradient is flat along both swales, and because the design includes four stone check dams for the western swale and five stone check dams for the eastern swale. Swale bottom and sides will be seeded with a mix of grasses, and mowed at least once a month during the growing season, to maintain high stem density of grasses, for effective sediment filtering. The recommended mixture is Mix #6 found in the 2002 Guidelines for Sediment and Erosion Control (2002 GSEC). Specifications are as follows: COID Ratio „ Creeping Red Fescue 20 G I? Redtop (Streeker, Common) 2 P Perennial Rye Grass 20 The seeding rate will be 1.05 lbs per 1,000 square feet. 2 A 1:1 mixture of silt loam and sand will yield a loamy sand texture. A soil scientist should determine soil textures along swale beds and the amount of additional sand needed should be determined using the USDA Textural Triangle.(Kyle Brady,The Nature and Properties of Soils,9'h edition, 1984,Macmillan Publishing Company,NY.P.44.). Mr. Jeffrey Folger RE.Berry Farm Proposal June 14`",2002 . Page 3 ° 2.0 Embankment slopes The fill slopes along the northern perimeter of the project are 30' to 40' from the wetland boundaries. Slopes are moderately steep (2.5:1), although slope lengths are short, averaging only about 25 feet. Several measures will minimize the risk of erosion from these slopes into the wetlands during construction. The watershed area above the slopes will be reduced by means of temporary basins and berms, so that a smaller volume of water flows across the slopes. Slopes will be stabilized with 7 days of establishing final grades as specified in Section 5-3-6 of the 2002 GSEC. They will be seeded, sprayed with fine mulch (2-3 tons/acre), and then sprayed with a non-asphaltic tackifier mulch. An alternative to mulch and tackifier is installation of erosion control matting, such as the Curlex mat. Matting must be stapled in place, precisely following manufacturers' instructions. We recommend biodegradable staples. The seed mix applied to slopes will provide prompt soil stabilization during the construction phase, and also wildlife value thereafter. The basic mix will be Mix #9 in Figure PS-3 (Section 5-3-9 in the 2002 GSEC): Ratio Creeping Red Fescue (Pennlawn,Wintergreen) 20 Redtop (Streeker, Common) 2 Flatpea(Lathco) with inoculant) 15 It will be applied at a rate of 1.25 lbs/acre. If tackifier is used to anchor mulch, the seeding rate will be increased by 10%, as recommended by Phil Renn, Water Resources Coordinator with the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,Tolland Office. Crown Vetch and Birds Foot Trefoil are two legumes included in many of the seed mixes in the 2002 GSEC that will not be used, because they have invasive properties, and could wash downslope towards the pond. Although not on Connecticut's March 2000 list of Non-native Invasive and Potentially Invasive Species, they are on similar lists in other states and on the Eastern Region Invasive Plants list (4/l/98) on the web at http://www.fs.fed.usr9.weed/sec3b. Mr.Jeffrey Folger RE.Berry Farm Proposal June 10,2002 Page 4 1176, The 2002 GSEC endorses adding a wildflower seed mixture to any of the listed grass/legume seed mixtures. A simplified version of the wildflower seed mixture recommended in Footnote 4,p. 5-3-11 will be added to Seed Mix#9, minus several species, not adapted for long term persistence in the northeast,and also minus Dames Rocket, which is on the Connecticut list of Invasive, Non-native Species.3 Four (4) species will be added with high value for wildlife (Bush Clover) or for butterflies and bees (Butterfly Weed, Blue Vervain, and Bee Balm). The following species are available individually from Ernst Conservation Seeds, of Meadsville, Pennsylvania, who will combine them into a custom mixture. Percent New England Aster(Aster novae angliae) 8 Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta) 8 Ox-eye Daisy(Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) 9 Red Columbine (Aquilegia canadensis) 10 Yarrow(Achillea millefolia) 8 Purple coneflower(Echinacea purpurea) 10 