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 (68)
_ t TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR REIJ BED INLAND WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION APPLICATION Application # 03-,P-/P Date Received 411&/0 3 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. A. Applicant's Name: Address: Z 0 1 S ! gvw r- Phone: (home) (work)$_D"40 74`?&1n(fax) -10 --674 —19 B. Legal owner's name: EvL�1Qmm (IJ&A::, Address OSE 4IE Y! 1m z34S1 .�_. Phone (home) - -(work)767-4u"6514(fax) `757— 4ZZ - 55 9 (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 the application must accompany this form and will be part of the application. D. Project Name (if any) &RAJ aAWAM&Jn- 1. Contact Person (if further information is needed) cs/rLES (work) $40'444"3449(fax) '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. _ w_ - r Assessor's map # ;? / Parcel # Zone G� F. Names of all abutting property owners from records in Town Clerk's office. (use separate sheet if necessary) SEE SppMAfM St4��7' 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 W!'t�t�i 7HE I?Equ-NgB� 7 D*YS 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 ins square feet and es of fill an Q types d the time element involved: (�Lrr Amp J u- M 4z CW �. STATE `TRW/V F/AfA:D wgrz&Lps 4Nt) Doa 9YZ6a--4 IArZ+t4Ce- d4V JA I;ndA mt-SFe suit xaoh� Of .'zi»te.= 2003 CbMST.S5ta I. A class A-2 map of the property drawn to 1" = 40'. showing the area to be developed, extent of the wetlands and watercourses affected, topography, existing and proposed activities and names and locations of adjacent property owners must The submitted. J. Amount of regulated area disturbance. and types of fill (including wetlands and regulated buffers). 5eo., '14. OJOVYe. K. Acreage of wetlands andwatercoursQs in regulated areas to be altered: 9 W (91)3ze SF l - L. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be created: 2.10 AdRgS 11366 SP )-!. M. Lineal feet of proposed stream alteration: A1OAJ&- N. Total land area of project and percentage which is wetlands:} � d ` 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.) ;.� :8. a - P. The applicant (or designated representative) hereby &ttests that a sign will be posted at the following location(s) By j0d Name ��Y J• GASS on or before the following dat Signature: These signs must be1'%'� yed 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 inspe ion and investigation and otherwise evaluating the merits of the . applic n bo efore and after a final decision has been issued. ture e of Property Date d 0 i ' nature of pplicant Date 0 /al RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 SUPERIOR COURT WAYNE C. GERLT J.D. OF HARTFORD VS. AT HARTFORD SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION, ET AL JULY 31, 2003 APPEAL FROM THE TOWN SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION, ET AL To the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford on July 31, 2003 comes Wayne C. Gerlt appealing from a decision of the Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, and complains and says: 1. The Defendant, Evergreen Walk, LLC, herein after referred to as "Evergreen", of Virginia Beach, Virginia, is the owner of property consisting of 232 acres on the west side of Buckland Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. 2. The Defendant, The Castle Corporation, herein after referred to as "Castle Corp. of Avon, Connecticut, filed an application with the Defendant, South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency / Conservation Commission, herein after referred to as "Agency", for I approval to construct a medical office building, parking lots, stormwater structures, and associated improvements for Defendant, Evergreen, on its property consisting of 232 acres on JC . Y CONSTABLE I �S,,TH WINDSOR Dl FERENT PERSON PAUL W. SMITH • ATTORNEY AT LAW 36 MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 338 • WINDSOR LOCKS, CT 06096 TELEPHONE (860) 627-0513 • TELECOPIER (860) 623--1026 • JURIS No. 102195 i the west side of Buckland Road and southerly of Deming Street, in South Windsor, Connecticut. 3. The Defendant Agency approved the application of the Defendant Castle Corp. at its meeting on July 16, 2003 and notice of such decision was published on July 19, 2003. 4. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision of the Defendant Agency's approval of the application in that the Plaintiff owns property at 112 Deming Street, South Windsor, Connecticut, which is the Plaintiffs business property, and which property abuts the property of the Defendant Evergreen involved in the subject approval of the Defendant Agency and the property of the Plaintiff is within 90 feet of wetlands which are the subject of the Agency's decision. 5. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision of the Defendant Agency in that approval of the application would allow the Defendant, Castle Corp., to construct a medical office building, parking lots, stormwater structures, and associated improvements for Defendant j Evergreen on said land. Said plan of development will adversely affect the Plaintiffs property by creating objectionable noise, vibration, dust, traffic and pollution and adversely effect the environment, water quality, wetlands and wetlands ecosystems. The proposed activities will j adversely affect the quality of land, air and water on the Plaintiffs property. The Plaintiffs ! t - PAUL W. SMITH • ATTORNEY AT LAW - . - 36 MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 338 -• WINDSOR LOCKS. CT 06096 ! - TELEPHONE (860) 627-0513 •'-TELECOPIER (860) 623-1026 •'JURIS NO. 102195 i right to use and enjoy his property will be adversely effected by the Defendants Agency's i decision in this matter. i i 6. The approval b the Defendant Pp Y Agency of the application constitutes an illegal i approval as defined by the South Windsor Wetlands Regulations and by state law and/or the I I approval of the application by the Defendant Agency exceeds the Defendant Agency's authority under the South Windsor Wetlands Regulations and state law. 7. In approving the application, the Defendant Agency acted illegally, arbitrarily and abused its discretion vested in that: a. The Defendant Castle Corp. plan approval failed to conform to the South Windsor Wetlands Regulations and state law. b. The Defendant Agency improperly interpreted the Wetlands Regulations of the Town of South Windsor. j c. The Defendant Agency exceeded its statutory and regulatory authority in approving the plan. i d. The Defendant Agency failed to publish adequate and proper notice of the hearings on the subject application an I g pp d failed to publish adequate and proper notice of the Defendant Agency's decision of approval. PAUL W. SMITH • ATTORNEY AT LAW -- - _ 36 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 338'• WINDSOR LOCKS, CT 06096 _ TELEPHONE (860) 627-0513 • "TELECOPIER (860) 623-1026--• JURIS NO. 102195 i 1 e. The Defendant Agency failed to provide adequate and proper notice to I abutting municipalities as required by law. f. The Defendant Agency approved the application without receiving the I necessary reports and information from other boards and commissions and such information from the applicant as required by law. i g. The Approval will likely and unreasonably pollute, impair and impact the wetlands. i h. The procedures set forth in the South Windsor Wetlands Regulations, the notices of the hearing and approval, the hearings, and the approval of the application are an illegal, improper, vague and arbitrary exercise of the Defendant Agency's power and jurisdiction under state law. Wherefore, the Plaintiff appeals the decision of the Defendant Agency and pray that the court sustains his appeal and that the decision of the Defendant Agency is declared null and void. Dated at Windsor Locks, Connecticut this 31"day of July, 2003. T E COPY THE PLAINTIFF- W ne It UJ TER u CH OS,CONS ABLE TO N 0 SOUTH WINDS R AN AN IN IFFERENT PER ON BY: 1 W. Smith/ � His Attorney i I PAUL W. SMITH • ATTORNEY AT LAW - - - - 36 MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 338 • WINDSOR LOCKS, CT 06096 TELEPHONE (860) 627-0513 TELECOPI-ER (860) 623-1026 JURIS NO. 102195 i i Please enter the Appearance of: Paul W. Smith, Esq. 36 Main Street ' P.O. Box 338 Windsor Locks, CT 06096 Juris No. 10219 For the Plaintit i aul W I i i I I i I lf Q T: WA ER K PC UN CONSTABLE OW OF S UTH WiNDsor, AND A INDI FERENT PFRSOP PAUL W. SMITH • ATTORNEY AT LAW _ 36 MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 338 • WINDSOR LOCKS, CT 06096 TELEPHONE (860) 627-0513 • TELECOPIER (860) 623-1026 • JURIS-NO. 102195 1 i RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 SUPERIOR COURT WAYNE C. GERLT J.D. OF HARTFORD VS. AT HARTFORD . I SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION, ET AL JULY 31, 2003 RECOGNIZANCE WITH SURETY You, Wayne C. Gerlt of 2620 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut, as principal, and Margot Thompson of 112 Deming Road, South Windsor, Connecticut, as j surety, acknowledge yourself and severally bound to the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency / Conservation Commission of the Town of South Windsor, and to Evergreen Walk, LLC, Defendants in this action, in a recognizance of$500.00 that the Plaintiff in action shall prosecute to effect the appeal which it has taken against the South Windsor Inlands Wetlands j Agency / Conservation Commission of the Town of South Windsor and Evergreen Walk, LLC brought to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford on July 31, 2003, and that the Plaintiff shall comply with the orders and decree of this Court, and shall pay any costs for which judgment may be rendered against them in such case. Taken and acknowledged at Windsor Locks, Connecticu o e 31 st day of July, 2003, before me, a Commissioner of the Superior Court. I Paul W. S ith ommissioner of theWerior Court T E COP " _ A WALTER KU C OS,CONSTAFiL TOWN O S UTH WINDSOR AND AN IN IFFERENT PSRSON PAUL W. SMITH • ATTORNEY AT LAW " - - 36 MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 338 . WINDSOR LOCKS, CT 06096 TELEPHONE (.860) 627-05.13 • TELECOPIER (860) 623-1026 • JURIS No. 102195 s CITATION I TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF HARTFORD OR HIS DEPUTY WITHIN j SAID COUNTY, GREETINGS: I I BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby 1 commanded to summon the South Windsor Inlands Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission of 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, CT of the Town of South Windsor in I the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, and Evergreen Walk, LLC of 1109 Rose Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23451 and with The Castle Corporation of 200 Fisher Drive,Avon, Connecticut 06001 to appear before the Superior Court in and for the Judicial District of Hartford at 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on September 2, 2003 said appearance to be made by the South Windsor Agency, Evergreen Walk, LLC or their attorneys by, entering a written statement of appearance with the Clerk of said Court on or i before the second day following the return day, then and there to answer unto the foregoing I complaint and appeal of Wayne C Gerlt of 2620 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut by leaving with or at the usual place of abode of the Chairman or Secretary of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, and with the Town Clerk of the Town of South Windsor and with the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection for the State of Connecticut, with Evergreen Walk, LLC, and with The Castle Corporation in the manner required by statute, a true and attested copy of the complaint and appeal and this citation and summons at least twelve days before the return day, in the manner provided by law for the service of civil process. i I hereby certify that I have personal knowledge of the financial responsibility of the plaintiff and deem it sufficient to pay the cost of this action. Hereof fail not, but of this writ with your doings thereon, e d e se a and return. Dated at Windsor Locks, Connecticut this 31" day o ly 03 aul W. Smith IComm' sioner of the Superio Court A TR PY WITER C CONSTABLE F OU H WINDSOR DI FERENT PERSOM PAUL W. SMITH • ATTORNEY AT LAW 36 MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 338 -• WINDSOR LOCKS, CT 06096 - - __ TELEPHONE (860) 627-0513 • TELECOPIER.(860) 623-1026- • JURIS NO. 102195 312 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Title =: 22a (10) "Discharge"means the emission of any water,substance ormaterial into waters of the state whether or not such substance causes pollution; (11) "Remove" includes, but shall not be limited to drain, excavate,.mine, die dredge,suck,bulldoze,drag line or blast; (12) "Deposit"includes, but shall not be limited to, fill,grade, dump, place,dis- charge or emit; (13) "Regulated activity"means any operation within or use of a wetland or water- course involving removal or deposition of material, or any obstruction, construction, alteration or pollution,of such wetlands or watercourses,but shall not include the speci- fied activities in section 22a-40; (14) "License"means the whole or any part of any permit,certificate of approval a or similar form of permission which may be required of any person by the provisions 1 of sections 22a-36 to 22a-45a,inclusive; (15) "Wetlands"means land,including submerged land,not regulated pursuant to sections 22a-28 to 22a-35,inclusive,which consists of any of the soil types designated as poorly drained,very poorly drained,alluvial,and floodplain by the National Cooperative Soils Survey,as may be amended from time to time,of the Natural Resources Conserva- tion Service of the United States Department of Agriculture; (16) "Watercourses" means rivers, streams, brooks, waterways, lakes, ponds, marshes; swamps, bogs and all other bodies of water, natural or artificial, vernal or intermittent,public or private,which are contained within,.flow through or border upon this state or any portion thereof, not regulated pursuant to sections 22a-28 to 22a-35, inclusive.Intermittent watercourses shall be delineated by a defined permanent channel and bank and the occurrence of two or more of the following characteristics: (A)Evi- dence of scour or deposits of recent alluvium or detritus, (B)the presence of standing; or flowing water for a duration longer than a particular storm incident, and (C) the presence of hydrophytic vegetation; i (17) "Feasible"means able to be constructed or implemented consistent with sound engineering principles; (18) "Prudent"means economically and otherwise reasonable in light of the social benefits to be derived from the proposed regulated activity provided cost may be consid- ered in deciding what is prudent and further provided a mere showing of expense will not necessarily mean an alternative is imprudent. (1972,P.A.155,S.4;P.A.73-571,S.2,9;P.A.87-533,S.1,14;P.A.95-79,S.92,189;95-313,S.1;P.A.96-I57,S. 1;96-269,S.3,4.) History:P.A.73-571 replaced definition of"conservation commission"with definition of"inland wetland;agency" a in Subdiv.(4);P.A.87-533 amended the definition of"municipality"to exclude metropolitan districts,village.fire and sewer districts,sewer districts and municipal organizations having authority to levy and collect taxes or make charges for its authorized functions;P.A.95-79 redefined"person"to include a limited liability company,effective play 31.1995; P.A.95-313 redefined"wetlands"to make spelling and nomenclature corrections and redefined"watercourses"to include vernal or intermittent bodies of water;P.A.96-157 amended the definition of"soil scientist"to update the reference to the r{ federal Office of Personnel Management,amended the definition of"watercourses"to require evidence of two of the specified characteristics and added the definitions of"feasible"and"prudent";P.A.96-269 changed effective date of P.A. 96-157 from October 1,1996,to January 1,1997,effective June 12,1996. Cited. 179 C.250,252; 180 C.421,423;id.,692,693.Cited.183 C.532,537,539,540.The inland wetlands and watercourses act cited.186 C.67,71.The inland wetlands and watercourses act cited.196 C.218,221.Cited.203 C.525, 526,550,551.Cited.209 C.544,546,562.Cited.Id.,652,654.Cited.211 C.416,417,427.Inland wetlands and water- courses act cited.212 C.710,713,720,722,726;Id.,727,730.213 C.604,610,611.Cited.216 C.320,321.324.325. 327,329-333,335,336.Inland wetlands and watercourses act(IWWA)See.22a-36 et seq.cited.Id.Inland wetlands t * + 04/26/03 THU 15:19 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES t 0� PHASE I,II,AND III ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT TERRY OFFICE PARK �- 465-481 BUC LAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2002 Prepared By: Robert R.7, ach,II,CPG Date Project Hydrogeologist Project Manager, 6CZIK7-± .7- John B-Han6s,LEP,CPG Date Vice president �+ Fuss&O'Neill Inc. consulting Engineers hop 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 00040-8921 TEL Eeo 642469 FAx e6o 643.6313 78 interstate Drive,West Springfield,MA W069 TEL 413 452-0445 FAX 413 846.0497 56 Quarry Road,Trumbull,CT 06611 t'EL 203 374-3748 FAX 203 37"391 The Foundry Corporate Office Center 275 Promenade Street,Suite 350,Pravidenoa,RI 02908 TAL 401 861-8070 FAX 401 861-3076 06/26/03 THU 15:19 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES ,00� FIiSS&O'Neill Inc. Consutr,ng Eragineers 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06044-5921 TEL 860 646-2469 FAX Boo 643.6313 INTERNE-,www.fussandoneill.com Other Offices: West Springfield,Massachusetts September 20, 2002 Trumbull,Connecticut Providence,Rhode Island Ms,Tricia Haught,Esq. Tray, Berry, &Howard,LLP City Place I Hartford, CT 06102 RE: Phase I,II, and M Environmental Site Assessment Terry Office Park,465-481 Buckland Road South Windsor,Connecticut Dear Attorney Haught: We are pleased to submit the enclosed report of the.Phase L H,and III Environmental Site Assessment at the above-referenced site. The assessment was conducted using the Connecticut Department of Envitonmental Protection (CTDEP) Transfer Act Site Assessment Guidance Document,the CTDEP Draft Site Characterization Document, and Standard Practice E 1527-00 for Environmental Site Assessments by the Arnerican Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM,2000) as general standards.for-the facility investigation. The results of our assessment are,summarized in the attached report. Thank you for the opportunity to conduct this work. Please contact the undersigned if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Jo B.Hankins,LEP, CPG Vice President /gml Enclosure G_1P200211$4\A14\74\Ph17.3ESA RFKo9i9o2.doe comes. 06/26/03 THU 15:19 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES IM00 Fuss&O'Neill Inc_ TABLE OF CONTENTS SAMSEL PROPERTIES /FERRY OFFICE PARR SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVESUMMARY ............... ................... ............. ................. ............. ...............iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... .............. ...... . ..... ................. .............I.. ........................,._1 2.0 SITE OVERVIEW......... ............................................................................................1 2.1 Site Information....................... ....................................................................I....1 2.1,1 Property Location, Size of Parcel, and Site Plan...................................I 2.1.2 Potable Water Supply and Sewage Disposal 2.1.3 Adjoining Lard Use...... . ............... .................. .............. .............. ...2 2.2 Physical Setting of Site................... ............... . ................. ............ ..............2 2.2.1 Geologic and Physiographic.Setting......................................................2 2.2.2 Groundwater................. ............... ...................................... ................3 2.2.3 Surface Water..._................................................................ .................3 2.2.4 Location of Public Water Supply Sources.............................................3 2.3 Previous Environmental Investigations.............................................................3 3.0 SITE HISTORY........................... ................. . ................... ................ ................ ..4 _ 4.0 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL FILE REVIEW.................................................5 4.1 Summary of Regulatory Database.Information.................................................5 4.2 CTDEP File Review....... ....................................... ............... .................. ......7 4.3 Local File Review. ............................... ................. .................... ................ ..8 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.......................................................................................8 6.0 PHASE II INVESTIGATION...................................................................................10 6.1 Direct-Push Borings.......... ............... . ................ ................. ................ .....11 6.2 Shallow Soil Sampling........... ................. .................................. ..................12 6,3 Soil Gas Sampling..... ................. ...................................................................12 6.4 Supplemental Phase II Sampling.....................................................................13 6.4.1 Shallow.Soil Samples..........................................................................13. 6.4.2 Soil Borings..... ............. ................. ................... ..............................14 6.5 Summary of Phase II Results............. .................................. ............ ...........14 7.0 REMEDIATION STANDARD REGULATIONS...................................................14 7:1 Applicable Soil Criteria...................................................................................15 7.2 Applicable Groundwater.Criteria.....................................................................15 8,0 PHASE III DWESTIGATION........ ............... ............... .............. ............. ... ....16 8.1 Residual Pesticide Release Characterization............................ ......................16 8.1.1 Release Area Discussion......................................................................17 — G_\F20021184\A1017okPhl23ESA_RRK091902.doc i Ccnreg. . 06/26/03 THU 15:20 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1iB00 t t Fuss& O'Neill Inc. 8.1.2 Residential DEC Compliance Discussion...........................................18 8.1.3 GA PMC Compliance Discussion.......................................................18 8.1.4 Groundwater Quality Discussion.........................................................18 8.2 PCE Release Characterization.........................................................................18 8.2.1 Soil Sampling. ........ .................... .......................... ................... ......19 8.2.2 Monitoring Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling..................19 8.2.3 Release Area Discussion......................................................................21 8.2.4 'Residential DEC Compliance Discussion ...........................................22 8.2.5 GA I'MC Compliance Discussion.......................................................22 8.2.6 Residential VC.Compliance Discussion..............................................22 8.2.7 Groundwater Compliance Discussion .................................................22 8.2.8 SWPC Compliance Discussion...........................................................22 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................I..............23 9.1 Stained Floor and Dry-Cleaning Machine.Area-Buckland Cleaners.............23 " 9.2 Drum Storage Location-Buckland Cleaners..................................................24 9.3 Former 550-gallon Fuel Oil UST Grave_Buckland Cleaners........................24 9,4 PCE Transfer Area—Buckland Cleaners.........................................................24 9.5 Historical Agricultural Activities.............. ................. ................. .................25 10.0 REFERENCES............................................................ .................... ......................26 11.0 LDAITATIONS OF WORK PRODUCT..................................................................28 G:V20Q2U84\AIO\70)PhWW RRK091902_doc lI Corres. 106/26/03 THU 15:20 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 01 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. _ 'TABLE OF CONTENT (coofinued) SAMSEL PROPERTIES I TERRY OFFICE PARK LIST OF FIGURES END OF TEXT Fide 1 Site.Location Map. Figure 2 . Site Plan. Figure 3 Detail Map-Buckland Cleaners w Figure 4 Soil Sampling Locations Figure 5 Soil/Soil-Gas Sampling Detail Map Figure 6 Groundwater.Contours and Monitoring Well Locations. Figure 7 Groundwater Detail Map LIST OF TABLES END OF TEXT Table 1A Soil Analytical Summary—VOCs and Metals Table 1B Soil Analytical Summary.—Pesticides T Table.2 Groundwater.Analytical Summary Table 3 Soil Gas Analytical Summary Table 4 Summary of Well Information LIST OF APPENDICES END OF TEXT Appendix A Scope of Work,Exceptions, and Deletions Appendix B Site Assessment Checklist ,Appendix C Property Description Cards and Tenant List Appendix D Environmental Database Search(FirstSeaarch) Appendix E CTDEP File Information. Appendix F Site Photographs Appendix G Laboratozy Analytical Reports—Phase H ESA Appendix H Boring Logs and Well Completion Information Appendix I Laboratory Analytical Reports—Phase II[ESA Appendix J. Heptachlor Epoxide Statistical Analyisis G:\P200211841A1D1701Ph123E5A..; K091942•doe 111 Corns. 06/26/03 THU 1.5:20 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES I101 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Phase I,II, and III Environmental Site Assessment _ Terry Office,park 465-481 Buckland Road South Windsor, Connecticut T September 2002 Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. was retained by Samsel Properties to conduct a Phase I, II, and III Environmental Site Assessment(ESA)of an approximately four-acre property located at 465- 481 Buckland Road in SouthWindsor,Connecticut, The objective of the Phase I ESA portion of this investigation was to identify Potential Areas of Concern (PAOC) with regard to the subject site.The objective of the Phase II ESA was to make release determinations for PAM identified during the.Phase I portion,of the investigation. The extent of soil and groundwater. impacts identified in the Phase 1I investigation was investigated further in a Phase. III investigation. The Phase I ESA identified the following five PAQCs associated with the site: + Stained floor and dry-cleaning machine area inside Buokland Cleaners,a dry-cleaning establishment located at the northern end of the 465 Buckland Road building on the site. • Drum storage location at rear of Buckland Cleaners Former 550=gallon fuel oil UST grave at rear of Buckland Cleaners * PCE transfer area along northern side of 465 Buckland Road building e Historic agricultural activities A Phase II investigation,consisting of shallow and subsurface soil sampling,soil-gas sampling, and groundwater sampling was conducted during April 2002 to determine if there was evidence of a release at these PAOCs. The Phase II groundwater results indicated that a release of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) to the environment had occurred in the vicinity of the Buckland Cleaners dry-cleaning machine. In addition,residual pesticides were detected in shallow soils at the southeastern portion of the site. No evidence of a.release was detected at the remaining PACCs. A Phase III ESA was subsequently conducted between May and September 2002 to characterize the extent of releases identified during the Phase.II ESA. Shallow soil samples collected in and adjacent to the area of residual pesticide impacts noted in the Phase II investigation were collected and analyzed for mass and leachable organochlorine pesticides..Five shallow wells and one deeper well were installed at exterior portions of the site to determine the presence of pesticides and/or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater and to determine the inferred direction of groundwater flow at the site. Inside the Buckland Gleaners facility, groundwater samples were collected from two direct-push locations,two shallow monitoring wells,and one deeper monitoring well to.delineate the degree and extent of VOC impacts to groundwater in the vicinity of the dry-cleaning machine and an historic spill area. G!\t'2002\184\AIO\70\Phl23E$A RRK0919o2.dnc iv corms. 06/26/03 THU 15:21 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1001 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Following completion of the Phase 111 investigation,the following determinations have been made regarding the VOC and pesticide releases identified at the site: PCE Release • The groundwater sampling locations installed as. part of the Phase H and Phase III investigations.have adequately characterized the area of VOC impacts to groundwater in the vicinity of the Buckland Cleaners dry-cleaning machine and the historic interior.PCE spill location. No rernediation activities are recommended at this time. Periodic groundwater sampling is recommended at five existing monitoring well locations to track the progress of natural attenuation processes in decreasing the level of PCE in the groundwater. Residual Pesticides The vertical and lateral extent of residual pesticide impacts identified in shallow sail at the site has been adequately characterized. The reported concentrations in this area comply with applicable RSR criteria, and no additional sampling or remedial action is warranted. G:\P2002\l$41A.1o\70\Ph123ESA RRK091902.doo v cones. 06/26/03 THU 15:21 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES f 01 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 1..0 INTROD►T_TCTION Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. has been retained by Samsel Properties to conduct a Phase I, E, and III .r Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located at 465-481.Euckland(toad in South Windsor, Connecticut (subject site). The objective of the Phase I ESA portion of this investigation was to identify Potential Areas of Concern(PA0Q with regard to the subject site. The objective of the.Phase E ESA was to.make release determinations for P'AQCs identified during the.Phase I portion of the investigation. The extent of soil and groundwater impacts identified in the phase II investigation was investigated further in a Phase JH investigation. This investigation was conducted in general conformance with the following standards:. Draft Site Characterization Guidance Document,prepared by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection(CTDEP, 2000). w Transfer Act Site Assessment(TASA) Guidance Document(CTDEP, 1991b) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments E 1527-00 (ASTM Practice E 1527-00).developed by the American.Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM,2000) Refer to Appendix A for the scope ofwork and limitations of this ESA and to Appendix B for a listing of the.offices contacted for this.assessment,.as well as relevant site information. 2.0 SITE OVERVIEW 2.1 Site Information 2.1.1 Property Location, Size of Parcel, and Site Flan The.subject site,a portion of the Terry Office Park,is located on the western side ofBuckland Road in a restricted commercial zone of South Windsor, Connecticut (Hartford County).. A portion of aUnited States Geological Survey(USGS)topographic map showing the subject site --- location is provided as Figure 1. According to.Town records, the subject site is an approximately four-acre irregularly-shaped -- parcel owned by Samsel Properties Partnership. Structures located on the subject site.include four commercial buildings (465, 475, 479, and 481 Buckland Read)which contain a total of approximately 30,500 square feet. The 465 $uckland Road building currently contains two — restaurants and a dry-cleaning establishment, and the 475 and 479.13uckland Road buildings currently contain professional, and commercial offices. The 481. Euckland Road building currently contains commercial and professional office space and a bank. A site plan,is provided as.Figure 2. Copies of the property description cards available at the Town of South Windsor Tax Assessor's office are attached as Appendix C. A detailed description of the subject site developed during the site inspection is presented in Section 5.below. 2..1.2 Potable Water..Supply and Sewage Disposal The subject site has been, served by public sewer and water since construction of the site buildings began in the mid-1980's,according to.Mr..Jay Samsel,the property superintendent. 0;\P2002\184v'.14\70\Phl23ES,A_RRK091942.dor, 1 Corms, 06/26/03 THU 15:22 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 01 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 2.1.3 Adjoining Land Use Fused on observations made during the site inspection and available mapping, properties adjoining the subject site include: Direction from Subject Address Description I Site 1735-1753 Ellington Road Retail and Ooimnercial Plaka North!West 491-497 Buckland Road Professional/Commercial Offices North 490,498 Buckland Road Residential East �- Buckland Road Vacant Land East 432 Buckland Road Village at Buckland Court East 419 Buckland Road Funeral Home Southeast 435 Buckland Road Commercial/Professional Office Park South ,L469 Buckland Road Professional Offices West 76 Deming Street Vacant land West 2.2 Physical$etting of Site 2.2.1 Geologic and Physiographic.Setting The topography of the subject site is relatively flat but slopes gently down to the southeast, toward Plum Gulley Brook( TSGS,. 1992). The regional topography.generally slopes down to the west,toward the Podunk River. Surficial material at the site is mapped as stream terrace deposits. "those deposits are described as sand,silt, and clay deposits up to 20 feet thick(Colton, 1965). The surficial deposits at the eastern portion of the site are underlain by the edge.of the Lake Hitchcock clay unit(Langer, 1973). Sediments encountered during the Phase 11 and Phase III investigations generally consisted of fine.to medium sand with silt and gravel, consistent with the mapped uanit. Bedrock beneath the subject site is mapped as the Portland Arkose, a reddish-brown arkosic sandstone of Jurassic age(Rodgers, 1985). Depth to bedrock is estimated on published irlapping to be 30 to.40 feet(Mandman and Colton, 1973). During the Phase III investigation,the depth to bedrock was determined to be greaten`than 45 feet. 3:\p2002\184\&10\70\Phl23F.$A RRK091902.doe Cnrres_ 06/26/03 THU 15:22 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1&01 Fws&O'Neill Inc. 2.2.2 Groundwater. The quality of groundwater beneath the subject site is classified by the Connecticut Department of Enviromnental protection as CA (CTDEP, 1993). GA groundwater is presumed to be suitable for drinking without treatment(CTDEP, 1997), Based on groundwater elevation data measured during the Phase III investigation,the inferred groundwater flow direction is to the southwest,toward Plum Gulley Brook.. Groundwater was -- generally.encountered at depths of four to seven feet below site grade during the Phase.H and Phase III field work. Saturated thicknesses in overburden materials at the site were determined to be greater than 35 feet during the Phase M investigation. 2.2.3 Surface Water The nearest surface water body,Plum Gulley Brook,flows west to east along the southern edge of the site. Plum Gulley Brook is classified by the State of Connecticut as Class A. Such inland surface waters are known or presumed to be suitable for drinking-water supply(CTDFP, 1997). 2.2.4 Location of public Water Supply.Sources The Atlas of Public Water Supply.Sources and Drainage Basins of Connecticut(CTDEP,1982) shows no.public water-supply wells within a one-half mile radius of the subject site. Based on conversations with Mr. Samsel regarding,other.Samsel.Properties real estate holdings located hydraulically downgradieut of the subject site and with Mr. Robert Deptula of the South Windsor Health Department,there are no active potable water.supply wells within 1,000 feet of the site.. 2.3 Previous Environmental Investigations The following previous environmental investigations have been performed on the subject site: Phase I Property Assessment—January 1990 This investigation was.conducted by'I RC Environmental Consultants on behalf of The.David C..Mahoney Company. No evidence of hydrocarbon releases were;noted in the report. The, report indicated storage of a ten-gallon drum of waste on the back steps of the Buckland Cleaners establishment. It was estimated in the report that approximately 150 to 200 gallons of hazardous waste were disposed of off-site every three to four weeks. A sheen of petroleum product noted on the brook by TRC was reported to the CTDEP during the investigation,but the petroleum release was reportedly determined to be from an undisclosed source.upstream of the site. The PCE storage and handling areas identified in the 1990 TRC report are consistent with those observed during the current investigation.. o:\P2002\184wto\70\Pbl23asayx.RK091902.doe 3 corro. 06/26/03 THU 15:28 FAX 860 793 5418 HRP ASSOCIATES t,001 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Phase I Enviropmental Site Assessment Update—Octobez 1996 This investigation was conducted by TRC on behalf of Samsel Properties Partnership. The report referenced the removal of a fuel oil underground storage tank(LIST)adjacent to the 4465 building and its replacement by a 275-gallon aboveground storage t,-mk (AST). Two empty -- drums for waste storage were also noted on a concrete pad at the rear of the Buckland Cleaners establishment. The report also indicated that a Transfer Act Form I had been filed for the site in 1991,associated with a transfer.of the property containing the Backlatnd Cleaners business. A Safety-Kleen spill of PCB at Buckland Cleaners was Noted as a potential concern in the report.. However,a subsequent review of the spill report as part of this investigation indicated that the spill was contained within a Safety Kleen truck at the site and was not released to the ground. 3.0 SITE HISTORY Based on historical information included in previous investigations at the site(TRC,.1990 and 1996) and information provided by Mr.. Richard Mahoney and Mr. Jay Samsel of Samsel _ Properties Partnership,the subject site and surrounding properties have been used historically as agricultural land,a dairy.farm,and pasture land. The current Southern New England Telephone facility present to the north of the subject site was constructed circa 1960,and commercial office v buildings and a funeral home have been present to the south of the site since the.early 1970's.. Developmont of the subject site beganwith construction of the#481 building in 1984,followed by the 9465 building in 1985. The remaining two site buildings, #479 and #475, were constructed in 1987 and 1989,respectively, Other commercial office buildings adjacent to the subject site were constructed or converted to, coznrnercial use in the mid-1980's, and the commercial and retail plaza to the north and northwest of the subject site was constructed circa — 1990. According to Mir. Samsel, the Buckland Cleaners facility in the #465 building is the only. business on the site that uses.hazardous materials..Mr..Samsel indicated that Buckland Cleaners has been present at the same location within the northern portion of the#465 building since construction of the building in 1985. An Lucia's,an Italian restaurant,currently occupies the — central portion of the building, and Sawadee Tai Restaurant currently occupies the southern portion of the building..Mr.Samsel indicated that historic occupants of the southern and central portions of the #465 building have included various restaurants and a beauty.salon, and that occupants of the other.site buildings consist of a bank and commercial and professional offices.. A current list of tenants at the site, provided by. Samsel Properties, LLC, is provided in Appendix.C. This historical information indicates that the Buckland Cleaners dry cleaning establishment and potential historical agricultural activities are PAOCs,due to the use and handling ofhazardous waste and possible pesticide application,respectively. GAP'2002u84W0W01Pb1n SA_PAK091902.d0c 4 cents. 06/26/03_ THU 15:24 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES �01 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 4.0 FEDERAL,STATE,AND LOCAL FILE REVIEW Files of Federal, State and local, agencies were reviewed for environmentally-related issues pertinent to the subject site and nearby parcels,such as permits,inspection reports,enforcement bistory or documented releases of hazardous materials. The sources of information listed in the 'n distances of the subject of concern within following table were research.to identify properties. site specified by ASTM practice E 1527-00. Additionally,the following information sources were reviewed at CTDEP: correspondence files for the subject site(Section 4,2)and Notices of Violation and Orders from the various CTD P bureaus listed in Section 4.2. Information Source* Search Distance Federal Files w NFI.site list 1 mile RCRA CURRACTS TSDF list 1 mile RCRA TSDF list 0.5 mile CERCLIS list 0.5 mile — RCRA generator list property and adjoining FERNS list property and adjoining State Files Hazardous waste site list 1 mile Landfill and solid waste site list 0.5 mile Leaking UST list 0.5 mile Oil&chemical spills property and adjoining UST list property and adjoining Transfer Act Filings property and adjoining ~ *Fuss&O'Neill used FirstSearch Technology Corporation,an environmental database search service,to obtain the information referenced in the above table. FirstSearch provides access to publicly available environmental databases maintained by various Federal and State agencies. A copy of the information provided by FirstSearch relative to the subject site and nearby properties is included in Appendix D. The listed information sources are defined and described in detail in the Firstsearch report. 4.1 Sunxmary of Re >lat ory Database.Information The environmental databases provide the following information for the Buckland Cleaners establishment,located in the 465 Buckland Road building on the subject site: • Buckland Cleaners is a RCRA Small Quantity Generator(SQG) of hazardous waste_ The facility's USEPA identification number is. CTD981070980. A RCRA SQG is defined as a facility which is permitted to generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms (220 and 2,200 pounds) of hazardous waste per month o-\p2o02N1s4\A10N70\Phl23Esa_xxlc091907_dOe 5 tortes. 06/26/03 THU 15:24 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES W 01 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. • A Transfer Act Form I filing associated with a transfer of the subject site in 1990. The site was determined to be an "establishment" subject to the Transfer .Act due to the presence of a dry-cleaning facility on the property. . A Form I tiling is a negative declaration, indicating that no release of hazardous waste has occurred at the site. Recent revisions to the Transfer Act require that certifying parties now additionally demonstrate that no release of petroleum products has occurred.. a Buckland Cleaners is listed by the CTDEP as a potential hazardous waste site due to the presence of a dry cleaning establishment. + Buckland Cleaners is listed by the CTDEP as a UST site,based on the reported presence of a 550-gallon underground storage tank (UST) installed in 1985. Current CTDEP information indicates that the UST is still in service and contains gasoline. However, information in the 1996 Phase I ESA and information from the site owner indicates that the tank contained fuel oil and was removed in July 1996 and replaced by a 275-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) containing fuel oil, . This discrepancy should be rectified by.updating CTDEP UST registration information. a The site is listed as a CTDEP spills site and.an ERNS site due to a PCE spill by Safety Kleen in January 1992..The spill was reportedly the result of a drum being overturned inside a Safety Kleen truck at the site. Upon a review of the.CTDEP spill report,the spill was.apparently contained within the truck and was not releaser)to the ground. Based on their proximity and/or the inferred groundwater flow direction,known or potential releasers at the. sites listed in the following table have the potential to. adversely impact the subject site. Potential concerns associated with these sites are discussed below the table. Map Site/Address Databases* Distance/Direction ID** FSNE,T, apping Central Office UST list,State hazardous w€►ste 0.11 mile 4 and Road site list,Transfer Act site North * Database acronyxns are defined in ApRendix D. . ** Refers to the map identification number assigned by the database service and shown on the database service's maps(Appendix D). Note, The CTDEP has limited the liability of downgradient property Downers that have been impacted by upgradient sources. The CTDEP's policy on upgradient sources of contamination is that"a downgradient property owner is not responsible for remediating groundwater contamination flowing onto his or her property from another site,as long as the contamination is present solely as a result of the off-site sources" (CTDEP Policy on Upgradient Contamination,Michael Harder,Director of Pemiitdng,Enforcement,and Remediation Division,August 28, 1997). 0;\nOG211341A1017o\nl23ESA RK091902.doc 6 corms. 06/26/03 THU 15:25 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 01 Fuss&O'Neill Inc- Potential concerns associated with these nearby sites are provided below: + SNET Facili —'This facility is listed as a UST site due to the presence of two former US'Ts and two current USTs. The former tanks,a 500-gallon gasoline UST and a 1,000- gallon fuel oil UST,were reportedly installed in 1977 and were last used in 1986. The existing tanks, a 1,000-gallon kerosene GIST and a 1,000-gallon fuel oil UST, were reportedly installed.in October 1998, The.SNIr"T site is not listed as a R.CRA hazardous waste generator,but the filing of a Transfer Act Fonn I in 1998 and the listing of the site by.the.CTDEP.as a potential hazardous waste site indicate that the site generates or has generated hazardous waste.,The inferred groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the site indicates that the. SNET facility is located hydraulically upgradient from the subject site.. Although no releases have been identified at the SNET facility,potential historic or future releases of hazardous waste or petroleum products at the SNET site could adversely impact groundwater duality at the subject site. However,the subject site is served by public water.and, as stated above,the.owners of the subject site would not be responsible for remediation of contamination emanating from upgradient sources. 