Round-headed bush-clover(Lespedeza capitata) 12 Bee-Balm(Monarda didyma) 10 Asclepias tuberosa(Butterfly weed) 15 Blue Vervain(Verbena hastata) 10 The seeding rate is 10 lbs/acre. For maximum development of the wildflower component, these slopes should be mowed one a year or every other year. Once the site is stabilized there will be very little potential for erosion from these slopes; runoff from parking areas and roves will be piped towards swales. On these slopes, it is possible to increase the aesthetic and wildlife value of the vegetation, rather than maintaining a dense filter of regularly mowed grass as is necessary in the vegetated, infiltration swales. 3 Mehrhoff,L.J.,K.J.Metzler,&E.E.Corrigan.2001 Non-native and potentially invasive vascular plants in Connecticut.Center for Conservation and Biodiversity,University of Connecticut,Storrs. Mr. Jeffrey Folger AUTVR RE.Berry Farm Proposal June le,2002 Page S 3.0 Pondside Plantings Three (3) species of fast-growing shade trees are suggested for the southern pond shore, to increase shade levels and improve water quality: cottonwood (Populus deltoides), black willow (Salix nigra), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). They should be spaced thirty to forty feet apart to preserve views of the pond from the community. These species tend to lose their lower branches, which will also help maintain views. Green ash and black willow are readily available as balled and burlapped or containerized plants but cottonwood is not readily available from nurseries. However, it is present on the site; and produces abundant seedlings in early summer that can readily be transplanted to the southern pond shore. Please feel free to call us if you have further questions. Respectfully submitted, REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES,LLC George T. Logan, MS, CPWS Sigrun N. Gadwa, MS Principal Environmental Scientist Principal Ecologist REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC 4)1) 164 East Center Street Suite 8 Manchester,CT 06040 (860)649-REMA(7362) (860)647-8397(fax) rema8@aol.com June 18, 2002 Mr. Jeffrey Folger Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, RE: Application of Berry Farm Oakland Street, South Windsor Dear Mr.Folger: Based on consultations with your office we present herein a revised seedmix for the proposed infiltration swales. These are as follows: Ratio Tall Fescue `K-3 V 25 Redtop(Streeker,Common) 2 Perennial Rye Grass 15 The seeding rate will be 5.0 lbs per 1,000 square feet. Also attached please find a palette of suggested shrub species for the pondside plantings, in addition to our previously recommended tree species. Finally, we include a table of Lepidopteran species (i.e. butterflies, moths)that could use the site,based on the proposed and recommended planting materials. Please feel free to call us if you have further questions. Respectfully submitted, REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES,LLC er � Slis/�-,V . George T. Logan,MS,CPWS Sigrun N.Gadwa,MS Principal Environmental Scientist Principal Ecologist VL4 HAND-DELIVERY Attachments: Shrub and Butterfly Tables 2001jobs/01561 SWN5/BerryLett2.doc S PALLETTE OF SHRUBS THAT COULD BE USED FOR POND BUFFER AT THE PROPOSED BERRYFARM, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT Low Ground Covers (I ft. to 4 ft) (most of these species are less than 4 feet in height when mature): Black Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa 2-4 ft FAC Moist Sweet Fern Comptonia peregrina 2-4.5 ft UPL Dry to well-drained Common Huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata 2-3 ft. FACU Dry sites Virginia Rose Rosa virginiana 3-4 ft. FAC Dry to moist Meadowsweet Spiraea latifolia 2-4 ft FAC+ Moist Steeplebush Spiraea tomentosa 2-4 ft FACW Moist Shrubs of Low to Medium Stature (6 ft. to 10 ft): Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 3-6 ft. FAC+ Moist to wet sites Hazelnut Corylus americana 3-9 ft. FACU- Moist to dry sites Shining Sumac Rhus glabra to 10 ft. UPL Dry sites Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica 1.5-6ft FAC Dry to moist sites Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 6-10 ft. FACW Moist to wet sites Gray dogwood Cornus racemosa 6-10 ft FAC Dry to moist sites Shrubs/Trees of Medium to Tall Stature (]Oft. to 16 ft.): Highbush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 10-15 ft. FACW Moist to wet sites Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis to 12 ft. FACW Moist to wet sites Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra to 15 ft. UPL Dry sites Common Winterberry Ilex verticillata 6-12 ft. FACW Moist to wet sites Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 8-12 ft. FAC Dry to moist sites Pussy Willow Salix discolor 15-20 ft FACW Moist to wet sites Notes: 1. These shrub species may be interplanted with existing shrubs. We suggest a target density of at least 20 shrubs per 1,000 square feet. 2. Planting locations may be chosen by an ecologist or wetland scientist to avoid less common herbaceous perennials with high wildlife value, and in order to plant shrubs at bank locations that are consistent with their moisture tolerances, listed in the table above. Moisture levels vary along the bank. Some bank sections are seeps, others have moderate moisture levels, while others are droughty. 3. In order to preserve views of the pond for the residential community, the bank top and upper slope (top three feet) of the pond bank may be planted with shrubs in the "low height" category, with scattered clumps of taller shrubs for visual interest. Shrubs in the "medium height" and "tall" categories may be planted largely on the lower and middle portions of the bank. Table of Food Plants for Selected Butterflies among Proposed Plantings at Berry Farm Scientific Name Common Name Larval Food Plant Adult Food Source Nectar from dogbane, Legumes, incl. Flat pea (Lathyrum (Apocynum)goldenrod Colias philodice Clouded Sulphur latifolia), and Lupine (Lupinus), (Solidago),milkweed (Asclepias),clover(Trifolium), dandelion(Taraxacum Colias eurytheme Orange Sulphur same as Clouded Sulphur Same as Clouded Sulphur Nectar from Daisy(Leucanthemum) Lycaena phlaeas American Copper Sheep Sorrel (Rumex acetocella) Buttercup(Ranunculus)Gold enrod(Solidago), Clover (Trifolium) Native legumes, incl.Tick Nectar from Trefoil(Desmodium), Lupine(Lupinus), Strawben(Fragaria) Everes comyntas Eastern Tailed Blue Wild Indigo (Babtisia)& Bush Clover Cinquefoil (Potentilla, Cress (Lespedeza) (Barbarea) &Clover (Trifolium) Flowers&fruit, incl. Cherry(Prunus), Nectar from many plants, Celastrina ladon Spring Azure Holly(Ilex), Blueberry(Vaccinium). incl. Dogbane, (Apocynum) &Milkweed (Asclepias) Table of Food Plants for Selected Butterflies among Proposed Plantings at Berry Farm (continued) Scientific Name Common Name Larval Food Plant Adult Food Source Milkweed(Asclepias)& Speyeria Cybele Great Spangled Fritillary Violets(Viola) composites, Incl.Joe Pve (Eupatoreum)&Ironweed (Vemonia) Nectar from many plants,incl. Phyciodes tharos Pearl Crescent Asters (Asteraceae) Cress (Barbarea),Rudbeckia Milkwee d(Ascepias) Includes Vervains(Verbenaceae), Nectar from many plants esp. Junonia coenia Common Buckeye Plantains (Plantaginaceae) Fiqworts composites,such as Vernonia (Scrophulariaceae) (Ironweed). Grasses incl. Little Bluestem Red Clover(Trifolium Coenonympha tullia Common Ringlet (Andropogon) pratense),Yarrow(Achi►lea), Asters(Aster) Nectar from meadow sweet Satyrium titus Coral Hairstreak Cherries(Prunus spp.) (Spiraea)dog bane (Apocynum)&milkweed (Ascepias) Nectar from Joe Pve Cherry(Prunus),Willow(Salix),Ash (Eupatoreum),Thistle Papilio glaucus Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Fraxinus), Poplar(Populus),Tulip Poplar (Cirsium), Japanese (Liriodendron) Honeysuckle(Lonicera japonica) Table of Food Plants for Selected Butterflies among Proposed Plantings at Berry Farm (continued) Scientific Name Common Name Larval Food Plant Adult Food Source Nectar from Joe Pye Spicebush (Lindera)&Sassafrass (Eupatoreum),Jewelweed Papilio trodus Spicebush Swallowtail (Sassafrass) (Impatiens