4.2 CTDEP File Review As part of the file review,correspondence files for the former or current businesses listed below that have operated at the subject site were requested on March 28,2002 from the CTDEP Waste Management Bureau (WstMB) and Water Management Bureau (WtrMB). The file review focused on infonnation dated since 1996.. • Terry Clffice.Party • Buckland Professional Center. • Buckland Cleaners A correspondence file for Buckland Cleaners was available at the WtrMB and WstMB. Correspondence in the WtrMB Properly Transfer.file for Buckland Cleaners indicated that a Transfer.Act Form I was filed in 1990 and revised in 1991,but a.copy of the Form I was not available in the file. A WstMB'UST file for the site was not available for review,but a printout - of current CTDFP.UST database information was obtained (see Appendix 0.. The WANS Hazardous Waste file for Buckland Cleaners confirmed the site's status as a SQG and contained _ R.CRA Generator reports for 1985 through 1991. The WstMB Spills file for the site contained a record of the 1992 Safety Kleen spill discussed in Section 2.3. A copy of this spill report is provided in Aendix E. 'The Connecticut Leachate and Wastewater Discharge Sources Map (CTDEP,. 1991a). was reviewed to determine if any.historical discharges to the ground in the area of the subject site have been reported...No historical discharges are shown within a one half mile radius of the site. 0:1P2oo2\184\A101701Phl23ESA RRK091902.doc 7 Corms. 06/26/03 THU 15:25 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES [A02 Fuss&O'Neill Znc- 4.3 Focal File.Review Files and personnel at the Town of South Windsor offices of the Tax Assessor, Building _ Department, Planning and Zoning Department, Health Department, and Fire Marshal were queried regarding Environmental concerns at the subject site and surrounding sites. No environmental concerns were identified for the subject site or adjacent sites.. . 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE The site reconnaissance was conducted by hydrogeologist Robert Kovach of Fuss &.O'Neill, Inc.,accompanied by Mr.Jay Samsel,the property manager for Samsel Properties Partnership, on March 27, 2002. During the.site visit,the subject site was inspected for.PAOCs..The site — reconnaissance included an interview with Mr.Samsel and Mr..Duk Choi,the owner ofthe dry- cleaning business in the. 465 Buckland Road business. Mr. Samsel has been familiar with activities on the subject site since development of the site began in 1985...Mr.Choi has owned and operated Buckland Cleaners at its current location since 1985 and.has been the only occupant of the northern portion of the 4465 building since construction of the building. Information provided by Mr. Samsel and Mr. Choi is presented below and in previous sections _ of this report.. Photographs taken during the site inspection are presented in Appendix F.. General The subject site is relatively flat and contains four commercial buildings, two located on the eastern portion of the parcel (#465 and 9481) and two on the northwestern portion of the property (#475 and #479). Paved roadways and parking areas are located adjacent to the buildings and cover.approximately one-third of the property. The remainder of the property is Galley rook flows east to.west along the southern or wooded area. Plum B o g .� landscaped grassy Y edge of the property. A small retention area and drainage swale leading to the brook is located on the southwestern portion of the.property. A wellhead was noted in the grassy area on the north-central portion of the subject property. Mr. Samsel indicated that.the well is a deep bedrock well used as part of a heat pump system for the #465 building:and that the water circulation is closed-loop and is not used as a source of potable water. 465 BucIdand Road ,Approximately the southern three-quarters of the building currently contains a Thai,restaurant and an Italian restaurant. Mr..Samsel indicated that a portion of the building was previously occupied by another restaurant and beauty salon.. A dry-cleaning establishment (Buckland ` Cleaners) currently occupies the northern portion of the building. Mr. Samsel indicated that Buckland Cleaners has been operating at its present location since the building was originally _ occupied circa 1985..The exterior of the building is surrounded on the north,west,and east by paved parking areas or roadways. A 275-gallon fuel oil AST.is located along the eastern wall of the building near the northeastern corner of the building. According to Mr. Samsel,the tank supplies a heating unit used by Buckland Cleaners. No secondary contaiment was noted around the tank;but no evidence.of spillage was mated on the concrete beneath the tank. Two plastic drums,approximately 10 to 15 gallons in size,were noted in front of the AST..Mr.Choi � G!\P2002\1$41A.I0\70\Ph123ESA_RTiK091902-doe 8 Comes. 06/26/03 THU 15:26 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES U 02 'Puss&O'Neill Inc. indicated that the drums contained spent PCE and other waste such as filters from the dry- cleaning machine,and that the drums have been stored in this area since the dry cleaner opened in 1985. Mr.Choi opened one of the drums,which was half-full. The drams were covered,but _ the lids did not appear to be securely fastened. Although no staining was noted on the concrete around the drums,this location is a routine storage location for the drums, and is considered a PAOC due to potential infiltration of any spillage From these drums through the joint between the concrete slab and the bituminous curbing into underlying soil. A patched asphalt area identified as. the former fuel oil UST location by Mr. Sarnsel, is located at the edge of the parking area adjacent to the AST and the drums_ Since no.analytical data is available for the - previous UST removal,this area is,also considered a PAOC due to potential residual petroleum contamination in the former tank grave.. Inside the building, a dry cleaning machine.was present along the north-central portion of the Euckland Cleaners lease area. According to Mr. Choi, the current machine,which contains approximately 150 gallons of PCE in three holding tanks integral to the machine,was installed approximately two years ago. The machine appears to be well-maintained and has an integral secondary containment pan beneath it. The previous machine,which contained approximately go gallons of PCE,had been in-place in the same location as the current machine since 1985. _ 1VIr. Choi indicated that dry cleaning has not been conducted anywhere else in the facility. According to.Mr. Choi,the PCE in the dry-cleaning machine is changed approximately every _ six months by Cycle-Soly,who also.removes the waste PCE, filters, and sludge in the drums, and the PCE is subsequently recycled by.Chem-Pak. He stated that Safety-Kleen previously changed the PCE. The PCE is reportedly changed via a hose run f om the truck on the roadway along the northern side of the building,through a window,and into the dry-cleaning machine_ Mr.Choi reports that no spills have occurred during:PCE.transfer,but that an incidental interior spill of one to two gallons of PCE occurred a few years ago adjacent to the dry-cleaning machine.during dry-cleaning operations. According to.Mr.Choi,the spill was promptly cleaned up and the waste was disposed of with his.regular PCE waste. An area of stained vinyl tile is present in the reported spill location. This stained area and the adjacent dry-cleaning machine, �- as well as the POE transfer area outside the building, are considered PAOCs due to.potential releases to the environment from actual or. potential PCE spillage during PCE handling or transfer. The eastern section of the Buckland Cleaners lease axes is occupied by an office and customer service area Pressing and folding apparatus and hanging racks occupy the northwestern portion of the Euckland Cleaners facility,and conventional wet wash equipment and dryers occupy the southwestern portion of the facility. No PAOCs were identified in conjunction with these areas. The restaurants which occupy the remaining portions of the#465 building were inspected and no.environmental concerns were noted.. Neither of the restaurants contained a Fryolator, and thereforee did not generate significant amounts of waste cooking oil and grease. .Mr. Samsel _ indicated that the building is heated using a closed-loop heat-pump system associated with the well noted to the west of the building. 0:\p2oo2\184\AIO\7o\lhl23Esn-iu O91902,60C 9 Coons_ 06/26/03 THU 15:27 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1002 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 475 Buckland Road This building contains a computer services Company and various professional offices. According to Mr. Samsel,the building is heated by propane,which is supplied from a propane LIST located adjacent to the #479,building.. No environmental concerns were rioted in this -� building. 479 Buckland Road This building contains a lighting service company and-various commercial offices. The building contains a hydraulic elevator.. No access to the hydraulic.fluid reservoir was.available,but Mr. Samsel stated that the elevator system is inspected and maintained semi-annually by Lonsdale Elevator and no leakage has been noted. A propane UST is located adjacent to.the western wall of the building. Mr.Samsel stated that this tank supplies the heating systems for both the#475 and#479 buildings..No environmental concerns were noted in this building.. 481 Buckland Road This building contains commercial offices and a bank. The building has electric heat,according to Mr..Samsel..No environmental concerns were noted in this building. Transformers Three.pad-mounted electric transformers owned by Connecticut Light and Power(CL&P)are present on the site.. The transformers are located at the southeast conger of the#465 building (pad no. 838),near the edge of the.parking area between,the 4475 and#479 buildings(pad no. 7611),and near the northwestern corner of the.#481.building(pad no.260). According to Mr. Samsel,the site transformers were recently.serviced and/or replaced by CL&P..No evidence of a dielectric. fluid release was noted adjacent to any of the transformers. .No indication of the PCB content of the transformers was.noted on the exterior of the transformers. As owner ofthe transformers,CL&P.would be responsible for remediation of any dielectric fluid releases from _ these units. , 6.0 PRASE II INVESTIGATION Based on the results of the Phase I portion of the investigation, the following PAOCS were identified on the subject site: Stained floor and dry-cleaning machine area inside Buckland Cleaners Drum storage location at rear of Buckland Cleaners Former 550�-gallon fuel oil UST grave at rear of Buckland Cleaners. PCE transfer area along northern side of 465 Buckland Road building Historic agricultural activities G:\P2002\194\AIO\70\Phl2lESA—nKO91902.doc 10 Correa. 06/26/03 THU 15:27 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES [a02 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. _ An initial Phase II sampling event Consisting of four direct-push soil borings,three shallow soil sampling locations, and five soil gas sampling locations was conducted on April 8, 2002 to determine if a release has occurred at any of these PAOCs. Additional Phase Il sampling _ consisting of shallow soil sampling and two soil borings was subsequently conducted on.April 29,2002. Soil, groundwater,and air samples analyzed for VOCs during the April 8 sampling event were submitted to Fuss & O'Neill's State-certified mobile. laboratory, Soil and groundwater samples to be analyzed for metals, pesticides, and extractable total petroleum hydrocarbons (ETPM, as. well as VOC samples from the April 29 sampling event, were submitted to Phoenix Environmental Laboratories of .Manchester, Connecticut.. Mobile laboratory and Phoenix analytical reports are provided in Appendix Q. The approximate locations of Phase Il soil and soil-gas sampling points. axe shown on FigZes 4 and 5, respectively,and groundwater sampling locations are shown on Fes. Analytical results for -- Vocs,ETPH,and metals axe summarized in Table 1 A.and analytical results for pesticides are summarized in Table 1B.. 6.1 Direct-Push Borings Four direct-push soil borings were installed as part of the investigation. Two of the soil borings, GP-1 and GP-3,. were installed at the rear (west side) of the Buckland Cleaners facility to address both the former UST grave.and drum storage location PAOCs. Boring GP-2 was also installed at the rear of Buckland Cleaners,in a gravel area adjacent to the stairs,to address only the drum storage PAOC, and boring GP-4 was installed along the northern side of the 465 Buckland Road building (adjacent to Buckland Cleaners) to address. the PCE transfer area PAOC. Soil samples.were collected from the borings using a two-foot discrete sampler with dedicated acetate liners and groundwater sarnples were collected through a Geoprobe"'sampler with a two-foot steel mesh screen,using a peristaltic pump at low flow. At GP-1 and GP-3,soil samples were collected continuously from the surface to the water table. Each sample was screened for VOCs with a photoionization detector(PID).. The shallow soil sample and the most contaminated or deepest unsaturated soil sample from each of the borings were submitted for laboratory analysis. The shallow samples were designed to detect evidence of contamination from surficial releases and the deeper samples were designed to detect migration of surficial contamination to the water table or residual soil contamination in the former UST grave. Groundwater samples were also collected from each of the borings and submitted for laboratory analysis. .The groundwater samples at these locations would detect petroleum contamination from the former UST or PCE. contamination hydraulically- downgradient from any significant release from the operations area of Buckland Clearers. All four soil samples and the groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCS..by modified USEPA method 8021...In addition,the deeper soil samples and the groundwater.samples were analyzed for ETPH using methodology developed by the Connecticut Department of Public Health(CT ETPH). The GP-3 soil boring was designed to detect evidence of surficial release.to soil adjacent to the _ stairs at the rear of Buckland Gleaners, where waste drums have been staged historically. Therefore,only shallow soil sampling(0 to 2 feet below grade)was conducted at this location. The sample from this boring was analyzed for VOCs by modified USEPA method 8021. G;\1120021184\AIa1701Fhl23ESA_RRK091902AOC 11 . Corm.. 06/26/03 THU 15:28 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1602 Fuu&O'Neill Inc. Boring GP-4 was located where transfers of waste PCE and deliveries of virgin PCE to/from contractor trucks,are made and surficial releases from these activities are most likely. A shallow soil sample and the deepest unsaturated soil sample from this boring were analyzed for VUCs by modified USEPA method 8021.. A groundwater sample was collected from the boring to detect PCE contamination in groundwater from potential releases in the transfer area or hydraulically upgradient ofBuckland Cleaners operations. Subsurface soils encountered in borings GP-1 through GP-4 were described as silty.sand,with traces of gravel in places. Boring logs, for borings GP-1 through GP-4 are provided in Appendix H. Analytical Results No ETPH or VOCs were detected above the analytical detection limits in any of the soil or groundwater samples from the four direct-push, borings (see Tables 1. and 2). these data indicate that no releases have occurred in the former UST area,waste PCE drum storage area,or - PCE transfer area.. The groundwater data also indicate no evidence of PCE in groundwater.r in the inferred downgradient direction Rom the Buckland Cleaners facility. 6.2 Shallow Soil_Samplins� Three shallow sail samples, SS-1 through SS-3,were collected froze grassy areas of the site to dete=ne if the a is evidence of residual pesticide contamination from historic. agricultural activities. The samples were collected from the top six inches of soil,where the.presence of pesticides is most likely,based on typical application methods.. The samples were collected -^ using dedicated plastic.scoops- The shallow soil sampled during this effort was described as a sandy loam topsoil. The three samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081 and total metals(arsenic, copper,lead, and zinc). Analytical Results As indicated in Tables 1A and IB no pesticides were detected at soil sampling locations SS-1 and SS-2. No background metals evaluation was performed as part of this investigation,but none of the reported metals concentrations.appeared to be elevated with respect to.typically- observed concentrations in soil...Soil sample SS-3 contained the pesticides 4,4'-DDT(DDT) and 4,4'-bDE(DDE).at concentrations of 34.and 80 micrograms per liter.(ug/L),respectively. The data indicated that some.residual pesticides are present in shallow soil at the southeast portion of the site and that additional evaluation of residual pesticides was necessary. . 6.3 Soil Gas._Samulin>< Five soil gas sampling locations,SQ-1 through SC-5,were installed witWu Duckland Cleaners to the west and south of the dry. cleaning machine to address the PADC associated with the machine and the stained floor area adjacent to it. The sampling methodology consisted of drilling small-diameter holes through the concrete floor and driving a hollow, stainless-steel G:1P2002U841A10\7011}hl23ESA—RRK091902.doe 12 Corres. 06/26/03 THU 15:29 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 4 02 Fuss&O'NeW Inc. probe with a six-inch slotted screen to a depth of approximately 2.5 to 3 feet below grade. Samples were then collected by applying a vacuum to the probe and drawing air into a Tedlar sample bag which was sealed and submitted to the mobile laboratory for analysis within 24 hours. The samples were analyzed for VOCs by modified USEPA method 8021. Analytic il Results A summary of soil gas analytical results is provided in Table 3. No.VOCs were detected in the SG-2 soil gas sample. As shown in the table,low mass-based concentrations(2 to 13 ug/L)of PCE were detected in the.remaining four soil gas samples. This concentration translates to volumetric concentrations of 0.3 to 1.9 parts per million by volume(ppmV). The three soil gas samples within or adjacent to. the stained floor tiles, SG-3 through SG-5, contained fairly uniform PCE concentrations (9 to 13 ug/L). The presence of PCE in soil gas indicates the potential for a release to soil to have occurred in the vicinity of the dry-cleaning machine or where PCE was spilled on the floor near the.machine.. 6.4 Suvnlemental Phase 11 Sampling Eased on the results of the initial Phase it sampling event, supplemental soil sampling was conducted at the southeastern portion of the site and supplemental soil and groundwater sampling was conducted in the stained floor and dry-cleaning machine area.within Bueldand Cleaners. The supplemental sampling at the southeastern portion of the site was conducted to. further evaluate residual DDT and DDE.in the shallow soil in this area.. Within the Buckland Cleaners establishment,the supplemental sampling was conducted to determioe.if the reported PCE ooncentrations in soil gas were indicative of a release to soil or groundwater. 6.4.1 Shallow Soil Sam les Five shallow soil samples,SS-4 through SS-8,were collected in grassy areas at the southeastern portion of the site,in the vicinity of SS-3. These samples were collected from the top six inches of soil,as with SS-1 through SS-K One additional sample,SS-3A,was collected from a depth of 1.0 to 1.5 feet below grade in the approximate location of SS-3 to evaluate the vertical distribution of the reported pesticide concentrations. The surfxcial soil sampled during this effort was described as a sandy 1oarn topsoil. The SS-3A sample was described as fine sand with traces of silt. All six samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081. Anal focal Results As shown in Table 113,the pesticides.4,4'-DDD(DDD),DDE,and/or DDT!'were detected in all _ six samples at concentrations,ranging from 4.6 to 130 uglkg. In addition,dieldrin was detected in the SS-7 soil sample at a concentration of 9.6 ug/kg. The detections of DDT-related compounds confirms.the presence of residual concentrations of these compounds in soil at the southeastern portion of the site. G;1p20021184\AJO\70\Ph123E,SA_RPK091902,doe 13 COMS. 06/26/03 THU 15:29 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES IM02 Fuss&O'Neill lzic_ 6.4.2 Soil Bomigs Two interior soil borings,GP-5 and GP-6,were installed to the west aad southwest of the dxy- cleaning machine,in the area of the previous soil-gas sampling,on April 29,2002. Boring GP-6 was located within the stained floor area. Access to the subsurface was obtained by coring a five-inch hole in the concrete floor slab and advancing the boring using a stainless-steel hand — auger. Soil samples were collected from the top foot of soil beneath the floor slab. The subsurface soil encountered in these borings was described as a fine sand. One groundwater sample.was collected from the'GP-6 boring using dedicated sample tubing and a peristaltic pump at low flow. Refusal was encountered at the GP-5.location at a depth of 2.5 Feet,prior to. reaching the water table,so no groundwater sample was obtained from that location. Soil and groundwater samples from the two soil borings were analyzed for halogenated V'OCs by -. USEPA method 8021. ,A.nalygcal.Results No VOCs were detected in the two sub-slab soil samples collected at boring locations GP-5 and GP-6. The GP-6 groundwater sample contained a reported PCE concentration of 8.1 ug/L(see Table 2 ,which indicates that a release of PCE has occurred in the vicinity of the Buckland Cleaners dry-cleaning machine or the former spill area. 6.5 Summaty of Phase 11 Results Analytical results from the Phase II investigation indicated evidence of residual pesticide impacts to depths of at least one foot in shallow soil at the southeastern portion of the site from historic agricultural activities. In addition,a release.of PCE to groundwater was confirmed in,the area of the dry-cleaning machine and historic interior spill area at the Buckland Cleaners facility,but no.residual source area in soil was detected. The Phase U sampling indicated no evidence of a release to soil or groundwater at the following PAOCs: + Drum storage location at rear.of Euckland Cleaners + Former 550-gallon fuel oil UST.grave at rear of Buckland Cleaners + PCE transfer area along-northern side of 465 Euckland Road building 7.0 REMEDIATION STANDARD REGULATIONS The subject site is not currently subject to any specific.State regulatory program..However,the presence of a dry-cleaning facility.on the site would make the site.an"establishment'subject to the requirements of the Transfer.Act at the time of any future transfer. Under the Transfer Act, the applicable regulatory requirements for soil and groundwater quality at the site would be the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations(RSRs). The.RSRs establish the criteria for the — remediation of soil and groundwater at sites where releases of hazardous materials or petroleum products have occurred. G:\P2002\184W.IO170\Phl2lESA—RRK091902.dw 14 comes. 06/26/03 THU 15:30 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES UO2 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 7.1 Ap icable Soil Criteria The analytical results for the soil samples collected on 2 a the�133k 2)•ite.were evaluated with respect to the The RSR require."polluted RSR Standards for soil R.emediation(RCSA Sect soil at a release area"to be remediated to meet both Direct Exposure Criteria(DEC)to protect or ingestion of contaminants,and the Pollutant Mobility Criteria against the effects of contact (PMC),which are intended to prevent impacts to groundwater through leaching of contaminants from the soil. .Unless specific land-use,restrictions are employed at a site, the default DEC under RCSA Section 22a-133k-2(b)(2) is the Residential DEC. The site.lies within an area where the groundwater has been classified by CTDEP as GA, groundwater "suitable for arinidng without treatment"(CTDEP, 1.997). Since the site is within a GA area,under RCSA Section 22a-133k-2(c)(1)the applicable PMC is the GA PMC' The RSRs also define specific alternatives to the baseline DEC. and PMC including self- implementing options, exceptions, and variances. The fallowing self-implemeDting options were used during this irlvestigation to demonstrate PMC.compliance: RCSA Section 22a-133k-2(c)(2)(A)allows comparison of leachable concentrations of a T substance in unsaturated soil(other than.certain VGCS)to.the GWPC. This option was employed with respect to DDT-related compounds at the site,since baseline PMC for these compounds are currently:"under review"by the CTDEP. RCSA Section 22a-133k-2(c)(2)(C)allows,comparison of leachable concentrations of a substa=6 other than VGCs or TPH to ten times the GWpC,given conformance with the following conditions: The limits of the,release area are at least 25 feet from the closest downgradient property boundary No non-aqueous phase liquids are present,and The bedrock surface is at least 15 feet below the water table This compliance option has been employed with respect to. dieldrin, which was only detected at the east-central portion of the site. '7.2 A livable Groundwater Criteria ^+ The analytical results for the groundwater samples collected at the site were evaluated with respect to the RSR Groundwater Remediation Standards.(RCSA Section.22a-133k-3). Since the site is within an area where groundwater has been classified as GA, the following RSR criteria apply to the site: The("mound Water Protection Criteria(GWPC)for substances in groundwater(RCSA Section 22a-133k-3, Appendix Q. The GWpC apply to groundwater in GA groundwater areas and are indicative of State risk-based criteria relating to water quality suitable for direct consumption without adverse health effects. r,:\p3002\184V+101701Ph123BSA_P.RK091902.d0c 15 r nrees. 06/26/03 THU 15:30 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES Z 02 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. _. . The Surface Water Protection Criteria(SWPC)for substances in groundwater(RCSA Section 22a-133k-3, Appendix D). The SWPC apply to groundwater plumes which discharge to a surface water body. + The Volatilization Criteria (VC) for groundwater (RCSA Section 22a-133k-3, Appendix E). The VC apply to groundwater polluted with a VOC.within 15.feet of the ground surface or a building.. One or both of these conditions apply to groundwater across the entire Site.. 8.0 PHASE III INVESTIGATION The objective of the Phase III investigation was to further characterize the extent of residual pesticide and PCE impacts identified at the site during the Phase 11 investigation. Data from.the Phase 11 investigation identified the following issues requiring further characterization to determine the status of the site relative to. the Connecticut'Transfer Act and the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations(RSRs):. Pesticides • Low concentrations of pesticides, i.e., 4,4'-DDT (DDT), 4,4'-DDE (DDE), and 4,4'- DDD.(DDD)were detected in several shallow soil samples,and dieldrin was detected in one sample. Based on the Phase 11 results, further characterization was necessary to. define the limits of the residual pesticide release area. PCE Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)was detected at a concentration of 8.1 micrograms per liter (ug/L)in a groundwater sample within the Buckland Cleaners facility,in the vicinity of their dry-cleaning machine and the location of an historic PCE spill..Following the — Phase II investigation, the extent of the PCE impact to groundwater needed to be, determined as part of the Phase 111 investigation. The soil and groundwater sampling program conducted to address these issues has been summarized in the following sections. 8.1 Residual Pesticide Release Characterization A shallow soil sampling program was conducted between May:23 and September.4,2Q02 across the entire.site,both within and outside the area where dieldrin and/or DDT-related compounds were.detected during the Phase II investigation. The majority.of the soil samples,27 in all,were T collected from the top six inches of soil in grassy areas or from immediately below the asphalt and base material in paved areas. Deeper samples were collected at the approximate locations of two Phase II shallow soil sampling points(SS-3 and SS-8)and one Phase M sampling point (SS-13). The purpose of the soil sampling program was to.define the lateral and vertical extent of the residual pesticide release area, and to determine if the soil within the release area complies with tho. GA Pollutant Mobility Criteria (PMC) and Residential Direct Exposure d3:\P2002\134\.Ia\70\Mi23Esn_xxK091902.dw 16 coffes. 06/26/03 THU 15.31 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1002 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. �. Criteria (DEC) in the RSRs. The approximate locations of the Phase H and Phase III soil sampling points are shows. on Fig< e 4. As part of the Phase III investigation, groundwater samples collected from two monitoring well locations(MW-1 and MW-2)installed within the residual pesticide release area wore analyzed for chlorinated pesticides, to document groundwater quality within the release area. Samples from all the shallow soil sampling points,with the exception of SS-10 and SS-11,were analyzed for chlorinated pesticides by USEPA method 8081. Ten selected samples. representative o£the residual pesticide release area were analyzed for leachable pesticides using the Synthetic precipitation Leaching Procedure(SPLP)to determine PMC compliance. Shallow soil samples collected from the approximate locations of Phase R sample points SS-1,SS-2,and SS-3 (designated 88-1A, SS-2A, and SS-3C)were analyzed for SPLP arsenic, copper and/or lead to rule out PMC exceedances. Although concentrations oftotal arsenic,lead,and/or copper at these locations reported during the phase II investigation were characterized as being within acceptable background ranges,the reported concentrations for these metals had the potential to leach at concentrations. above the GA PMC. Based on initial analytical results for these samples,total lead analyses were performed at sampling locations SS-1QA,SS-12A,SS-24,SS- 27, and SS-29, which are -representative of areas bath within and outside of the residual pesticide release area. All samples were submitted to Phoenix for analysis. Sail analytical results are summarized in Tables 1A and 1B. Groundwater analytical results are sum.marized in Table 2. Laboratory analytical reports are presented in Annendix I. 8.1.1 Release Area Discussion During the Phase I investigation, grassy areas to the east, south,and southwest of the existing buildings were identified as a PAOC, based on the agricultural history of the property. Y Sampling conducted during the Pbase II and Phase III investigations indicated that residual pesticides are present within the top. two feet of soil in grassy areas along the eastern and southern edges of the.site,as well as along the northern and northeastern edges of the detention basin on the northern portion of the site, at sampling locations SS-28 and SS-38. Pesticides were not detected in samples collected from remaining grassy areas of the site. In,addition,no residual pesticides were detected beneath paved portions of the site,consistent with stripping of topsoil and shallow subsoil frown pavement and building footprint areas during site development. The extent of the residual pesticide release area at the site is shown on Fii a 4. The release area is characterized primarily by detectable concentrations of one or more of the three DDT- related compounds(DIED,DDE,and DDT),and to a lesser extent heptachlor epoxide. Dieldrin, the fifth detected pesticide compound in the release area,was only detected in two.areas along the east central Edge of the site (sampling locations SS-7 and SS-13). . Therefore, PMC compliance for this compound was handled separately. Pesticide analytical results for the MW-1 and MW-2 groundwater samples showed no detections,of chlorinated pesticides beneath the release area. During the Phase III investigation,three samples were analyzed for.SPLP arsenic,copper,and/or lead to determine compliance with the. GA PMC. An SPLP lead concentration of 0.029 milligrams per liter. (mg/L) was reported in the sample from the SS-3G sampling point. However,the reported total lead concentrations for this sample,20.4 mg/kg,is within the site G,\P'2002V$41AI0\701Ph12�RSA P1RX091902.doe l7 Correa. 06/26/03 THU 15:32 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES f 03 Fuss& '!'Neill I= background range of 7.10 mg/kg to 20.5 mg/kg. Therefore, although the reported SPLP lead concentration at SS-3C exceeds the GA PMC,it is inferred to be incidental to background lead concentrations and does not constitute a release. Based on this data, comparison to the default GA PMC is not appropriate_ Notwithstanding this conclusion, the SS-3C SPLP lead concentration is less than the GWPC times ten of 0.15 mg/L,which could be applied to this leachable lead concentration, as discussed in Section 7.1,if there were a release of lead to soil. 8.1.2 Residential DEC Compliance Discussion No.exceedances of Residential DEC limits were reported for any of the detected pesticides in the residual pesticide release area,with the.exception of heptachlor.epoxide..The Residential DEC.limit far heptachlor epoxide is 17 uglk8, Reported heptachlor epoxide concentrations in the residual pesticide release area ranged from less than 16 ug/kg to 86 ug/kg,with two of the samples exceeding the Residential DEC. As allowed in the RSRs, a statistical evaluation of heptachlor epoxide concentrations was made to demonstrate compliance with the Residential DEC,using methodology recommended by the CTDEP(2000)_A total of21.pesticide analyses from shallow soil samples within the release areawere used to perform the statistical evaluation. A description, of the statistical methodology and calculations used in the evaluation are presented in Appendix J. Based on the statistical analysis, the upper 95 percent confidence interval for heptachlor epoxide concentrations within the residual pesticide release area is 30.81 ug/kg,which is below the applicable Residential DEC value. Therefore,the residual pesticide release area has been determined to comply with the Residential DEC in the RSRs. 8.1.3 GA PMC Compliance Discussion To.assess compliance with the GA PMC,representative samples from within the release area were analyzed for SPLP pesticides.. SPLP. pesticide concentrations for the DDT-related compounds and heptachlor epoxide were below their respective Groundwater protection Criteria. (GWPC) values and were therefore determined to comply with the GA PMC. The SM. dieldrin concentration at S -13.was above.the GWFC of 0.002 ug/L, but all reported SPLP dioldrin concentrations were below below ten times the GWPC(0.02 ug/L), as allowed in the RSRs by meeting conditions discussed Section 7.1. Therefore, the reported dieldrin concentrations comply with the GA PMC. 9.1.4 Groundwater Criteria_Compliance Discussion No pesticides were detected in the.two.groundwater samples(M17V-1 and MW-2)collected from beneath the residual pesticide release area.. This finding indicates that the residual pesticides detected in the release. area at the site are not leaching to. the groundwater at detectable concentrations. Therefore,the.site complies with the GWPC and the Surface Water Protection. Criteria(SWPC)for pesticides.. 8.2. PCE Release Characterization Soil and groundwater samples were.collected to evaluate the nature and extent of the PCE release area at the Buckland Cleaners facility during a soil boring program conducted at the site GAP200211$41At01701Phl23ESA,RRK091902AOC 1� corms. 06/26/03 THU 15:32 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 003 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. between May 23 and September 3, 2O02. As part of the boring program, seven shallow monitoring wells(MW-1,MW-2,MW-3s,MW-4,MW-5,MW-6,and MW-7s)and two deeper monitoring wells (MW-3d and MW-7d) were installed around and within the 465 Buckland Road building to delineate the extent of the PCE groundwater impacts detected during the Phase TT investigation. The locations of the nine monitoring wells are shown on Fes. Grab samples. of the groundwater were also collected from two boring locations, GP-6A, --- (subsequently completed as MW-4) and GP-7, located inside.the Buckland Cleaners facility. Sail samples were collected from three borings(GP-9,GP-1 Q,and GP-11)completed between a window near the dry-cleaning machine along the north side of the Buckland Cleaners facility and the previously-identified PCE transfer area(see Fi ire 5 .. Transfer hoses are typically fed through this window during periodic transfer activities.Based on the lack of a definable source area in unsaturated soil around the dry-cleaning machine and the former spill area,these borings ^' were completed to rule out a source area between the window and the site driveway due to releases.from hoses during PCE transfer activities. 8.2.1 Soil Samyling _ Continuous core samples of soil were obtained from the surface to the water table at each of the three soil boring locations completed along the north side of the 465 Bucklazad Road building, using direct-push methodology. Soil samples were screened for.VOCs at one-foot intervals and T at the water table using a photoionization detector(PID). Groundwater was encountered in each of the three borings at approximately 3.5 feet below grade_ One soil sample was selected from each boring for laboratory analysis. Since no evidence of Vt7C.impacts were detected by the PID.in any of the soil samples, a sample from approximately three feet below grade from each ofthe three borings was submitted to the laboratory and analyzed for.VOCs by USEPA method 8021. The GP-l1 boring, closest to the window, was subsequently completed as a shallow monitoring well(MW-5),as discussed.below. The subsurface soil encountered in these borings was described as fine,silty sand above the water table and as silt with varying amounts of fine sand and clay, as well as a trace of organic matter, below the water table. Analytical results showed no.evidence of PCE in the soil at these boring locations. 8.2.2 Monitoring_Well Installation and Groundwater SgWRfin The nine monitoring wells installed during the Phase. IB investigation were. located to characterize groundwater quality in the areas where residual pesticides and PCE were detected during the Phase Il investigation.The locations of the wells and rationale for installation of each of the wells are provided below: MW-1-1—This well was.installed along the eastern edge of the site,to the east of the 465 Buckland Road building. This well was installed within the. area where residual concentrations of DDT-related compounds and dieldrin were detected in soil during the Phase B investigation. This well location is inferred to be in a hydraulically-upgradient or side-gradient groundwater flow direction from the Buckland Cleaners facility. The purpose of this well was to determine ifpesticides are present in the groundwater.along G:V2002\184\AIO\IOThl23ESA RRK091902.doc 19 Corms. 06/26/03 THU 15:33 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1�03 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. the eastern portion of the site and to dctermine If PCE is present in groundwater entering the site from upgradient properties. �- • MW-2 — This well was installed along the southern side of the 465 Buckland Road building, in an inferred hydraulically-downgradient groundwater flow direction from the Buckland Cleaners facility.. The purpose of this well was to determine if PCE is -- present in the groundwater downgradi.ent of the PCE release area_ MW-3s — This well was installed as part of a well pair at the rear of the Buckland Cleaners facility. The wells are located in the inferred downgradieznt or cross-gradient direction from the Phase H interior groundwater sampling location where PCE was detected. The primary purpose of this well is for plume delineation., • MW-3d-T This well is the deeper member of a well pair installed at the rear of the T Buckland Cleaners facility..The deepen-well was installed to.rule out the possibility of significantly higher groundwater contamination at deeper levels, which may be indicative of the presence. of PCE in the form of a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) resulting from a larger historic PCE release, based on PCE's physical properties (ire., a density greater than water). Installation of this well as part of a. shallow and deep well pair. also facilitates determination of the vertical hydraulic gradient at the well location. * MW-4-4—This well was installed within the stained floor area adjacent to the western - side of the Buckland Cleaners dry-cleaning machine, which corresponds to a former. PCE spill location. This well is inferred to be located within the.source area of the PCE release responsible for the PCE contamination in the groundwater beneath the facility. • MW-5 —This well was installed along the noz'thern side of the 465 Buckland Road building, outside the window through which hoses used for PCE transfer at the Buckland Cleaners facility are fed. The well was installed to rule out a potential source of PCE impact to groundwater associated with spillage between the Buckland Cleaners facility and the inferred location of the truck during periodic PCE transfer activities. • MW_6 — This well was installed along the eastern side of the 465 Buckland Road building,outside the Buckland Cleaners facility. The MW-6 well location is intended to Birther define the eastern(side-gradient)extent of the PCE groundwater plume. • MW-7s — This well was installed as the shallow member of a well pair inside. the Buokland Cleaners facility, approximately nine feet west of the dry cleaning machine and former spill location. The AM-7s well was located to determine shallow -- groundwater quality immediately downgradient of the inferred PCE source area. • MTV-7d-7d - This well was installed as the deeper member of a well pair. inside the Buckland Cleaners facility,approximately nine feet west-southwest ofthe dry cleaning machine and former spill location. The.MW-7d well was located to.determine deeper groundwater quality immediately downgradiernt of the inferred PCE source area. c:1P O02\184vAlobairih123ESA RRK0919oz.aoe 20 comes. 06/26/03 THU 15:34 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES �03 Fuss&+O'Neill Inc. All nine wells were constructed of PVC well casing and slotted PVC well screen. . Well completion information for the monitoring wells is summarized in Table 4. Wells MW-1, MW-2,and the MW-3 well pair.were installed using hollow-stem auger techniques,and MW-4 was installed manually using a hand auger. Wells MW-5 through the MW-7 well pair were installed using direct-push methodology.. Subsurface materials encountered during monitoring well installation generally consisted of fine to medium sand with silt,and gravel, Groundwater was encountered at depths of five to seven feet below grade. Boring logs and well completion information for the nine wells are provided in Appendix H. At the MW-1 well location, the presence of at least 15 feet of saturated thickness above the bedrock needed to be confirmed,as required by the RSR methodology being utilized in the area where dieldrin was detected in the soil. To make,this determination,a probe was driven to. a depth of 35 feet, and refusal was not encountered.. 1n addition, augers were advanced to a depth of 45 feet at the MW-3D location,with no evidence of bedrock. Following installation of the four initial exterior wells,the casing elevations of the four wells _ were surveyed on May 28,2002. The casing elevations for intmior well MW-4 were surveyed on July 18,2002, The elevations were.used to calculate groundwater elevations from depth to water measurements taken at the wells on May 30,June 1.6, and July 18,2002_ Groundwater contours indicating the inferred direction of groundwater flow in the vicinity of the$uckland Cleaners facility.were made from the resulting elevations. The resultingcontours indicate a general southwesterly direction of groundwater flow, toward Plum Gulley Brook. Representative groundwater contours, constructed using the June 16, 2002 ,groundwater elevation data,are shown on Pig_e 6. During the course of the Phase M investigation,groundwater samples were collected from eight of the nine monitoring wells and the GP-6A(MW-4 location)and GP-7 sampling points with dedicated polyethylene tubing and a. peristaltic pump using low-flow techniques. The groundwater samples, were submitted to Phoenix Analytical Laboratories and analyzed for halogenated VtOCs by USEPA method 8021. In addition,the MW-1 and MW-2 groundwater samples were analyzed for pesticides, as discussed in Section 8.1.4. Results of the groundwater sampling are summarized in Table 2. As shown in the table,PCE was detected in three grab saraples, GP-6 and Cif"-6A in the subsequent MW-4 location and GP-7,and at MW-3d..PCE concentrations at these locations ranged from 0.8 to 8.1 micrograms per liter(ug/L). CDCE,a PCE breakdown product,was also detected in three samples(GP-6A, GP-7, and MW-3s), at concentrations ranging from 0.8 to 5.2 ug/L. No.PCE was detected in any of the remaining groundwater samples. 8.2.3 Release.Area Discussion As discussed above, PCE and CDCE were detected at sampling points GP-6A (MW-4) and GP-7,which are located in the Duckland Cleaners facility in and adjacent to the dry-cleaning Y machine and stained floor area. The reported PCE concentrations at these locations are near or slightly above the GWPC of 5 ug/L. Lower concentrations of PCE or CDCE,less than 1.0 ug/L, G.\p2oo2U84\A10\7oTh123ESA_RAK091902.doc 21 Cowes. 