capensis), Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) Nectar of Composites incl Boloria bellona Meadow Fritillary Violets Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia Figworts(Scrophulariaceae)ind Turtlehead Che/one glabra),wood-betonv Milkweed(Asclepias)& Nectar of many plants incl. ( Euphydryas phaeton Baltimore Checkerspot o ,false-foxglove(Gerardia); (Chel Viburnum Vibumum, plantains(Plantago) Nymphalis antiopa Mourning Cloak Willow (Salix),Ash (Fraxinus), birch Tree sap, carrion, aphid (Betula)poplar(Populus),Alder(Alnus) honeydew, nectar. Satyrodes appalachia Appalachian Brown Sedge(Carex) Tree sap Megisto cymela Little Wood Satyr Orchard Grass (Dactylis), Little Blue Stem Tree sap, carrion,aphid (Andropogan &other grasses honeydew, some nectar Nectar from milkweed Danaus plexippus Monarch Milkweeds(Asclepias) (Asclepias)&many other plants Notes: Sources: The Life Histories of Connecticut Butterflies,April 1995,the Connecticut Butterfly Association,Inc.,New Haven,Connecticut, The Connecticut Butterfly Atlas Project(CBAP).Contact:Jane O'Donnell,CBAP Project Coordinator,Dept.Ecology&Evolutionary Biology,Univ.Connecticut, Biology,Univ.Connecticut,Storrs,CT 06269,email:bioadm4@uconnvm.uconn.edu;Field Guide to North American Butterflies, 1981,1995 National Audubon Society , t 0.0N 8f4 G � VAn � ti 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 �OSoe.co� TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 July 22, 2002 Certified#70020510000081152253 Design Professionals, Inc. Attn: Peter DeMallie 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Appl. #02-02P—Berry Farm Senior Development, southerly of Oakland Road, westerly of Felt Road (Assessor's map #52,parcel#92)AA-30 Residential zone Dear Mr. DeMallie: At the July 10, 2002 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved application #02-02P—Berry Farm Senior Development—205 Oakland Road—Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application for the construction of 102 unit senior apartment complex on 14 acres, stormwater structures, parking lots, and associated improvements on property located southerly of Oakland Road, westerly of Felt Road(Assessor's map#52, parcel #92) AA-30 Residential 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 within 65 days of approval prior 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 July 10, 2007. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. 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. Staff shall verify site closure and stabilization before the winter season. 7. Prior to signing off on the certificate of occupancy, staff to ensure plants and landscaping are complete. Lawn area.to remain as shown on the plans. �r Berry Farm Senior Development July 22, 2002 Page 2 8. A minimum of 6" of top soil to be used in the lawn areas. 9. The swale to be established and stabilized prior to any grading being done on this site. 10. Best management practices to be used with respect to turf grass management. 11. We recommend a bond in the amount of$25,000 be submitted to the Planning&Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures. 12. We recommend a bond in the amount of$20,000 be submitted to the Planning &Zoning Commission to ensure stabilization of the swale and stream crossing. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONS VATION COMMISSION ems.. Eliz th A. Warren, Chairperson EW:dr cc: Chief Building Official Town Engineer i,i,)t�ithi✓:. 1(N[t41L,lVU L J 1'rCr1.7V�� ,' i1 \ ,. ' \ cL-124- t s � 120 52-y - 51-32 `, 09� 52-12 52-127 52-128 ° 52-4 52-93 '�o w & Uj 51-33 � CAl i _ �h N </ 52-90 ' 138-2 Y .3 _ •C` � jam.'it i o r 52-96 N ' Q / a a 39-54 39-55 �. 39-51 39-53 39-6 39-50 GRAND TERRACE , r a y, g T r 39-56 -� 39-52 r 3 )-h 39-5 39-58Af r y 9 qq h a � bb 1 } y f Ty ti.yE. y-2RECr 0 L//�O O �,�a�,�.�s�s,t¢ �. z F_:=Y,i�s`y `�' � «� Y r ' •s' P '� - ��(y�.(\F\�\j�j� �(,Lwv\\`�7//[�'t/'11t1� ��jb�/\`�\\� - 1 b rj' t F sj _ - '�> V Li. � L.>•Y Li..+ L+1�- q SOUT NDSO, tNiNR100 GDEPF. Memorandum To: Jeff Doolittle cc: Jeff Folger From: Geoffrey Sager Date: September 18, 2003 Re: Stormwater Pollution Control Plan Enclosed please find the Stormwater Pollution Control Plan for Berry Patch. These documents were delivered to the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection earlier today. I can be reached at 860-674-5641 with any questions. P:Wpartment Developments\Berry Patch-South WindsoAConstructionDoolittle 9-18-03.doc CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Statewide Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Activity Reporting Form In accordance with the requirements of Section 22a-39-14 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies,this form is to be completed for each action taken by an inland wetlands agency established pursuant to Section 22a42 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Use a separate form to report each action taken by the agency. It is recommended that this form be made part of the application package. Inland wetlands agencies are responsible for verifying that the information provided below is accurate and that it reflects the final action of the agency. 1. TOWN IN WHICH THE ACTION IS OCCURRING: South Windsor Does this project cross municipal boundaries? Yes No X If so,please list the other towns in which the action is occurring: 2. LOCATION: USGS Quad Map name: Manchester AND Number:41072-G5-TF-024 Attach a clean 8 'h "x 1I"original scale photocopy of the USGS Quad Map with,in red irik, the boundary of the project site outlined (where possible)or the project site pinpointed with an arrow. Do not circle the"general vicinity"of the site. In the lower right-hand corner of each USGS Quad Map there is an identifying name,write the name from the corresponding map in the space provided above. Quad numbers are found on the Connecticut Town and Quadrangle Index Map (the directory to all USGS Quad Maps). Please provide the number in the space provided above. Do not attach a copy of the National Wetlands Inventory Map. Do Not attach a copy of the Connecticut Town and Quadrangle Index Map. 3. NAME OF APPLICANT,VIOLATOR OR PETITIONERfihe Metres Real ter G_ roup, LTD & South Windsor Housing Supply the name of the person applying fora permit,petitioner for a ma amendment or jurisdictional rulinh�o recipient of the PP Y P P P P i g� enforcement action. 4. NAME FOR PROJECT SITE: Berry Farm Elderly Apartments Supply the name given to the project,or the name by which the project site is generally known. Briefly describe the project: 102-unit elderly apartments 5. ACTIVITY TYPE CODE: 1 2 9 12 Provide the code or codes which best characterize the activity being reported. A maximum of 4 codes may be entered. For example, locating a driveway in a buffer/upland review area would be code"9"and code"12" (code"7"is not used). The construction of a house in the buffer/upland review area would most likely be codes "2"for excavation,"9"for driveway construction,and "12"for buffer/upland review area. Construction of a parking lot in a buffer/upland review area may be codes"1","7","10",and "12". I ...Filling 7 . . .. Culverting (not for roadways) 2 . .. Excavation 8 . ... Underground Utilities ('no other activities) 3 ...Land Clearing/Grabbing(no other activity) 9 .. .. Roadway/Driveway Construction 4 ... Stream Channelization 1.0 ... Drainage Improvements 5 . .. Stream Stabilization 11 ... Pond Dredging/Dam Construction 6 . .. Stream Clearance(removal of debris only) 12 ...Activity in Buffer/Upland Review Area 6. ACTIVITY PURPOSE CODE: r_ Enter only one code letter which best characterizes the activity. ALL STATE AGENCY PROJECTS MUST ONLY CODE "N".' A .. . Residential Improvement by Homeowner I . .. Storm Water/Flood Control B ... New Residential Development for Single Family Units J .. . Erosion/Sedimentation Control C ... New Residential Development for Multi-Family/Condos K... Recreation/Boating/Navigation D . .. Commercial/Industrial Uses L ... Routine Maintenance E . .. Municipal Project M. .. Map Amendment F . ..Utility Company Project •N. .. State Agency Project G ...Agriculture,Forestry or Conservation P .. . Other H ...Wetland