06/26/03 THU 15:34 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 003 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. were also reported in the MW-3 well pair,located approximately 30 to 40 feet southwest of the dry cleaning machine and stained floor area,which is the inferred PCE source area. However, no VOCs were detected in MW-5, located just outside the north edge of the building, �. approximately 6 to 10 feet upgradient of the inferred PCE source area,at the M`VV-6 and Phase It boring locations GP-1 and GP-3, located approximately 30 to 40 feet in the inferred side- gradient northwestern and southeastern directions from the PCE release area. In addition,.no VOCs were detected in the MW-7 well pair,located approximately ten feet south ofthe inferred PCE source area. It is our opinion that the contaminant plume associated with the PCE release has been adequately characterized by the.groundwater sampling conducted during the Phase II and Phase III investigations (see Fiore 7 . The conceptual release model for the PCE release is that a small spill of PCE in the vicinity of the dry-cleaning machine migrated through the concrete floor and underlying soil to the water table. Residual PCE that may have been present in unsaturated soil has since volatilized or _ attenuated by other natural processes. This model is supported by the low soil-gas PCE concentrations,relatively.low concentrations and limited extent of PCE in groundwater,and the lack of PCE.or CDCE detection in soil. 8.2.4 Residential DEC Compliance Discussion No VOCs have been detected in soil samples collected from within the PCE release area.. Therefore,the site complies with the Residential DEC in the R.SRs. r 8.2.5 GA PMC Compliance Discussion No. VOCs have been detected in soil samples collected from within the PCE release area. 'Wherefore,the site complies with the GA,PMC.in the R.SRs. 8.2.6. Residential VC.Compliance Discussion Reported PCE concentrations in groundwater.beneath and adjacent to the release area are three orders of magnitude below the Residential Volatilization Criteria(VC)for groundwater of 1,500 ug/L. Therefore,the site complies with the Residential VC in the RSRs. 8.2.7 Groundwater Compliance.Discussion As indicated above,reported PCE concentrations in groundwater within and slightly to the west- northwest of the,inferred PCE source area are near.or slightly.above the GWPC. Based on the release model and the low concentrations of PCE,we anticipate that the PCE.in groundwater will gradually attenuate to.levels below the GWPC.by natural attenuation processes. 8.2.8. SWPC Compliance Discussion The PCE.concentrations reported in groundwater during the Phase 11 and Phase M investigations are well below,the SWPC of 88 ug/L. In addition,no.PCE has been detected in groundwater at the MW-2 location, which is located adjacent to Plum Gulley Brook in the inferred T 0:\P2002\184\AlQ%70Wh123ESA_RRK491902.doc 22 Carrel. 06/26/03 THU 15:35 FAX 860 703 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES I103 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. downgradient groundwater flow direction from. the PCE release area. Therefore, the site complies with the SWPC in the RSRs. 9,0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. prepared this Phase I, II, and M investigation in conformaiace with the scope and limitations cif ASTM Practice E 1527-00,the Connecticut TASA Guidance.Document and the CTDEP.Draft Site Characterization Guidance Document. Exceptions to,or deletions from, the Phase I ESA.practice are described in Appendix A of this report. Eased on these -~ investigations,we have determined that releases ofresidual pesticides and PCE have occurred at the site. It is our opinion that these release areas have been sufficiently characterized and that soil and groundwater are.in compliance with the Remediation Standard Regulations,with the exception of natural attenuation monitoring and post-remediation monitoring. The five PAQCs identified in the Phase I portion of this investigation are summarized in the T following sections. A Phase II investigation was.conducted at each of the PAOCs to deternine if evidence of a release of hazardous waste or hazardous substances occurred. The extent of impacts to soil and/or groundwater associated with releases identified durizig the Phase II investigation was investigated further in a Phase III investigation. Findings from. this investigation and corresponding recommendations are presented for each PAOC. 9.1 Stained Floor and DI)-Cleasunl;Machine Area-13uckland Cleaners Extensive handling of PCE has occurred at the dry-cleaning machine. The stained floor tiles visible adjacent to the.machine correspond to the location of an historic one-to two-gallon spill of PCE onto the floor of the facility which was promptly cleaned-up, according to the.facility �- owner. Soil-gas sampling conducted in this area during the Phase II investigation showed low concentrations.of PCE in four.of the five samples,indicating the possible presence of PCE in soil or groundwater beneath the flour slab.. Analytical data from subsequent soil sampling conducted in the spill area and in the vicinity ofthe dry.cleaning machine in Phase fi showed no evidence of PCE in the sub-slab soil. The low PCE concentrations reported in the soil-gas samples, the lack of residual soil impacts within the inferred release location, and a limited groundwater plume are consistent with a minor release.that has entered the dissolved phase in soil.gas and groundwater. . Wherefore, puss. & O'Neill has concluded that there is no source material above the water table to.address... 'traces of PCE.have been detected in shallow groundwater in three samples collected from _ interior borings(GP-b,GP-6A(MW-4),.and GP-7 drilled at and within 15 feet of the location of the PCE spill, which is adjacent to,the dry cleaning machine. The concentrations detected, which range from I.S.ug/L to,8.1 ug/L,suggest that traces.of PCE released in the vicinity ofthe dry cleaning machine have.migrated to.the water.table and moved in a downgradient direction. Shallow and deep wells installed at a location 40 feet downgradient ofthe dory cleaning machine (MW-3s/d)contain less than 1.0 ug/L of PCE and its breakdown product CDCE. Groundwater samples. collected from the shallow zone at six additional downgradient and side-gradient sampling points(GP-1,GP-3,GP-4,MW-2,MW-6,and MW-7s)and from a sampling point the 0,\P2002\184\A14170\Phl23ESA_F,RK01902.dm 23 Comes. 06/26/03 THU 15:36 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES R03 -Fuss&O'Neill Inc. deeper zone immediately downgradient of the dry-cleaning machine area (MW-7d) did not contain detectable concentrations of PCE or related compounds_ With these data, it is our opinion that the lateral and vertical extent of the PCE release to groundwater has been adequately defined. Dissolved-phase PCE and CDCE concentrations detected in groundwater in the PCE release -� area,during this investigation are generally near or below applicable RSR criteria. T.n addition, the reported concentrations are far below the other RSR criteria that applyto groundwater in GA, groundwater areas (SWPC and ResVC).. It is Fuss & O'Neill's opinion that the reported concentrations are likely to naturally degrade to RSR-compliant concentrations without the need for active remediation. Therefore, we recommend that a natural-attenuation groundwater monitoring program be implemented to confirm that the concentrations of PCE and its degradation products are steady or.decreasing.. This monitoring program should include the well at the release area(MW-4),as well as the three wells downgradient of the release area(MW-2, MW-3S, and MW-3D). . 9.2 Drum Storage Location-.Buckland Cleaners Consistent staging of small drums of waste PCE and related filters and bottoms awaiting periodic disposal has been documented at the rear ofthe Buckland Cleaners facility since at least 1990...The storage areas identified during the 1990 and 1996 TRC.investigations appear to be consistent with those observed during the current investigation,and the site owner has indicated that operations at the facility have remained relatively unchanged since the facility opened upon completion ofth�.building in 1985 and that wastes have not been stored in any other areas..Soil and groundwater samples from three direct-push sail borings installed in the area of drum staging activities have shown no evidence of a PCE release.We believe the boring locations to be representative of the most likely release points. No further investigation is recommended in this area. 9.3 Former 550-gallon Fuel tail UST Grave-Buckland Cleaners A former.550-gallon fuel oil UST installed at the rear ofthe Buckland Cleaners facility in 1985 was removed in 1996. Site personnel and the Town Fire Marshal have indicated verbally that no evidence of petroleum contamination was noted during tank removal. Soil and groundwater samples collected from two borings installed in the former tank grave area as part ofthe Phase E investigation indicated no evidence of petroleum contamination, No fiuther investigation is recommended in this area. 9.4 PCE Transfer Area7 Buckland Cleaners This area,between the northern side of the Bucklaud Cleaners.facility and the typical location where tank trucks are parked in the site driveway during waste and virgin PCE transfer activities, is the area where hose or valve failures. or spillage From hoses have the greatest _.� chance ofoccurring and resulting in a PCE.release. Soil and groundwater analytical results from one Phase II boring and three Phase III borings and a monitoring well (MW-5) showed no evidence of VOC impact. No fiuther investigation is recommended in this area. G-.MO02R1841Ai01701Phl23FSA RRK091902.doe 24 comes. 06/26/03 THU 15:36 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1603 Fuss& O'Neill Inc. -- 9.5 Historical Agdgultural Activities Site personnel and historical,information developed during previous Phase I investigations at the site indicate that portions of the site were used for agricultural purposes prior to commercial development of the site in,the 1980's. This issue was considered a concern only for unpaved portions of the site since topsail would have been stripped from the property for parking areas and building footprints. Subsequent analytical testing beneath paved areas supported this assertion. Grassy areas of the site were investigated for.the presence of pesticides. As would typically be expected for agricultural land,residual concentrations of several pesticides were detected in the soil during our.Phase EVM sampling efforts. These consisted of DDT and related compounds (DDD. and ADE), heptachlor epoxide, and dieldrim The concentrations detected and the distribution of those concentrations suggest that the residual pesticides are present as the result of standard agricultural pesticide use.for pest control and do not suggest that pesticides were dumped or used in an inappropriate manner..A sufficient number of samples were collected to. adequately.determine the lateral and vertical extent ofpesticides in the soil in the grassy areas of the site. Using self-implementing methodology allowed by the RSRs to demmistrate DEC and PMC compliance,the residual pesticides present at the site have been determined to comply T with applicable RSR criteria. No further investigation is recommended in this area. �s:1P20021184\AIO\70\Pbl23ES,A_RI D91902,doe Corres, 09/26/03 THU 15:37 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1003 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 10.0 REFERENCES RENCES American Society for Testing and Materials, 2000, Standard practice for Enviarownental Site Assessments; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process: ASTM Practice E 1527-00. Colton, R.B., 196S, Geologic. Map of the Manchester Quadrangle, Hartford and 'Tolland Counties,Connecticut;United States Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Map GQ-433. Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection, 1982,The Atlas ofPublic Water Supply Sources and Drainage Basins of Connecticut;CTDEP Natural Resources Center. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1991b, Transfer Act Site Assessment Guidance Document; CTDEP,June 1989,revised November 1991. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1991 a, Leachate and Wastewater Discharge Sources for the Connecticut River.Basin; CTTJEP Water Management Bureau. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1993,Water Duality Classifications for the Connecticut River and Sonthcmtral Coastal Basins;CTDEP,Bureau of Water Management; adopted February 1993, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protections, 1997, Water Quality Standards; -� CTDEP, 1997. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 2000, Draft Site Characterization Guidance Document; CTDEP Bureau of Water Management, Permitting, Enforcement and Remediation Division, dated June 12,2000, Hsndman, E.H. and Colton,. R.B., 1973, Depth to Bedrock, Manchester.. Quadrangle, Connecticut;United States Depaim,ent of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Map NE-452 B. Langer, W.H., 1973, Map Showing Thickness of Material Overlying Principal Clay Unit, Manchester Quadrangle,Connecticut;United States Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Map UT-452 E. Rodgers,J., 1985,Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut;CTDEP,Natural Resources Center, Connecticut Geological and Natural History.Survey. TRC Environmental Consultants, 1990„Phase I Property Assessment,435,465,475,479,481, and 497 Buckland Road and 152 Deming Street,South Windsor,CT;prepared for The David C. Mahoney Company, dated January 10, 1990. 0;1P200211841AIM70Th123ESA RRK091902.doc 26 Correa, 06/26/03 THU 15:37 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 03 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. TIT Environmental Corporation, 1996,Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update,435, 465,. 479, 481, 491, and 497 Buckland Road and 152 Deming Street, South Windsor, Connecticut;prepared for Samsel Properties partnership, dated October 1996. United States Geological Survey, 1992, Manchester. Quadrangle Co ecticut-Hartford and Tolland Counties, 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map; United States Department of the Interior,U.S. Geological Survey, 1963,Revised 1992. +G:1P2007k1$41A1¢1701Ph123ESA_RRK091902.doc 27 roues. H/26/03 THU 15:38 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 1604 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 11.0 LIMITATIONS OF WORK PRODUCT All work product and reports provided in connection with the performance of Environmental Site Assessments are subject to the fallowing limitations. 1. The observations described in this Report were made under the conditions stated therein. The conclusions presented in the Report were bused solely upon the services described therein, and - not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of described services, 2. In preparing this report,Fuss&O'Neill,hie.has relied on certain information provided by state and local officials and information and representations made by other parties referenced therein, and on information contained in the files of state and/or local agencies made available to Fuss& O'Neill, Inc, at the time of the site assessment. To the extent that such files are missing, incomplete or not provided to Fuss & O'Neill, Inc,, Fuss & ONeill, Inc. is not responsible. Although there may have been some degree of overlap in the information provided by these various sources, Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of all information reviewed or received during the course of this site assessment. 3. The purpose of this Deport was to assess the physical characteristics of the subject site with respect to the presence in the environment of hazardous substances, waste or petroleum and chemical products and wastes as defined in Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a.452, Unless otherwise noted,no specific attempt was made to check the compliance of present or past owners or operators of the subject site with Federal, State, or local laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise. 4. If water level readings have been made in observation wells,these observations were made at the times and udder the conditions stated in the Report. However,it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur due to variations in rainfall, passage of time and ether factors. Should additional data become available in the future,these data should be reviewed by Fuss & O Neill, Inc., and the conclusions and recommendations presented herein modified accordingly. 5. Except as noted within the text of the Report,no quantitative laboratory testing was performed as part of the site assessment. Where such analyses have been conducted by an outside laboratory, Fuss&O'Neill,Inc.has relied upon the data provided, and has not conducted an independent evaluation of the reliability of these tests. 6. If the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based,in part,upon various types of chemical data, them the conclusions and recommendations are contingent upon the validity of such data. These data(if obtained)have been reviewed and interpretations made in the Report. If indicated within the Report,some of these data may be preliminary°screening" level data and should be confirmed with quantitative analyses if more specific information is necessary. Moreover, it should be noted that variations in the types and concentrations of contaminants and variations in their flow paths may occur due to seasonal water table _ fluctuations,past disposal practices, the passage of time and other factors. Should additional chemical data become available in the future,these data should be reviewed by Fuss&O'Neill, Inc. and the conclusions and recommendations presented herein modified accordingly. 7. Chemical analyses may have been perforated for specific parameters during the course of this site assessment, as described in the Report. However,it should be noted that additional chemical constituents not searched for during the current study may be present in soil and/or ground water -- at the subject site. G:1P200211841A10\70\'Ph123ESA_RRK091902.doo 28 Carrie_ 06/26/03 THU 15:38 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 04 mow- • , \ .. ++• �y'a` `•• .. y�4b �-. •` Lf .s •.. (_ a}� 1 `�+ �i�fp•• :-,.••�47` •'S a '�6i'[:'�•1. _ IETW >y1r• � a � -`.• _, •���' �� � eft- t�u•• � * ` •, SITE LOCATIONex f •_ - '•-: r l ■ . HM T �• � '� `-ter' •. •, '"'� � �,::. �:ti:•- •fao.�'• + ,f t,_-•_-ram .��..i �. :.I.. • a .{,•u,� * L �1.; ,r '-'--tip ff��.\ •� .5-' r p a 1 :.. I• ,••-R`•��,, ��'• � -'—ply-,, r �� . '�� err• /� } / 11 � � 1 ` max•• ••� • SCALE=1;24000 ❑ 1/2 1 MILE 0 2000 4000 60ALE:1"=2OW FIGURE 1 MAP I39F�RIENIQ1 _ -�'1 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Consultin Ln ineer. THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM THE FOLLOWING w 146 HARTFORD ROAD,MANC,,HE$'I'ER.CONNIECTICUT080dO Y 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP: aoe�a 2468 MANCHESTER,CONN.1964 PHOTOREVISED 1992 SITE LOCATION MAP TERRY OFFICE PARK �- 465.481 BUCKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSDR CONNECTICL Quadrangle Location .,.. ..� ����.�...� •.mow. ....,_ ,..�.,._ ti SUCKLAND MEADUM w AssoeLtrEs � a ea f{ 475 BLXKL#1D ROAD r� 1 PAD-MOUNTED TRAASFORIJER NOTE: en FlGURE DERIVED FROM _�-- SUBJECT SITE SURVEY DATA 3/af9s_ PAVED GULLY BROOK PARKING- 479 SUCKLAND ROAD 00 a I f POND �l DETENTION Ca BASIN SEE FKXM 3 FOR I4EUMNAL 'A Des HEAT PUA IV WELL -PAVED 491 BLICKLAND RQ4D PAD-44OUNTIED PARkM]j- 1 PAD-MOUHTED 7RMSFORMER TIM4SFORMER 435 MXKLAND ROM 465 Et OKLlJ1D ROAD 447 SUCKLAND FXW rA 1 rA PAYED 1 0 435 EIUCKLAd1D RDAD PpaKING- n H 1 a � - H LT1 481 SUCKLAND ROAD mT owww ancx FIGURE 2 ,a FM a 0HWZ HC--, a.9 Q m Draw a3 s SITE PIMP] tca D 10o zoo 300 a SAMSEL PROPERTIES SCALE: 1" = 100' o 4.55-451 BUCKLAND RGAD 6 i viesR oom<_crct 4, PROD.NO.:�JOC'2I O/,UO DATEAWT 2002 51'JLLf:1�=107 a 06/26/03 THU 15:40 FAX 860 793 3418 HRF ASSOCIATES Ca04 1 FORMER UST GRAVE 1 Q—GALLON �. aRuMs "- HEATING OIL AST �l F PC E TRANSFER AREA HISTORICAL SPILL LOCATION ORY CLEANING B UC KLANQ MACHINE C LEAN ERS NOT RE D FOR CONSTRUCnON FIGURE r- ISM & OT RL Mace„uuuw Yrbw m a�' , caw�,crKxrr aeaw o oco jaeo)ue_sMes - 0 20 . 40 DETAIL MAP - BUCKLAND CLEANERS AMSEL PROPERTIES SCALE: 1' = 20' 0 46.5-481 BUCKLANO ROAD 0 SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECT 20 PROJ. N0.-24021&4AIIO DATEJULY 2002 SCALE:1"= BUCKLAND \ MEADOW ASSOCIATES \ ss-a5 c 0 +r 435 BUCKUtiND ROAD - SS-34 0 PPA—MOUNRED NNlr- cn TRANSFORMER. 0 FIGURE DERIVED FROM p FUSS O'NEILL, INC S_� SS— SS-36 do SUBJECT SITE SURVEY DATED 5/a`/0..2, � 0 as GULLEY BROOK SS-36 —PAYED � PARKING 479 BUCKtAm Rao tq SS-27 SS—iflk 0 L:EGE n. � 0 SS—�jr �-t � le POW DETENTION +,,.! k SOIL SAN&UNG LOCATION CAI BASIN SS-37 {PHASE II ESA] SS-2/2A Ca le HEAT --��--- tiiiIL JJdPL1N0 t{1CA715N sS-90 PULP WEU" O (PHASE III ESA) PAVEQ ' FOR ADDmoum. SS 2 PARKING t 491 BUCKLAND ROAD PPD—MOL UM 1 DEMS I AG—MOUkTED {T.Z RESIDUAL PESTICIDE TRANSFORMERss--30 S,0 TRANSFMkgER i f/!,1 RELEASE AREA , � SS--21 pq SS-1 7C 435 BUMAND ROAD 465 B KLANO ROAD SS-37 4'J7 BUCK1fN0 ROAD cl ' SS-2fl —4 �-'S ✓ w �4` �1/ w ih SS-5 —PAYED OSS-25 0 -036 BUCKLAND ROM PlRKING— H SS-1 SS-19 H ss—s SS-2 f Ss-3j3A—C ff L SS-34 SS-12f12A �— _1 CA SS-6 481 BUGxLryh7D ROAD FIGURE 4 �3 a SOIL. SAMPLIMG LOCATIONS 106 0 1oo zoo 300 SAMSEL PROPERTIES SCALE 1" = 1 i30' a d6a-481 BUCKLAND ROAD nwrx■row �ora€encua 4 f PROD,MD.:ZC=194ALa 7K SEPT.2D32 S.JLEA M* 0 06/26/03 THU 15:40 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES IA04 LWEND �- SOIL GAS SAMPLE LOCATION GP-2 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION FORMER UST GRAVE T GP-1 10-GALLON DRUMS GP HEATING OIL AST GP-2 FCC TRANSFER AREA GP-6/ -� SG-4 SG-5 SO-3 GP-71 * GP-9 GP 4 GP-10 SG-2� SG_l* HISTORfCAL SPILL LOCATION B UC ISLAND DRY CLEANING CLEANERS MACHINE NOT RELEASED FOR CONSMUGnON FIGURE 0 20 40 Q SOIL/SOIL-GAS SAMPLING DETAIL W SCALE, 1` = 20' SAMSEL PROPERTIES _ o 465-481 BUGKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR CONNEC PRQJ_ NO..2002194A10 DATE.SEPT, 2002 SGAI.E:1"� 7 Na BUCKLAND rr W MEADOW ASSOCIATES a eas rf 475 BUCKILMO ROM PAD-MOUNTED` TRANSFORMER FUTURE DERM FROM �P SUBJECT SITE SSUSRYFY o WJJ i/02. y NPA4EO GUILM BROOK PARKING- 479 BUCKLAND ROAD co umupm a MLV-5 pQNp t MDNf oRIN6 wELL LOCATION m t DETENTION 82 CROUNUWATER ELEVATION - 6/14/02 � EASIN C-y GROUNOWATER ELEVATION iP HEAT wEil 84,5--CONTOi.7R - 6/14/D2 PUUP co SEE FIGURE 7 -PAVED FOR ADDUMNAL PARKING- 491 BUCKLAND RQRD PAD-MOLMI I DETAILS PAD-MOUNTER DD TRANSFORMER esse .sT IRANSFOTiMfR ` 5 -3 MW-4 LLW-F 465 WN-7D I 2U 435 BUCKMD ROAD � RUCKOAD D µN-75 497 SUCKLAND ROAD � L CD i ir] 435 BUCKLAND ROAD PAYEE PAAKI.4G_ H � y N-I t7l '_�---- 451 BUCKLAND ROAD HOF'RflFr,SE6 FOR 0Qt4UFVJCWN FIGURE 6 -r!% a g ai«a a GROUNDWATER EI.EVAWN CONTOURS AND LiGNITOFMG WELL LOCATIONS IRO O 1 q0 2GG 3w SAMSEL PROPERms M 465-481 BUCKLAND ROAD SCALE: 1" = 144' S 5rfa99ox oxxNDcnour 'a g Faa.LID.2D]2�eM1U OA,eSM. xoca o^yM'L',. loG a 06/26/03 THU 15:41 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES Z04 LEGENQ MW-3S MONITORING WELL LOCATION GP-2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATION ' Fc—o.-al PCE CONCENTRATION (UG/L) o.e C-1,2-DCE CONCENTRATION (UG/L) FORMER LIST GRAVE 1 Gp-1 10-GALLON oe MW-3S # 1 GP' 3 DRUMS i HEATING n s MW-3D OIL AST S - ++�� 1LL-aj PCE s.2 GP�?~ GP-6/6A TRANSFER (MW-4) AREA — t1 PCE PLUME LIMIT MW-7D �11 <; GP 4 U 'a/L) ! Mw-5 s MW-75 HISTORICAL 1771-1 SKILL 0 LOCATION B U C K LAN D DRY CLEANING CLEANERS MACHINE <- di — MW-G NOT KLEkSED r0R SMUGMN FIGURE o vm k OR=LL II oon.atst+w s�.�� 0 20 40 GROUNDWATER DETAIL MAP SCALE- 1' 20' SAMSEL PROPERTIES 465-481 SUCK AND ROAD $pug WIND$OR C4NN£t LL f PROJ. NR--2002184A10 DAlE:SEPT. 2002 SCALE:1"= t =a ea Fss&O'Neill Iric. Table 1A w Soil Analytical Summary-VOCs,TPH,and Metals Phase 1,11,and III Environmental Site Assessment Terry t?ifffce Park 465481 Buckland Road South Windsor,Connecticut �n Septvnbar 2002 a s� Sampling Sample Sample Sampliry PCE ACT ETPH Total Metals Waft) SPLP Metals m Location I Depth ft 1D Date u ik m Arsenic Copper Lead Zinc Arsenic Copper Lead Res DEC IF' 2,Ofl0 500 10 2,500 500 20,000 NS MS MS GAPMC i00 500 NS NS MS NS 0.05 1.3 0.015 co Phase li ESA Sampling GP-1 1-3 45102040E-05 0408/021 ND<10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GF-1 5-7 451020408-06 041=202 N0<10 N0<10 NA NA NA N+4 NA NA NA GP-2 0-2 451020408-04 041OW02 N0<10 NA NA NA NA. NA NA NA NA GP-3 0-2 451020 40a-41 04A)BM2 ND<10 NA NA !NA NA NA NA NA NA. GP-3 6-8 451020408-02 OV08102 N13<10 Ni)<10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GP-4 0-2 451020408-OB 04108102 MD<1 a RA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GP'-4 4-6 451020406-09 04108M2 ND<10 NA NA: NA NA NA NIA NA NA x GP-5 0.5-1.5 451020429-08 04129J02 N0<5 NA NA MA NA NA NA NA NA x' GP-5 0.5-1.5 451020429-09 04129f02 RD<S NA MA MA NA CIA Fit NA NA ro SS-1 0-0.5 45IG20408-16 04108102 NA NA 5.22 19.5 19.4 31.2 NA NA NA SS-2 0-0.5 451020408-17 04108102 NA f+4 Z.00 4.2fl T.10 16.2t} NA NA MA NA SS-3 0-0.5 451020406-1 B 04108102 NA NA 4.40 29.9 20A 30.5 NA NA NA � Phase III ESA Sampling GP-9 3 231020903-01 09AM02 ND<5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA HA GP-10 3 231020903-02 0910310211 ND<5 NA NA NA NA" NA NA NA NA GP-11 3 231020903433 09MV02 I ND<5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SS-1 A 0-0.5 144020904-17 W04102 NA NA NA NA NA NA ND<0.01 NA ND<0.015 SS-2A 0-0.5 144020904-16 0910V02 PEAL NA NA NA NA NA ND<0.01 NA ND<0.015 SS-3C 0-0.6 144020904-12 09M4102 NA NA NA NA NA NA ND<0.01 0.03 0.029 SS-10A fl-0.5 144020904-14 09104f02 NA NA NA NA 13.3 NA NA I NA NA SS-12A 0-0.5 144020904-11 09M4142 NAB NA RA NA 11.9 NA NA NA NA SS-24 0-0.5 231020711-03 07111102 NA NA NA NA 9.97 NA NA NA MA SS-27 0-0.5 144020904-1 B OBM4102 NA NA NA NA 20.5 NA NA NA NA SS40 0-fl.5 1 144020904-19 09104102 P!A NA NA NA 7.34 NA NA NA NA Motes: 1. Only'VOC and pesticide compounds detected in one or more samples are listed. 2. Units-uglkg-micrograms per kilogram;mglkg=milligrams per kilogram; mgfL=millig rams per Ifter. 3, Res DEC=Baseline Residential Direct Exposure Crite4a, as listed in the Connecticut Remediafion Standard Regulations(RSRs)and OTDEP-approved listing of criteria for Additional Polluting Substances. 4, GA PMC=Baseline Pollutant Mobility Crileria for GA groundwater areas,as fisted In the RSRs and CTDEP-approved listing of criteria for Additional Polluting Substances. 5. NS=No standard has been established for this compound{PMCs for metals are cam pared to leachable concentrations). 6. NIA=Sample was not analyzed for this parameter. 7. ND<=Not detected at specified reporting limit. a 4 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. � Table 113 Sail Analytical Summary-Pesticides Phase 1,11,and ilk Environmental Site Assessment Terry Office Paris 465-481 Buckland Road South Windsor;Connecticut P r.� September 2002 a pe Sampling Sample Sample Sampling Pesticides(ugfk SPLP Pesticides u L Location De hit In Dat$ 4,4'-QDD 4r4'-DDE I 4,4`-DDT H.Epoxide Dieldrin 4,4'-QDD 4,4'-DDE 4.4'-DDT H.Epoxide Dieldrin Res DEC 2 600 1.800 1,800 67 1 38 - - - - - G,A PMC I rn review In review In review 20 7 -- GWPC - - - OAS 0.1 0.1 12 0.002 iflx GVVPC - - - - 1.5 1 1 2 0.02 Phase 11 ESA Results ~ SS-i 0-0.5 451020408-16 041�O�B102 NC<32 ND<32 ND<32 ND<16 ND<7.0 MA NA NA MA NA °7 8&2 0-0.5 45102D406-17 CQOH 02 ND<32 Ni7<32 NQ<32 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA M SS-3 0-0.5 451020408-18 041OW02 ND<32 80 34 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA SS-3A 1 -1.5 451020429-07 04129102 15 130 60 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA - NA SS-4 0-0.5 4510204297fl2 04129102 ND<4 13 16 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA SS-5 0-o.5 4510�20429-03 0412M2 4.6 87 64 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA S" 0-0.5 45402G425-04 04f29f02 6.6 90 33 ND<16 ND<7.0 MA NA NA NA NA SS-7 0-0.,5 451020�429-05 i?4J29i02 21 67 71 We% 9.6 NA NA NA NA NA S.S-8 0-0.5 45102042'9-06 04129102 4.6 79 29 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA Phase 111 ESAliesults SS-39 2-2.5 225020621-03 06121102 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 KD<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA 88-8A 1-1_5 225020621,D1 06121t02 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA y ,9&8A 2-2.5 225020621-02 06121102 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA �y SS-9 1 0-0.5 451020,923-05 W23102 ND<4.0 ND<4.0 ND<4.0 ND<16 ND<7.0 ND<0.005 ND<0.005 ND<0.005 ND<0.005 ND<O.DO2 SS-10 1 0-0.5 451020523-04 05MI= NA NA NA NA NA ND<0.005 ND-*.005 ND<0.00a ND<0.005 ND<O.OD2 SS-11 0-0.5 451020523-03 05123102 NA NA NA NA NA ND<0.005 ND<0.005 ND<fl.005 0.028 NE3<0.002 SS-12 0-0.5 451020523-01 05i23102 NA NA NA NA NA ND<0.005 ND<0.005 ND<O.005 0.034 ND<O.DD2 SS-12A U-0.5 144020904-11 091{}M2 ND<32 110 58 N0<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA CIA NA SS-13 0-0.5 451020523-02 05123102 ND<4.0 22 65 45 34 ND<0.005 ND<O.005 0.012 0.031 0.017 SS-13A 1-1.5 225020621-04 06121fiD2 ND<16 ND<16 ND<15 64 ND<7.0 ND<O.0D5 ND<O.005 ND<0.005 0.018 ND<0.002 SS-13A 2-2.5 225020621-05 06121102 1 ND<16 I ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA 5519 0-i3.5 225020702-06 07102fD2 ND-44.0 1 7.7 ND<4.0 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA SS-20 I 0-D.5 225020702-07 i)MV02 N D<4.0 16 ND<4.0 19 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA 9941 1 0-0.5 22502D702-08 MOM ND<4.0 ND<4.0 ND<4.0 7.0 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA SS 22 0-0.5 231020711-01 07111f02 ND<4.0 35 50 71 ND<7.0 ND<0.1 ND<O.1 ND<0.1 ND<0.05 ND4.01 SS-23 0-0.5 231020711-02 07111102 ND<4.0 19 ND<4.0 86 N❑<7.0 NNCIA ND<0.1 ND<0.1 ND<0.05 ND<0.01 86-24 0-0.5 231020711-03 07)11102 ND<4.0 ND<4.0 ND<4.0 33 ND<7.0 ND<0.1 ND<O.1 ND<0.1 ND<0,05 IUD<0.01 SS-25 D.3-0.5 144020904-09 09104102 ND<32 I ND<32 ND<32 ND<16 I ND<7.0 NA NA NA INA NA SS-27 0-0.5 144020904-111 09104102 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA SS-28 0-0.5 144020904-15 09f"02 ND<16 61 ND<16 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA, SS-29 1 0-0.5 144020944-20 09104102 ND<16 27 26 ND<16 ND<7.0 INA NA NA NA MA SS-30 1 0.3-0.5 1 1440209D4-21 OW04102 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 MD<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA SS-31 1 0.3-0.5 1144020BD4-221 09104102 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 NDG16 MD<7.D NA NA NA NA NA Fuss&©'Neill Inc. as Table 1B Solt:Analytical Surnmary-Pestleides yy Phase I,II,and Ill Environmental Site Assessment x Tarry Office Park F 465481 Suckland Road � South Windsor,Connecticut ca September M �e Sampling Sample Sample Sampling Pesticides guallcM SPLP Pesticides ugfLl Locatfan Depth. 1D Date 4,4'-DDD 4 '-DDE 4,4'-DDT H.E oxide I Dieldrin 4P-13011) 4N-DDE 4,4'-DDT H,E axkle Dioldrin 0 SS-32 0.3-05 14402090423 09104102 ND<16 ND<16 ND<i6 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA ILIA v SS�33 0.3-0.5 144020904-24 CBM4102 ND06 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA m SS-34 0.3-0.5 144024904-25 09MV02 ND<16 ND06 ND<16 N D<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA NA SS-35 0-0.5 144020904-25 OW04102 ND<15 ND<16 ND<16 ND<16 ND47.0 NA NA NA NA NA SS-36 0-0.5 144020904-28 09M4102 N0<16 ND<16 ND<46 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NA NA 14A r SS-37 0-0.5 14402 4-28 U91 ;02 ND<16 ND06 ND<16 ND<16 ND<T.0 CIA 14A NA NA NA SS-38 0-0.5 14402091)4-29 09104102 ND<16 47 17 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA ?eft NA NA NA SS-39 0-0.5 144020904-30 0910 M2 57 160 160 NDs16 ND<7_0 ND<U.1 N0<0A ND<0.1 ND<0.05 ND<0.01 SS-40 0-0.5 144020904-19 0RMV02 I ND<16 ND<16 N D<16 ND<16 ND<7.0 NA NA NAB NA NA Notes: 1. Only pesticide compounds detected In one or more samples are listed. x 2. Units-ugfkg-micrograms per kilogram;uglL=micrograms per liter.. 7� 3. Res DEC=Baseline Residential Direct Exposure Criteria,as Usled in the Connecticut Remediatian Standard Regulalions(RSRs)and "° CTDEP-approved listing of mileda for Additional Polluting Substances. 4. GA PMC-Baseline Pollutant Mobility Griterla for GA groundwater areas,as listed in the RSRs and CTDEP-approved listing of criteria for CD Additional Polluting Substances. n 3. GWPC=Baseline Ground Water Protection Criteria listed in the RSRs. In certain specific circumstances,comparision of teachable analyte concentrations y to the GWPC or ten times(10x)the GWPC is allowed by the RSRs as a self-implementing option to demonstrate PMG compliance. r y 6. NS=No standard has been established for this compound. T. NA=Sample was not analyzed for this parameter. a. ND<=Not detected at specified reporting limit. 9. Sampling locagens SS-10,86-11,and SS-12 are representative of area sampled by locations SS-3 through SS-8. 10.SPLP pesticide analyses forthe SS-22,SS-23,and SS-24 samples were extracted past recommended holding times,but are interred to be representative of existing conditions,due to the hislodc and persistent mature of the release. a � I 06/26/03 THU 15:44 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES �105 Fuss&UNeill Ina ` Table 2 Groundwater Analytical.Summary Phase I, II, and III Environmental Site Assessment Terry.Office bark 465-481.Buckland Road South Windsor, Connecticut September.2002 Sampling Sample Sample Sampling V02! ug1L ETPH Pesticides Location Qepth (ft) ID Date PCE C12DCE (mg/L) (ug/L) GWPC 5 70 0.1 — Res VC 1,500 NS --- --- Phase Il.ESA Samples GP-1 7 451020408-07 04/08/02 ND<1 ND-0 ND<1 NA R GP-3 8 451020408-03 04/08/02 ND<1 ND-0 ND<1 NA GP-4 7.5 451020408-10 04/08/02 ND--1 ND<1 NA NA GP-e* 7.5 451020429-10 04/29/02 8.1 ND<1 NA NA Phase III ESA Samples GP-6A/MW-4* 5.5 449020530-06 05/30/02 1.8 3.3 NA NA GP-7 7 449020530-05 05/30/02 3.4 5.2 NA NA MW-1 12 449020530-03 05/30/02 ND<0.5 ND<0.5 NA ND MW-2 14 449020530-04 05/30/02 ND40.5 ND<0.5 NA ND MW-n 10 449020530-01 05/30/02 ND<0.5 0.8 NA NA -- MW-31) 35 449020530-02 05/30/02 0.8 ND<0.5 NA NA MW-5 7 231020903-05 09/03/02 ND<1 ND<1 NA NA MW-6 7 231020903-06 09/03/02 ND<1 ND<1 NA NA MW-7S 1 7 23i020903-08 09/03/02 ND<1 ND<1 NA NA MW-7D 1 23 1 231020903-07 09/03/02 ND<1 ND<1 NA NA _ Notes: t. Only VOCs detected in one or more samples are listed. 2. Units-ug/L=micrograms per liter;mg/L=milligrams per liter, 3. Ground Water Protection Criteria,as listed in the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations(RSRs). 4. Res VC=Baseline Residential Volatilization Criteria,as listed in the RSRs. 5. ND4=Not detected at specified reporting limit For pesticides detection limits, see laboratory analytical reports. 6. NA=Sample not analyzed for this paramenter, 7. NS=No standard established. *=OP-6 and OPXA taken from the sense location. MW-4 installed at this location on 5130102. r%-%P7nn711A41A1n1701GWSurnm RRK090602.xls 043/26/03 THU 15:44 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES IM 05 Pass&O'Neill Inc. Table 3 Soil Gas Analytical Summary Phase 11 11, and III Environmental Site Assessment Terry Office Park 465-481 Buckland Road South Windsor, Connecticut September 2002 Sampling Sample Sample Sampling PCE PCE Location Depth (ft) ID Date (ug/l.,) (PPmw) c3) Res VG for Sail Va or SGA 2.5 - 3 451020408-11 04/08/02 2 0.3 SG-2 2,5 - 3 451020408-12 04/08/02 N D 1 N D 0.2 SG-3 2.5 - 3 451020408-13 04/08/02 13 1.9 SG-4 2.5 - 3 451020408-14 04/08/02 9 1.3 SG-5 2.5 - 3 451020408-15 1 04/08/02 12 1.8 Notes: 1. only VOCs detected in one or more samples are listed. 2. ug/L=micrograms per liter. 3- ppmV=parts per milion by volume. The ug/L value is converted to ppmV by multiplying result by 24.45*molecular weight of the compound. For PCE,the conversion factor is 0.147. 4. Res VC= Baseline Residential Volatilization Criteria, as listed in the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations, 5. ND ,= Not detected at specified reporting limit. r-,-%P,)nn,)11RA%Aln%7r1tRfv�iimm PPK0g0602.xis a a Fuss&O'Neill Inc. o a ca Table 4 well Information Summary � Phase 1,It, and lil Environmental Site Assessment Terry Office Park 466-481 Buckland Road � SGuth WindsGr,Connecticut a m September 2002 Well Screened Boring Reference Water Level Measurements Date Diameter Depth Depth Elevation 513012002 61/412002 7118;2002 Well ID Installed inches (feet) (feet) ft-NGV029 Depth Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Elevation It W-1 512W2 02 2 10.-.15 35 88.73 3.86 84.87 2.95 85.78 3.89 84.84 MW-2 W312002 2 10- 15 15 88.79 5.91 82.88 4_97 +83.82 6.62 82.27 x MVV-3S 512W2002 2 10-15 15 87.49 3.14 84.35 2.21 85.28 3.38 84.13 � MW 3D 512312OD2 2 35.-.45 45 87.54 3.85 83.89 2.66 84.88 4.12 $3.42 MW-4 513012002 2 4-9 9.5 89.10 5 84 4.42 84.97 5.08 84.02 � MW-5 91312002 1 2-12 12 -- - MW-6 902002 1 2-.12 12 --- --- --- --- - - -_ y MW-7S 91312002 1 2-.12 12 --- -- __ -- -- --- MW-71) 91312002 1 1 20.-25 30 - -'- - -- -- -- -- Notes: 1.. All depths in feet unless specified 2. Elevations are based on Fuss&O'Neill surveys of May 28, 2002 and July 18,2002 and are relative to National Geodetic Vetical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). 3. Reference elevations are top of PVC easing,except 6114102 MW-4 measurement(Reference elevation was top of steel- 89.39). 4. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the borings. r_�m�n�t�Ratitti11i7rnWallinfo RRK090602,lds �„ H/26/03 THU 15:45 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 005 (mimb, 1999 of F`yblic i wth and`Favizz�=c ital otcct`tan bim be WMe aware of a 'The . .. ;• t• •t`4`eeta osi fnraiar agri�ltI•l�d la v�ich•.Qersistcat r=ber; t sits de ]op ca p pesticides( Y dla l n;DD'T"? d bmakdownproduM c lcaida ,arsenic)rc�=m in soil ai*==mUafionS;*GpPn'a.C'or M=d e COm eet4cut R, Mt&ad0n Standard, p,tp a cw. Wfinc api;:4,,elc►p t projects do'tMt zpecifieallY faU the R M. canae�ham. raised t�#hc Ldu$!. � cottstxt�a f aith�'�. In ii�h#of• . • true„•DPH mad DEP a -:g 1. `diaara'�:fc�r s sirs L. such as deaotf'bed WOW.-ea m,aan to pro -,an.appwwh gua is prowfive of publiclaealth.and tbat also l a�of f1cdr�Vilt r,'C�t'e�mtn i4d officials aad site de�ic�peYs�a cram mar our rwut'tnze Cher with a'I=gaetm in ddd db*b0w- hest to bandlc sits�- dmlopm ant Prof E,,dua#n site bist,ry and sample surfaasoil(ideally 0-3"depth)in arm where ..Imucides were appacd and skme&• A limited ntq bcr pf deeper saurpirs.ara e1ac me mtende&:.p# y�atoms wbm thm is evidence of su$s%ntlal sinficiat + nta i tiosL 'Total mass con�cidnm p '' .and le whiag twt§should be parfarm�d,. des if-the site is CA,U atiy- wilh cottsidcre�t`on given to s y #ar z:ewer pesticl .. n pestica 'conc�ezttratiaizx. tinst R vaiite�. if die tioas. • are; lo�uv: g,;SR:.+vaiiies.sn aXl. ,# :as�: d.;far furtb.�consid�tzan,l)f. ; ` • 'ot .aze tit this RSR ..-.`'"d�ccr►tareinar�ts.at.thee site„ If so= . xhc f+ito .agls,dt�s foz. gmg ' l) '�' t,Yii. ail.�t�frx►m�it �sails�d nsc fit:c�a,�aiit�as��"ttnc�r' ,: ioi ,.or :or elispase of t :sril: an'aPgre+vc M Vdth U= O.ctari soiis.to.d+ as+a,tlt , • .2);`NLuc,it ri etiv�soi'I.e� eo:iiat+cn: •,I�.tfiis s gics slmdd,be t*=,faa taoot ;ra t ti ,t a�t:.lo�a�tioa a,=nPws•. `sail taifcs:. f. WRA r ►. ..• ,; ••.tom d,�.�t� &�,� • at . s . Via' .. . v9►14ct+c Aat g1ay:� .Dcpendix►g, onthi dGgrec.at"ft lLexcmdancc,t�or i tiou-shouldbo given,is consoltati'on witxi �Ffd anci'DEE,:to rernt>vslf spific bat apQt ate, 4j Il soils'at is saa►e. crept on�sitG,Ott additional pseca>shoaary step woaid b+e pa ^cot tcrsori surface gall samp Ea es thatthe practit es dascribcd above bgLv succw9fufly'=dwzd tk e'Tiatential.for direct cacpvswCe. .5).if=y.solls conu m-S pp—drwabove MR,valucin on stta,ft location., of;tticsc aifeo ii soils should rwor&d on a sits neap vNeh is ou file t the .local * -Oaitment: �,509�7.'742) ead Dom?(4243776)to mukc sum mks-arid tl :thG dorm suisubl f syic`dtas tict presx u , 1 .: ;•::. ,:r:.. r ` Evergreen Walk Fiscal impact Analysis CERC April 24, 2002 A fiscal impact analysis co costs and benefits attribu mpares the ted to a municipal development. Costs • Infrastructure: sewer street lights, tragic li roads and other infrastru ghts' water& services: police cture• Bond payments fire, public works, education, libra Revenues n' • Property taxes • Annual water ' &sewer Other fees user charges , one time and recurring 9 -,-ev,4 IWCC Feb. 19, 2003 Expo Application I. INTERVENTION FINDINGS A. IS THE DEVELOPER'S CONDUCT REASONABLY LIKELY TO CAUSE THE UNREASONABLE POLLUTION, RAPAMIENT OR DESTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST IN THE AIR, WATER OR OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE, 1. The InWtowr's main argumentgo-x a �r� a. IWCC made a determination of significant impact when it decided to hold a public hearing on the application. b. Application is incomplete-because the Evrgreen Walk General Plan of Development has not yet been presented to the IWCC and the Buckland Gateway Trunk Sewer line is not part of the application-or any sewer component. c. That the parcel of land is not a legitimate parcel. d. Technical environmental arguments regarding water flow,water quality, E& S ,wildlife habitat. Even without responding to the validity of the arguments, in my view none of these arguments individually or collectively meet the standard of reasonably likely to cause the unreasonable pollution, impairment or destruction of the public trust in the air, water, or other natural resources of the state. Going beyond that, let me state that this Commission and staff have taken seriously all comments by the Intervenor and have responded in detail. For example: a. This public hearing was held on the legal ground of"in the public interest"without concluding significant impact, but even if the"may have a significant impact"was cited, that alone does not meet the statutory criteria of unreasonable pollution etc. In addition, the Commission has not and Would not make any conclusions prior to the public hearing. b. Although reviewing the General Plan is a good idea and of some value, any such discussion is not definitive on the part of either the presenter or the Commission. In my view, absent such discussions, does not translate into a conclusion of incomplete application or more to the point of unreasonable pollution. As for the sewer line, any activity of the Water Pollution Control Authority is not and should not be part of this application. Any decision regarding sewers on the part of the applicant that may require permits from this Commission is for the applicant to decide and will be addressed by this Commission if such permits are necessary. And let me note that,that is not a unique procedure to this application. In the future,discussion of a trunk line may involve the WPC and warrant discussion involving the General Plan-not part of this application. c. Claims of this parcel not being a legal parcel have been addressed by staff and by the Town Attorney to my satisfaction. d. Technical environmental analysis and comments by the Intervenor has been helpful and has resulted in a valuable dialogue. A number of concerns raised echo those raised by South Windsor's Environmental Planner. The nature of these comments are of most value to this Commission for they address the concerns for which the Commission is responsible. For example, all the comments on the drainage. However, any, if not all, comments of any significance have been thoroughly responded to by the applicant, by the Town Engineer,Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer by a combination of corrections by the applicant, explanations, minor changes to the site plans, or further detailed analysis addressing raised questions. There are no remaining concerns of any consequence. Both the Environmental Planner and the Town Engineer, as is obvious from detailed reports, have diligently insisted on satisfactory responses from the applicant to all details raised. U. FINDINGS To the best of my knowledge,these proceedings have been open and fair to all parties with all information being shared. Ha vin egT+114 written c� en ving been present throughout the public hearing,I cannoe t at -a bona fide case to support the statutory requirement of demonstrating that this application is reasonably likely to cause the unreasonable pollution, impairment, or destruction of the public.trust in the air,water, or other natural resources of the State,base kele. To the contrary, I believe we now have before us an excellent plan fully sensitive to and which fully addresses,to the extent possible, using best management practices, the concerns of protecting the public trust regarding natural resources. yr• � 7„f� FUSS&O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040-5921 TEL 86o 646-2469 FAX 86o 643-6313 INTERNET:www.fussandoneill.com Other Offices: West Springfield,Massachusetts Trumbull,Connecticut Providence,Rhode Island April 4,2003 Mr. Jeff Folger Wetlands Enforcement Officer RECEIVED Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave APR 1 0 2003 South Windsor, CT 06074 ;5ou[it vvinasor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY RE: IWA/CC Application CONSERVATION COMMISSION The Casle Corporation Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network Dear Mr. Folger: Enclosed are 15 copies of the application, 3 copies of the plans and 3 copies of the drainage report for the above referenced project. The project includes the construction of a 39,820 square foot medical office building with 213 parking spaces on 4.26 acres of land at the intersection of Buckland Road and Deming Street. The proposed site has been used for agricultural purposes for many years. Pumpkins were grown on the parcel this past season. The on-site wetlands have been disturbed time and time again for many years and purportedly underdrained by farmers in past years. In order to mitigate the disturbance of approximately 2.11 acres of currently disturbed wetlands, the applicant proposed to create two (2) vernal pools on the west side of Plum Gulley Brook and to dedicate 2.5 acres of land surrounding the pools as a permanent conservation area easement. Sincerely, Jay J. Giles, P.E. Senior Vice President FAP2000\481\C 10\Application letter JJG 4-04-03.doc Corres.(HQ) J v Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040-5921 TEL 86o 646-2469 Fax 86o 643-6313 INTERNET:www.fussandoneill.com Other Offices: West Springfield,Massachusetts Trumbull,Connecticut Providence,Rhode Island April 4, 2003 Mr. Jeff Folger Wetlands Enforcement Officer Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: IWA/CC Application The Casle Corporation Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network Dear Mr. Folger: On behalf of the applicant, I certify that: • No portion of the property on which the regulated activity is proposed is located within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of an adjoining municipality; • No traffic attributable to the completed project on the site will use streets within the adjoining municipality to enter or exit the site; • No sewer or water drainage from the project site will flow through and impact the sewage or drainage system within the adjoining municipality; • No water run off from the improved site will impact streets or other municipal or private property within the adjoining municipality. Sincerely, Jay . Giles,P.E. Senior Vice President F:\P2000\481\C10\App1ication letter2 JJG 4-04-03.doc Corres.