Restoration,Enhancement,Creation REVISED 1/98 " 7. AREA OF WETLANDS AND/OR WATERCOURSES ALTERED: Include areas that are altered or are proposed to be altered,temporary or permanent.for all agency permits,denials,amendments, and enforcement actions. Remember,these figures represent only the acreage altered,not the total acreage of wetlands or watercourses on the site. Figures should be provided by the applicant in the application. Provide all information in acreage including those areas less than one acre. To convert from square feet to acres,divide square feet by the number 43,560. Enter a zero if then is no alteration. Open water body altered refers to lakes,ponds or similar bodies of water that are filled or dredged. Stream alterations are to be reported in linear feet and include the total length of the river,brook,stream or other watercourse directly altered as a result of the action taken by the agency. Include any culverting(roadway,etc.),channel improvements,rip rap installation,relocation or dredging. A. Wetland Area Altered: .011+L ACRES B. Open Water Body Area Aftered: n ACRES C. Stream Alteration: rl LINEAR FEET 8. BUFFER/UPLAND REVIEW AREA ALTERED: 2.0-+//- ACRES Buffer or upland review areas are those areas adjacent to wetlands or watercourses where activities are regulated by the local agency. Report the acreage of upland review areas that are altered or are proposed to be altered,temporary or permanent,for all agency permits,denials,amendments,and enforcement actions.or for agent approval pursuant to 22a-42a(c)(2), For example,a 2 acre project site may have an activity occurring in I acre of buffer/upland review area and 0.25 acres of wetlands. Therefore.0.25 acres will be reported on line 7A and I acre on line 8. 9. AREA OF WETLANDS AND/OR WATERCOURSES RESTORED,ENHANCED OR CREATED: 0 ACRES Mitigation measures may be considered as a condition of issuing a permit for an activity. Report areas that are,or are proposed to be.restored,enhanced or created for all agency permits.denials,amendments.and enforcement actions. Restored or enhanced applies to previously existing wetlands or watercourses. For example,a wetland area filled two years ago is proposed to be restored by removing the existing fill. Created applies to an upland area which is converted into wetlands or watercourses. FOR MUNICIPAL AGENCY USE ONLY FOR STATE USE ONLY THE 114LAND WETLANDS AGENCY MUST ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION DATE RECEIVED: PROVIDED BELOW IS ACCURATE AND THAT IT'REFLECTS THE FINAf_ ACTION OF THE AGENCY. COMPLETED FORMS FOR ACTIONS TAKEN DURING A CALENDAR MONTH SHALL BC MAILED BY THC AGENCY TO THE DEP No LATLR THAN THE 1 5TH DAY Or THE FOLLOWING MONTH. MAIL REPORTING FORMS TO: Inland Water Resourres Division,DEP, 79 Elm Street,Hartford, CT. 66106 QUESTIONS MAY BE DIRECTCO TO TNC WETLANDS'MANAGEMENT GIS CODE#: SEcnoN AT(a5O)424-3019. NAME ITITLE OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM: FILE# (SAME AS QUAD ): (PRINT) L-AGNATURE) FORM COMPLETED: YES No DATE ACTION WAS TAKEN: MoNTH YEAR WAS A PUBLIC HEARING HELD? Yes No IF"NO". DATE MAILED TO TOWN: ACTION TAKEN: ExrFm Lzrrrm DATE RETURNED.TO DEP: A. PERMIT GRANTED BY AGENCY S. PCRM)r DENIED BY AGENCY C. PCRwr EXTCNDEolAMCNOCD BY AGENCY - D. AGENT APPROVAL,PURSUANT To 22a-42a(c)(2) E. APPEAL.or AGExr APrROvAL PURSUANT To 22a-42a(cK2) F. MAP AMENDMENT(AMENDMENT To THE OFFICIAL TOWN WETLANDS MAP. NOT A PROJECT Srre MAP) G. EHroRceNCHT NOT Cr'f0RDER H. JURISDICTIONAL RUUNG (I.C.: ACTTVRIES "PERMr TED AS Or RIGHT" OR ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED NOWREGUTATLD) J REVISED 1/98 i DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants made this_day of December, 2003 by Berry Patch Associates Limited Partnership ("Declarant"), a Connecticut limited partnership with an office c/o The Metro Realty Group, Ltd., 6 Executive Drive, Farmington, CT 06032. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain property in the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, which property is described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"); and WHEREAS,in order to comply with the requirements of a certain special permit granted by the Planning&Zoning Commission of the Town of South Windsor under Section 4.1 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations,Declarant wishes to subject the Property to certain restrictions. NOW,THEREFORE, Declarant does hereby declare and establish that, as long as the Property is zoned to allow elderly housing pursuant to the South Windsor Zoning Regulations, or for a period of forty(40) years,whichever is longer,the Property shall be subject to the following restrictions: 1. The architecture, colors,heights, materials and floor plan comprising each building and the site plan shall be subject to the prior written approval of the South Windsor Housing Authority or its successor. Any change of the same shall require the prior written approval of said Authority. 2. The maintenance of the buildings and landscaping shall be consistent with the level and quality of landscaping and maintenance provided by the Authority for its development adjacent to the subject property. 3. Each dwelling unit on the Property shall be occupied by: (a) Persons who are 62 years of age or older. (b) A spouse of an occupant pursuant to (a) above. (c) An occupant pursuant to (b) above who survives his or her spouse. (d) An occupant pursuant to (b) above whose spouse has entered into a long term health care facility. HAPlanning Department\LIPEUVIiscellaneous\Declaration of Restrictive Covenants clean Berry Patch 12/01/0311:04 AM EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION HAPlanning Department\LIPE\Miscellaneous\Declaration of Restrictive Covenants clean Berry Patch 12/01/0311:04 AM MAR-21-2005 14:28 FROM-Metro Realty +8606776919 T-498 P-002/003 F-660 a; Memorandum To: Marcia Banach, Town planner Town Of South Windsor From: Peter Dunn The Metro Realty Group,Ltd.and Berry Patch Associates Limited,Partnership Date: March 21,2005 Re: Oakland Road Entrance to Berry Patch Dear Marcia: If you will recall, our original goal from the beginning of Berry patch was the concept of creating a visible signature entrance off Oakland Road with a bridge,divided road and brownstone walls. Needless to say,it has turned out to be very complicated with timing probl wall every way we go. ems, and it appears we hit a With Berry Patch,the first 100 units were fine as approved. DOT was not involved. With the addition of the second 100 units, it triggered the DOTISTC certificate with DOT. Fuss&O'Neill and Metro met with DOT and advised their no improvements were warranted. DOT advised us that they wanted widening on both sides of the road with a full intersection and tapering. Assuming we would be able to work this out,Karen Isherwood at DPI did the engineering drawings for Oakland Road and the concept was approved by DOT. After getting it approved and bidding it out,we found the cost very prohibitive with DOT requiring a $350,000 bond and secondly, an issue we feel can be overcome but was stipulated by the STC, that we get a sight lime easement looking to the west,which we were unable to get. At that time,we additionally agreed to expand the improvements and cost over what was originally approved for Felt Road. From a practical perspective,Felt Road is probably the most desirable for the elderly. We then went back to DOT indicating the problem that this was affordable elderly housing and we could not afford that type of price tag. Fuss& O'Neill reiterated that they did not feel the widening was necessary and the fact that most seniors feel more comfortable with a signalized entrance off of Felt Road. DOT basically stated that we could either continue with the plan they approved or eliminate the entrance on Oakland Road. Still wanting to have some visibility and recognition on Oakland Road.,they suggested we do a right in only turn,which we agreed. To get it approved, we had Fuss&O'Neill do the engineered drawings on Oakland Road and DOT approved them. If you will also recall, during that time we were negotiating an easement