(HQ) 11 09 Hose Lana Virginia Beach, VA 23451 April 8,2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Town rrt South Windsor 1540 Ellington Road Saut+h Windsor, CT OB074 re: Site Clan Applimion CASLE Corporation Evergreen Walk, LLC DOW COMMissior+ McMbers, This letter Grants p8rMiSsion for The Cagier Corporation. Sc[iMg as applicant, to "mit an application for site plan approval and an application for an inland w9tiands permit on land owned by Evergreen Walk, LLC knoym as 151 Bucklana Road Ond identified as the Tighth Piece°. Very truly yours, r' Eva k, LLC By soh Le hs tom r as , Duly Authorized cc: Alan Lamson Atty. Laurence P. Rubinow South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency P:�a#.cwee�ae.a�F4e„►.�xocmanoe,da E'1reWeen'Wtd&., SIC 1109 Rose Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23451 April @, 2()03 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Ellington Reed South Windsor, CT 06074 re: Site Plan Application CASLE Corporation Evergreen Walk, LLC Dear Commission Members, This letter grants permission to 1-he Casle Corporation for the use of other land of Evergreen Walk, LL,C fbrr off-site improvements associated with the subject ,application and an application for an inland wetlands permit. This off-sits work Is on land identified as 151 Ruckland road(and known as the `Sbdh Piece")and is befng donor in Conjunction with site plan approval on the parcel known as the "Eighth Piece". The off-site improvements include, but are not limited to, construction of driveways, drainage, utilities, detention basins, emd landscaping. Very truly ours, Evergwfev4v , LLC 8y Jdm uarra Its Member, CVy Authorized cc: Alan Lemon Atty. Laurence P. Rubinow South Windsor intend Wetlands Agency F:firoj�st96'508.02IPL6_LTRlPIC,�03t74DS.dae v. ' EVERGREEN WALE LL� ^'_ November 13, 2002 Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Casle Corporation is hereby authorized to undertake the proposed regulated activity as set forth in the application for the Eastern Connecticut Health Network facility at the intersection of Deming Street and Buckland Road. Very truly yours, EVERGREEN WALK, LLC i / f ` John i g ueff Duly/ ueffMember iAut ed 1109 Rose Lane 'Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 •Phone: (757)422-5566•Fax(757)422-5569 Certified Mail SAM PLC ETTEk Date n 9 C 414 10D W lY40 10 Abutters Name VA'/!S p jr 114 9 01 r i tr.A) Abutters Address *F A ?ft-1 L T,D JU) RE: Inland Wetland Application Casle Corporation Buckland Road/Deming Street, South Windsor Dear Property Owner: In accordance with Section 7.3b of the "Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses, and Conservation Regulations", we are required to notify you that an application has been filed on the property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing by the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission. The application and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department. The proposed project is the construction of a 39,820 square foot medical office building with 213 parking spaces for the Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network (ECHN). As an abutting property owner, you are invited to the hearing to ask questions and/or give comments. However, you are not required to attend. You may also submit written comments regarding the application prior to the hearing if you so desire. For further information regarding the specific date this will be heard, please contact Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer, Planning Department, (8600 644-2511,Ext. 253. Sincerely, Michelle M. Carlson,P.E. Senior Project Manager DocumenO Corres.(HQ) ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR ECHN OFFICE BUILDING - EVERGREEN WALK (04/10/2003) Address Owner Mailing Address cif different Map/Lot Land Use 151 Buckland St. Evergreen Walk, LLC 555 Main St., Manchester, CT 06074 27/15 Vacant 350 Buckland St. Asticon Investment Ltd. 17441 Ellington Rd, S. Windsor, CT 06074 38/5 Vacant 395 Buckland St. Woodcok, John J. III 38/1 Commercial 419 Buckland St. Carmon & Co. 51/34 Commercial 152 Deming St. Samsel Properties Partnership 51/36 Commercial 246 Deming St. Calvary Church of the 400 Buckland St., Manchester, Ct 06040 38/2 Commercial Assemblies of God ADDITIONAL ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FOR WETLAND APPLICATION Address Owner Mailing Address Lif different Map/Lot Land Use 116 Buckland St. Buckland Road Assoc. & 395 Buckland Rd, South Windsor, CT 06074 27/10 4F/SF Williams Electric 108 Echo Ridge Dr, Vernon, CT 06066 130 Buckland St. Krawski, William 27/9 Single Family 190 Buckland St. Reichle, Earl & Barbara 247 Abby Rd., South Windsor, CT 06074 27/8 Vacant 179 Buckland St. Wright, Bradford 251 Buckland Rd., South Windsor, Ct 06074 27/1 Vacant 206 Buckland St. Syme, Rosemary J. 27/3 Single Family 207 Buckland St. Luu Dinh Hoang, Nguygen Trang Thonh 27/2 Single Family 326 Buckland St. Schiavone,Steven&Luca,Kawa 9 Clifton Dr., Simsbury, Ct 06070 38/6 Single Family 335 Buckland St. Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave., CT 06074 38/14 Vacant 43 Deming St. Soucy, Lionel & Margaret 33 Deming St., South Windsor, CT 06074 50/22 Single Family 47 Deming St. Kebalo, Andrian & Cheryl 51/44 Single Family 67 Deming St. Dacruz, Pedro 51/43 Single Family 75 Deming St. Wisneski, David & Nathalie 51/42 Single Family 76 Deming St. Jones, Robert & Townsend, Phyliss 51/40 Single Family 83 Deming St. Desrocher, James 51/41 Single Family 112 Deming St. Dr. Stephen Hershcopf& 51/38 Commercial Wayne Gerlt 10 Robin Wood Way, S. Windsor, CT 06074 51/38 Commercial 112 A Deming St. Hershcopf, Steven 112 Deming, Unit A 51/38 1 P:\Projects\99508.03\AbuftingOwners.doc 112 B Deming St. Gerlt, Wayne Christopher 10 Robins Wood Way 51/38 112 C Deming St. Gerlt, Wayne Christopher 970 Foster St. 51/38 130 Deming St. Grilli, Gary & Jean 80 Berle Rd., South Windsor, CT 06074 51/37 Commercial R017 Clark St. Waldron, Stanley 859 Clark St., South Windsor, CT 06074 37/7 Vacant 610 Clark St. Dinse, Merle &Audrey 37/8 Single Family 500 Clark St. Hood, Donald 37/10 Single Family Jean Marc Jacques 658 Ellington Rd., South Windsor, CT 06074 25/30 Vacant 2 P:1Projects199508.03\AbuttingOwners.doc NEW ENGLAND BLACKLEDGE ENVIRONMENTAL RIVER SERVICES NURSERY VERNAL POOL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS " ECHN/CASLE, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 1. Richard Snarski (Soil Scientist)will supervise the construction of the vernal pools. 2. The groundwater hydrology will be monitored in the area of created vernal pools. The depth of excavation shown on the plans is approximate. The groundwater monitoring data will be evaluated to determine the correct depth of excavation. The goal is to create 2 vernal pools which will have a long hydroperiod so that the - pools will be successful for amphibians most every year. 3. The limits of clearing will be staked by a surveyor. 4. The trees and shrubs will be removed from the site. 5. An excavator will be used to construct the vernal pool. The excavated soil will be placed directly into a truck and hauled off site. 6. The side slopes of the pools will be no greater than 3:1. 7. The topsoil in the area of the created vernal will be placed in the vernal pool. The leaves, sticks and branches will be mixed with the topsoil. Twelve.inches of -- topsoil will be placed on the bottom-and side slopes of the vernal pool. The topsoil will be placed loose and not compacted.. No machines will travel on the topsoil. 8. Wood leaves will be raked from the surrounding uplands and placed on the bottom and side slopes of the pool. The depth of leaves will be 2"-3"deep. 9. Branches and logs'from the surrounding woods will.be collected by: hand and placed in the pool to provide structure for the amphibians. 10. Several samplings will cut and the branches placed in the`_pool for egg mass attachment. 11.The following herbaceous plants.will be planted in the pools: Botanical Name Common Name... uanti Carex Lupulina Hop Sedge 100 _ :. Carex Crinita . ,.Fringed Sedge 200 Scirpus Cypennus Wool Grass .200 G\P2000\481\C10WVERNAL'POOL CONSTRUCTION.DETAILS doc 1 co, .tII�55 JERRY.DANIELS ROAD,MARLBOROUGH, CT 0b447(860)295 1022 12. The temporary construction access strip to the vernal pools will be restored by grading the site smooth. Wood leaves will be spread over the disturbed access strip. Branches and logs.will also be placed on the strip. 13. The created vernal pools will be monitored for 3 breeding seasons. A monitoring report will be sent to the South Windsor Inland Wetland Agency/Conservation Commission. The monitoring report will be sent in the fall of each year. The egg mass will be counted and the amphibian larvae will be monitored. The pools will be monitored 4 times during the season. The report will address any necessary remedial measures. t -G\P2000\48I\CIOWERNAL POOL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS doc 2 it rres:,(HQ) " --� ` t / CQNNECTICU DBl?A1tT11 NT`OF '' ,-,--�I�I'�-,��j,�,�-,I 7',I,I.—I�'�.,.�I,-I,.,'I,—-,,---I -�,-�,"-�-�,. .,I,I�-1,.-�I II-,�-.1_-,0::-I��-,I.,���I."",I-,,I I.�w -.�1I.I-�-:-,'.I I-:;:.I 7,.�I-I.1,-:1I i�.I,-,.-,1-,.1�,,-,.II,�:lT.I,-,,,,;I�.-e�,,,1� ,TI.,��,:-.1..-1�,,.���I,.��I,,-�"I�.1:�I.I.f�,.I z ENYl�tO*11VtE�iTAL PFQ7'ECTtON GI$CODE# ` r.. `��irlin�� r fot QEP Ilse QrVy_� r _T I_:,�I: —,"_' I',,�I - HarE_ford,CT 06106-5127 -��-I,-,:1-- x : Arthur J , pr, e,Jr.,Col.1111 1 ;e t, ttewi inin .Vl�atiands 8 Wa ��roursesCt �ityYReorting For�rn { 4P1e09e comple)e this form�n accQtd�nc with,thy ins#uctr9s ?lease`prir�t or type s" r KART i,�'�a Be Cd�mpletl By 7'ii �i�land V�letlantls°A�� cy Oi rity °< ,� ;,T Ol1TV A,-.I, N W 1S TAISLN Yeah __ Month ,— --- r n r ACTION TAitfN ` - i * r m _ "T' lt t, u r r _ t f 7 S s WAS A PU. LIQ HI=ARING H8LC? Yes^ No �. — - -- n 4 NA;Mg OF AG NGY OPFICi I.V€RIFYIN ANQ C© RLi:'ftN '�WIS FQRM." ,C ,� T fi.:g y - r �(Print) j (slgntre) a -C i',.., - - f P [7q- P h .e F £ ti w PART'I 11 -o 8e Corn 11+1«d By`li��{Irtf nd We a�tls , ancy Qr 7'he A pilc n# -, t ` ' r .� - ' a - t` t S ' x ' :3- " J i i C, - . .�TQ ►/1�t IN WHiGH > E At4TION IB Qt�Cl1RR1N, t `GtJ9 j 1,1(Jil�`ot# y taw fl '. .�` 5 i >.- ,J ; q 3 _ � _ } °_4 i ` Di#e phis p-1111- crops friu��c�pat tio4r�daries? Yes ,�,T}_0 - , ;� s. `lf�fQ$,lift the other>tgwn( !n Y�hjctl a ac l0li Is_4xU n�i ak i t� 1 � s t k, y S f fi � } _ h ' x b�i k'. 'r,. '1 �j- ru f.00P�TIC N=;U'BG5( toad Mai`Name 1�� r,z=--- ',A ( 0a'�I N tmbe. ` � - - '. Y��r y��t$/(,�)z 7r, w p " -a 3 s t i fi.._ r y F ll, J,—---r�•--r t , ? } .S'Ut)-1"��� i't��Z I eY 1�(t rtlf�or' Z� � yev +� t 5 T # Y �h -S .3 A . S C 'Y ? "v 11"� Y k ( K � S� - j Sy s ✓ ?' dAPFt1GA ;1(IQTOR 0 EITiONR� ST > 7 aFN ; f - Y K . g '!b t f Y 'Y J 4�1DI�F�)�$�LQC�J�T�QN Q��PRb -0T$�'t1=� ,: �G f , 'J ��3 �� � �� , n . , 4 _ > B die e b ttie, ot4 1? J N !' -- -� � f�, � Y $ 0 eF o N a , � I '`?lJ�t r tJr N �� ACTIVIT PIRPO t=` D ` `> 4 ,� `s .:} f ' }k , - 1 i i ; i '- J{/'�4{ ., 4 rapp n-., f b 'fr s °G. jl > ; '� - £ ✓ t1 f f.r A 'CN1TY7'Y.P 13�1� � ), 2 f s `` ' r �. ' - f 7..? f s J r. � � y ;Tx ax z �' d r P t. t'; J h '�11 W 1.Jkl ttJD!1 A GC 1R AR A .'E`l R Q Cm� t be��ro 5 tt��QOr of li wq feet ds tin t tedJ ` ,+c j I °�` T 4 r 3 s ..,, Jz _ f 4 r �v t' =" Y ��, a - F }; G 5- F -: i 1il 3 nds� 1 at:�re ti {� t ,�penjllUat t��BodSr'd� rt g Gres , S tAearh, ____ `:___(tne rf t. P a- C} 4 r ,�-t r tk Y x} 4 }' s x r E £ t ..s w 1 £ $`., , '1I, lJQLA-1 0 LT j �I - ust e'pt`o�t - acres r�di�tedj 7�T 1 t f acrtS k. � < `� �„ ^-s:' x E b-s j y > .E'r 4-v r 4 f , y " .� t ,� s .� { s.., -;' M' � r � g C €UV{ p1 l B-P" w J��I�tJf�I 'N,."o It ${ StOR p, h N .4 VK bit T D' -�`; ' ` acl`es ` �a - -,�lI I,,�;�.1-:.�,�-�l�,I�.:w%--�"1I��.,',,":i��,�-,.-ct.,,�l.-,"I,�I,-,�,.�",-1 1-,1��-:--'-'-t,�L,,,'-"!-,1,;'---,"--"-�-,�1:'`'1l-.,-,�;-."1,I-�-.!—-,I'`,�.-"�1,.,?,,.-�m�,�,,-1�,�,—,,Ii'',,,v�,.......,.� r � ,$L yh x l c� �, rt r.:..' .r -s 'e^t-, t .k 'q t{,�v x {„ ,> ` ;Sk �� i N +,.# ' b � h 4� { 5e at 'fi;! ., 3. {5 t`�` S, > u, As' g n F v ' ' P3 t tpY $1 I , 1.1 a y °. -_ a, { 1 $ y t? �.�� t� Na-s k n q' ~5 "s b y 'VA'.:.. c$ ^h x �}z � y- r Y, , :'. , ,r¢w �.. � } '°{' pp.n� ''3 iF I 04idl S a j�f`' •r �F.•53, �'i�` *� #'� ^s 3' y`�E F �, fir,.. y "'`"ItI C t �, 3 „y 3a,,`cM.» # ,3 y' +` 5 -°' ..,,� c w' }._. ^« .} F.T3�.5' ^e `#w 'Z}' _ P 4.r z7-q � *-,.,_ -..� ,._ - 5�'„ # �"- a >, fe�.t* - ,�... .- ,.f�,. ..:. . ,z"..P:-.er ,...}u.. '' 6:,Y,. u..,..,`�..L >..., 3�.x.,u.. t- ,..,.i f':s.ur .s..ti:.z. .a ...._. -'� s -.z,:Wx4- na;c, e wC3 �• � `^•ti� ���i � 29- C�•';�: � { t `t� II�t l�l'''' 1" '� � '� SITE LOCATION ?y w^•. ��ityyal,,y��•. f �/�mow, Q ta\ _ q y_y`�,` • / Y • /��-'��..-.� 1•� �.. - l/''�.� +Al..�- psi': /� Q • :-� 6 /l � `__ o'. tom:. �w. t:' �•�' o �� r - _Q goo n r SMi t o K �'p r r a '. a` •••,:� p oo ••�•� is ••• a --� - d t / d • V _� --- .\: : " � �• a XP is SCALE=1:24000 0 1/2 1 MILE 0 2000 4000 SCALE:1"=2000' r FIGURE 1 MAP REFERENCE: Fuss&O'Neill Inc.Consulting Engine THIS MAP.WAS PREPARED FROM THE FOLLOWING 146 HARTFORD ROAD,M8W)646 246 OONNECTICtrr osoa0 (860)648-2489 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS: MANCHESTER,CONN.1963 PHOTOREVISED 1984 SITE LOCATION MAP EASTERN CONNECITCUT HEALTHCARE NETWORK SOUTH WINDSOR BUCKLAND ROAD CONNECTICUf Quadrangle Location PROJ.NO.2000481A10 DATED:JUNE2001_.....SCALE:1"=2000' pj tp`IIN 8f, �� 07 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 soR.co` TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 To: Jay Giles April 21, 2003 Fuss & O'Neill Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040 From: Jeffrey H. Folger Environmental Planner Town of South Windsor Re: Appl#03-21P Review of the EHCN office project, Evergreen Walk- Buckland Road, plans dated 04/04/03. 1 have reviewed the site plans for the proposed ECHN medical facility site plan with the following initial comments: 1. The plans must be certified A-2 by a licensed land surveyor. 2. Details of the proposed detention basin must be provided. The current plans do not show any outlet protection of pipes exiting the basin. A travel path is shown within the basin, however proposed grading does not reflect this. Microtopography should be shown. Internal diversions should be incorporated to extend the travel time within the basin. 3. Landscape planting associated with the area surrounding the basin should be provided. The plant selection should be made up of native plants and shrubs having a high wildlife habitat value. 4. Runoff velocities within the swale should be provided to evaluate the future stability of the structure. 5. How will extended peak runoff volumes effect the stream channel geometry of the receiving watercourse. A detailed report from a soil scientist, engineer, and a biologist is needed to evaluate the long and short-term effects of the proposed development. How will the timing of the peak flows from this project coincide with anticipated peak flows from other portions of the site. 6. Energy dissipaters should be installed at the inlets to the swale and basin. Sump areas should also be provided to trap sediment. 7. Additional rain gardens should be placed east and west of the building to collect runoff from paved and roof surfaces in those areas. This will reduce the runoff volume entering the detention basin during the growing season. A report from your stormwater consultant should be submitted. 8. Several different grass seed mixed are shown on the landscaping detail sheet. Where are the different mixes to be placed? 9. A construction sequence should be shown on the plans. This sequence should give priority to the construction and stabilization of the stormwater structures. 10. Details of the proposed mitigation area must be submitted. 11. A detailed report from a soil scientist and a biologist is needed to evaluate wetland functions and values on the site, and in areas that could be influenced by the site. This should include a detailed plant and animal inventory on the site and within stream corridor. The long and short-term effects of the proposed development on the wetland resources should be evaluated and listed. 12. The applicant should be prepared to demonstrate that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed activity, which would result in less disturbance to the wetland resources. 13. An accurate existing foliage boundary should be placed on the Conservation Plan sheets. cc. Town Engineer Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission Director of Planning FLB Architecture and Planning Inc. Y • r 'r=ROM': 'PENELOPE C SHARP ENV CONSULTAN FAX NO. : 2034840134 Apr. 22 2003 07:01PM P2 (Penelope C. Sharp tA1V1j(o.,o,11:N*1AI. C•().\s['L ,RECEIVE� 221 Reeds Cap Road Fast �,w Northford,CT 06472 Telephone/Facsimile ('203) 484-0134 APR 2 3 2003 toum VVIRdsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION April 22,2003 Ms. Michelle Carlson Fuss&O'Neill,Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040-5143 Re: Pro sed Evergreen Walk.Buckland Street and in Road, South 'Windsor. Connecticut Dear Ms. Carlson: At your request,I am providing a wetlands functional analysis for Wetland Number I on the above-referenced site. The wetland is analyzed by the Highway Methodology, which uses a variety of qualifiers to evaluate functions. 1 am attaching to this letter the worksheets utilized in my analysis. Wetland Number 1 is a low functioning wetland due to ongoing agricultural uses. It has been maintained as a field and as recently as the summer of 2002,it was used for crops,specifically pumpkins. The wetland is a groundwater discharge area at certain times of the year when the water table is at the surface. There is an absence of hydrophytic vegetation;therefore the wildlife habitat values are low. Wildlife is attracted to wetlands primarily due to the key features of wetlands such as vegetation and surface water depth,neither of which is present within Wetland 1: Because many of the pumpkins were not harvested,but left in the field,wildlife species such as squirrels and crows were attracted to the area. None of the species drawn to Wetland 1 are wetland- dependent wildlife species. The wetland's capacity for nutrient removal is also low due to its small size,Iack Of open water habitat,and lack of dense vegetation. Other functions,including floodflow alteration, fish and shellfish habitat,and uniqueness/heritage are not applicable to this essentially isolated and disturbed wetland area. Under the proposed plan,Wetland 1 will be filled in order for construction of a building. The logical site for this building is the design Iocation as it is near both Buckland Road and..Deming Road and therefore;eas'l accesse t. The longterm impact from the proposed activities is the loss of Wetland 1.however,=this loss will be mitigated +A Printed on `�Recyaledpaper FROM ': 'PENELOPE C SHARP ENV CONSULTAN FAX NO. 2034840134 Apr. 22 2003 07:01PM P3 Nis. Michelle Carlson Fuss&O'Neill,Inca April 22,2003 Page 2 by the creation of a wetland area on*-the property and within.the:same drainage basin. The created wetland will not only`replace wetland.functions-lost by the disturbance to Wetland 1,but will also provide additional wetland functions,such as wildlife habitat, nutrient removal,and production export that are not currently primary functions of Wetland 1. PIease contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Pe 4 C_ Penelope C $ha p i 0 E Wetland Function-Value Evaluation Form m m . N Total ores of wetland 91.329 SO. Haman made?Alter Is wetland pert of Wildlife corridor?Ng or a"habitat island'? Wdiand I.D. N Adjacent land Use: Ag cultu_ral Retail Develot M Distemcc to neatest roadway or other developmteat Adincent Latitude: 4914441,614 Longitude: jZfja 14.r W f- Dominant wedand systems p►esmt: PalrAdm dishwbed del meadow Contlgms undeveloped butter Tone present: Ma Prepared by: PmF>gpe C.sharp 41- Wetland intpeet: Is the wetland a separate hytiraolio gvtem9 If not,where does%wilend lie in drainage basin? Tvpe: Fi i Am: 21,328 How many tributaries contnbtite to the wetland7Nane Wildlife&sesetation diversitylabundance(see attached IW)mow_ Evaluation bated on: • • office - Field X ;... Corps manual.vwland delineation completed? Y N rvr Occurrence Principal �-' Function/Value Y N Rationale(Reference Functions alues s Comments ago Groundwater X 1,2,7, 13 X v m Recharge/Discharge N Floodflow Alteration X r Fish and Shellfish Habitat X Sediment/Toxicant Retention X 10.9 13 Nutrient Removal X U_ ' Production Export X Sediment/Shoreline X Stabilization (n Wildlife Habitat X 8 Only attracts non wetland de endent species Recreation X 'Wz Educational Scientific Value X Uni uenesslHerita e X Visual Quality/Aesthetics . X Endangered Species Habitat X U W Other NOTES: J ' W W 0_ E O ; P Appendix A Wetland evaluation supporting �p g documentation Reproducible forms. Below is an example list of considerations'that was used for a New Hampshire highway project. Considerations are flexible,based on best professional judgment and interdisciplinary team consensus. This example provides a comprehensive base,however,and may only need slight modifications for use in other projects. GROUNDWATER RECHARGE/DISCHARGE--This function considers the potential for a wetland to serve as a groundwater recharge and/or discharge area. It refers to the fundamental interaction between wetlands and aquifers, regardless of the size or importance of either. CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS r I Public or private wells occur downstream of the wetland. 2. Potential exists for public or private wells downstream of the wetland. I Wetland is underlain by stratified drift. 4. Gravel or sandy soils present in or adjacent to the wetland. 5. Fragipan does not occur in the wetland. 6. Fragipan,impervious soils,or bedrock does occur in the wetland 7. Wetland is associated with a perennial or intermittent watercourse. 8. Signs of groundwater recharge are present or piczometer data demonstrates recharge: 9. Wetland is associated with alwatercourse but lacks a defined outlet or contains a constricted outlet.` 10. Wetland contains only`an outlet,no inlet t 1. Grotmdviater quality of stratified`drift aquifer within or downstream of wetland meets drinking water standards. 12. Quality of water associated with the wetland is high. 13. Signs of groundwater discharge are present(e.g.,springs). 14. Water temperature suggests it is a discharge site. I5. Wetland shows signs of variable water levels. 16. Piezometer data demonstrates discharge. 17. Other FLOODFLOW ALTERATION(Storage&Desynchronization)—This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland in reducing flood damage by water retention for prolonged periods following precipitation events and the gradual release of floodwaters: It adds to the stability of the wetland ecological system:or its buffering characteristics and provide-s"social or economic value relative to erosion and/or flood prone areas. Sd WdZ0:40 £002 Zz 'add b£T0b810£0Z 'ON Xtid NHIMSNO7 r"3 dddHS•O 8dO-SN3d W08-4 CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS 1. Area of this wetland is large relative to its watershed. 2. Wetland occur in the upperpoitiot s of•its-Watershed_ 3. Effective flood storage is small or non-existent upslope of or above the wetland. 4. Wetland watershed contains a high percent of impervious surfaces. 5. Wetland contains hydrie soils which are able to absorb and detain water. 6. Wetland exists in a relatively flat area that has flood storage potential. 7. Wetland has an intermittent outlet,ponded water,or signs are present of variable water level. 8, During flood events,this wetland can retain higher volumes of water than under normal or average rainfall conditions. 9_ Welland receives and retains overland or sheet flow runoff from surrounding uplands. 10. In the event of a large storm,this wetland may receive and detain excessive flood water from a nearby watercourse. 11. Valuable properties,structures,or resources are located in or near the floodplain downstream from the wetland- 12. The watershed has a history.ofeconomie loss due to flooding. 13. This wetland is associated.with one or more watercourses. 14. This wetland watetroutj*—,sinuous or diffuse. 15. This wetland outlet is constricted.` 16- Channel flow velocity is affected by this wetland. 17. Land uses downstream are protected by this wetland. 18. This wetland contains a high density of vegetation. 19. Other FISH AND SHELLFISH HABITAT(FRESHWATER)—This function considers the effectiveness of seasonal or permanent watercourses associated with the wetland in question for fish and shellfish habitat. e CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS I. Forest land dominant in.the watershed above this wetland. 2. Abundance of cover objcts present. STOP HERE IF THIS WETLAND.IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A WATERCOURSE 3. Size of this wetland is able to support large.fish/shellfish populations. 4. Wetland is part of a larger,'contiguous'watercourse.. 5- Wetland has sufficient size and depth in open water areas so as not to freeze solid and retain some open water during winter: 6. Stream width(bank to bank)is more than 50 feet. 7. Quality of the watercourse associated with this wetland is able to support healthy fish/shcllfish populations. ' 8. Strcamside vegetation provides shade for the watercourse. 9- Spawning areas are present(submerged vegetation or gravel beds). 10. Food is available to fish/shellfrsh populations within this wetland 11. Barrier(s)to artadromous fish(such as.darns,including beaver dams,waterfalls,road crossing) are absent from the stream reach associated with this wetland. 12. Evidence of fish is present. 13. Wetland is stocked with fish. 14. The watercourse is persistent. 15. Man-made streams are jllsent :, 1 l ti. Water velocities arc not aoo ekcessivc;for ftsh.usage 17. Defined strcarn channel is present. 18. Other Although the above example refers to freshwater wetlands, it can also be adapted for marine ecosystems. The following is an example provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)of an adaptation for the fish and shellfish function. 9c1 Wd£0:L0 £00Z ZZ '-Adti ti£T0b817£0Z 'ON XtUJ NuimsNOO its 88UHS 0 BdOIBNBd W08J FISH AND SHELLFISH HABITAT(MARINE)—This function considers the effectiveness of wetlands, embayments,tidal flats,vegetated shallows,and other environments in supporting marine resources such as fish,shellfish,marine mammals,and sea turtles. CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS 1. Special aquatic sites(tidal marsh,mud flats,cclgrass beds)are present. 2. Suitable spawning habitat is present at the site or in the area. 3. Commercially or recreationally important species are present or suitable habitat exists. 4. The werland/waterway supports prey for higher trophic level marine organisms. 5. The waterway provides migratory habitat for anadromous fish. 6. Essential fish habitat,as defined by the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery tit Conservation Act,is present(consultation with NMFS may be necessary). 7. Other SEDIMENT/TOXICANT/PATHOGEN RETENTION—This function reduces or prevents degradation of water quality. It relates to the ei)'ectiveness of the wetland j{ as a trap for sediments,toxicants,or pathogens in runoff water from surrounding 1 uplands or upstream eroding wetland areas. CONS IDERATION S/QUALIFIERS 1. Potential sources of excess sediment are in the watershed above the wetland 2. Potential or known sources of toxicants are in the watershed above the wetland. 3. Opportunity for sediment trapping by slow moving water•or•deepwater habitat are present in this wetland. 4. Fine grained mineral or organic soils are present. 5. Long duration water retention time is present in this wedand. 6. Public orprivate water sources occur downstream. 7. The wetland edge is broad and intermittently aerobic. 8. The wetland is known to have existed for more than 50 years. 9. Drainage ditches have not been constructed in the wetland. STOP MERE IF WETLAND IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A WATERCOURSE. 10. Wetland is associated with an intermittent or perennial stream or a lake. 11. Channelized flows have visible velocity decreases in the wetland. I2. Effective floodwater•storage in wedand is occurring. Areas of impounded open water are present 13. No indicators of erosive forces are present. No high water velocities are present. 14. Diffuse water flows are present in the wetland. 15. Wetland has a high degree of water and vegetation interspersion. 16. Dense vegetation provides.opportunity for sediment trapping and/or signs of sediment accumulationYby dense.vegetation is pruscnt. 17. Other AAANUTRIENT REMOVAL/RETENTION/TRANSFORMATION—This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland as a trap for nutrients in runoff water from surrounding uplands or contiguous wetlands and the ability of the wetland to Process these nutrients into other forms or trophic levels. One aspect of this function is to prevent ill effects of nutrients entering aquifers or surface waters . such as ponds,lakes,streams, rivers,or estuaries. CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS I. Wetland is large relative to the size of its watershed. 2. Deep water or open water habitat exists. 3. Overall vatential for sediment trapping exists in the wetland. .N 6t`trx Ld Wdz0:Z0 £00Z Zz 'adti _° V2I0b8b£0Z 'ON Xdd W-L-nSN03 0a d HI G 0 BdO1-3N3d wodA 4. Potential sources of excess nutrients are present in the watershed above the wetland. 5. Wetland saturated for most of the season. Ponded water is present in the wetland. 6. Deep organic;/sediment deposits are present. 7. Slowly drained fine grained mineral or organic soils arc present. 8. Dense vegetation is present 9. Emergent vegetation and/or dense woody stems arc dominant. 10. Opportunity for nutrient attenuation exists. 11. Vegetation diversity/abundance sufficient to utilize nutrients. STOP HERE IF WETLAND.I$1�1OTASSOCIATED WITH A WATERCOURSE. 12. Waterflow through this_wetland is difwe.:. , 13. Water retention/dctention time in this wetland is increased by constricted outlet or thick vegetation. 14. Water moves slowly through this wetland. 15. Other PRODUCTION EXPORT(Nutrient)--This function evaluates the effectiveness of the wetland to produce food or usable products for humans or other living organisms. CONSIDF,RATIONS/QUALIFIERS 1. Wildlife food sources grow within this wetland 2. Detritus development is present within this wetland 3. Economically or comrnercially,used products found in this wetland. 4. L•vidcnce of wildlife use found within this wetland, 5. Higher trophic level consumcrs,are utilizing this wetland 6. Fish or shellfish develop-Pf occur in this*w.1 land. 7. high vegetation density:is present } S. Wetland exhibits high degree ofplani community structure/species diversity. 9. High aquatic vegetative diversity1aburidance is present. 10. Nuirients exported in wetland watercourses(permanent outlet present). 11. "Flushing"of relatively large amounts of organic plant material occurs from this wetland. 12. Wetland contains flowering plants that are used by nectar-gathering insects. 13. Indications of export are present. 14. High production levels occurring,however,no visible signs of export(assumes export is attenuated). 15. Other SEDI MENT/SHORELINE STABILIZATION-This function considers the effectiveness of a Wetland to stabilize streambanks and.shorelines against erosion. CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIEK§ 'V I. Indications of erosion or'srltatioo`arep resent.`: Lt 2. Topographical gradient ispiesenfin wetland 3. Potential sediment sources are present up-slope. 4. Potential sediment sources are present upstream, 5. No distinct shoreline or bank is evident between°the waterbody and the wetland or upland, G. A distinct step between the open watcrbody or stream and the adjacent land exists(i.c.,sharp bank)with dense roots throughout. 7. Wide wetland(>10')borders watercourse,lake,or pond. 8- High flow velocities in the wetland 9. The watershed is of sufficient size to produce ehannelized flow, 10. Open water fetch is present, l l. Boating activity is present. 12. Dense vegetation is bordering watercourse,.lake-or pond. 13. High percentage of energy-absorbing emcrgents and/or shrubs border a watercourse,lake,or pond.. 14. Vegetation is comprised of large frees and shr bs that withstand major flood events or erosive incidents and stabilize the;shoreline_on a largc.scale(feet). I S. Vcge�tation is comprised of a�kxise:resilient herbaceous layer that stabilizes sediments and the shoreline on a small scale(inches)during minor flood events or potentially erosive events. 16. Other ed Wdt;,0:L0 200e FZ 'add VETMbt0Z 'ON Xtid " hlal"1<1SNOO nN3 d8bM 0 dd010N3d W08-A WILDLIFE HAWTAT—This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland to provide habitat for various types and populations of anhitals typically associated with wetlands and the wetland edge. Both resident and/or migrating species must be considered. Species lists of observed and potential animals should be included in the wetland assessment report.' CONSIDERATION S/QUALIFIERS I. ' . . Wetland is not degraded by human activity. 2. Water quality of the watercourse,pond,or lake associated with this wetland meets or exceeds Class A or H standards. 3. Wetland is not fragmentEd by development. 4. Upland surrounding this wetland is undeveloped. 5. More than 40%of this wetland edge is bordered by upland wildlife habitat(e.g., brushland,woodland,active farmland,or idle land)at least 500 feet in width. 6. Wetland is contiguous with other wetland systems connected by a watercourse or lake:, 7. Wildlife overland access to other wetlands is present. 8. Wildlife food sources are within this wetland or are nearby. 9. Wetland exhibits a high degree of interspersion of vegetation classes and/or open water. 10. Two or more islands or inclusions of upland within the wetland are present. 11. Dominant wetland class includes deep or shallow marsh or wooded swamp. 12. More than three acres of shallow permanent open water(Iess than 6.6 feet deep), including streams in or adjacent to wetland,are present. 13. Density of the wetland vegetation is high. 14. Wetland exhibits a high degree of plant species diversity. 15. Wetland exhibits a high degree of diversity in plant community structure(e.g.,tree/ shrub/vine/grasses/mosses) 16. Plant/animal indicator species arc present.(List species for project) 17. Animal signs abservcd,( . ;-,seats,nesting areas,etc.) 18. Seasonal Is ;. .. ;for wildlife and wetland appears to support varied population divcrsi.Y/abundance dunng difl'crcnt seasons. 19. Wetland contains: has potential to contain a high population of insects. 20. Wetland contains or has potential to contain large amphibian populations. 21. Wetland has a.high avian utilization or its potential. 22. Indications of less disturbance;tolerant species are present. 23. Signs of wildlife habitat enhancement are present(birdhouses,nesting boxes,food sources,etc.). 24. Other 'In March 1995,a rapid wildlife habitat assessment method was completed by a University of Massachusetts research team with funding and oversight provided by the New.England Transportation Consortium. The method is called WEThings (wetland habitat-indicators for non-game species). It produces a list of potential wetland-dependent 11j ' ' -1,re . e,a#d amphibian species that may be present in the wetland 'Tfte output-is based ore observable habitat characteristics documented on the field data form. This method may be used to generate the - wildlife species list recommended as backup information to the wetland evaluation form and to augment the considerations. Use:of this method should first be coordinated with the Corps project manager. A computer program is also available ` to expedite this process. '6d Wdt,0:L0 £00Z ZZ •ad d b£T0b8K0Z 'ON }CHd NblMSN00 f1N3 d21HHS 3 ad0-SNGd W021d J RECREATION(Consumptive and Non-Consumptive)---This value considers the suitability of the wetland and associated watercourses to provide recreational opportunities such as hiking,canoeing, boating, fishing,hunting,and other active or passive recreational activities. Consumptive opportunities consume or diminish the plants,animals,or other resources that are intrinsic to the wetland. Non-consumptive opportunities do not consume or diminish these resources of the wetland. CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS I. Wetland is part of a recreation`area,park,forest,or refuge. 2. Fishing is available within or from the wetland: 3. hunting is permitted in-the-'wetland. .` I :f 4. Hiking occurs or has potential.to occur`-this the wetland. ,if Wetland is a valuable wildlife habitat 6. The watercourse,pond,or lake associated with the wetland is unpolluted. 7. High visual/aesthetic quality of this potential recreation site. 8. Access to water is available at this potential recreation site for boating,canoeing,or fishing. 9. The watercourse associated with this wetland is wide and deep enough to accommodate canoeing and/or non-powered boating. 10. Off-mad public parking available at the potential recreation site. 11. Accessibility and travel case is present at this site. -12. The wetland is within a short drive or safe walk from highly populated public and private areas. 13. Other. EDUCATIONALISCIENTIFIC VALUE.— This value considers the suitability of the wetland as a site for an"outdoor classroom"or as a location for scientific study or research. CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIElk7 . I. Wetland contains or is known to'contairi threatened,_rare,or endangered species. 2. Little or no disturbance is occurring in this wetland. 3. Potential educational site contains a diversity of wetland classes which are accessible or potentially accessible. 4, Potential educational site is undisturbed and natural. 5. Wetland is considered to be a valuable wildlife habitat. 6. Wetland is located within a nature preserve or wildlife management area. 7. Signs of wildlife habitat enhancement present(bird houses,nesting boxes,food sources,etc.). 8. Off-road parking at potential educational site suitable for school bus access in or near wetland. 9_ Potential educational site is within safe walking distance or a short drive to schools. 10. Potential educational site is within safe walking distance to other plant communities. 11. Direct access to perennial stream at potential educational site is available. 12.. Direct access to pond or lake at potential ediicat}or►a(site is available. 13. No known safety hazards exist within:the potential'educational site. 14. Public access to the potential educational site is pontrollcd. 15. Handicap accessibility is available.' 16. Site is currently used for educational or scientific purposes. 17. Other tf Old WdS0:L0 £00z Zz 'adti �` €} r �,!VRT0158b£OZ,.t ''ON XU-4 Neil-lf1SN00 MS d6UHS 0 Bd0-1BN3d WONJ , uNIQuF-NESsam-RITAGE—This value considers tlx effectiveness of the Weiland or its associated waterbodies to provide certain special values. These may include archaeological sites,critical habitat for endangered species, its overall health and appearance,its hole in the ecological system of the area, its relative impottance.a's a typical wetland class for this geographic location. These functions are clearly valuable:wetland attributes relative to aspects of public health,recreation,and habitat diversity. _ CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS , I. Upland surrounding wedand is primarily urban. 2. Upland surrounding wetland is developing rapidly. 3. More than 3 acres of shallow permanent open water(less than 6.6 feet deep), including streams,occur in wetlands. 4. Three or more wetland classes are present. S. beep and/or shallow marsh or wooded swamp dominate. 6.• High degree of interspersion of vegetation and/or open water occur in this wetland. 7. Well-vegetated stream corridor(15 feet on each side of the stream)occurs in this wetland. 8. Potential educational site is within a short drive or a safe walk from schools. 9. Off-road parking at potential educational site is suitable for school buses. 10. No knowni safetyhazatds'exist'within this potential educational site. l 1. Direct a.. m perennial stream or lake exists at potential educational site. 12. Two or°more wetland classes are visible from primary viewing locations. 13. Low-growing wetlands(marshes,sciub-shrub,bogs,open water)are visible from primary viewing locations.. 14. Half an acre of open water of 200 feet of stream is visible from the primary viewing r locations. 15. Large area of wetland is dominated by flowering plants or plants that turn vibrant colors in different seasons. 16. General appearance of the wetland visible from primary viewing locations is unpolluted and/or undisturbed 17. Overall view of the wetland is available from the surrounding upland. 18. Quality of the water associated with the wetland is high. 19. Opportunities for wildlife observations arc available. 20. Historical buildings are found within the wetland 21. Present of pond or pond site and remains of a dam occur within the wetland. 22. Wetland is:within 50 yards of the nearest perennial watercourse. 23. Visible stone or earthen foundations,berms,dams,standing structures,or associated features occur within the wetland. 24. . Wetland contains critical habitat for a scats-or federally-listed threatened or . endangered species. 25. Wetland is known to be a study site for scientific research. 26. Wetland is a natural landmark or recognized by the state natural heritage inventory authority as an exemplary natural community. 27. Wetland has local significance because it serves several functional values. 28. Wetland has local significance because it has biological,geological,or other features that are locally rare or unique. 29. Wetland is known-to contain an important archaeological site. 30. Wetland is.hydmlogically connected to a state or federally designated scenic river. 31. Wetland is located in an area experiencing a high wetland loss rate. 32. Other t , X TTd WdS0:Lo E002 ZZ 'add b£TOt78bMZ 'ON XHd NEjIMSNOO NB dd*G -O BdO-EN3d WO&A VISUA.I.QUALITY/AESTHETICS---This value considers the visual and aesthetic quality or usefulness of the wetland. CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS 1. Multiple wetland classes are visible from primary viewing locations. 2. Emergent marsh and/or open water are visible from primary viewing locations. 3. A diversity of vegetative species is visible from primary viewing locations. 4. Wetland is dominated by flowering plants or plants that turn vibrant colors in different seasons. 5. Land use surrounding the wetland is undeveloped as seen from primary viewing locations. 6. Visible surrounding land use form contrasts with wetland. 7. Wedand views absent of trash,debris,and signs of disturbance. 8. Wetland is considered to be a valuable wildlife habitat. 9. Wetland is easily accessed. 10. Low noise level at primary viewing locations. 11. Unpleasant odors absent at primary viewing locations. 12. Relatively unobstructed sight lint exists through wetland 13. Other ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT—This value considers the suitability of the ES swetland to support threatened or endan ered g pecies. CONSIDERATIONS/QUALIFIERS 1. Wetland contains or is known to contain threatened or endangered species. 2. Wetland contains critical habitat for a state or federally listed threatened or endangered species. Ztd WdS0:L0 £00Z ZZ -,add. p£Z0V8b£0Z 'ON Xdd Ntil-nsNo:).ria d21dHSS 0 3dO�N3d W021_ r ` Updike; Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Counselors at Law Hartford New Haven Stamford TT iii MERITAS One State Street,P.O.BOX 231277 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Hartford, Connecticut 06123-1277 An ANence Member Telephone(860)548-2600 Facsimile(860)548-2680 John C.King z (860) 548-2608 jldng@uks.com May 6,2003 Ift of sa WNW ATM". _ OffIQE Mr. Jeffrey H. Folger Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer South Windsor Inland-Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074-2786 Re: The Casle Corp-Buckland Road-Appl#03-21P-Verified Petition to Intervene, Pursuant to Connecticut General Statues §22a-19 Dear Mr.Folger: This office represents Pavilions at Buckland Hills,L.L.C. C Pavilions'). I enclose and hereby.file with the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission C'IWA/CC') a Verified Petition to Intervene, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes'§ 22a-19, whereby the Pavilions at Buckland Hills now intervenes as a party in the administrative proceedings before the IWA/CC concerning -Appl # 03-21P in connection with the proposed Casle Corp medical office building and associated activities, as set forth in the Verified Petition. Pavilions seeks and is entitled to participatory rights and notices as set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Petition. While the statute, § 22a-19,permits party intervention as of right, for purposes of the record and clarity in these proceedings, on behalf of Pavilions, and set forth in the Verified Petition, we request that the IWA/CC acknowledge and grant Pavilions intervening party status as set forth in § .22a-19. We further request that, as a party to App #03-21P, Pavilions be afforded time comparable to that afforded to the applicant so as to enable Pavilions the opportunity to address the application. 324278 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Mr. Jeffrey H. Folger May 6,2003 Page 2 Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Should you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. V Very truly eryly JCK/kem Enclosure Cc: Ms.Elizabeth Warren, Chair Barry Guilano,Esq. Ms. Deborah Reid,Recording Secretary,(w/enc.) 324278 South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission In the Matter of: May,2003 Appl#03-21P The Casle Corporation(Eastern Connecticut Health Network) West Side of Buckland Road, South Side of Deming Street South Windsor, Connecticut VERIFIED PETITION TO INTERVENE Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes("CGS')Section 22a-19,Pavilions at Buckland Hills L.L.C. ("Pavilions at Buckland Hills')hereby intervenes in this administrative proceeding by the filing of this Verified Petition to Intervene and requests that it be granted status as an intervening party in this administrative proceedings before the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission("IWACC')concerning the proposed development of a medical building by The Casle Corporation. In support of its request,Pavilions at Buckland Hills represents,upon information and belief,the following: 1. The Casle Corporation proposes to construct a 39,820-square-foot,two-story medical office building(the"ECHN Building')on 4.26 acres located on the west side of Buckland Road and the south side of Deming Street. The proposed development of the ECHN Building is a component of the larger proposed development of Evergreen Walk. Wetlands comprise approximately 60%of the proposed site. The proposed development will require the clearing of wooded areas on the site,the filling of approximately 92,000 square feet(2.11 acres)of wetlands, and extensive disturbance and construction within 80 feet of wetlands. As part of the process to obtain the necessary approvals to construct the proposal,The Casle Corporation has submitted an application to the P&Z Commission for approval of the site plan of development. 2. The IWACC is authorized to grant,grant with conditions, or deny permits"for all uses and activities on inland wetlands and watercourses; and the development,conservation, supervision,and regulation of natural resources within the Town of South Windsor." Inland Wetlands, Watercourses, and Conservation Regulations of the Town of South Windsor, Section 1.3. 3. In its review of the application for the ECHN Building,the IWACC will consider "conduct which has,or which is reasonably likely to have,the effect of unreasonably polluting,impairing or destroying the public trust in the air,water or other natural resources of the state." CGS Section 22a-19. The construction and operation of the ECHN Building involves, inter alia, such conduct in one or more of the following ways: a. Direct disturbance of wetlands through construction and the use of heavy equipment within wetlands; b. Filling of wetlands; 323823 c. Cutting, stripping, or uprooting of wetlands vegetation; d. Erosion and sedimentation of wetlands through construction activity; e. Harassment, displacement, and possible wounding and killing of wildlife,possibly threatened species, endangered species, and species of special concern; f. Destruction of wildlife habitat; g. Erosion of and sedimentation within watercourses; h. Diversion or restriction of flow of watercourses; i. Exacerbation of flooding by inhibiting the function of area wetlands; j. Increase of stormwater flow from the construction of impervious surface for 213 parking spaces,which will increase erosion and sedimentation and degrade surface water and groundwater quality; k. Increase of traffic congestion along Buckland Road and Deming Street,and the degradation of local air quality; 1. Utility line traversing, impacting and directly disturbing wetlands; and m. Future undefined but inevitable short term and long term impacts given that this proposal is part of larger proposed development. 4. Pavilions at Buckland Hills,in accordance with its rights pursuant to CGS Section 22a- 19,respectfully requests all rights of participation granted to any party within administrative proceedings before the IWACC. The request of Pavilions at Buckland Hills for party status will further the policies and purposes of the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act, CGS Sections 22a-14 through 22a-20. 5. The proposed development of the ECHN Building encompasses myriad environmental impacts. The participation of Pavilions at Buckland Hills within the proceedings before the IWACC will advance the public interest in the protection of the natural resources of the state. 6. In accordance with CGS Section 1-227,Pavilions at Buckland Hills requests that it be provided with written notice by mail of all regular and special meetings of the IWACC concerning concerning Appl#03-21P and/or the ECHN Building at least one week before the date of each such meeting, as well as all negotiations pertaining to the above captioned application. 323823 2 WHEREFORE,Pavilions at Buckland Hills intervenes in this action on the filing of this Verified Petition to Intervene,requests notice of all meetings, and further requests that its Verified Petition to Intervene be granted. Pavilions at Buckland Hills L.L.C. by: General Growth Management,Inc., its authorized agent by: Scott Miller, Senior ice President of Redevelopment 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago,Illinois 60606 323823 3 South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission In the Matter of: May 03 Appl#03-21P The Casle Corporation(Eastern Connecticut Health Network) West Side of Buckland Road, South Side of Deming Street South Windsor, Connecticut VERIFICATION I, Scott Miller,as Senior Vice President of Redevelopment of General Growth Management,Inc.,g being duly sworn,depose and state under oath that: 1. I am over the age of eighteen years and understand and believe in the obligations of an oath; 2. I am the Senior Vice President of Redevelopment of General Growth Management,Inc., the authorized agent of Pavilions at Buckland Hills L.L.C., the petitioner in the foregoing Verified Petition to Intervene; 3. I have been employed by General Growth Management and other companies engaged in the business of developing shopping centers and other real estate projects for over seven (7)years and while employed in such capacity(a)I have overseen the preparation of plans and applications to governmental agencies for projects similar in purpose and scale to the ECHN Building,including applications relating to potential incursions on wetlands or applications which may significantly impact wetlands, (b)I have on many occasions met with consultants expert in environmental protection matters concerning the environmental impacts of shopping centers and other real estate developments and have developed an understanding of the nature and scope of pollution risks associated with real estate developments, (c)I have reviewed the General Plan of Development approved by the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission for Evergreen Walk, as well as the site plan submitted by The Casle Corporation for the ECHN Building,and I have conferred with consultants retained by counsel to the Petitioner in connection with the impacts on the wetlands from the proposed development of Evergreen Walk and the ECHN Building, including consultants expert in wetlands ecology and civil engineering who have provided me with information characterizing the Evergreen Walk project site, including the ECHN Building portion of the development and related proposed infrastructure and its proximity to environmentally sensitive areas and(d)I have evaluated the information I have obtained with respect to the proposed ECHN Building in light of my extensive experience in real estate development; and 323823 4. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition to Intervene and believe the allegations contained within to be true. Pavilions at Buckland Hills L.L.C. by: General Growth Management, Inc., its authorized agent by: Scott ller, Senior Vie President of Redevelopment 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago,Illinois 60606 Subscribed and sworn to before me this5`"`'day of May,2003. Notary Public My commission expires: 7PATRICIA L SEAL F WAl.DRl�STATE OF N ffi i `:131104 323823 2 v rp Memorandum To: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer From: Jeffrey Doolittle, P.E. Town Engineer Date: 05/07/03 Re: ECHN Site Plan (03-2.1 P) I have reviewed the revised site plans for ECHN (dated 4/18/03) and have the following comments: 1. Regarding the note "Proposed Future Streetline", property along Deming Street and Buckland Road needs to be deeded to the Town for road and ROW improvements as part of this application. Revise the plans accordingly. 2. The Wetland Biofilter(detention basin) needs to have a stone overflow spillway according to Town Standard Specifications. 3. Provide a detail for the outlet structure from the Wetland Biofilter 4. The Existing CB in Deming Street by Sta. 8+65 that will be in the driveway needs to be replaced with a CB built along the curb line west of the driveway. This can be piped to the existing structure. (5 5. Why is CB-1 shown so far off the proposed driveway? This will not pick up much water and will be difficult to maintain..This should be moved to the proposed curbline and according to the Drainage Report, it appears that CB-1 should be a double CB. difficult 6. The placement of CB-4 is awkward and it will be �3 p t for surface drainage to get to this structure in phase 2. Also this should be a double catch basin n according to the Drainage Report. I suggestparking this CB be moved into the western arkin lot island (shown in Phase 2) and surface runoff be allowed to flow into a rain garden in this island. The CB could then be n a overflow from the rain garden and also pick-up the 9 p p roof leaders. The CB and rain garden should both be constructed in Phase 1. 7. Show and label the roof leaders to CB-4 and CB-8. If the building has a basement then foundation drains need to be installed around this building and tie into proposed drainage structures. 8. The Sidewalk along the front of this lot on Buckland Road need to go all the way to the property boundary. The sidewalk on the western side along the main driveway will be extended when the main site driveway is extended. C5 9. CB-7 should be moved west closer to the dumpster pad to pick up more surface drainage from the southern parking lot. 10.The southern parking proposed as part of the Phase 2 plan needs to have a landscape island separating it from the dumpster pad. CB-7 can be moved to the east side of this island. i 11.Show a detail or include notes describing how the proposed sanitary sewer main in Deming Street will be constructed under the Plum Gulley Brook culverts. 12.Include one or more clay stops across the proposed sanitary sewer main trench in Deming Street, east of the Plum Gulley Brook culverts. ,13.On Sheet CP.1.2, should there be flush concrete curb (3) by the proposed handicap f7 spaces? Show how this curb transitions to the raised concrete curb (2 or 4). 14.On Sheet CU.5.1, modify the Storm Drain Trench Detail to show%4" stone up to the spring line (mid point) of the pipe and gravel bedding immediately over the pipe. 15.South Windsor WPCA approval is required for this site plan. 16.Street Cut and Drain Layers Permits will need to be taken out for the driveway, sewers, utilities and any roadway improvements. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank You. 2 V < D So� ?d&U&Ot y ci u m 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE•SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074-2786 SOe:co� AREA CODE 860/644-2511 FAX 860/644-3781 To: Jay Giles May 9, 2003 Fuss &O'Neill Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040 From: Jeffrey H. Folger Environmental Planner Town of South Windsor Re: Appl#03-21P Review of the EHCN office project, Evergreen Walk- Buckland Road, plans dated 04/18/03. - I have reviewed the°site plans for the proposed ECHN medical facility site plan with the following additional comments: 1. Details of the proposed detention basin still have not been provided. Also, the area where the stormwater will discharge to the stream has not been adequately shown. The vertical height of the banks of the stream average 1 S-24inches in height in this area. How will the current design prevent erosive scour of the streambank? —2. The current plan does not show the existing edge of.woody vegetation. Please show the correct edge of woody vegetation. 3 I recommend that an earthen berm be placed along the western edge of the building/road construction area to provide an impervious barrier to sediment impacts down slope. cc. Town.Engineer Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission Director of Planning FLB Architecture and Planning Inc. E11 "�t® • ENSR International Box 506 11 Phelps Way Willington,CT 06279 (860)429-5323 FAX(860)429-5378 May 13, 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT Re: Review of Casle Corporation/ECHN Application Dear Attorney King: As requested, ENSR has conducted an initial review of the project plans and associated documents filed with the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation (IWWC) and Planning and Zoning applications for the above-referenced project. The materials provided to us from your office for this review consist of the following: • Plan set for Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network (ECHN) entitled "Final Development Plan", dated April 4, 2003 (with various revisions dates up to April 24, 2003 for individual sheets). • Drainage Report, ECHN, dated April 4, 2003 Fuss &O'Neill Inc. • Application Form for Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Application dated November 13, 2002, along with additional material such as cover letter and landowner authorization. • "Vernal Pool Construction Details, ECHN/Caste, South Windsor, CT by New England Environmental Services, undated. Based upon this preliminary review, we offer the following comments and questions. 1. There is no information in the materials indicating the source of the wetland boundary shown on the plans or the criteria employed in the delineation. 2. No information appears to have been provided on the conditions of the identified wetlands or the upland review area. A report from the soil scientist and/or biologist would be appropriate for a project of this magnitude. Such a report should address conditions within the wetland/watercourse areas of the site, as well as related resources downstream of the project area and conditions of the upland review area. 3. The 4.6-acre parcel that is described as the site of the ECHN facility is 60%wetland; 2.11 acres of wetland will be filled for the construction of this facility. Alternative upland sites appear to be available for the construction of this facility in the immediate proximity. No discussion has been provided as to why such upland areas were not considered to be prudent or feasible alternative locations for constructing r EFRIt® ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT this facility. 4. No discussion or analysis appears to have been provided concerning the potential adverse environmental effects from the loss of the wetland area. This area appears to border a watercourse that is fed by wetlands and other runoff from east of Buckland Road through a culvert under the road. The functional relationships of this wetland to the watercourse should be evaluated. It appears that wooded growth along the watercourse is more abundant than indicated on the plan, while wet meadow habitat extends out from the watercourse. The indirect effects of altering the hydrology of the site on the slope wetland along the west side of the development area should be considered. 5. The IWWC application form indicates that 5,200 square feet of vernal pools will be created, presumably as mitigation for the loss of 2.11 acres of wetland. A report on the construction details of vernal pools is provided, as referenced above. Comments on this report are provided below. The project plans, however, do not appear to reflect the creation of such vernal pools. Instead, a wetland mitigation area is shown approximately 2,400 feet southwest of the impact area. This mitigation area is in a separate subwatershed from the impact area and may not compensate for the local hydrologic and habitat impacts incurred from the proposed filling. Comments on the wetland mitigation plan are also provided below. 6. The "Site" is shown as a subset of the Evergreen Walk limits, however the proposed plans encompass areas well outside of the"site" limits, particularly for"future" stormwater detention and wetland mitigation. As is evident by issues such as this, ENSR believes that consideration of the EHCN building as a component of the Evergreen Walk project is warranted, and that it is not appropriate to request agency approval of this phase without consideration of the overall project in terms of layout, alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures. The Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, as well as the South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses, and Conservation Regulations include in the criteria for decision on an activity the consideration of cumulative impacts associated with related future activities. More specifically, `The Agency shall take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances, including....impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity is proposed and future activities associated with or reasonably related to, the proposed activity which are made inevitable by the proposed regulated activity and which may have an impact on wetlands or watercourses."(11.2F of South Windsor Regulations). 7. The plan proposes a"temporary"stormwater detention facility downgradient to the west of the construction site. A portion of this detention basin is within the 100-year floodplain of Plum Gulley Brook. No information appears to have been provided regarding how the basin will function in relation to flood events from the Brook. No calculations are provided on the cut and fill balance within the floodplain to determine if there is a net loss of flood storage capacity from the construction of the basin. If a secondary storm were to occur during a flood stage from the Brook, what is the effect of lack of storage capacity in the detention basin? Page 2 of 4 I ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT 8. Much of the"temporary" detention basin and swale system is located within the 80- foot regulated zone adjacent to wetland. This proposal results in extensive disturbance of this area for a temporary feature. Removal of vegetative cover, increasing soil erosion potential from flowing water (both runoff and backwater flooding), and localized changes in wetland hydrology are direct effects of this work for a temporary system. It is unclear why this disturbance is proposed for an interim period rather than construction of a permanent treatment system. If the basin is considered temporary, plans for the eventual grading and surface cover of this area should be provided. Is the "future" detention basin part of the approval sought for this application? How will the ECHN site drainage be conveyed to this future basin, and are additional wetland impacts needed for this activity? 9. There is insufficient information to evaluate the proposed wetland mitigation plan in terms of the potential for creating the wetland cover types and hydrologic regimes indicated. Plum Gulley Brook flows southwest roughly 100 feet west of the mitigation site. The Brook's water level appears generally lower than elevation 68 feet. While the adjacent wetland along the Brook rises to roughly elevation 72 feet, it is unclear whether this wetland is sustained more from the Brook's overbank flooding than from water table conditions. The proposed grading plan appears to be based on the assumption that excavation into the upland overburden will encounter a water table in the range of elevation 72 feet, although it notes that groundwater monitoring of the area may require that grades be adjusted. Given the lack of subsurface soil and water table information, it can not be predicted with any reliability whether water table conditions will be controlled after excavation by the stream course (i.e., -68 feet), or maintained by the highest elevation of the excavation (i.e., 74 feet), or somewhere in between. The resulting basin could be a pond or a relatively dry depression; with the lack of subsurface information, the wetland cover types indicated to be proposed for the wetland mitigation area are not possible to estimate. 10. The FEMA FIRM mapping along this portion of Plum Gulley Brook shows a dam across the Brook in the vicinity of the north end of the proposed wetland mitigation area. The 100-year flood level is shown as dropping from elevation 74 to 72 feet through this area. The proposed grading of the wetland mitigation area would pull back the 74 and 72 foot contours away from the Brook in this area. This could change the flood levels along the Brook upstream of this area, modifying the flood storage capacity of this wetland/floodplain, and altering the hydrology of the wetland. This issue warrants detailed review. 11. It is ENSR's understanding that the Evergreen Walk site or its vicinity is an area that the CTDEP's Natural Diversity Data Base has records of occurrence for state-listed bird species. Both the state endangered grasshopper sparrow and the state species of special concern savannah sparrow have been recorded in the vicinity of the project site. From our understanding of habitat conditions on the site, it is our opinion that portions proposed for construction activity by this application have at least moderate potential for offering suitable habitat for these species. 12. The subject site area is known to be in the vicinity of previous findings of ethylene dibromide (EDB) in soil and groundwater due to the historical use for tobacco Page 3 of 4 r E&N-0R ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT farming; given the proposed earth work on the site it is recommended that soil analyses be conducted to assess if this issue is a concern. Please call me if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, ENSR Corporation Dennis Lowry Wetland Ecologist Page 4 of 4 tOW N SF4 r Tiov� �slou ,�2 V&U&ot O i w c V y 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR•CO AREA CODE 860/644-2511 To: Alan Lamson May 14, 2003 FLB Architecture and Planning 19 Silver Lane East Hartford, CT 06118 Frrom: Jeffrey H. Folger Environmental Planner Town of South Windsor Re: Appl#03-28P Review of the Shops at Evergreen Walk retail, Evergreen Walk- Buckland Road, plans dated 05/08/03. I have reviewed the site plans for the proposed Shops at Evergreen Walk retail facility site plan with the following initial comments: 1. The wetland evaluation submitted by Penny Sharp dated May 8, 2003 does not address wetland impacts for the two other wetlands adjacent or within the proposed project. In referencing the general wetland plan that was submitted in March 2003, wetland#12 and wetland#9 will be impacted by the proposed development. These wetland areas should also be included in the functions, values, and impacts assessment. 2. All catchbasins on the property should be equipped with 4-foot sumps and trap hoods to increase the capacity of sediment retention and increase the efficiency of floatable and hydrocarbon capture. 3. Landscape planting associated with the area surrounding the detention basins should be provided. The plant selection should be made up of native plants and shrubs having a high wildlife habitat value. 4. Runoff velocities within the swales should be provided to evaluate the future stability of the structure. 5. How will extended peak runoff volumes effect the stream channel geometry of the receiving watercourse. A detailed report from a soil scientist, engineer, and a biologist is needed to evaluate the long and short-term effects of the proposed development. How will the timing of the peak flows from this project coincide with anticipated peak flows from other portions of the site, 6. Energy dissipaters should be installed at the inlets to the swale and basin. Sump areas should also be provided to trap sediment. 7. Additional rain gardens should be placed within the development to maximize the retention and infiltration of stormwater within the development. Roof runoff should be addressed with this plan. A report from your stormwater consultant should be submitted. 8. A seeding detail for the proposed swales should be included. 9. Page L12 shows a"New England Conservation/Wildlife seed mix. Where is this mix to be used? 10. The fill slopes west of building#200 should include an erosion fabric treatment on the surface. A seeding plan should be shown for these areas, and all other fill slopes on the project.. 11. Details of the proposed mitigation area must be submitted. 12. A detailed report from a soil scientist and a biologist is needed to evaluate wetland functions and values on the site, and in areas that could be influenced by the site. This should include a detailed N . N 4OW N Sf4 C F �� �s �• o . 5 U 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 sox•co` AREA CODE 860/644-2511 To: Alan Lamson June 23, 2003 FLB Architecture and Planning 19 Silver Lane East Hartford, CT 06118 From: Jeffrey H. Folger --- Environmental Planner Town of South Windsor Re: Appl#03-28P Review of the Shops at Evergreen Walk retail, Evergreen Walk-Buckland Road,plans dated 06/12/03. I have reviewed the site plans for the proposed Shops at Evergreen Walk retail facility site plan with the following additional comments: l. The velocities listed in the proposed gr ass swal es are within the proscribed maximum permissible velocities except the 4.89 velocity. The soils are listed as Elmwood fine sandy loam. Using these soils as a guideline, the maximum permissible velocity should not exceed 3.5 pfs. 2. The project proposal estimates 30 acres of impervious surface. This amount of impervious coverage has the potential of significantly impacting receiving waters with thermal pollution. Water heated by roof and pavement requires areas where cooling can occur prior to being discharged into the natural ecosystem. The stormwater structures shown do not show provisions for reducing the water temperature. Please demonstrate how thermal pollution will be addressed in the proposal. 3. A water budget for wetland#9 and 9A should be estimated. This would be used to closely estimate the water required to maintain hydrology to this wetland via diverted stormwater flows. 4. Roof runoff cannot be safely diverted into the existing adjacent watercourses due to the current unstable nature of the channels. In order to reduce runoff volumes leaving the site,roof runoff that is not diverted into wetland areas should be infiltrated into the ground wherever possible. 5. Proposed mitigation should also include impacts from the fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat that will occur as a result of filling and grading adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. This can include enhancing and preserving upland areas on the property that will have an ecological benefit to the system. 6. The median area east of building 800B could also be utilized as a rain garden. 7. The Buckland Road slope detail is missing information on the soil reinforcement-matting that will be installed under the top soil. cc Fuss &O,Neil Updike, Kelly and Spellacy IWA/CC Director of Planning Town Engineer a _► plant and animal inventory on the site and within stream corridor. The long and short-term effects of the proposed development on the wetland resources should be evaluated and listed. 13. The applicant should be prepared to demonstrate that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed activity, which would result in fewer disturbances to the wetland resources. 14. An accurate existing foliage boundary should be placed on the Conservation Plan sheets. 15. A small temporary sediment basin is shown on page CG.1.15. A permanent outlet structure is shown discharging into it. Is this structure to be a permanent structure? If so a more detailed design must be submitted that addresses the flow of water from the structure to the adjacent wetland. If it is to be only temporary, then it should be moved further to the north away from the adjacent wetland. 16. The large detention basin shown on page CG.1.15 is labeled as a dual-purpose basin. What structures are proposed to contain sediment and fine silts in the basin during construction? 17. Silt fence should be installed west of the berm shown on page CG.1.13. 18. Remove all proposed soil stockpiles from the URA. 19. Interior erosion controls, diversion berms and temporary sediment basins, should be integrated into the initial grading plan and be shown on the plan. The construction narrative describes them but the contractors rarely look at this area of the plans. 20. A water supply to wetland#9 should be maintained. This can be accomplished by directing roof runoff from the buildings in the area to this wetland via a stable outlet. Page CG.1.10 seems the show a stormwater outfall outletting to wetland#9. However this portion of the system is not attached to anything. Page CG.1.12 does show one building's roof flowing there. Others should be connected as well. cc. Town Engineer Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission Director of Planning Fuss &O'Neill Engineering. w�IN. 3.2003 9:00AM FUSS & O'NEILL N0.254 P.1 L E r+'ll5S&O'Neill Inc, Consrdlins Engirterrs 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040.6021 TEL eso 646-2469 FAx eao 643.6313 May 15,2003 INTERNEE,WWWfussandonsill.com Other ofaces: est ield,Ma Mr,JeffreyH.Folger rr mbSurCo nectcutsachusetts Environmental Planner Providence,Rhode Island Town of South.Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South.Windsor,CT 06074 Re: ECHN Medical Office Building—IWC Application#03021P Response to Comments Dated May 9,2003 Dear Mr.Folger; We are in receipt of your comments (attached)dated May 9, 2003 for the above referenced project. On behalf of the applicant,Casle Corporation,we offer the following responses: 1, Wetland biofilter construction details are now included in the erosion control details on sheet CG.5.1. The groundwater hydrology of the wetlands biofilter area is currently being monitored. The wetland plant species to be planted in the biofilter will be determined once we have more complete information on the groundwater hydrology of the area. The plans show stabilization of the biofilter outfall area with a riprap swale from the biofilter outfall to the edge of the wetlands, and with tussock sedge plantings from the edge of the wetlands to the edge of the stream. The combination of these stabilization methods,and relatively low peak discharge rates from the biofilter will prevent erosion of the stream bank. 2. The edge of the woody vegetation has been added to Sheets CG.1.2 thru CG.1.5 and CS.1.1 and CS.1.2. -3. An earthen berm has been placed along the southwest portion of the proposed access drive as shown on Sheet CG.1.2. A row of silt fence has also been added between the west edge of the access drive and the grassed swale as shown on Sheet CG.1.4. We have attached a revised drainage report(revised date May 15,2003)and 4 sets of revised plans(latest revision date May 15,2003)for your review. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 646-2469 ext.5269 if you have any questions or heed additional information. Sincerely, Michelle Carlson,P.E. - Senior Project Manager Pant-it`Fax Note 7671 °ate Purges► / Attachment To From Go. Ca. y c; Jobn Manners,Caste Corporationi Phone# Phone# Ols Y�O G:1P20001481W10T4sponse to FOW Comments dated I Fax# y _ Fax 0 Comes.(HQ) RECEIVED MAY 2 2 200 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers 146 Hartford Road,M�,d7 (j ¢ENCY J v TEL 860 646 2469 �OMMIISSION INTERNET:www.fussandoneill.com May 22, 2003 Other Offices: West Springfield,Massachusetts Trumbull,Connecticut Marcia A. Banach, AICP Providence,Rhode Island Director of Planning Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: ECHN Medical Office Building—Application#03-21P Response to Comments Dated May 7, 2003 Dear Ms. Banach: We are in receipt of Mr. Jeffrey Doolittle's comments (attached) dated May 7, 2003 for the above referenced project. On behalf of the applicant, Casle Corporation, we offer the following responses: 1. A note has been added to Sheet CS.1.1 indicating that the property along Deming Street and Buckland Road is to be deeded to the Town of South Windsor. 2. A stone overflow spillway has been added to the biofilter as shown on Sheet CG.1.2. 3. A detail of the biofilter outlet structure is provided on Sheet CU.5.1. 4. The existing CB in the proposed driveway is called out to be removed on Sheet CG.1.2. CB-1 is intended to replace that CB and to pick up the drainage from Deming Road. .The reason CB-1 is so far in from the curb line is that it lines up with the proposed curb line of the anticipated Deming Road widening. 5. CB-1 is on the curb line of the future widened Deming Road (please refer to the response to comment #4 above). The drainage calculations included in the revised drainage report indicate that CB-1 can be a single catch basin. 6. CB-4 is located so that it will pick up runoff from the final (Phase 2) graded. site. The drainage calculations indicate that CB-4 can be a single CB. 7. The roof leaders discharging to CBs 4 and 8 have been added to the plans and are shown on sheet CG.1.1. 8. The sidewalk has been extended to the property corner along Buckland Road as shown on Sheet CS.1.1. GAP20004181\C10\Response to Doolittle Comments dated May 7.2003.doc Corres.(HQ) :f)UO Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers Marcia A. Banach, AICP May 19, 2003 Page 2 9. CB-7 has been moved closer to the dumpster pad, as shown on sheet CG.1.1. The drainage calculations have been revised accordingly, and are included in the revised drainage report. 10. A landscaped island has not been added next to the dumpster, in order to maintain the number of parking spaces as shown on Sheet CS.1.1. 11. The sanitary sewer line is to be jacked under the Deming Street culverts. Sheet CG.1.2. shows the locations of the jacking and receiving pits. 12. Three clay stops have been provided in the proposed sanitary sewer pipe trench as shown on sheet CG.1.2 and on the profile sheet, CP.1.1. 13. Sheet CP.1.3. shows a flush concrete curb by the proposed handicap spaces. 14. The storm trench detail has been revised as requested, as shown on Sheet CU.5.1 to show 3/4" stone up to the spring line of the pipe and gravel bedding immediately over the pipe. 15. Plans will be submitted to the South Windsor WPCA for the sanitary sewer connection. 16. Street Cut and Drain Layer permits will be obtained for the driveway, sewers, utilities, and roadway improvements prior to construction. We have attached a revised drainage report(revised date May 15, 2003) and 3 sets of revised plans (latest revision date May 22, 2003) for your review. We have also provided Mr. Jeff Folger with 3 sets of plans. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 646-2469 ext. 5269 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Michelle Carlson,P.E. Senior Project Manager Attachment c: John Manners, Casle Corporation w/attachments Jeff Folger,Town of South Windsor w/attachments Jeff Doolittle, Town of South Windsor w/o attachments GAP2000\481\C10\Response to Doolittle Comments dated May 7 2003.doc Corres.(HQ) a 05;'07, 200; a 15: 16_ 6606447280 SOUTH 1,IINDSQR PAGE 01 ■■2 �or ■%t-Its Fax Note 7671 Date Je' 7 03 pQges� 5�7� , C�rS`-5. ■��� _ _�..�.--- From E� ■ Q� i. Z m ti oJDaPt. (� Co. 'hone F Pnone# e �) RECEIVED Fax IF 43-U31 Fflx aandum MAY 0 7 2003 SOUTH WINDSOR PL MVN G DEPT. To: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer From: Jeffrey Doolittle, P.E. Town Engineer Data: 05/07/03 Re: ECHN Site Plan (03-21 P) I have reviewed the revised site plans for ECHN (dated 4/18/03) and have the following comments: 1. Regarding the note "Proposed Future Streetline", property along Deming Street and Buckland Road needs to be deeded to the Town for road and ROW improvements as part of this application. Revise the plans accordingly. 2. The Wetland Biofilter(detention basin) needs to have a stone overflow spillway according to Town Standard Specification:, 3. Provide a detail for the outlet structure from the Wetiand Biofilter 4. The Existing CB in Deming Street by Sta. 8+65 that will be in the driveway needs to be replaced with a CB built along the curb line west of the driveway. This can be piped to the existing structure. u much proposed driveway? p ' CB-1 shown so far off the prop }/? This will not pick 5. Why Is water and will be difficult to maintain. This should be moved to the proposed curbllne and according.to the Drainage Report, it appears that CB-1 should be a double CB. 6. The placement of CB-4 is awkward and it will be difficult for surface drainage to get to this structure in phase 2. Also, this should be a double catch basin according to the Drainage Report. I suggest this CB be moved into the western parking lot island (shown in Phase 2) and surface runoff be allowed to flow into a rain garden in.this island. The CB could then be an overflow from tb6.rain garden and also pick-up the roof leaders. The CB and rain garden should both be constructed in Phase 1. 7. Show and label the roof leaders to CB-4 and CB-8. If the building has a basement then foundation drains need to be installed around this building and tie into proposed drainage structures. 8. The Sidewalk along the front of this lot on Buckland Road need to go all the way to the property boundary. The sidewalk on the western side along the main driveway will be extended when the main site driveway is extended. 9. CB-7 should be moved west closer to the dumpster pad to pick up more surface drainage from the southern parking lot. 10.The southern parking proposed as part of the Phase 2 plan needs to have a landscape island separating it from the dumpster pad. 'CB-7 can be moved to the east side of this island. l► Q5/07/2003 15:16 8606447280 SOUTH WINDSOR PAGE 02 I 11.Show a detail or include notes describing how the proposed sanitary sewer main in Deming Street will be constructed under the Plum Gulley Brook culverts. 12.Include one or more clay stops across the proposed sanitary sewer main trench in Deming Street, east of the Plum Gulley Brook culverts, 13.On Sheet CP.1.2, should there be flush concrete curb (3) by the proposed handicap spaces? Show how this curb transitions to the raised concrete curb (2 or 4). 14.On Sheet CU.5.1, modify the Storm Drain Trench Detail to show a/" stone up to the spring line (mid point) of the pipe and gravel bedding immediately over the pipe. 15.South Windsor WPCA approval is required for this site plan. 16.Street Cut and Drain Layers Permits will need to be taken out for the driveway, sewers, utilities and any roadway improvements. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank You. . 2 MAY.2e.2003 11:17AM FUSS & O'NEILL N0.042 P.1 ADFuss&O Neill-Inc. Consulting E,agineers 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040.5992 M 660 646-2469 FAX ago 643.831 a WTI NET,W W.f donelll.cOM May 27,2003 PaSHP Fax Note 7671 Data ,gpl pagesoF Mr.Jeffrey H.P'olger Td From - Environmental Planner Co cc. Town of South Windsor Pnoaa# 1540 Sullivan Avenue Phone# d South Windsor,.CT 06074 Fax# Fax# � �G� Re: ECHN Medical Office Building—rwC Application#03021P Response to Comments Dated April 21,2003 Dear Mr.I~olger: It is my understanding at the May 21, 2001 Inland Wetland Conservation Commission meeting that the question was raised as to whether or not your comments dated April 21, 2003 for the above referenced project were addressed. .Most of the comments were addressed and incorporated in the plans submitted to you on April 23, 2003 with Penny Sharp's Wetlands Function Analysis report dated April 22,2003. Some of the comments are still being worked out with you. I failed to provide a written response to those comments when the plans were submitted. I apologize for any confusion. We are in,receipt of your comments(attached)dated April 21,2003 for the above referenced project. On behalf of the applicant,Casle Corporation,we offer the following responses; 1. The plans have been certified to A-2 accuracy by Nk. Lawrence Geissler,Licensed Land Surveyor. 2. Additional details of the detention basin are provided on Sheet CG.1.2, Since the April 23,2003 revision, further detail, at your request, has been provided on Sheet CG.1.2 submitted on May 15,2003 3. Since the proposed detention basin is going to be temporary, we proposed to just seed the basin. Since the writing of your comment this issue has evolved and in the next set of revised drawings that will be submitted to you on May 29, we will Provide landscaping at the detention basin similar in plant type to the EXPO detention basin,but with less planting due to the temporary nature of the basin. 4. The runoff velocity in the swale for the design storm year is approximately 4.25 fdsec. Typically 6.0&sec. or less is acceptable for grass swales. 5. Stormwater runoff from the proposed ECHN development will drain to the proposed temporary detention basin shown on Sheet CG.1.2. The basin will attenuate the runoff such that post development flows are less than pre-development flows for the site, for Plum Gulley Brook at Clark Street, and for the Podunk River at V'inton's Millpond dam as shown in the executive summary of the drainage report . The additional volume of stormwater from the proposed ECHN development is not measurable in Plum Gulley Brook or the Podunk River, The peak flow from this site will not affect the peak flows from other portions of the site. In a full build G:1P200014811C101keVonse to Folger Comments dated April 21,2003_doc Corm.(FIQ) MAY.28.2003 11:17AM FUSS & O'NEILL N0.042 P.2 y ABON Fuss&O'Neill Inc. ConsuCrinb Engineers Mr.Jeffrey H.>Folger May 28,2003 Page 2 situation, the post development flows from the Evergreen Walk project will be less than the pre-development flows, When proposed Detention Basin #3 (part of the Shops at Evergreen Walk project) is built, the ECHN temporary basin can be removed and not negatively impact the peak from the site. 6. Energy dissipaters are provided at the inlet of the rain gardens as shown on Sheet C0.1.2. Sump areas are provided in the rain gardens to trap sediment, In addition, as part of this project the applicant is proposing to use four foot catch basin sumps. 7. An additional gain garden,as shown on Sheet CO.1.2,has been added to the east of the proposed boulevard. Due to the topography, it is not possible to add a rain garden to the west of the proposed building. We have provided Dr. Jack Clausen, University of Connecticut,with a copy of the plans and have requested his review of the proposed stornn ater system. We will provide his comments to you once we receive them. 8. The seed mixtures and their proposed use have been clarified on Sheet LP.5,2. — Plant List and Details. 9. A construction sequence is provided on Sheet CG.5.1 -Erosion Control Details. 10. Details of the proposed mitigation area are provided on Sheet CS.1,5 —Mitigation PIan. 11. A report from Penny Sharp dated April 22,2003 was submitted on to you on April 23,2003 describing wetlands functions and wildlife habitat. Ms. Sharp is preparing a letter report with additional information that we will submit on May 29,2003. 12. On behalf of the applicant,Fuss&O'Neill,Inc,testified at the May 21,2003 Inland Wetland Conservation Commission public hearing that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed activity. 13, An accurate existing foliage boundary will be provided on the Conservation plan Sheets CO.I A and CG.1.5 that we will submit to you on May 29,2003. If you have any further questions and or comments please do not hesitate to contact me at 6464-2469 ext.5269. Sincerely, r Michelle Carlson,P.E. Senior Project Manager c: John Manners,Carle Corporation Alan Lamson,FL$Architecture GAP200014811C10\itespmse to Foter Comments dated Apr1121,2003.doe Corres.(HQ) Penelope C. Sharp RECENED 223 Rccds Gap Road Last cW Northford,CT 06472 1C.IephonelV9csi III 1Ie (203) 484-0134 MAY 2 9 2003 South vvN+d or QENCY INLAND WETLA CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 28,2003 Ms. Michelle Carlson Fuss&O'Neill,Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040-5143 Re: proposed ECHN Development,Buck_land Street and Deming Road, South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Ms. Carlson: The following report presents an addendum to my previous report regarding wetlands on the above-referenced site. Town staff has requested an analysis of the wetland functions and potential impacts for other wetlands on the site, specifically Wetland 1 A and Wetland 7. Under the proposed plan,neither of these wetlands will be directly impacted;however, stormwater discharges will be directed toward the wetlands and some of the site grading work lies within the 80 foot regulated review area of Wetland IA. Wetland lA Wetland IA is a broad expanse of wetlands that occurs to the west of Wetland 1. An unnamed watercourse that appears to bean agricultural ditch drains into Wetland 1A. This watercourse,which flows from east to west.along the southern property boundary, was observed to contain flow during all site visits,although portions of it may run dry during periods of drought. It receives water from the east side of Buckland Road. The watercourse banks are eroded in places and there is sediment deposition within the channel. In general the wetland resources on the property belong to the palustrine ecological system which is one of five systems recognized by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's wetland classification system described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ofthe United States, Cowardin, et al. 1979. The classification system is used to describe wetland cover types. Wetland to is best classified as palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands,seasonally saturated Cover within this wetland is variable with dense thickets present as well as.'ope;i—, ows,wifih scattered shrubs. The dominant shrub species include the following Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum) (FAC:'W);Multiflora rose(Rosa multi76-a) (FAC'Lq,``Northem airrowwood(Viburnum • a i >.