from Lois Peterson, who owned adjacent property, for the right to create a pond with brownstone which would provide a pond on either side of the bridge. At this point,we have completed the large part of the bridge and the pond. At that time,Jcff Sawyer entered into an option agreement to buy the Lois Peter son property, and we brought the waterline to the site in lieu of the easement_ Anticipating that the Sawyer property might FAAputmM Deve4mentemgary Patch.South Wl dV"&Z16mech.ookL o Envanr doe MAR-21-2005 14:29 FROM-Metro Realty +8608776919 T-498 P-003/003 F-686 .ti have to do some type of improvements on Oakland Road,we held out some slim hope of possibly splitting the cost of the improvements. By splitting the cost of the original improvements,we could go back to our original goal of a full signature entrance on Oakland Road.. Therefore,at that time,we did not continue with Karen Isherwood expending more monies redesigning and reconfiguring the entrance or filing a change order with the Town of South Windsor. Our feeling was why spend more money to redesign something that hopefully we would not do. I apologize. I thought everybody at the Town was aware of that fact. If we were to continue and finalize the redesign into the site, I guess we would just file the change order for the Town and just stick with that approach. As far as timing goes,Phase l was fine. The roughed in road over the bridge provides emergency access. In the meantime,Jeff Sawyer has informed us that they are looking for him to do improvements in Oakland Road We have proposed that we work out some sharing of the cost to possibly go back to our original goal of a full intersection, I have not talked to Jeff in a week. I do not know if be has gotten a formal request for the improvements or what the improvements are to entail. The concept of sharing the cost is simple but the actual mechanism of the agreement is somewhat complicated. One issue in the agreement would be who is going to post the$350,000 road bond to DOT,bid the work, oversee the supervision, etc. Another issue involved, although it is probably not warranted,is DOT is going to want the culvert of the brook widened,which first would not involve us because it is not part of our requirement but secondly,would affect the timing with approval from the Army Corp of Engineers and DEP putting any construction of that out of this construction season and possibly next. With all of this being said,it is still very complicated. We have a glimmer of hope that we might still create our original plan,although we still have not resolved the issue of the metal guard rail and chain link fence,which affects our aesthetic goals. I would suggest that we try to formalize something with Jeff Sawyer by the end of this month. However, if Jeff does not hear from DOT, and as you know DOT moves at their own,pace,which might negate an agreement by the end of this month. If we can agree by the end of this month,I would think the mechanics of an agreement could be drafted and either resolved by June 15C or July 1� If it is not resolved by then,then I would suggest we go back to our second plan B and just go that way. We really like the concept but it has not been easy. Our construction supervisor,Eddy 1Vlajewski, is concerned that he will be held up with starting Berry Patch H. We are not looking for COs in Berry Patch H. We are just looking to continue with permits and inspections on a schedule. Timing wise,we basically have the first phase completed and occupied. The preparation last fall for pouring the foundations did not go well and the winter has not gone well. We have been delayed. We anticipate there is probably a 75%chance that we will have the two buildings on the church piece completed for occupancy by the end of this year. The three on the Katten piece will probably not be ready until July,2006. Knowing the above,I am not sure of South Windsor's benefit by forcing our hand. If you have any questions,please feel free to call me at 860-674-5640. P 1Armoas DcrclopmemWeny Patch-Sawh WittQ90srF&Z16mmch.Ootdmd 9mnn**AN