��Printed on oK Ms. Michelle Carlson Fuss & O-Neill, Inc. May 28, 2003 Page 2 dentatum) (FACW--). Spicebush(Lindera benzoin) (FACW), Blackberry (Rubes sp.), and Fox grape (Vitis labrusca) (PACU). There is also a small area of palustrine forested wetland within Wetland I that contains some large red maple trees (Ater rubrum) (1-:4Q. Other tree species observed within this wetland include Box elder(Ater negundo) (I-AC+), White ash(Fraxinus americana) (FACT), black cherry(Prunus serotina) (FACU), and Gray birch Belula populifolia (FAG). Herbaceous species that have been observed within Wetland lA include Jewelweed(Impatiens capensis) (FACW), Common cattail ftpha latrfolia) (OBL), Tussock sedge((:'arex stricta) (ORI), Goldenrods(Solidago spp.), Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) (FACW), Sunflower(Helianthus sp.)and Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacaea) (FACWt). Wetland 1A is capable of a number of functions including wildlife habitat, groundwater discharge,sediment trapping,polluiion,attenuation and nutrient cycling. Jts ecological integrity is moderate. Wildlife habitat is particularly good in that many of the shrub species contain fruits that provide excellent food resources. The wetland contains structural diversity and therefore offers a variety'of niches for area wildlife. The dense vegetation offers a defense against sedimentation and it is expected that the vegetation within the wetlands could efficiently trap any entering sediments. Wetland 1A is also important in that it provides an important buffer to the Plum Gully Brook corridor wetlands. Wetland 7 Wetland 7 includes all of the wetlands associated with Plum Gully Brook. These are high functioning wetlands and include the floodplain of the brook. For the most part, Wetland 7 contains palustrine forested,wetlands,bfoad-leaved deciduous and seasonally flooded;however,there are some open marsh 44"rseas ..:This wetland has the highest diversity of species of any of the property wetlatids. It also has:the hiest degree of ecological integrity as the wetlands are well buffered from.the agricultural practices occurring at the site. The wetland is rated by this reviewer as high for all wetland attributes including wildlife habitat,nutrient cycling,sediment trapping,and floodwater storage and aesthetic value. The wetland provides habitat for a number of wetland dependent species including mink,otter,and muskrat,which have been noted here. Plum . Gully Brook is also an important fisheries resource and is periodically stocked with trout by.the CTDEP. Tree species observed within the Plum Gully Brook corridor include Red maple (Ater rubrum (FAQ. Box elder(Ater negunda(FA Green ash(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (FACK9,Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) (FAC),Black cheery(Prunm � I• Ms. Michelle Carlson Fuss& O'Neill,Inc. May 28, 2003 Page 3 serotina) (1=AC:tJ), American elm(Ulmus americana) (FACW), Speckled ualder Alnus incana) (FACW-)Pin oak(Quercus palustris) (FACW), Red oak(Q ) (FACU),Swamp white oak(Quercus bicolor) (FACWi), yellow birch(Betula alleghaniensis) (1,AC), American beech(Fagus grandifolia) (FA(:+), and willows(Salix sp) Shrubs and vines include Silky dogwood(Corpus amomum) (FACW);Multiflora. rose(Rosa multiflora) (FACU), Islorthern arrowwood (viburnum dentatum) (I;ACW), Nannyberry ([viburnum lentago) (FAQ, Highbush blueberry (vaccinium corymbosum) (FAC:W--), Elderberry (Sambucus canaden,sis) (F'ACN') Peppe, Sweet rbush Clet ra alnifolia) (FAG-+), Winterberry (Ilex verticillata) (1'ACW+). Greenbriar(Smilax rntundifolia) (PAC), Spicebush(I.indera benzoin) (FA(,W--), Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicam) (FAG), Maleberry (Lyonia ligustrina) (RACK), and Swamp rose (Rosa palustris) (OBL). There is a wide variety of herbaceous species present within the corridor. Some Asters Goldenrods(Solidago spp.)Sensitive e Asters pp)� of the species noted include ( fern(Onoclea sensibilis) (FAC_'W), Skunk cabbage .(4ymplocarpus foettdus) (OBL), Common reed(11hragmites australis) (FACW), Joe Pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum) (FACW). Tussock sedge (Carex strieta) (OBL), Sedges(Carez spp.),Avens(Geum sp.), Jewelweed(impatiens capensis) (FAC:W), Cinnamon fern(O_smundu cinnamomea) UVood Reed-grass (Canna lutifolia) (FACa9, Soft rush (Tunas effuses) (FACW+), •." . (FACW), Beggarticks (Bidens frondosa) (FACW,;virgin's bower(Clematis virginiana) (FAQ, Wild cucumber(Echinocystis lobata) Golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium americanum) (OBL), and False nettle(Boehmeria cylindrica) (FACW-1). As stated previously,there are no direct impacts to Wetland I or to Wetland 7. A detention basin will be constructed in relatively flat terrain to the west of an existing dirt road on site. The basin will be in close proximity to Wetland IA Once the basin is fully planted and functioning,it will be similar to a wet meadow or marsh habitat and will provide habitat for animals that utilize such habitats. Although not intended as mitigation,the basin nonetheless will be functional as a sediment trap and A. This rien sink. Water that outlets from the basin will be directed towards Wet landwill have been nm through a number of devices designed for water quality improvements prior to discharge from the basin. Wetland 1 NI bioad and well-vegetated,thus little to no impact is anticipated with respect to water quality degradation. Wetland lA will continue to function as an important buffer to Wetland During construction of the water quality basin,there may be short term impacts to wetland wildlife species due to factors such as noise and dust. Breeding and courtship maybe disrupted This impact can be avoided by the timing of construction to avoid the avian breeding season. The ecological integrity of Wetland IA may be slightly V J Ms. Michelle Carlson Fuss&O'Neill, Inc. May 28, 2003 Page 4 diminished; however,this potential impact will be difficult to quantify. Once the basin is Constructed, site activities M11 be confined to the area of the proposed building and road system,which are well-removed from both wetland systems. In conclusion,it is my opinion that the proposed development of the ECHN Medical Facility will not result in long term irreversible and irretrievable impacts upon Wetland lA or Wetland 7. I believe that both wetlands will continue to function as they do at present. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding my comments. Sincerely, oaf Penelope C. Sharp RECEIVED MAY 2 9NAW ENGLAND BLACKLEDGE ENVIRONMENTAL RIVER South wi INAD 06,AG RVICES CONSERv= W NURSERY May 29,2003 Michelle M. Carlson,P.E. Senior Project Manager Fuss&O'Neill, Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester,CT 06040 RE: ECHN Building South Windsor,Connecticut Dear Ms. Carlson: On May 6, 2003 I evaluated the groundwater hydrology in the approximately two (2) acre cultivated field wetland at the proposed ECHN building site. Four(4)holes were dug in the cultivated field wetland on May 2, 2003 by Dale Carlson of Fuss and O'Neill. I monitored the depth of water in the test holes on May 6,2003. The following are the results: Hole 1 dry at 42" 2 dry at 44" 3 water at 33" 4 water at 41" The water measurements were taken during a high groundwater period. In order to verify this, I inspected a wetland meadow at the east side of Buckland Road, just south of the Lutheran Church. The groundwater table was at the surface in the wet meadow, indicating a high groundwater condition. The groundwater monitoring data from the four (4) test holes shows that the groundwater table in the approximately two (2) acre cultivated field wetland has been lowered. The reason may be due to the highway and/or the excavated watercourse which occurs south of the field. The soil type in the field wetland is Walpole. The subsoil is gleyed beneath the topsoil. The soil profiles indicate that groundwater should have been at the surface. The cultivated field wetland no longer has the hydrology as a wetland due to the previous lowering of the groundwater table. The groundwater in the field should have been within 20 inches of the surface on May.6, 2003 in order to have the hydrology of a wetland. The highest groundwater lever measured in the field on May 6, 2003 was 33 inches below the surface. In conclusion,the cultivated field no longer has the hydrology of a wetland. Sincerely, Richard Snarski Certified Soil Scientist c ,�° Z 1 `L°5 Mn1, MARLBOROUGH, CT 06447(860)295-1022 tp�uuz1uu4 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION May 29, 2003 Diane Ray, Senior Project Manager Regulatory and Enforcement Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 Re: Incomplete Application Application No. PGP-200203024 Town of South Windsor Proposed Gateway Trunk Sewer Line Dear Ms. Ray: The Town of South Windsor, Connecticut is proposing the installation of a 12" PVC sanitary sewer trlmkline from Clark Street east to a point approximately 1,400 feet west of Buckland Street.. The proposed alignment of this sanitary sewer requires 5 wetland crossings, including crossing of the body of m.water known as Plum Chilly Brook (12,286 square feet of waterway/wetland fill including secondary impact). The project plans submitted with the application shove other sewer lines leading from the trunk line. These additional sewer lines are showd crossing Wetlands and watercourses and are intended to serve additional future development with the Gateway Development-Zone. These additional potential impacts are not evaluated in the present application. Wherefore, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection requested additional information in order to be able.to sufficiently evaluate water resource impacts from the proposed project as well as consider the application as a"single and complete project". In the proposed application,the 1995 Weston and Sampson Engineers, Inc.Report includes an evaluation of the cost effectiveness of six alternative sewer alignments for the Buckland Road wasteshed. However, this report did not provide a complete analysis of the environmental impact for each sewer line alternative. Therefore,in a letter to Michelle Carlson, Senior Project Manager at Fuss &O'Neill, Inc. dated March 11,2003 the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Inland Water Resources Division staff requested the applicant provide an analysis of alternatives that considered wetland and watercourse impacts, cost and feasibility factors for each of the alternatives for providing sewer service to the Gateway Development Zone. (Printed on Raeycled Paper) 79 Elm Street • li3rtford, CT 06106-5127 http://dep.statacr.us An Equal Opportunity Employer, _ -- - '- WJVUJ'VUy PGP 200203024 Gateway Trunk Sewer Line Page 2 of 3 The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection requested an alternatives analysis which would include the following: • A plan sheet showing the routing for each alternative with a description of the infrastructure components integral to.each alternative alignment, • A sunnmary of the costs for each alternative, A description of the wetland/watercourse functions and values for each wetland impacted along each alternative route, and a quantification of the extent (area) of the impacts at each wetland/watercourse location along each alternative route, and • An identification and discussion of any factors that would make an alternative not feasible (Feasible means consistent with sound engineering principles.) The above information was requested to be submitted to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection by April 8, 2003. On April 28, 2003 a meeting_was'lield at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection with Fuss and O'Neill, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the applicant. Information needed to review the application was discussed at the meeting and is listed below: • Alternatives analysis as outlined above and in the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's letter dated March 11, 2003. • A plan sheet showing the development boundaries of the proposed ECHM medical building and the proposed Lifestyle Center. • A plan sheet showing the proposed sewer line route as it will hook up to both the ECHM medical building and the proposed Lifestyle Center including a quantification of the extent (area) of the impacts at each wetland/watercourse along the route._ • A plan sheet and description of proposed laud-use development on the remaining land not yet accounted for on the Evergreen Walk parcel west of Buck]and Road including how the proposed sewer line route will hook up to these development sites and a quantification of the extent(area)of impacts at each wetland/watereouzse along the route. • A plan sheet showing stozm water detention and renovation for the Gateway Development zone west of Buekland Road. • A grass land bird survey should be conducted for the species Ammodramus savannarum (grasshopper sparrow) and Special Concern Passerculus sandwhichensts(sanannah sparrow) that occur in the vicinity of this project during late May to assess the present use of this area by these species. The survey results should be submitted to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection when completed. --" WJUU4iUU4 PGP M0203024 Gateway Trunk Sewer Line Page 3 of 3 In order for the department to be able to continue with its review and evaluation of the application, the applicant.peeds to provide the information that has been requested. Without that information, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection can not determine that the application meets the conditions for section 401 for Water Quality Certification under Category 11 of the Programmatic General Permit. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Sara Yates at the Inland Water Resources Division at (860) 424-3941. ce ly, J ise R ,cka� Assistant irector Inland Water Resources Division Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Counselors at Law Please reply to the Hartford Office One State Street,P.O. Box 231277 TT Hartford,Connecticut 06123-1277 Tff M E R I TA 5 Telephone(860)548-2600 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Facsimile(860)548-2680 An Alliance Member One Century Tower, 265 Church Street New Haven, Connecticut 06510-7002 Telephone(203)786-8300 Facsimile(203)772-2037 May 30, 2003 RECEIVED VIA FACSIMILE WITH ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW JUN 0 2 2003 Jeffery Folger South Windsor Wetlands Officer INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission CONSERVATION COMMISSION South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Freedom of Information Request Dear Mr. Folger: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-200 et seq., I hereby request a copy of any and all documents including all filings, applications,plans,requests, studies,reports, contracts, e-mails, correspondence and all other public records or files in the possession of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission and relating to or prepared by, or on behalf of, Evergreen Walk, LLC or the property owned by Evergreen Walk, LLC located on the block bounded by Buckland Street, Clark Street, Deming Road and Smith Street, specifically with respect to a revised plan for Application No. 03-21P, ECHN Site Plan and revised drainage report, a discussion for which is scheduled before the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission on Wednesday, June 4, 2003, and a letter addressed to the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission from J. M. Jacques, with respect to Application No. 03-28P. This request is intended to seek copies of only those materials not already provided by the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission pursuant to any prior requests by our firm. Therefore this request should not be understood to require the South Windsor Inland Wetlands/Conservation Commission to provide additional copies of materials already provided under such a prior request. Please contact me at 548-2683 at your earliest convenience to arrange for payment and/or pickup of these documents. Very ly yours, SCOTT MILLER 326786 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Counselors at Law Please reply to the Hartford Office One State Street,P.O.Box 231277 RECEIVED T j M E R I TA S Hartford,Connecticut 06123-1277 Telephone(860)548-2600 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Facsimile(860)548-2680 J U N A 2O tJn3 An Alliance Member One Century Tower, 265 Church Street `t New Haven, Connecticut 06510-7002 South Windsor Telephone(203)786-8300 INLANDWETLAND6AGENCY Facsimile(203)772-2037 CONSERVATION COMMISSION H.Scott Miller,Esq. (860)548-2683 hsmiller@uks.com June 3, 2003 Jeffery Folger Wetlands Officer South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Freedom of Information Request Dear Mr. Folger: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-200 et seq., I hereby request a copy of any and all documents including all filings, applications,plans, requests, studies,reports, contracts, e-mails, correspondence and all other public records or files in the possession of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission and relating to or prepared by, or on behalf of,Evergreen Walk, LLC or the property owned by Evergreen Walk, LLC located on the block bounded by Buckland Street, Clark Street,Deming Road and Smith Street,specifically with respect to a revised plan for Application No. 03-21P, a discussion for which is scheduled before the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission on Wednesday, June 4, 2003. This request is intended to seek copies of only those materials not already provided by the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission pursuant to any prior requests by our firm. Therefore this request should not be understood to require the South Windsor Inland Wetlands/Conservation Commission to provide additional copies of materials already provided under such a prior request. Please contact me at 548-2683 at your earliest convenience to arrange for payment and/or pickup of these documents. /H. ruly yours, tt Miller 327054 ENSR International Box 506 11 Phelps Way Willington,CT 06279 (860)429-5323 FAX(860)429-5378 June 5, 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT Re: Review of Casle Corporation/ECHN Application Dear Attorney King: As requested, ENSR has prepared an addendum to our May 13th letter in regards to ENSR's initial review of the project plans and associated documents filed with the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation (IWWC) and Planning and Zoning applications for the above-referenced project. Based upon ENSR's attendance at the IWWC May 21st and June 41h public hearings for the ECHN application and review of information we have received to date, we offer the following comments and questions. 1. The project proponent indicated that the subject parcel is 4.26 acres. Is the proposed access road off of Deming Street included in the 4.26 acre calculation? This site area calculation is still unclear. If not, we suggest that it should be as it provides the sole access and egress to the ECHN facility. The impervious area resulting from construction of the access road should be included in the total impervious area calculation proposed for the ECHN parcel/project, if has not already been taken into consideration. Additionally, are both Phase I and Phase II of the parking plan, in terms of impervious coverage, included in the total impervious area calculation proposed on the parcel? Clarification is needed in regards to this issue. 2. At the May 21 st meeting, the project proponent indicated that the total impervious coverage proposed for the ECHN parcel is 2.6 acres, which was stated to amount to 4.5% impervious coverage proposed for the entire 229+/- acre Evergreen Walk development. The project proponent indicated that "each project proposed in the Evergreen Walk development has its own stand alone merits as a stand alone project", and concluded, therefore, that the ECHN project should be reviewed on its own merits. To that end, we submit that if the total acreage of the ECHN parcel is 4.26 acres, the 2.6 acres of proposed impervious cover results in a total impervious cover of 61% of the site. If the total acreage for the parcel is 4.17 acres as depicted on the project plans, the total impervious cover on the site increases to 62%. Further, this impervious cover calculation apparently does not include the impervious area for the proposed access drive off of Deming Street. Further clarification is needed in regards to impervious cover proposed on the site. ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT During the June 4th meeting, the project proponent, in responding to the Commission's request, indicated that the impervious coverage for the ECHN site by itself (during Phase I of its development) amounts to 47%cover. They further indicated that during Phase If of the development the impervious cover increased to 55% cover. The calculation of impervious cover is still ambiguous—does it include the impervious cover generated from construction of the access road and for the "potential future area" indicated on Plan CG.1.6 along Deming Street. 3. The project plans depict two Rain Garden Systems for treatment of storm water, and a level spreader for treatment of roof runoff proposed as part of the storm water management design for the parcel. What is the fate of these systems once 1) the temporary detention basin is abandoned and the drainage is redirected to a new permanent detention basin,2)the access drive off of Deming Street is extended to provide access and egress to the other associated developments on the site, 3) future development of the parcels of land located to the west of the ECHN parcel (designated as"First Piece"and "Sixth Piece") occurs, as shown on the Evergreen Walk overall development plans, and 4) is there more detail (i.e., subsurface data) available to support the intended function of infiltration of the Rain Garden Systems? Elimination of the Rain Garden Systems and level spreader would presumably decrease the effectiveness of storm water attenuation and filtration designed for the ECHN parcel. How will the piping to the level spreader be installed? Will this construction require additional impacts (temporary or permanent)to inland wetlands or watercourses? Data should be provided by the project proponent in response to this issue. 4. Since the project proponent stated that the storm water generated on the.ECHN site will eventually be redirected to a permanent detention basin (i.e., detention basin #3), it would reasonable to expect that the additional wetlands impacts, if any, to be incurred by this additional construction (and possible wetland/watercourse crossings) be evaluated, and if necessary, mitigated for under the ECHN application. During the June 4th meeting, the project proponent suggested to contradictory scenarios whereby 1) the permanent detention basin (basin 3#) may not be built, and 2)the temporary detention basin may not be built. The phasing of this project warrants more detailed discussion by the project proponent. At this point, it is difficult to differentiate as to what constitutes the ECHN project as a single and complete project versus that of the overall Evergreen Walk Development. 5. No discussion or documentation is provided to evaluate the potential impacts of redirecting storm water flows to the permanent detention basin and removing this amount of water outside of the subwatershed associated with the ECHN parcel. 6. Additionally, there is no discussion or documentation as to why the wetland mitigation area is not located within the same subwatershed as the ECHN parcel. 7. There does not appear to be a hydrologic connection proposed between the wetland mitigation area and the existing wetland system along Plum Gully Brook. There is no report providing documentation on the functions and dynamics of the proposed wetland mitigation area. 8. During the project proponent's presentation of the proposed wetland mitigation area, there was no mention of the 5,200 square feet of vernal pools or 2.5 acres of 2 EPRIt® If,vggmj • ,FA 0 ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT conservation land/easement proposed in the application. Are these mitigation features still proposed? 9. A question was raised at the meeting by one of the Commission members as to why the ECHN building was sited at its present location. Two of the reasons offered by the project proponent included 1) the agricultural field is a non-functioning wetland, and 2) there was an opportunity to create a mitigation area of"very good wetlands" south of the ECHN property. Several comments are provided in response to this. a. If the agricultural field is indeed no longer functioning as a wetland, it appears that this agricultural field, which is delineated as a state wetland with hydric soils, would lend itself to wetland restoration as possible mitigation for cumulative wetland impacts for the overall Evergeen Walk development. Sections 8.1(G) and 11.2(D) of the IWWC Regulations state that restoration of wetlands or watercourses shall be given first priority. This delineated State Wetland could serve as a wetland restoration area, if the proposed facility was sited and constructed on available upland elsewhere on the overall site. b. If the ECHN site is a"stand alone project"then why are the wetlands mitigation area and permanent detention basin presented as components of the overalll Evergreen Walk development? This appears to be contradictory to the statements made that the ECHN project should be evaluated on its own merits. If the wetland and storm water mitigation components of the overall Evergreen Walk development are to be weighed in the ECHN project, then so too should the additional impacts such as cumulative wetlands impacts (i.e., extension o f the storm water system to the detention basin #3, extension of the access drive/road off Deming Street) and overall increases in impervious cover for the entire development (i.e., proposed access drive/road). c. No alternative analysis has been provided to evaluate alternative sites or .alternative designs to avoid the agricultural land delineated as state wetlands on the project plans, nor to avoid or minimize activities within the 80-foot upland review area. We submit that a possible alternative location is the upland areas located to the south of the proposed ECHN parcel (south of Wetland/ Watercourse#1 and paralleling Buckland Road). Section 11.2(B) of the IWWC Regulations states that the criteria for the Commission's decision is based in part on any feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed regulated activity which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. 10.The project proponent's soil scientist indicated that the wetland soils in this area make this agricultural field a state wetland. He further indicated that this state wetland no longer provided typical wetland functions, nor was there a groundwater table encountered within 24 inches of the surface. Several comments are provided in response to this. a. No soil scientist report or other documentation has been provided to 1) support the wetland/hydric soil delineation on the site nor 2) support the conclusions that the agricultural field is no longer a functioning wetland. b. The above-referenced conclusions by the project proponent's soil scientist appear to be based on very limited field evaluations namely one maybe two days of monitoring groundwater levels in 4 excavated test pits, and as explained by -3- EPRIt® R�MVVOVTM ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT the soil scientist, a cursory review of the the drainage system along the watercourse paralleling the south side of the property. c. The soil scientist stated that there are several factors that may play into a localized low groundwater table in this agricultural field including 1) adjacent roadway development intercepting and redirecting water that may contribute to the water budget on the site, 2)the watercourse to the immediate south of the site, has cut itself quite deep—which would promote lowering of the groundwater table, and 3) the presence of an under-drain system which sole purpose is to lower the groundwater level. d. We would recommend that a more detailed investigation be made in regards to the functioning of the existing the drain system. Consultation with the Natural Resource Conservation Service could provide insight on this issue(i.e., farmed wetland vs. prior converted cropland determination). The NRCS could also provide insight as to the proposed loss of prime farmland soils on the site. Has this under-drain system been located and mapped by the project proponent? e. The soil scientist indicated that groundwater monitoring was now being . conducted in the proposed wetland mitigation area. The same groundwater monitoring could be performed to monitor the groundwater levels in the agricultural field on the ECHN site, although the ideal window for monitoring extreme high groundwater levels has passed. f. The statement that the wetland agricultural field is a "non-functioning wetland" needs further consideration. For example, it is likely that water that wetlands are protected for continue to be provided by thi w�meadoAs runoff enters this wetland, it infiltrates through topsoils that presetain sufficient organic matter to provide effective adsorption capacity for pollutants such as metals and phosphorus, and may support denitrification during periods of saturation. The replacement of this function with impervious surfaces that generate pollutants has not been evaluated. 11. The project proponent indicated that the sewer connection for this project will be jacked under Plum Gully Brook along Deming Street. If this is a feasible construction alternative for crossing Plum Gully Brook, it is reasonable to expect, at a minimum, that a similar evaluation of construction alternatives would be performed for the proposed Gateway Sanitary Sewer Trunkline crossing of Plum Gully Brook proposed at the downstream location of the proposed Deming Street crossing, which is proposed as a separate but associated project by the Town of South Windsor. 12.The project proponent suggested that the roof of the proposed building would be equipped with metal components. Metal rooftops, including roofs made from aluminum, tin, galvanized steel, and copper have been documented to contribute significant pollutant loads to receiving waters. This issue warrants review as to whether sufficient storm water best management practices are provided in the project design to protect water quality of the receiving waters. 13. During the project proponent's presentation, it appeared that contradictory statements were made in regards to the ECHN development as a single and complete project versus the other proposed activities on the overall Evergreen Walk development. It appears that the project proponent speaks to the offsite mitigation -4- Y ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT measures while at the same time asking the Commission to focus its revie w solely on the merits of the ECHN parcel and proposed activities on the site alone. In addition to being in conflict with the Section 11.2(F) of the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses, and Conservation Regulations of the Town of South Windsor in regards to evaluating cumulative impacts, the ECHN and Evergreen Walk projects, if viewed separately, are in conflict with the Department of the Army Programmatic General Permit for the State of Connecticut. The Programmatic General Permit Conditions require that projects be presented and reviewed as Single and Complete Projects as follows, This general permit shall not be used for piecemeal work and shall be applied to single and complete projects. All components of a single project shall be treated together as constituting one single and complete project. All planned phases of multi-phased projects shall be treated together as constituting one single and complete project. This general permit shall not be used for any activity that is part of an overall project for which an individual is required. Note that modifications to State permits do not constitute a separate project. 14. During the June 4th meeting the Commission raised the issue of having the project proponent provide a conservation easement and/or riparian buffer along the entire western edge of the Plum Gully Brook corridor. This approach would begin to address the need for a master planning initiative for the overall Evergreen Walk development by looking at the "entire" project and its cumulative impacts. We would submit that the project proponent investigate/study and commit to providing a buffer, which would protect inland wetlands and watercourses as well as lands within the 80-goot upland review area. 15.A member of the Commission indicated that they believe that the watercourse located along the southern property boundary of the ECHN site is a perennial watercourse. They suggested that the project proponent consider offering mitigation of the watercourse such as bank stabilization measures. This watercourse was also delineated as a federal wetland. As such, bank stabilization projects are an allowable activity under the Programmatic General Permit (PGP) issued for Connecticut. Bank stabilization under the PGP does not include channelization, and the length includes the sum of bank stabilization involving one or both banks of a section of stream. Category I of the PGP permits Inland bank stabilization less than 500 feet in length and less than an average of 1 cubic yard fill per linear foot below ordinary high water, provided no wetland fill, limited to July 1 through September 3a Projects proposed under the PGP must meet the general permit conditions of the PGP, which include but are not limited to, the provision of single and complete project review. We maintain that the ECHN project along with the other aspects of the overall Evergreen Walk development should be reviewed as a single and complete project in terms of overall site layout, alternatives analysis, cumulative wetland, watercourse and upland review area impacts, and mitigation. 16.Although the project proponent has made efforts through Ms. Penelope Sharp to document the wetland functions on the site, there is no detailed discussion or documentation on the presence or potential habitat of state-listed rare, threatened or endangered species (i.e., grasshopper sparrow, Savannah sparrow). In a March 14th letter from the CT DEP Natural Diversity Database to Ms. Penelope Sharp, the DEP recommended that a grassland bird survey be conducted during the breeding season to assess the present use of this area by state-listed species. There is no -5- 9 E 1E.", ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT documentation provided in the application in regards to responding to this request for a grassland bird survey, nor is there documentation as to any other rare species surveys (i.e., state-listed reptiles or amphibians) conducted for the ECHN project or the overall Evergreen Walk development. Please call Dennis Lowry or me if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, ENSR Corporation � ieCl.Gfit' ames Durand Dennis Lowr y Wetland-Soil Scientist Wetland Ecologist -6 � r w- w EUM. �'�� ENSR Intemational 2 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 (978)589-3000 FAX(978)589-3100 www.ensr.com 9 June 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT RE: Review of Drainage Report for Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network ENSR Project Number 10351-001 Dear Mr. King: As requested, ENSR has conducted a review of the following information pertaining to the above-referenced project: t A. "Drainage Report, Eastern Connecticut Healthcare g p Network", dated April 4, 2003, revised , through May 29, 2003, prepared by Fuss &O'Neill, Inc. B. Drawings containing information relevant to drainage system design, dated April 4, 2003, revised through May 29, 2003, prepared by Fuss & O'Neill, Inc., LADA, P.C., and JWM Architectural Group. The following sheet numbers were included in our review: G1.0.2, CS.1.5, CG.1.1, CG.1.2, CG.1.3, CG.1.4, CG.1.5, CG.1.6, CU.5.1, CU.5.2. We offer the following comments based on our review: 1. ENSR recommends requesting the applicant to prepare an overall conceptual build-out plan for the site, and a corresponding drainage analysis, in order to evaluate the long-term impacts on the immediate environs of the site, as well as the Podunk River watershed. To date, we have reviewed two separate parcels that appear to be part of a larger common parcel. In addition, the plan shows the abandonment of a portion of the drainage system when a future drainage facility (Detention Basin 3) is constructed, but no backup calculations or other information is provided for that future facility. We are concerned that this incremental approach to stormwater management design for the larger parcel may lose the opportunity to design for the most effective management of peak rates in the various receiving waters affected by the proposed development. 2. The drainage narrative discusses how various storm water management facilities will provide water quality treatment. However, if the detention basin, vegetated waterway, and perhaps other facilities are abandoned during future development, this water quality function will be lost. The report does not indicate how the future system will compensate for the Celebrating 30 Years of Excellence in Environmental Services ENM. June 9, 2003 Eastern Connecticut Health Network Page 2 water quality treatment function of the system proposed for abandonment. 3. We have received updated information that shows that the roof will drain to a level spreader. Part of the level spreader is located outside the area of the drainage analysis. During peak storms, the level spreader will discharge roof runoff to an area that does not eventually drain to the detention basin. Therefore, the runoff from the roof will not be subject to peak rate control. This condition is not reflected in the May 29, 2003 drainage report and supporting calculations. 4. The level spreader is located adjacent to an area with a slope greater than 12%. The existing ground downslope of part of this level spreader is concave in shape, which would result in re-concentration of flows discharged from the level spreader. This could lead to erosion and sedimentation within the delineated wetland below the level spreader. A level spreader should only be used where flow from the device will discharge as "sheet flow", without potential for re-concentration down-gradient of the device. 5. The area of proposed site alteration for building, paving, and other earthwork appears to be greater than 5 acres, indicating that the project will require filing a CT General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction Activities. This general permit includes requirements that "the permittee shall install post- construction stormwater management measures designed to remove suspended solids from stormwater. A goal of 80 percent removal of total suspended solids from the stormwater discharge shall be used in designing and installing stormwater management measures." No TSS removal calculations have been provided to document compliance with this requirement. 6. We suggest that the Commission request that the applicant document that the design complies with the Hydrologic Sizing Criteria (Chapter 7) of the Draft Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual. 7. The "existing conditions" drainage boundary does not appear to correctly reflect the site conditions. Part of the tributary area outlined appears to discharge runoff under existing conditions to the drainage course along the southern site boundary. This condition is not correctly reflected in the drainage report and calculations. There also appears to be an existing discharge point at an existing drainage swale along Deming Street - but the analysis seems to use a common discharge point at the proposed detention basin outlet. We recommend that the engineer more carefully consider the existing drainage patterns on the site, and develop a corrected list of existing analysis points that more closely accounts for existing conditions. 8. The "proposed condition" node diagram indicates an area of the site (designated "South of EHCN"). The location of this sub-watershed is not clearly indicated on the Drainage Area plans. It appears from the routing diagram that the area does not drain to the detention EKM. June 9, 2003 Eastern Connecticut Health Network Page 3 basin, but ENSR could not verify this from the mapping that was provided. The drainage boundary for both the "existing condition" and the "proposed condition" should include all the area analyzed. It should also extend beyond the limits of all proposed grading; some of the proposed grading for the detention basin is outside of the drainage boundary. 9. The applicant used Sheet Flow lengths of 200 feet for time of concentration calculations. Typically for topographic conditions found in Connecticut, including this site, Sheet Flow lengths greater than 50 feet are not appropriate due to the undulating terrain. The portion of the overland flow path exceeding 50 feet should be calculated as Shallow Concentrated Flow. 10.The path of the Existing Conditions Tc does not end at the design point boundary. The slope for the Shallow Concentrated Flow portion (3.9%) seems flat since the site is generally at approximately a 7%slope. 11. Calculations for the 0.25 hrs used for the Proposed Condition Tc should be provided. 12. The catch basin inlet report indicates that the inlet for CB-6 will not capture all of the flow during the design storm. It is not evident from the report whether the model has correctly analyzed this additional flow, which will by-pass to either CB-5 or CB-2. The engineer should verify that this has been correctly modeled. 13. Does the catch basin pipe report account for the tail water conditions anticipated within the stilling basin at the Outfall of CB-1 A during the design storm? 14. A watershed is indicated for the Rain Garden BMP in the detention basin calculations but not shown on the Catch Basin Areas Plan. Has the contributing area to CB-6 been correctly accounted? It is not clear how the rain garden is intended to function, as there appears to be no impervious area directly contributing to the BMP. 15.At the "existing conditions" point of analysis, a portion of runoff currently leaves the site as overland flow distributed along the contour at the boundary of the analysis area. Under proposed conditions, the detention basin drains through an outfall pipe, creating a point source discharge. No information was included in the report to indicate how the detention basin design will properly discharge the flow from the outlet without causing an erosion problem below the riprap apron. The drawing shows planting with wetland species, but the calculations do not include documentation of the capacity and stability of the proposed watercourse at this outlet. 16. The detention basin outlet structure invert information as depicted in the plan view on Drawing CG.1.2 does not agree with the information on Detail Drawing CU.5.1. r k ENS. June 9, 2003 Eastern Connecticut Health Network Page 4 17.The calculation output indicates that there will be less than one foot of freeboard at the basin berm during the 100-year storm. We believe that NRCS typically recommends at least a foot of freeboard over the maximum water depth in the pond during emergency overflow conditions.The Engineer should document that the detention basin design meets the dam and detention basin embankment requirements for CT, including provision of adequate freeboard. An additional allowance of freeboard capacity should be provided to account for embankment settlement. 18.The drawings show an emergency spillway constructed within the limits of the proposed embankment fill. This is not a recommended practice. The spillway should be constructed in existing ground, if practicable. Furthermore, the spillway should provide for a minimum freeboard (as discussed above) at the design flow for the spillway. The details show a spillway depth of 0.5 feet, which cannot possibly provide such freeboard. We recommend that the emergency spillway should be designed(and supported by calculations) assuming the principal spillway(6 inch orifice) is non-functional. 19. The drainage report does not include a map of pre- and post-drainage areas for the Plum Gulley Brook at Clark Street and the Podunk River at Vinton's Millpond dam analysis. We also request a copy of the overall drainage analysis back-up in addition to the summary that was provided. 20.There appear to be discrepancies between peak rates reported for proposed conditions at several "nodes" in the on-site analysis, and the corresponding nodes in the Podunk River Analysis. These should either be corrected, or satisfactorily explained. It is unclear as to whether the area ("South of EHCN) of the site that does not flow to the detention pond but is included in the on-site analysis is included in the Podunk River Analysis. 21.The calculations include an analysis of the vegetated waterway. The Manning's coefficient used appears to be too low for a grassed waterway with the depth of flow less than a half foot. Also, it does not appear that the engineer analyzed the swale for both capacity and stability. The gradient of the swale exceeds 5% in some areas. The calculation provided shows a velocity of 4.22 ft/sec. NRCS (formerly SCS) recommends the velocity not exceed 3.5 ft/sec in a vegetated waterway established in silt loam soil, with a well-established stand of vegetation. We recommend the engineer provide further documentation that the vegetated waterway has the capacity to convey flows at velocities within those recommended by NRCS. We suggest the analysis be conducted using NRCS methodology for that accounts for vegetative retardance, with an evaluation of conditions for capacity at maximum retardance and stability at minimum retardance for the selected grass species. The analysis should include evaluation of the permanently established swale, and also the period immediately following construction. Measures to stabilize the swale during the establishment of vegetation should be clearly specified. N. i June 9, 2003 Eastern Connecticut Health Network Page 5 Please feel free to call with any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ENSR Caroline Hampton David C. Nyman Senior Engineer Senior Engineer gAesp\projects\p100\300 to 399\1 0351-001 As sowindsor\6-04-03 echn review\6-9-03south windsor review.doc cc: Dennis Lowry, ENSR Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Counselors at Law Hartford New Haven Stamford 17"v- TR MERITAS _One State Street. P.O. Box 231277 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Hartford, Connecticut 06123-1277 An AHi.cb Membs, Telephone(860) 548-2600 Facsimlle (860) 548-2680 John C. King (860) 548-2608 )king®uks.com June 9, 2003 South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074-2786 Re: Appl #03-21 P The Casle Corporation (Eastern Connecticut Health Network) West Side of Buckland Road, South Side of Deming Street South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Chairwoman Warren and Members of the Commission: This office represents the Pavilions at Buckland Hills, L.L.C. ("Pavilions"). On May 7, 2003, the undersigned filed with the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission ("IWA/CC")a Verified Petition to Intervene,pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 22a-19, whereby Pavilions intervened as a party in the administrative proceedings before the IWA/CC concerning Appl#03-21P concerning the Casle Corporation and the ECHN building. Section 22a-19 permits intervention as of right in any administrative, licensing or other proceeding, and in any judicial review thereof,by any person or other legal entity upon the filing of a verified pleading asserting that the proceeding involves conduct which has, or which is reasonably likely to have, the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state. That statute goes on to state that no conduct shall be authorized or approved which does, or is reasonably likely to, have such an effect so long as, considering all relevant surrounding circumstances and factors, there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health safety and welfare. Indeed, this statute is consistent with § 11.3 of the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses, and Conservation Regulations of the Town of South Windsor, which states that, "[I]n the case of an application which received a public hearing pursuant to a finding by the Agency that the proposed activity may have a significant impact on wetlands or watercourses, a permit shall not be issued unless the Agency finds on the basis of the record that a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist." That determination was made by the IWA/CC on April 17, 2003. 306260 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, f, South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Page 2 of 4 June 9, 2003 Testimony and correspondence will be presented by James Durand, Wetland Soil Scientist and Dennis Lowry, Wetland Ecologist, of ENSR, an internationally recognized environmental and engineering consultant firm, in connection with its review of Appl #03-21 P. Also, testimony and correspondence will be presented by two senior engineers of ENSR, Caroline Hampton and David C. Nyman in connection with the drainage report for the project. Mr. Lowry's initial report focuses on a number of issues, including the fact that the 4.6 acre parcel is 60 percent wetland and the necessity to fill 2.11 acres of wetland. The report also discusses the so-called wetland mitigation plan, stormwater detention basin issues, historical pesticide applications and other wetland and ecological issues related to the site. In addition, the report generally is critical of the incomplete nature of the application itself and the piecemeal approach to this Commission by way of seeking approval for the project without this Commission being able to review the overall Evergreen Walk project's layout, alternatives, impacts and mitigation measures. As noted, on page two of Mr. Lowry's correspondence, and pursuant to § 11.2 of the regulations, the Agency must consider the short term and long term impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity of such wetlands and watercourses. Further,the Agency must consider the extent to which such activity would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore such resources, and any mitigation measures which may be considered as a condition of issuing a permit. Finally, pursuant to § 11.2F., the Agency must consider: "[I]mpacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity is proposed and future activities associated with or reasonably related to, the proposed regulated activity which are made inevitable by the proposed regulated activity and which may have an impact on wetlands or watercourses."(emphasis added) Mr. Lowry and Mr. Durand also have prepared an addendum dated June 5, 2003 to Mr. Lowry's initial report dated May 13, 2003, the addendum partially in reaction to the public hearings of May 21 and June 4, 2003. Not only is it impractical if not impossible for this Agency to determine future impacts on wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity is proposed, on the basis of an application which does not address these issues, but, from a legal standpoint, this Commission must consider the cumulative impacts of a sequence of planned activities on the affected wetlands and watercourses. While the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act("CEPA") is not applicable to this project, because currently there is no state funding, reference to CEPA is appropriate in determining the approach which,respectfully, we believe this Commission should take in connection with the application. Section 22a-1c of CEPA defines actions which may significantly affect the environment as "individual activities or a sequence of planned activities proposed to be undertaken..."The regulations, § 22a-lb(h) define an action as "an individual activity or a sequence of planned activities initiated or proposed to be undertaken..." 306260 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, C. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Page 3 of 4 June 9, 2003 In the case of City of Middletown v. Albert J. Solnit, M.D., the Department of Mental Health and Addition Services, et al, 1996 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2112 (August 9, 1996), the court reviewed the individual activities undertaken by the state in connection with the consolidation of mental health services and the state's decision that no environmental assessment was required. The court stated: "[U]nder the facts of this case, an environmental assessment was not required at the single point a reconfiguration of the campus was at the conceptual stage, or when a predesign study of road work was contracted for, or when the interior of a single building was being renovated, or when a consultant was hired to advise on demolition of buildings.... However, when these individual activities are art of a sequence of planned activities proposed to implement consolidation, and when ongoing building renovations, contemplated road changes and demolition of historic and other buildings and increased patient and staff population are so likely to have an environmental and social and economic consequence, then an environmental assessment is called for." Middletown v. Solnit at 11. (emphasis added) In that case, the court issued a Temporary Injunction against the defendants requiring them to cease and desist from engaging in any further consolidation activities until undertaking an environmental assessment of the entire project. In connection with the application before you, this application is part of an approved Evergreen Walk General Plan of Development which, in violation of Conn. Gen. Statutes § 8- 3(g), never came before this Commission for review. Consistent with the Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, Conn. Gen. Statutes § 22a-36-45, and the regulations of this Agency and analogous statutory and case law, respectfully,we urge the Commission to reject this application because, inter alia, it is incomplete as outlined by ENSR,because it fails to address the cumulative impact of the inevitable sequence of planned activities on the wetlands and watercourses and provides an insufficient alternatives analysis. As noted in the Verified Petition to Intervene, the IWA/CC will consider"conduct which has, or which is reasonably likely to have,the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying public trust in the air,water or other natural resources of the state." It is alleged that the construction of the ECHN building involves "inter alia, such conduct in one or more of the following ways"and, specifically, Paragraph 3m of the petition states: "[F]uture undefined but inevitable short term and long term impacts given that this proposal is part of a larger proposed development." 306260 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Page 4 of 4 June 9, 2003 Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Very ours, J KING JCK:daz cc: Mr. Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer 306260 CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD LLC Jane Kimball Warren CityPlace 1 185 Asylum Street 860.275.6781 Direct Hartford,CT 06103.3495 jwarren@cl•law.com 860.275.6700 Phone 860.724.3397 fax June 12, 2003 RECEIVED Via Hand Delivery 2 03 20 South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission south JUN 1w2 20 1540 Sullivan Avenue iNL1Nindsor 0 WETLANDS AGENCY South Windsor, CT 06074 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Re: Application#03-21P The Casle Corporation/Eastem Connecticut Healthcare Network("ECHN') Dear Chairwoman Warren and Members of the Commission: On behalf of Evergreen Walk,LLC and The Casle Corporation("Evergreen"), enclosed please find a memorandum dated June 12, 2003 prepared by Fuss& O'Neill. This memorandum responds to all of the comments or questions raised by ENSR in their letters of May 13th, June 5th and June 9th. Under separate cover, you will also receive today a Drainage Report,Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network, dated April 4, 2003, latest revision June 11, 2003, and the Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network Final Development Plan dated April 4, 2003, latest revision June 11, 2003. Copies of all of these materials are being hand delivered to the intervenor's counsel today as we discussed at the IWA/CC hearing on June 4th. In response to Attorney King's June 9th letter to the IWA/CC,we refer you to the attached Fuss & O'Neill memorandum, as well as the testimony provided at the public hearings on May 21 st and June 4th. Rather than reiterate all of that information herein,this letter will briefly address the legal issues raised by Attorney King. The Casle/ECHN application is complete and addresses wetlands and drainage issues both on and off site in an environmentally appropriate manner. Although cited at length by intervenor's counsel in their June 9th letter,the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, ("CEPA"), does not apply to this application and will not be addressed by the applicant. Intervenor's counsel conceded that CEPA does not apply, but irrelevance has not,to date,prevented the intervenor from raising issues regarding this application. S T A M F O R D I H A R T F O R D I GREENWICH I NEW HAVEN I WEST HARTFORD I NAPLES I BONITA SPRINGS Y South Windsor Inland Wetlands -2- June 12,2003 Agency/Conservation Commission Finally, as demonstrated by the applicant and its experts,the proposed project will not unreasonably pollute, impair or destroy the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the State. In fact,the wetlands mitigation being offered to compensate for the loss of completely degraded and non-functioning wetlands will improve the environment once this project has been completed. Should you have any questions,please call me. Very truly yours, 6Kiall Warren Enclosures cc: Mr. Jeffery Folger, Zoning/Wetland Officer(w/enc.) -Via Hand Delivery John C. King,Esq. (w/enc.) -Via Hand Delivery Mr. Jay Giles (w/enc.) -Via E-mail Mr. Alan Lamson(w/enc.) - Via E-mail .HrtLib1:429807.1 06/12/03 290506.0002 REC�I�ED MEMORANDUM JUN 12 2003 Itt p W t.Windsor TO: Town of South Windsor CONg�Vq ON 71 CDO MISS oN Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission FROM: Fuss& O'Neill DATE: June 12,2003 Response to May 13,2003 ENSR Letter 1. The state wetlands were delineated by Mr. John Ianni, Professional Soil Scientist. Highland Soils and the federal wetlands were delineated by Mr. Curt Olson, Professional Soil Scientist, Daylor Consulting. The state wetlands were delineated based on soil types and the definition of intermittent watercourses. The federal wetlands were delineated based on the 1987 Federal Manual. 2. Letter reports dated April 22, 2003 and May 28, 2003 (after the date of the ENSR May 13, 2003 letter) have been prepared by Ms. Penny Sharp and submitted as part of the application. These reports discuss the condition of the wetlands. 3. Mr. Richard Snarski regards the site as a wetland by definition only; it no longer functions as a wetland. The mitigation proposed by the applicant establishes a viable wetland area which more than compensates for any loss at the site because the loss of functioning wetlands appears to be zero. 4. There will be no adverse environmental effects from the loss of the wetland area as discussed in Ms. Penny Sharp's April 22, 2003 and May 28, 2003 letter reports. The wooded growth along the watercourse has been accurately depicted on the plans submitted June 5, 2003. As shown on the plans submitted June 5, 2003 and per the request of Mr. Jeff Folger, Town of South Windsor, the roof runoff will be discharged directly to the wetland along the west side of the property to maintain surface water recharge to this area. 5. The initial submission indicated that 5,200 square feet of vernal pools would be created to mitigate the wetlands loss. The town staff informed the applicant that the mitigation area had to be at least 1 to 1 and that the proposed vernal pool mitigation was not the preferred mitigation for this site. Based on discussions and field walks with town staff, the current mitigation area was picked as the best wetland creation area on the Evergreen Walk property. The created wetland will provide many of the typical wetland functions that the ECHN wetland currently does not and will not provide because the groundwater hydrology is not present. 6. The applicant requests that the Commission review the application as submitted. The application fully addresses relevant wetland issues and mitigation. The proposed regulated activities are fully addressed and their impacts are fully defined. 7. The proposed detention basin was labeled "temporary"based upon comments made by the Zoning Commission and Town staff. The basin will be constructed as part of this project and will remain unless and until a new application is filed with the Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission (IWA/CC) requesting a change to be approved by the Commission. There are no current plans to relocate this detention basin. The creation of the detention basin will increase the flood storage capacity within the floodplain by approximately 570 cubic yards. The detention basin has been designed following standard engineering practice, which is a single Type III 24 hour storm. The storm pipe system has been designed for a 10 year storm event in accordance with the town regulations. 8. The proposed detention basin will be constructed as part of this project and will remain unless and until a new application is filed with the Town of South Windsor (IWA/CC) requesting a change which must then be approved by the Commission. The proposed work to construct the detention basin and vegetative Swale will occur outside of the wooded area in a cultivated field as shown on the plans presented at the June 4, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing and submitted June 5, 2003. No shrub or woodland habitat will be removed or altered for construction of the detention basin. 9. Mr. Richard Snarski testified at the June 4, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing that he is confident that the hydrology is present on the site to create the various wetlands types proposed in the mitigation area. The groundwater will be monitored throughout the first growing season and adjustments in the elevations and/or proposed plantings will be made as necessary to ensure that a successful wetland is created. 10. The proposed mitigation area is located outside of the 100 year flood plain. 11. The state endangered grasshopper sparrow and the state species of special concern savannah sparrow have been recorded near Smith Street and the Pavilions but not in the vicinity of the proposed ECHN site. CTDEP's Natural Diversity Database does not show the applicant's land as within the relevant area. Nonetheless, apart from this application, Evergreen Walk, LLC has retained Ms. Mary Capkanis to conduct a grasslands bird survey of the area. 12. The applicant will manage all soil on site, and any soil to be disposed of off- site will be managed as required by state and federal law. -2- Response to June 5,2003 ENSR Letter 1. The proposed access road is not included in the 4.26 acre site. The site area is clearly shown in metes and bounds on Sheet CS.1.4. The impervious area resulting from construction of the access road and adjacent rain gardens, if included in the total impervious area calculations would result in 53% ratio, well below the town requirement of 60%. 2. ENSR's calculations are wrong. The impervious area ratio of the ECHN site, if taken by itself, is 55%. If taken with the access road and appurtenances, this ratio falls to 53%. 3. The rain gardens and the level spreader for the roof runoff are part of the application and there is no intent to remove them in the future. There will be no additional wetlands impacts associated with the installation of the level spreader. 4. The proposed detention basin was labeled "temporary" based upon earlier discussions with town staff. It will be constructed as part of this project and will remain unless and until approval is granted by the IWA/CC. 5. The proposed detention basin was labeled "temporary" based upon earlier discussions with town staff. It will be constructed as part of this project and will remain unless and until approval is granted by the IWA/CC. 6. Based on discussions and field walks with town staff, the proposed mitigation area was picked at the best wetland creation area on the Evergreen Walk property. The created wetland will provide many of the typical wetland functions that the ECHN wetland currently does not and will not provide because the groundwater hydrology is not present. 7. Mr. Richard Snarski discussed the functions of the proposed wetland mitigation area at the June 4,2003 IWA/CC public hearing. The wetlands mitigation area does not rely on the surface water of Plum Gully Brook therefore, it is not necessary to have a surface-water hydrologic connection. 8. The initial submission indicated that 5,200 square feet of vernal pools would be created to mitigate the wetlands loss. The town staff informed the applicant that the mitigation area should be at least 1 to 1 and that the proposed vernal pool mitigation was not the preferred mitigation for this site. Based on discussions and field walks with town staff, the proposed current mitigation area was picked as the best wetland creation area on the Evergreen Walk property. 9a. Mr. Richard Snarski testified at the June 4, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing that the groundwater hydrology has been lowered in wetland #1 as a result of the Buckland Road construction and the intermittent watercourse to the south. -3- 4" Mr. Snarski said that it is not possible to restore the hydrology of this wetland to its natural state due to the above construction. 9b. As stated above, based on discussions and field walks with town staff, the proposed current mitigation area was picked as the best wetland creation area on the Evergreen Walk property. The created wetland will provide many of the typical wetland functions that the ECHN wetland currently does not and will not provide because the groundwater hydrology is not present. The proposed detention basin was labeled "temporary" based upon earlier discussions with town staff. It will be constructed as part of this project and will remain unless and until approval is granted by the IWA/CC.. 9c. The ECHN building location is in a cultivated field. All of the proposed work in the 80 foot upland review area is in cultivated and hay fields. Per Mr. Snarski's testimony at the June 4, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing, the groundwater hydrology has been lowered in wetland #1 as a result of the Buckland Road construction and the intermittent watercourse to the south. Mr. Snarski said that it is not possible to restore the hydrology of this wetland to its natural state due to the above construction. 10a. Mr. Snarski's June 4, 2003 testimony at the IWA/CC public hearing and his letter dated May 29, 2003 address and support the conclusions that the agricultural field is no longer a functioning wetland. 10b. Mr. Snarski's June 4, 2003 testimony at the IWA/CC public hearing and his letter dated May 29, 2003 address and support the conclusions that the agricultural field is no longer a functioning wetland. 10c. Mr. Snarski testified at the June 4, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing to the statements in 10c. 10d. Mr. Snarski testified at the June 4, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing that the tile drain system is no longer functioning. In addition as previously stated and testified to, there has been so much disruption to the groundwater hydrology due to off-site construction that restoration of this area to a functioning wetland is not possible. 10e. Mr. Snarski's June 4, 2003 testimony and letter dated May 29, 2003 address the groundwater monitoring at the site. 10f. The proposed ECHN site is not a "wet meadow" as labeled by ENSR; it is a dry cultivated field. As runoff enters this existing cultivated field there is erosion and sediment deposition downstream. The proposed stormwater system meets the town and state requirements for stormwater pollutants removal and provides more pollutant renovation than that of an agricultural field. Agricultural fields are high non point source stormwater polluters. -4- 11. The proposed Gateway Trunk Sewer is not part of this application. This comment is not relevant to this application. 12. The majority of the roof will be ballasted rubber. The miscellaneous roof components and roof top equipment will be painted steel or aluminum. There will be no exposed aluminum, steel,tin or copper. 13. The applicant Mr. Richard Snarski regards the site as a wetland by definition only; it no longer functions as a wetland. The mitigation proposed by the applicant establishes a viable wetland area which more than compensates for any loss at the site because the loss of functioning wetlands appears to be zero. 14. The applicant does not regard this item as relevant to the application. The applicant will review this area to determine an appropriate approach to provide any necessary protections to Plum Gully Brook. 15. The Army Corps of Engineers' permit requirements are not relevant to this application as there are no federal wetlands on this site. 16. The state endangered grasshopper sparrow and the state species of special concern savannah sparrow have been recorded near Smith Street and the Pavilions but not in the vicinity of the proposed ECHN site. CTDEP's Natural Diversity Database does not show the applicant's land as within the area of concern. Response to June 9.2003 ENSR Letter 1. An overall drainage analysis for the Evergreen Walk site has been performed based on the known projects and the general plan of development on file with the town. It has been presented to and discussed with the commissions and town staff. This application appropriately addresses drainage both from the site and with respect to surrounding areas. 2. There is no intention to abandon the ECHN detention basin. If it were to be removed, approval would be required by the IWA/CC. 3. The roof drainage was directed to the level spreader at the request of Jeff Folger, Town of South Windsor. The revised drainage report dated June 11, 2003 reflects this change. 4. The total discharge from the roof for the 10 year design storm is 3.54 cfs. The level spreader is almost 100 feet long,which results in a discharge of 0.0354 cfs per linear foot of level spreader, which is not an erosive rate. The concave area downstream of the level spreader is not well defined and would not concentrate -5- flows to cause erosion. At most, discharge from half the level spreader (1.77 cfs) would discharge to this area. 5. The site plan incorporates water quality control features including catch basins with deep sumps, rain gardens, a grassed swale, and the detention basin. The proposed stormwater water system exceeds the requirements of the regulations for stormwater controls. The applicant will apply for a Connecticut General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction Activities when and as required by Connecticut law prior to construction. 6. The design conforms to the requirements set forth in Paragraph 2.3.7 of the Town of South Windsor Public Improvement Specifications. The Draft Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual (prepared by Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. for the CT DEP) has been distributed to the DEP and Connecticut towns for review and comment. A final document is being prepared to submit to the DEP in the near future. At this time, this document has not been distributed by the DEP to the public for use as a final guidance document. 7. These minor revisions to the existing drainage areas have been made in the revised drainage report dated June 11, 2003. These revisions result in no material change to the drainage report,but actually improve the end result. 8. The proposed drainage area map shows the area labeled in the computations as"south of ECHN" in the revised drainage report dated June 11,2003. 9. The use of sheet flow lengths involves judgment on the part of the design engineer. The Natural Resource Conservation Commission (MRCS) allows lengths of up to 300 feet, which may be appropriate for other flatter areas of the country. A maximum length of 200 feet was used in this case since this the topography consists of a mildly sloped well-vegetated field in which surface flow would not be expected to concentrate quickly. 10. The path of the existing time of concentration has been revised in conjunction with the revisions made for #8 and is reflected in the revised drainage report dated June 11,2003. 11. The 0.25 hr(15 minute)time of concentration is comprised of four segments. The first is a sheet flow segment (2.3 min.), then shallow concentrated flow (0.3 min), followed by time in the storm sewer/ rain garden system (8.5 min), with the remainder consisting of an estimated detention time in the stilling basin at the head of the swale and Swale travel time(4.0 min). 12. A flow of 0.33 cfs bypasses CB-6, which is picked up by CB-2. There is no bypassed flow from CB-2. -6- 13. A conservative tailwater elevation of 97.8 was entered into the StormCAD calculations,with no adverse effects to the system. 14. A revised drainage area map incorporating recent changes made to the plan in the rain garden area is included in the revised drainage report dated June 11,2003. 15. The proposed plantings of tussock and wool sedges are similar to the erosion prevention measures suggested by Jeff Folger and Richard Snarski, as approved by the Town of South Windsor for the Expo Design Center project. The differences between the proposed ECHN plantings and the approved Expo Design Center plantings are that the ECHN plantings are on a milder slope and will be subject to less flow. 16. The elevation of the 24" outlet pipe was revised to be consistent between sheets CG.1.2 and CU.5.1. 17. Based on minor revisions to the drainage areas as suggested by ENSR, the revised water surface in the detention basin results in 1' of freeboard with no modifications to the plans. 18. The location of the emergency spillway is adjacent to the main detention basin outlet, which is situated to provide a maximum travel length within the detention basin. To move the emergency spillway from this location would require creating additional wetland and uplands area disturbance. The elevation of the spillway is set at the level of the 100 year water surface elevation. Based on minor revisions to the drainage areas as suggested by ENSR, the revised water surface in the detention basin results in 1' of freeboard with no modifications to the plans. 19. Pre and post area drainage areas for the Podunk River and Plum Gully Brook are the same. The drainage area map is included in the revised drainage report dated June 11, 2003. This map was included in the original drainage report submitted but, has been inadvertently omitted from the subsequent revised reports. 20. Discrepancies between the two models may occur because they are completely separate. These minor discrepancies are immaterial and have no affect on the final result. The area listed as "south of ECHN" in the on-site analysis is incorporated into the southerly sub-area of the overall drainage study. Another notable example of discrepancies between the two models is at the "Detention Out" ("ECHN Detention Out" node in the overall model) in which outflows for the 2 through 25 year storms differ by as much as 0.02 cfs (the 100 year is the same). The reason for this is that a larger computational time increment was necessary for the overall hydrologic -7- �v analysis, while a shorter time increment was used for the on-site analysis. The difference in time increments may have resulted in these discrepancies. 21. HEC-15 methods were used to determine the stability of the swale based on shear stresses. The proposed grassed lining is of vegetative class C (based on the height of growth), which can withstand shear stresses up to 1.0 lb/sf. Shear stress on the proposed grassed swale will be less than 1.0 lb/sf, using the shear stress equations contained in HEC-15. The swale has more than enough capacity, since the calculations included in Appendix A of the drainage report indicate a flow depth of 0.25 feet,while the depth of the swale is no less than two feet anywhere. If the Manning's 'W' value is raised, as suggested, the velocity in the swale is lowered to below the NRCS limit of 3.5 feet per second. HrtLib1:429837.1 06/12/03 290506.0002 -8- 06/25/03 11:08 FAX 860 424 4075 DEP/IWRD WJ00z STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION T June 13, 2003 Michelle Carlson Senior Project Manager Fuss &c O'Neill, Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040-5921 Re: Application No. PGP-200203024 -��- Town of South Windsor_ Proposed Gateway Trunk Sewer Line/Evergreen Walk c Dear Ms.Carlson: We are in receipt of your letter dated May 15, 2003 regarding the meeting on April 28, 20.03 at which we discussed the Town of•South Windsor's Gateway Trunk Sewer and Evergreen Walk projects and the additional documentation needed to complete the application filed under the A my Corps of Engineer's Programmatic General Permit_ Subsequent to the meeting, we received your submittal of May 15,2003 including your letter, drainage calculations for existing and potential conditions, a map titled, "Evergreen Walk, Conceptual Plan, Sanitary Sewer Alternatives,Wetlands Quality and Potential Mitigation Areas" dated May 9, 2003 and a map titled, "Evergreen Walk, Conceptual Plan with Drainage Areas and Proposed Storm Water Detention"dated May 9, 2003. At the April 28, 2003 meeting we identified and discussed-the documentation needed to complete the application including the scope of the analysis of alternatives for seweni ng the Evergreen Walk project within the Gateway Development Zone-The information provided in your May 15, 2003 letter with respect to sewering alternatives is not sufficient. Conclusions are presented regarding wetland impacts, cost and feasibility of alternatives. However, the specific detailed information and documentation necessary to support the conclusions have not been provided. For each alternative,the analysis needs to f) identify and quantify specific wetland impacts, 2)provide a breakdown of specific costs, and 3) identify and explain in detail the specific factors that affect feasibility. The plan entitled, "Conceptual Plan with Drainage Arens and Proposed Storm Water Detention" shows project elements with areas of wetland impact that have not been addressed in the application including: (Printed on Recycled Paper 70 Elm Street ■ Hartford, Q7r 061D6-5127 http://d ep.a tate.ct.ua An Egf.al Opporrunlry Emplopir Uri/25/U3 11:08 r•AX 5UU 424 4U70 imr/iw" Wr UU.3 Application No. POP-200203024 Town of South Windsor Gateway Trunk Sewer/Evergreen Walk June 13, 2003 Page 2of3 A roadway running north-South located West of the ECIE T and Lifestyle Center crossing four wetland areas. These wetland impacts have not been quantified or evaluated. • Two roadway wetland crossings Niithin the Lifestyle Center parcel. These wetland impacts have not been quantified or evaluated_ • An area of wetland impact for the construction of the ECHN building and associated parking. This wetland impact has not been quantified or evaluated_ Additionally,the May 9, 2003 project plans show stormwater detention basins located immediately adjacent to wetland areas with no allowance for a wetland buffer and several areas for parking with till slopes located imumediately adjacent wetlands within the proposed Lifestyle Center with no allowance for a wetland buffer. The trunk sewer line and the Evergreen Walk projects are inextricably linked and as such need to be evaluated and permitted as a single and complete project. Currently, only the Town of South Windsor has filed an application seeking Section 404 authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 authorization from the State of Connecticut under Category II of the Army Corps' Programmatic General Permit. The Town's application seeks authorization for the trunk server portion of the project. The appropriate party for the Evergreen Walk portion of the project has filed no application. This issue needs to be resolved. Wetland impacts for the single and complete project (trunk sewer line and Evergreen Walk development)need to be identified, quantified and evaluated and the information submitted in order to have a complete and sufficient application for review and for the department to be able to determine whether the project meets the conditions for Section•401 Certification under Category II of the Programmatic General Permit.The applicant must demonstrate that impacts to wetlands have been avoided and minimized and that unavoidable wetland impacts are being appropriately mitigated. Please be advised that based on the review of the May 9,2003 project plans,the department is concerned that several project elements are not consistent with the Connecticut's goal of restoriang and maintaining the integrity of surface waters (including wetlands) under the state's Water Quality Standards_ Specific concerns include the direct impact to wetlands for the construction of the ECHN facility and the location of several stormwater detention basins and parking areas with fill slopes immediately adjacent to wetlands with no wetland buffer. The placement of the ECHN building and parking would impact ±2 acres of wetlands and is not considered a minimal impact to surface waters. The applicant should evaluate an alternative location for the placement of the proposed ECHN building and associated parking outside of wetlands. Additionally, alternatives for the location of detention basins and design layout of the Lifestyle Center that allow for the incorporation of meaningful wetland buffers should also be evaluated and considered. 06/25/03 11:09 FAX 860 424 4075 DEP/IWRD IQJ004 Application No. PGP-200203024 Town of South Windsor Gateway Trunk Sewer/Evergreen Walk .Tune 13, 2003 Page 3 of 3 If project modifications can be made to resolve the department's concerns, then the department would be able to consider Section 401 authorization under Category II of the Army Corp's Programmatic General Permit provided total wetland impacts do not exceed one acre and a deter Wnation is made that the project (trunk sewer line and Evergreen'Walk development will not adversely affect state-listed species_ It is our understanding that a survey of suitable habitat for state-listed grassland bird species is currently being conducted. If you have any questions, need additional information or would like to arrange a meeting with department staff,please call.Sara Yates at the Inland'Water Resources Division at(860)424- 3941.a cer ly,cer ly, t Denise R xcka Assistant Director Inland Water Resources Division riR:SEy:BMG CC: Diane Ray,US Army Corps of Engineers Michael Marsh, US EPA Greg Manesto,US Fish and Wildlife Service Town of South Windsor,Inland Wetlands ,Agency Fred Shaw,South Windsor WPCA Matthew Galligan,South Windsor Town Manager Jane warred,Esq.,Cummings &Lockwood Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Counselors at Law Hartford New Haven Stamford TT iif MERITAS One State Street, P.O.Box 231277 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE An Alliance Member Hartford,Connecticut 06123-1277 Telephone(860)548-2600 Facsimile(860)548-2680 John C. King June 13, 2003 (860) 548-2608 jking@uks.com JUN 13 � South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission SO Eli W?�NG s°N 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074-2786 Re: Appl#03-21P The Casle Corporation(Eastern Connecticut Health Network) West Side of Buckland Road, South Side of Deming Street South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Chairwoman Warren and Members of the Commission: On June 9, 2003, as per the agreement entered into with counsel for the applicant before the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission("IWA/CC") on Wednesday, June 4, 2003, I forwarded the following documents to counsel stating that these documents were the proposed submissions of the Intervenor for the IWA/CC hearing on Wednesday, June 18, 2003: 1. Correspondence to the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission from Updike,Kelly& Spellacy,P.C. dated June 9, 2003 2. May 13, 2003 letter from Dennis Lowry of ENSR regarding Casle Corp./ECHN App. 3. May 29, 2003 letter from Denise Ruzicka of the Department of Environmental Protection. 4. June 5, 2003 letter from Dennis Lowry and James Durand of ENSR regarding Casle Corp/ECHN Application 5. June 9,2003 letter from Caroline Hampton and David Nyman of ENSR regarding review of Drainage Report for ECHN—ENSR Project#10351-001. On June 12, 2003, the undersigned received a response from counsel for the applicant, also forwarded to the IWA/CC, to the comments of the ENSR in its letters, described above, of May 13, June 5 and June 9, 2003. In reviewing our file materials, it has come to my attention that the materials which were forwarded to counsel on June 9, as listed above,were not submitted to the IWA/CC either on June 9,the day they were forwarded to counsel, or on June 12, 2003. Therefore, I am enclosing the Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission June 13,2003 Page 2 documents listed above so that the commissioners, as requested at the meeting of June 4, 2003, will have the opportunity to review said documents prior to the scheduled IWA/CC meeting of June 18, 2003. In addition,while it was my understanding that any documents to be submitted to the IWA/CC at its June 18 meeting were to have been exchanged among counsel by June 9, 2003, at the specific request of counsel for the applicant,we received yesterday a revised drainage report, dated June 11, 2003 and a revised Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network Final Development Plan, also dated June 11,2003. Receipt of these materials on Thursday, June 12,is contrary to the agreement entered into before the IWA/CC on June 4 in that, as stated above, documents to be addressed at the June 18 meeting were to have been exchanged among counsel by June 9,2003. This late receipt of documents unfortunately prevents a written response in a timely fashion, as previously agreed to. Upon review,we may determine to respond orally or to submit written comments to the IWA/CC at its June 18, 2003 meeting. We recognize and appreciate that the commissioners would prefer not to receive written material on the evening of the meeting. We will make every attempt to make any written response to the recently received revised drainage report and final development plan available to the commissioners and counsel prior to the scheduled June 18 IWA/CC meeting. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Ve t yours, J King JCK/d cc: Jeffrey H. Folger,Environmental Planner John R. Mallin, Esq. r � . HIGHLAND SOILS «K Juno 18,2003 Michelle Carlson Fuss&O'Neill,Inc `146.I-1atford Road Manchester,CT 06040 RE. EVERGREEN WALK r . R'UC$L 4AD ROAD SOUTH WMSOR, CT Dear Michelle: The inland wetland boundaries on the above-referenced property were field delineated in May 2000. The wetlands were field delineated in accordapce with the standards of the National Cooperative Soil Survey and klte definition of wetlands as found in the Connecticut General Statutes,Chapter 440,Section 22A-48> I have reviewed the plans prepared by your.office an$'have found the representation of the field delineated wetlands to be substantially correct. Ifyou'have any questions,orYequire additional informat on,;please CoI me at(860) 742-5868. Very truly yours, +' Johu';�,4Ianni. "Professional Soil Scientist t c:\documeitts and settingsltughland soilsVet2403uetcert,doc P.O.Sox 337,,ttorrs,Connecticut 0626$1 (860)7a2-5868 `; E11�1�® ' ENSR International Box 506 11 Phelps Way Willington,CT 06279 (860)429-5323 FAX(860)429-5378 June 18, 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT Re: Caste Corporation/ECHN Application Response to Fuss & O'Neill Responses Dear Attorney King: ENSR offers the following comments regarding the responses by Fuss & O'Neill to our letters of May 13 and June 5, 2003: 1. It is unclear why the proponent has not provided any reports from the individuals cited as conducting the wetland delineations for this site and the larger Evergreen Walk site. There has never been any documentation of the criteria employed in distinguishing state and federal wetlands. Clarification of the soil characteristics within the wetland proposed to be filled for the ECHN site in the form of test pits and profile descriptions would address this issue. During the delineation of this area as a wetland, did these individuals concur that this area was not a "functioning wetland"? 2. ENSR has never been provided with the referenced April 22, 2003 letter from Penny Sharp. It is our understanding that your firm also does not have this letter. The May 28, 2003 letter does not address conditions within Wetland 1 (the proposed wetland fill area). 3. The question of whether the on-site wetland no longer has wetland hydrology requires further consideration. Wetland hydrology is present if the water table is within the root zone (typically the top 12-18 inches) for three weeks of the growing season. With a growing season commencement of April 15, the water table measurements made may not have been within this time period. Further, it is not clear if these measurements were instantaneous at the time of the probe, or if water levels were allowed to stabilize within the pits. Again, test pit profiles of the test holes would aid in understanding site conditions. It was originally indicated that wetland hydrology of the site was altered by a tile drain system, and then later indicated it was believed more related to construction of Buckland Road and the southern watercourse. It would be logical to believe that the tile drain system would be a greater influence, and that the effects of this could be easily reversed by plugging the drains. E11��t® ' ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT 4. If an area meets the definition of a wetland, it contains wetland characteristics and those characteristics contribute to wetland functions. For example, presumably the wetland soils of this wetland continue to provide wetland water quality functions. We believe the "non-functioning" status of this area is rendered too casually. In any event, the appropriate sequencing of development considerations for this site should be followed: alternatives, wetland avoidance, minimization of impacts, and finally mitigation of unavoidable impacts should be addressed rather than the singular approach of dismissing functions. We have not seen any attempt at addressing why the upland field immediately south of this site is not a prudent or feasible alternative site for the construction of this facility. If wetland mitigation can be provided "off-site", it is clear that the "site" limits are loosely defined. 5. The proposed wetland mitigation site is in a different hydrogeologic setting and different subwatershed than the proposed wetland impact area. It will convert riparian-zone upland while not addressing the loss of headwater wetland conditions. Further, the statement made that"the wetlands mitigation area does not rely on the surface water of Plum Gully Brook therefore, it is not necessary to have a surface water connection" demonstrates that hydrologic wetland functions have not been addressed by the plan. Creation of an isolated depression does not replicate the functions of a wetland that borders a watercourse. 6. Contrary to the statements made, the construction of the temporary swale system directing runoff from the site to the proposed detention basin in the floodplain will result in the loss of wooded habitat within the 80-foot upland review area. While the detention basin in the floodplain apparently will not result in a net fill or loss of floodplain storage, the construction of this feature in the floodplain increases the chance of significant erosion during a flood event during its construction and stabilization period. Alternatives to this appear readily available. Positioning of the detention basin nearer to the development site, followed by a swale for polishing is recommended; as proposed, the swale is likely to generate sediment during major runoff events rather than reduce sediment loads. 7. In terms of management of soils on the site that may be affected by past agricultural pesticide application practices, it is recommended that the attached guidance from the Connecticut DEP be followed (dated March 1999). Please call me if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, ENSR Corporatio-"_(: 2 Dennis Lowry Wetland Ecologist attachment -2- ('mineral Guidance on Development of Former Amicultural Proms (March, 1999) The Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection have become aware of a number of site development projects on former agricultural land in which persistent pesticides(primarily&eldrin,DDT and breakdown products,chlordarie,arsenic)remain in soil at concentrations that approach or exceed the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations. While such development projects do not specifically fall under the RSRs, concerns have been raised that the residual pesticides constitute a health risk. In light of this,DPH and DEP offer general guidance for such sites as described below. This guidance is meant to provide an approach that is protective of public health and that also leaves a degree of flexibility. We expect.municipal officials and site developers to consider our input together with other factors in deciding how best to handle site re- development projects. Evaluate site history and sample surface soil(ideally 0-Y depth)in areas where _ pesticides were applied and stored A limited number of deeper samples are also recommended,particularly in areas whore there is evidence of substantial surficial contamination. Total mass concentrations and leaching tests should be performed, with consideration given to analyses for newer pesticides if the site is currently- agricultural. - Evaluate detected pesticide concentrations against RSR values. If the concentrations are below the RSR values in all cases,there is no need for further consideration of pesticide contaminant issues at the site. If some concentrations are above the RSRs, the following options for managing the affected soil should be considered: 1) Keep affected soil soparate from other soils and use it on-site as fill under buildings,parldng lots,or access roads or dispose of the soil in an approved landfill' off-site. 2) Mix it with unaffected soils to decrease the effective soil concentration. In this case,representative samples should be taken from the mixed soil piles following RCR.A protocols regarding the number and location of samples from soil pile's. If the mixed concentrations are below the RSRs,the soil pile can then be used anywhere on-site. If the mixed concentrations are still above RSR values, then the soil pile could be used as fill material below grade(but not topsoil)-in parts of the site where digging will not occur(.e.,areas where children will not play; non-residential areas;uses is described under Option 1). 9 3) Depending upon the degree of RSR exceedance,consideration should be ' given, in consultation with DPH and DEP,to removal of specific hot spot areas. 4) If affected soils are in some manner kept on-site, an additional Precautionary step would be post-construction surface soil sampling to ensure that the practices described above have successfully reduced the potential for direct exposure. 5) If any soils containing pesticides above RSR values remain on-site,the location of these affected soils should be recorded on a site map which is on file at the local health department. Site-specific data can be provided to DPH(509-7742)and DEP(424-3776)to crake sure that a particular site does not present unique risks_and that the data are suitable for comparing against RSR values. s T v ENSR International 2 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 (978)589-3000 FAX(978)589-3100 18 June 2003 www.ensr.com John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT RE: Review of Drainage Report for Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network ENSR Project Number 10351-001 Dear Mr. King: ENSR offers the following comments regarding the response by Fuss & O'Neill to our letter of June 9, 2003: 1. ENSR has not been provided with a copy of the storm water management master plan alluded to by Fuss & O'Neill. We have not seen an overall drainage analysis with complete calculations for the full build-out condition. The drainage reports provided do not contain narrative or other documentation to show that the proposed design is consistent with a drainage master plan. 2. The plans we reviewed indicated the intent to abandon portions of the drainage system. The response letter indicates there is no such intent. The plans should be modified accordingly. 3. Comment addressed. 4. Comment addressed. 5. We recommended documentation of compliance with the General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction Activities, to show that pollution would not occur as a result of the proposed project storm water discharge. Methods are now available to quantitatively demonstrate compliance with the total suspended solids removal rates specified in that permit. 6. We recommended that the applicant document that the design complies with the Hydrologic Sizing Criteria (Chapter 7) of the Draft Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual, to show that pollution would not occur as a result of the proposed storm water discharge. The draft manual contains a number of guidelines that have been developed and applied for a number of years in other jurisdictions. They reasonably reflect the "state of the art" for stormwater management, and appeared to ENSR to comprise a reasonable methodology for Celebrating 30 Years of Excellence in Environmental Services ,r- T ENM. June 18, 2003 Eastern Connecticut Health Network Page 2 quantitatively documenting the storm water management effectiveness of this project. 7. Although the applicant has revised the existing and proposed drainage maps, the drainage areas included within the watershed boundaries — and therefore analyzed in the model results — are not the same for existing and proposed conditions. The existing condition watershed includes 8.05 acres. The sum of the proposed condition watersheds includes 8.70 acres. The discrepancy appears to be that some of the area that drains to the drainage swale to the south under existing conditions (and was not included in the existing condition areas) will be included in the proposed condition storm water system. The watershed boundaries should be revised and the analysis updated so that pre- and post- development watershed areas and analysis points are consistent. 8. Comment addressed. 9. ENSR stands by its original comment regarding the use of sheet flow paths greater than 50 feet in length. Our comment is based on guidance from NRCS for the use of TR-55 methodology in New England. 10. Comment addressed. 11. Comment addressed. 12. Comment addressed. 13. Comment addressed. 14. The revised drainage area map used for catch basin and pipe flow analysis shows a drainage area for the rain garden. It does not appear to reflect the breaks in curb line that allow runoff from a portion of the pavement to discharge to the rain garden. 15. As noted in our original remark, the drainage report contains no calculations to document the stability of the proposed vegetated watercourse at the detention basin outlet. 16. Comment addressed. 17. There should be one foot of freeboard for the detention basin embankment with the emergency spillway operating under an appropriate design condition. See Comment 18. 18. We stand by our original comment regarding a prudent spillway design. The spillway should be constructed in existing ground, if practicable. Furthermore, the spillway should provide for 0CMIM. June 18, 2003 Eastern Connecticut Health Network Page 3 a minimum freeboard (as discussed above) at the design flow for the spillway. We recommend that the emergency spillway should be designed (and supported by calculations) assuming the principal spillway (6 inch orifice, with overflow catch basin inlet) is non- functional. Repositioning this device, whose purpose is to prevent embankment failure in the case of principal spillway malfunction, should not have an adverse impact on wetlands. 19. Comment addressed. 20. Comment addressed. 21.The analysis of the vegetated waterway for stability as presented in the June 11, 2003 revision of the drainage report remains flawed. The Manning's coefficient is incorrect, based on the HEC-15 methodology used. The coefficient must be determined as part of an iterative calculation. The method requires assuming a trial depth, computing hydraulic radius, looking up the corresponding n-value based on slope and hydraulic radius, and then computing flow. This process is repeated until the computed flow matches design flow. Then the shear stress is calculated and compared to the allowable shear stress. Performing this procedure to achieve the flow of 13.38 cfs listed in the submitted calculations, a depth of greater than 0.45 feet is required. The shear stress would exceed 1.7 Ib/sf. This exceeds the allowable shear stress of 1 Ib/sf. The HEC-15 analysis shows that the Swale as designed will not be stable; that is, it will be subject to excessive erosion even with fully established vegetation. As noted in our original comment, the engineer should also show how the Swale would be stabilized prior to full establishment of vegetation. Please contact the undersigned with any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ENSR Caroline Hampt n David C. Nyman Senior Engineer Senior Engineer cc: Dennis Lowry, ENSR JAESP\Projects\P100\300 to 399\10351-001 As sowindsor\6-04-03 ECHN review\updated South Windsor Review.doc r S EMIL ENSR International Box 506 11 Phelps Way Willington, CT 06279 . (860)429-5323 FAX(860)429-5378 June 19, 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT Re: Casle Corporation/ECHN Application Additional Comments Dear Attorney King: ENSR offers the following comments in response to issues discussed at last night's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission hearing that we did not have an opportunity to verbally address: 1. While it was helpful that a submittal was made by John lanni of Highland Soils confirming his wetland delineations on the site, there was no detail provided of his findings. In particular, it would be useful to know his observations within the Wetland 1 area at the time of his delineation in terms of water table conditions and also soil profile descriptions. We believe that additional support is needed to confirm the assertion that this area does not currently support a hydric regime. As we have noted, to our knowledge water table conditions have not been documented within this area during the first three weeks of the growing season. No details have been provided concerning the test pits that have been installed in this wetland. Profile descriptions, well construction details, dates of installation and monitoring are needed. No support has been provided concerning the assertion that the construction of Buckland Road and/or the southern watercourse has affected the water table conditions versus the tile drain system. However, it would be useful to know if the road construction has affected wetland water tables as dramatically as suggested by the applicant considering forthcoming development on the site. If the change in hydrology within this wetland from some past activity can be used at the current time to negate its significance, proposed conditions on the site relative to such potential changes should be even more carefully considered. 2. There Was no attempt made to address the potential relationship between this p p p wetland and the stream alongside of it. No response was provided as to whether there is a culverted constriction at the cart path crossing of this stream that may cause the stream to back up and flood into the field during certain runoff events. 3. ENSR questions the ability to predict water tables within the proposed wetland mitigation area by the current monitoring. The removal of up to ten feet of • ENSR International ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT overburden for the construction of this area will change the water table gradients and fluctuation patterns. Further, forthcoming development upgradient of this site will also change the recharge and interflow conditions. As currently proposed, there is no ability to control water levels in the mitigation area to achieve the intended conditions. 4. ENSR again questions the strategy of disturbing the area of this wetland mitigation site. If the wetland area proposed for filling is of no significance as claimed by the applicant, there is no need to propose such extensive disturbance in the riparian zone. Wetland mitigation strategies no longer focus on wetland area replacement, but on wetland function replacement. We are not aware of any regulatory requirement for constructing a wetland replacement area of this size. This issue is of more significance considering the potential occurrence of pesticides in the soil from long-term agricultural uses. The mitigation plan states that"topsoil in the field will be used in the created wetland." The presence/levels of pesticides in these soils should be evaluated prior to any such use, and the potential mobility of such pesticides under saturated conditions should be considered. We note that there has been no response from the applicant on this issue to date. Please call me if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, ENSR Corporation Dennis Lowry Wetland Ecologist -2- RECEIVED CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD L.LC JUN 2 0 2003 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION John R. Mallin June 19,2003 Chair,Real Property Group 860.275.6728 Direct Via Facsimile&Regular Mail imallin@cl-law.com John C.King,Esq. Updike,Kelly& Spellacy,P.C. CityPlace I One State Street 185 Asylum street P.O.Box 231277 Hartford,CT 06103.3495 Hartford,CT 06123-1277 860.275.6700 Phone 860.724.3397 Fax Re: Casle Corporation Application www.cl-law.com Dear John: In accordance with the comments made at the Wetlands Commission meeting last night,it is my presumption that you will have delivered to us,no later than the close of business on Monday,June 23,2003,the written comments that your consultants intend to further address to the Wetlands Commission at the July 2nd continued public hearing. In accordance with our prior understanding,we will provide our response to that information to you and to the Commission by the close of business Thursday,June 26th. If for any reason you cannot comply with this schedule,please let me know immediately;otherwise,we will expect to receive the documentation in accordance with the above schedule. V trul ours, J hn R.Mallin JRM/kam cc: Ms.Elizabeth Warren Mr.Jeffery Folger Barry D. Guliano,Esq. .HrtLib1:430140.1 06/19/03 290506.0004 STAMFORD I HARTFOR9Do I GREE,NWICH I NEW HAVEN I WEST HARTFORD I NAPLES I BONITA SPRINGS CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD LLC JUN 2 4 2003 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNfNG DEPT, John R. Mallin June 23, 2003 Chair,Real Property Group 860.275.6728 Direct Via Facsimile&Regular Mail jmallin@cl-laW.com John C.King,Esq. Updike,Kelly& Spellacy,P.C. CityPlace I One State Street 185 Asylum Street P.O. Box 231277 Hartford,CT 06103-3495 Hartford,CT 06123-1277 860.275.6700 Phone 860.724.3397 Fax Re: Application No. 03-21P www.cl-law.com Applicant: The Caste Corporation(Eastern Connecticut Health Network) Dear John: Your letter of June 20 reached my office on Friday after 4:00 p.m. and after I had left the office that day for a meeting;hence I am responding today. Given your letter,you leave us no alternative but to expect that your communication will not reach us until the end of the day Tuesday, June 24. This is contrary to our prior understanding and places the applicant in an untenable position. Since we do not know the nature of the communication you will be sending,the most I can say at this point is that we will endeavor to respond by Thursday,June 26.However, your imposed deadline has given you four business days plus the weekend while allowing the applicant barely two business days to respond. As I stated above,you may expect our response as early as possible after receiving your information;however,our response will be submitted only when it is complete so as not to waste the time of the Commission with partial responses.In the future,we will ask the Commission to impose a deadline since S T A M F O R D I H A R T F O R D I GREENWICH I NEW HAVEN I WEST H A R T F O R D I NAPLES I BONITA SPRINGS John C.King,Esq. -2- June 23,2003 it is clear that it is the intervener's intention to gain any advantage it can in the application process. Very truly yours, IhnR. allin cc: Elizabeth Warren,Chairwoman(via facsimile®ular mail) Jeffrey Folger,Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer(via facsimile and regular mail) Barry Giuliano,Town Attorney(via facsimile and regular mail) .HrtLib1:430322.1 06/23/03 Y ��A ENSR International 2 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 '(978)589-3000 FAX(978)589-3100 www.ensr.com 24 June 2003 John King, Esquire Updike,Kelly and SpellacY, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT RE: Updated Comments Review of Drainage Report for Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network ENSR Project Number 10351-001 Dear Mr.King: ENSR offers the following comments to follow up on the discussion of this project at the June 18, 2003 Inland Wetlands Commission meeting. 1. In our previous comments and in our hearing testimony, ENSR has noted that we have not received plans, calculations, narrative, or other documentation to show that the proposed design is consistent with a drainage master plan for the project. Representatives of Fuss&O'Neill have indicated that they developed an overall plan and supporting drainage calculations, and that these items were discussed with municipal officials. However, we understand from .our communications with your office that there are no such plans or calculations in the public record, which serves as the basis for our review. Without such documentation, we cannot review the basic assumptions, methodologies, and computations upon which the engineer would base an overall assessment of storm water impacts relative to the "full build-out" scenario of which this project is a part. 2. In previous review letters and in our hearing testimony, ENSR has requested documentation of the effectiveness of the proposed storm water management system to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff, including documentation that the system is designed to achieve 80% TSS removal as required under current Connecticut standards. The engineer has stated that the storm water management facilities achieve greater removal than this standard. However, in the reports and plans in the public record that have been furnished for our review,we have found no calculations that would support the engineer's statements. ENSR is therefore unable to review the assumptions, methodologies, and computations upon which the project engineer has assessed the ability of the design to prevent pollution from the stormwater discharge. 3. The proponents engineering team has agreed that the spillway design should allow for one foot of freeboard. However,they have not provided for this freeboard with the spillway functioning in a design emergency condition. The freeboard should be figured from the water surface that would prevail in the emergency spillway, assuming a failure of the principal snillway. We have not received documentation showing that this design analysis has been done. Celebrating 30 Years of Excellence in Environmental Services r r ENS. Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network June 24,2003 Page 2 4. The engineer did not respond at the June 18 hearing to our comment that prudent spillway design requires the emergency spillway to be constructed in existing ground, if practicable. This practice Is intended to protect the detention basin embankment from catastrophic failure. We have seen no documentation that adherence to this practice is not practicable. We do not believe that repositioning this device to place it within existing ground instead of the embankment fill is likely to result in an adverse Impact on wetlands,if properly designed. 5. The engineer indicated at the June 18 hearing that the proposed vegetated waterway (located between the panting lot drainage system outlet and the detention basin) would be stable as designed. However, ENSR determined that the waterway would be unstable using the following information: • The waterway gradient, design flow, and other design parameters identified in Fuss & O'Neill's June 11, 2003 revision of the drainage report, • The methodology cited by the engineer(HEC-15),and • The stability criteria identified by the project engineer. As noted in our June 18 letter, we believe the project engineer did not correctly apply the procedure chosen for the analysis. We therefore recommended that the engineer reconsider the design of the waterway. In addition, we recommended that the engineer also demonstrate how the swale would be stabilized immediately following construction, when the vegetative lining is not yet established and therefore cannot provide protection against erosion. 6. Please note that we had other comments in the letter dated June 18, 2003 that were not addressed in detail at the June 18 meeting. As presented in that letter, we believe the peak rate calculations still contain a number of technical deficiencies, and the project submittals still do not Include a documented analysis of the stability of the vegetated waterway downstream of the proposed detention basin outlet. Please contact the undersigned with any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ENSR David C. Nyman Caroline Hampton Senior Engineer Senior Engineer cc: Dennis Lowry, ENSR JAESP1Projects1P1001300 to 399\10351-001 uks sowindsorl6-04-03 ECHN reviewlupdated South Windsor Review 2.doc r S Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Counselors at Law Hartford New Haven Stamford MR TT MERITAS One State Street, P.O. Box 231277 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Hartford, Connecticut 06123-1277 An Alliance Member Telephone(860)54 00 RECEIVED Facsimile(860) 548-26-2680 RECEIVED John C. King (860) 548-2608 JUN 2 5' 2003 Jking@uks.com June 24, 2003 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY VIA FACSIMILE &U.S. MAIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION John R. Mallin, Esq. Cummings & Lockwood, LLC CityPlace I 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103-3495 Re: Application No. 03-21P The Casle Corporation (Eastern Connecticut Health Network) West Side of Buckland Road, South Side of Deming Street South Windsor, Connecticut Dear John: I have your letter of June 23, 2003 in connection with the above referenced application. Your correspondence is both confusing and disingenuous. As I have stated on a number of occasions before the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission("IWA/CC"), my concern is and has been that whatever agreement we work out between us, as urged by the IWA/CC, apply equally both to the applicant and the intervenor. The proposal in my correspondence dated June 20, 2003 does precisely that. We both have the same period, "four business days plus the weekend," and the same"two business days to respond." Given the resources available to the applicant, and the intervenor for that matter, I find it hard to believe that 48 hours to respond to whatever comments either the applicant or the intervenor might make is insufficient. It would appear that, as you have done before and as pointed out in my previous correspondence dated June 13, 2003, the applicant wishes an opportunity to provide new information after our agreed deadline, to which the intervenor must belatedly respond, none of which is helpful to the IWA/CC. Your"counteroffer"to provide the applicant's response "as early as possible after receiving your information,"without adhering to any agreed deadline, is unacceptable. I suggest, therefore, that we provide our respective responses to the IWA/CC in accordance with its applicable regulations. Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. John R. Mallin, Esq. June 24, 2003 Page 2 Should you have any questions concerning the foregoing do not hesitate to contact me. Very ours, Jo ing JCK/dz cc: Elizabeth Warren, Chairman (via facsimile& regular mail) Jeffrey Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officers (via facsimile ®ular mail) Barry D. Guilano, Town Attorney(via facsimile®ular mail) 329726 NEW ENGLAND ELACKLEDGE ENVIRONMENTAL RIVER SERVICES NURSERY June 25, 2003 Michelle M. Carlson,P.E. Fuss &O'Neill, Inc. RECEIVED 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040 JUN 2 6 2003 RE: ECHN,Buckland Road, South Windsor, Connecticut South Windsor Soil Report INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION Dear Ms. Carlson: The dominant soil types on the ECHN site are Enfield, Tisbury, Walpole, Saco, and Limerick. The following is a description of each soil. Enfield is a well drained soil developed from-a silty mantle that is underlain by stratified sand and gravel. The solum(A and B horizon)has a silt loam texture. The . substratum(unweathered outwash)is stratified sand and gravel. Tisbury is a moderately well drained soil that has developed from a silty mantle overlying sand and gravel. The solum has a silt loam texture. The substratum is stratified sand and gravel. Saco is a very poorly drained soil formed on floodplains. The surface soil is silt loam. The surface soil is underlain by stratified silts and sands. Saco occurs on the floodplain along-Plum Gulley Brook. Limerick is a poorly drained soil formed on floodplains. The surface soil has a silt loam texture. The surface soil is underlain by stratified silts and sands. Limerick occurs on the floodplain along Plum Gulley Brook. Walpole is a poorly drained soil formed in glacial outwash. The solum has a fine sandy loam texture. The substratum has a gravelly loamy sand texture. Walpole is a wetland soil.which occurs on the eastern section of the property. The groundwater - hydrology in the wetland has been lowered. Please see the attached letter to Michelle M. Carlson,P.E., dated May 29,2003. Sincerely, Richard Snarski �� f Certified Soil Scientist Attachment ; GAP2000\481\Cl0\Snarski Soil T e Report 06-25-03.doc'. cdr4�1?RYDANIEL?h0AD,MARLBOROUGH,.CT 06447(860)295=1022 NEW ENGLAND BLACKLEDGE ENVIRONMENTAL RIVER SERVICES NURSERY May 29,2003 Michelle M. Carlson,P.E. Senior Project Manager Fuss&O'Neill,Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester,CT 06040 RE: ECHN Building South Windsor,Connecticut Dear Ms. Carlson: On May 6, 2003 I evaluated the groundwater hydrology in the approximately two (2) acre cultivated field wetland at the proposed ECHN building site. Four(4)holes were dug in the cultivated field wetland on May 2, 2003 by Dale Carlson of Fuss and O'Neill. I monitored the depth of water in the test holes on May 6,2003. The following are the results: Hole 1 dry at 42" 2 dry at 44" 3 water at 33" 4 water at 41" _ The water measurements were taken during a high groundwater period. In order to verify. this, I inspected a wetland meadow"at-the east side of Buckland Road, just south of the Lutheran Church. The groundwater table was at the surface in the wet meadow,indicating a high groundwater condition. The groundwater monitoring data from the four (4) test holes shows that the groundwater table in the approximately two (2) acre cultivated field wetland has been lowered. The reason may be due to the highway and/or the excavated watercourse which occurs south of the field. .-The soil type in the field wetland is Walpole. .The subsoil is.gleyed beneath the topsoil..The soil profiles indicate that,groundwater should have been at the surface. The cultivated field wetland no longer has the hydrology as a wetland due to the previous lowering of the groundwater table..The groundwater in the field should have been within 20 e_ inches of th surface on May 6, 2003 in order to have the hydrology of a wetland. The highest groundwater lever measured in the field on May 6, 2003 was 33 inches-below the surface. In conclusion,the cultivated field no longer has the hydrology of a wetland. 'Sincerely, ._ Richard Snarsla Certified Soil Scientist, GAP 00\4811A10\Snarski R t 0 29- 3 doc cd (p#RY"D). L�'RUAD,.MARLBOROUGH, CT 06447(860)2951022 f- - MEMORANDUM RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2003 TO: Jane Warren, Esq. South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY FROM: Michelle Carlson, P.E. CONSERVATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2003 RE: Response to June 18,2003 Comments by Dennis Lowry,ENSR The Casle Corporation/Eastern Connecticut Health Network("ECHN') 1. The plans that were filed with the IWW/CA contain the findings of the wetlands delineation and are in accordance with Town requirements. 2. Ms. Penny Sharp's April 22, 2003 letter was delivered to attorneys for the intervenor on June 9, 2003. This letter report discusses the conditions of Wetland 1. 3. Mr. Richard Snarksi stated at the June 18, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing that the water table is well below 12-18 inches. As stated at the June 18, 2003 public hearing, this has been verified by town staff and several members of the IWA/CC. 4. Mr. Snarski stated at the June 18, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing that wetland #1 has no wetland characteristics other than the type of soil. Type of soil itself does not contribute to viable wetland functions. 5. Mr. Snarski stated at the June 18, 2003 IWA/CC public hearing that the wetland mitigation area is being constructed in an agricultural field that provides no existing upland habitat. The proposed mitigation will provide such habitat. 6. The proposed swale is not located in wooded habitat. It is in a grassed/agricultural field area. Erosion and sedimentation controls will be in place during construction and stabilization of the proposed detention basin to prevent erosion downstream. 7. The Applicant will appropriately manage all soil on-site and any soil to be disposed of off-site will be managed as required by law. ::ODMA\GRPWISE\HrtDoml.HrtPostl.HrtLib 1:430404.1 Corres.(HQ) w RECEIVED MEMORANDUM JUN 2 6 2003 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION TO: Atty. Jane Warren FROM: Jay Giles,Fuss &O'Neill DATE: June 25,2003 RE: Response to Caroline Hampton Letter of June 18,2003 The Casle Corporation/Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network("ECHN") 1. The application submitted on behalf of ECHN is complete and conforms to the Town's Regulations. 2. The applicant will obtain the approval of IWA/CC if changes are proposed. No relocation of the detention basin is currently proposed. 3. No response necessary. 4. No response necessary. 5. The General Permit registration is required by the Department of Environmental Protection thirty days prior to the start of construction. Compliance with the General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction Activities will be documented when this project is submitted to the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 6. As stated in section 7.1 (chapter 7) of the draft Connecticut Stormwater, Quality Manual, "the criteria presented in this chapter are recommended where local regulations are less stringent". The Town of South Windsor is not less stringent, and components of Chapter 7 of the draft manual are addressed by Town regulations,which have been complied with. 7. The drainage areas were revised in the June 11, 2003 drainage report, as suggested by ENSR. The sum of the proposed drainage areas is greater than the existing drainage area because the proposed storm sewer system will intercept an area in the southeast parking area, and part of Deming Street after Deming Street is widened. The proposed drainage areas incorporate 0.65 acres more than the existing drainage area. Accordingly, runoff in the ::ODMA\GRPWISEVirtDoml.HrtPostl.HrtLibl:430400.1 Cones.(HQ) : 0 '26/03 THU 15:16 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES HIRP ao...waA�,, ENVIRONMENTALICIVIL ENGINEERING & HYDROGEOLOGY June 25, 2003 CONNECTICUT 167 New Basin Avenue Plalnvllle,CT 06062 Mr. John King 600-246-9021 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. $6( M-6$99 One State Street FAX660.793-6871 P.O. Box 231277 Hartford, CT 55123-1277 MASSA010" S 220FOMSROCd 5uiie 404 RE: APPLICATION #03.21P, MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING IN SOU TH WIN- Brainbee,MA02184 DSOR, 781.356 CONNECTICUT (HRP #UPD0007.HG) $ a5-s99a ^2944 FAX 781-356-2409 Dear Mr. Icing: NEW YCkK Pursuant to your request, HRP Associates Inc. (HRH') has conducted a re- 100601coogavillog"I", p s0itev view of available environmental data sources with respect to the proposed M WO,Nv 12020 project referenced above. Given the long agricultural history of the site, par- 8$8-$23.6427 may011 titular focus was given to establishingthe likelihood that the site own have FAX5161a-69� 9q- Wn '�� be FAX51$-899-8129 been impacted by application of various pesticides, which are knc review of toxic to human health and the environment. Our search included a CT the CT DPH Mapped Monitoring Locations For EDB and Vorlex nd a PENNSYLVANIA DEP file review for investigations conducted on, or proximal to, the proposed SUM,24 4807 nestb RtSad utte tab construction site. Our findings and conclusions are presented in the following Horrlsnurg.PA 17109 text. 866-232-9824 �rtiC�irl of �lCl 717-��-13Gv0 The proposed construction site lies directly in the east central p Mapped 717- n-1$50393 area designated as South Windsor Area 2 on the 1985 CT COP" Monitoring Locations For EDI3 and Vorlex base figure (to be presented before been de- $# the commission). The map indicates that the pesticide E of EDB has 70 1p k a� tested adjacent to both Smith Street and Clark Street, The boLJndaries 5uimi South Windsor Area 2 suggest that the entire area has historically been sub- GTeenviIG,SC 2961 500-752-3922 jest to heavy commercial agricultural use and that the use of EDB �+►+� wide- 864-289.0311 spread, F0864-291-9846 A review of CT DEP files for environmental work performed on prQPerfiies ad- jacent to the proposed construction site has revealed the presence of addi- tional pesticides beyond EDB in the area. Specifically, a report entitled Phase 1, 11, and 111 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Fuss & �jvm.hTPaSW0Ia1 O'Neil Inc. (F&O) and submitted to CT DEP on October 16, 2002 'fte th1�th s Office Park at 455-481 Buckland Road (attached). It should be no rea and location is immediately to the north of the proposed construction well within the boundaries of ,youth Windsor Area 2. The report indicates that the pesticides DDT, heptachlor epoxide and dieldrin were found in both site 0;prrllddMing EDB letter-21 p r, P126/03 THU 15:17 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES Mr. John Ding Page 2 June 26, 2003 soils and ground water in concentrations that exceed the CT DEP Remedlation Standard Regula- tion (RSR). southandar Areast Of Given the apparent pervasive distribution of pesticides to the immedia f Soufh Windsor the proposed construction site and its inclusion within the boundaries inion that the pro- the reasonably foreseeable that this site has been impacted. Further, it is our op �T QEp General used construction on this roe is exacta of the type and nature targeted Was issued in A999 Guidance On Development of property Agricultural Properties mei which w the shallow (attached). Of particular concern is the close proximity of the site to wetlands and bout the site and for the a ground water table. The construction plans call for movement of earth ted that disturbance installation of infiltration structures known as rain gardens. It is well a bill contaminants to mobilizing such, (i.e. earth movement) of contaminated materials has the effect () r'r' proposed. �s � as will In_ ground water which could be exacerbated by the infiltration desig or waterways p y to wetla ghat the DEP RSR sur- placement of potential) contaminated material in close proximity per troduce highly toxic pesticides to sensitive receptors. It should be noted 1 and 0.06 parts face water protectionstandards for the dieldrin and heptachlor ePOo surface water receptors (e•9• y esticides shouldaTe be Gt,ns tl X"wn to billion, which denotes the extreme toxicity of these compounds to $ streams and wetlands). It should also be noted that all of the identified eeign be toxic to humans as well and given the pedestrian nature of the erect in the overall site material management protocol. i re wires contor- re for this site g adequate It is our conclusion that a reasonable standard of professional ca an minimurr►, mance with the 1999 CT DEP guidance for development of this Vte� des in the site olis be investigation to determine the presence or absence of regulated pesticides site, the RS 11 ground water should he performed. If pesticides are detected ° hunrIan health tand ireuse�"vi used as the benchmark for environmental compliance as it relates r the plscemen nib ronment. Please note that the RSR provides specific guidanoe � ants, which could sag contaminated soils and for ground water quality monitoring lrequirem cantly impact the current construction design of the site. tiorl C)r concerns-Thank You fi Please do not hesitate to call us at (860) 793-6899 with any clues the opportunity to be of continued service. Sincerely, HRP A CIAT - iel D. s Project onager a:pmlddt\King EDB letter-21 p YTTS" A • �1- . 0 CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD L_L_C Jane Kimball Warren CityPlace 1 185 Asylum Street 860.275.6781 Direct Hartford,CT 06103-3495 jwarren@cl-law.com 860.275.6700 Phone 860.724.3397 Fax June 26, 2003 RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2003 Via Hand Delivery South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Application#03-21 P The Casle Corporation/Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network("ECHN") Dear Chairwoman Warren and Members of the Commission: On behalf of Evergreen Walk, LLC and The Casle Corporation("Evergreen"), enclosed please find two memoranda dated June 23, 2003 prepared by Fuss & O'Neill. These memoranda respond to all of the comments or questions raised by ENSR in their letters of June 19, 2003. As of today's date,we have received nothing from the intervenor's counsel. Should you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, J e Kim all Warren JK Enclosures cc: Mr. Jeffery Folger, Zoning/Wetland Officer (w/enc.) -Via Hand Delivery John C. King, Es . (w/enc.) -Via Telecopy g q Mr. Jay Giles (w/enc.) -Via Telecopy Mr. Alan Lamson(w/enc.) - Telecopy S T A M F O R D I H A R T F O R D I GREENWICH I NEW HAVEN I WEST HARTFORD I NAPLES I BONITA SPRINGS Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Counselors at Law Hartford New Haven Stamford One State Street,P.O. Box 231277 TT Hartford, Connecticut 06123-1277 7-11 M E R I TA 5 Telephone(860)548-2600 RECEIVED LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Facsimile(860)548-2680 James M. Connor J U N 2 ( 2003 (860)548-2617 (860)548-6018 Fax SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. jconnor@uks.com June 26, 2003 South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074-2786 Re: Appl#03-21P The Casle Corporation(Eastern Connecticut Health Network) West Side of Buckland Road, South Side of Deming Street South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Chairwoman Warren and Members of the Commission: Enclosed please find the following materials for inclusion in the record of the referenced proceeding: 1. Letter dated June 13, 2003 from Denise Ruzicka of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to Michelle Carlson of Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. 2. Letter dated June 26, 2003 from Daniel D. Titus of HRP Associates, Inc. to John C. King of Updike, Kelly& Spellacy, P.C. 3. June 18, 2003 letter from James Durand and Dennis Lowry of ENSR International regarding the Shops at Evergreen Walk. 4. June 24, 2003 letter from Caroline Hampton and David Nyman of ENSR regarding review of Drainage Report for the Shops at Evergreen Walk. We will make available at the continued hearing on July 2 representatives of both HRP and ENSR to make presentations on the subjects of their letters and to respond to any questions. 330086 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission June 26, 2003 Page 2 Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. FJES yours, VV\ CONNOR JMC/ cc: Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental Planner John R. Mallin, Esq. Enclosures 330086 06/26/2003 16:25 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 002 Updike, Kelly & Spellaey, P.C. Counselors at Law Hartford - New Haven . Stanford One State Street,P.O.Box 2312,77 T' Hartford,Connecticut 06123.1277 1 1 M E R I TA S Telephone(860)54S-2600 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Facsimile(8601548-2680 James M. Connor (860)548-2617 (860)548.6018 Fax jconnor@aks.com June 26,2003 South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 0607.4-2786 Re: Appl#03-21P The Casle Corporation(Eastern Connecticut Health Network) West Side of Euckland Road, South Side of Deming Street South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Chairwoman Warren and Members of the Commission: Enclosed please find the following materials for inclusion in the record of the referenced proceeding: 1. Letter dated Jane 13, 2003 from Denise Ruzicka of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to Michelle Carlson of Fuss &O Neill, Inc. 2. Letter dated June 26, 2003 from Daniel D. Titus of HRP Associates, Inc. to John C. King of Updike,Kelly&Spellacy,P.C. 3. June 19,2003 letter from Tarries Durand and Dennis Lowry of ENSR International regarding the Shops at Evergreen Walk. 4. June 24,2003 letter from Caroline Hampton and David Nyman of ENSR regarding review of Drainage Report for the Shops at Evergreen Walk. We will make available at the continued hearing on July 2 representatives ofboth HRP and ENSR to make presentations on the subjects of their letters and to respond to any questions. 330086 ^6/26/2003 16:25 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 2003 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission June 26,2003 Page 2 Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Very truly yours, J S M. CONNOR JMC/ cc: Jeffrey H.Folger,Environmental Planner John R.Mallin,Esq. Enclosures 330066 06/26/2003 16:26 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 2004 06/R5/03 11:oS FAX 960 424 4075 DEF/TWRD 002 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION June 13, 2003 - Michelle Carlson Senior Pro=Manager Puss& O'Neill, Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040-5921 Re: Application No,PGP-200203024 Town of South Windsor Proposed Gateway Tr=k Sewer l inelEvergreet'i Walk c I)ear M.S.Carlson: We are in receipt of your letter dated May 15,2003 regarding the meeting on April 28 �0,0 at which we discussed the.Town of SoLxrh Windsor's Gateway Trt1t k Sewer and EvergreA Walk projects and the additional documentation needed to complete the application filed under the Arzny Corps of Engineefs progra=atic General permit Subsequent to the meeting,we received your submittal of May 15,2003 including your letter, drainage calculaticros for existing and potential conditions, a map dated,"'Evergreen Walk,Conceptual Plan, Sanitary Sewer Alternatives,Wetlands Quality and Potential Mitigation Areas" dated May 9,2003 and a map titlod, "E�ergreefi Walk• Concept►�al plan with Drainage Areas and Proposed Storm Water Detention"dated May 9, 2003. At the April 28. 2003 meeting we identified and discussed-the documentation needed to complete the application including the scope of the analysis of altsrrlatives for sewchng the Evergreen Walk project within the Gateway Development Zone_The information provided in your May 15,2003 letter with respect to sewering altennativas is not sraf#icient_ Conclusions are presented mgarding wetland impacts, cost and feasibility of altermadves. However, the specific detailed information seed documentation necessary to support the conclusions have not been provided. Por each alternative,the analysis needs to 1)identify and quantify specific wetland impacts,2)provide a breakdowm Of specific costs, and 3) identify and,explain in detail the specific factors that affect feasibility. 'x a plan entitled, "Conceptual Plan with Drainage Areas and Proposed Storm Water Detention" shows project elements with areas of wetland ixupaet that have noL been messed in the application including: (plrtnted on &eryated ltnpar) 70 RIM Slrtlec • Hartford, Cr 05X06-5127 AM Sgpal oppor1unfly Smplayer 06/26/2003 16:26 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 2005 1Z:09 NAJL SUU 4Y4 4075 LWXV gyuua Application No. POP-200203024 . Town of South Windsor Crateway Trunk Sewer!]rveXgreert Walk .. Tune 13, '003 page 2 of 3 • A roadway running north-south located Vilest of the ECM N and Lifestyle Center crossing four wetland areas. These wetland impacts have not been quorified or evaluated, • Two roadway wetland crossin;s within the Lifestyle Center parcel. These wetland• impacts have not been quantified or evaluated. • d impact for the construction of the ECRN building and associated Parking This wetland impac[has not been quantified or evaluated_ Additionally,the May 9,'2003 project plans Show stormwater detention basins located immediately adjacent el er,wetland d�nedlatel adjacea no nt wetlands we for a ithin the proposed Lifestyle d buffer and several OrOas for parking with�slopes 10 Center with no allowance for a wetland buffer. The trunk sewer line acid the Evergreen Walk Projects are inextricably linked and as such need to ' be evaluated and permitted 25 a single and complete project. Currently,only the Town of South Windsor has filed an application seeking Section 404 aitthorizauon from the Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 authorization from the State of CpnnectiGut under Category II of the Army Corps'Proatic General permit. The e oP�for the Every 1 gLpplication n Walk portion of the authorizatiori trunk sewer portion of the project. e appropriate Ptojeet has filed Ito application. This isaue needs to be resolved. Wetland impacts for the single and complete project(trunk sewer line and Evergreen Walk development)need to be identified.quantified and evaluated and the information submitted in order to have a cvnaplme and sufficient application for review azld for the department to be able to determine whether the project meets the conditions for Section.401 Certification under Category II of the Programmatic Cleneral permit.The applicant mast demonstrate that impacts to wetlands have been avoided and minimized and that unavoidsble,wetkandlmpacts are being appropriately mitigated. - please be advised that based on the review of the May 9,2003 project plans,the department is concemed that several project elements are not consistent with the Connecticut's goal of ' Q and raainraining the integrity of sudace waters(including wetlands)under the stair's iesto4ncr Water Quality Standards_ Specific concerns include the direct impact to wetlands for the ateructiort of the lordsECH facility and the location of several storm-water detention basins and constpending areas with fill slopes immediately adjacent to wetlands with no wetland buffer_ The placement of the ECHN building and parloiig would impact±2 acres of wetlands and is-not coosi.demd a minimal impact to surface Waters. The applicant should evaluate an outside of ernative location for then placement of the proposed��building tem�o basinsassociateand desiQrt layout of the ' werlazldS. Additionally, altcmatives for the location wetland buffers should also be Lifestyle Center that allow for the incorporation of meaningful evaluated and conaidcred. 4%20/2003 16:26 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV Ia006 _aE/25/®�i1:U9 FA7C $00 424 4076 nEP/IWRD LQ0a4 Application No. pGF-7002030•_4 . Town of South Windsor Ciate'wayT run kSeWerMvergreen Walk June 13, 2003 page 3 of 3 If project modificafaons cart be made to resolve the department's coticerns,then the depamnent would be able to consider Section 4Q1 authorization under Category II of the Army Corp's progfhrrunaUc General Permit providr-d total wi;dand impacts do not exceed ow.acre and a determination is made that the prm7ca(trunk sewer line and Evergreen Vti 9k development will not adversely affect state-listed species_ It is our undlers=ding that a survey of suitable habitat for state-listed grassland bird species is curnntly be1zq conducted. ting With if you have any questions,need urea al the and Water R ounces moms on at(607 2 4'- dep ent staff,please ca11 Sara Y 3941. ' C ly, Denise R tc%ka .Assistant bettor . Inland Water Resources Division • DR:3E'1'=HMG CC- Diane Ray.U5 Axriay Corps of Engineers Nfichael Marsh,US EPA Cr,.Manesto,US Fish and iidlife Service Town of South V-1ndsor,Wand Wetlands Agency , Fred Shag,South Windsor WPCA Matthew Galli,gan,South Windaor Town Manager Jane Warren,F-sq,Cummfnga &Lockwood 06/26/2003 16:27 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV U 007 E1 ENSR International 2 Technology Park Drive Westford,MA 01886 (978)58MOOO FAX(978)589-3100 www.enur.com 24 June 2003 Jahn King, Esquire Updike,Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford,CT RE: Updated Comments Review of Drainage Report for Eastem Connecticut Healthcare Network ENSR Project Number 10361.001 Dear Mr.King: ENSR offers the following comments to follow up on the discussion of this project at the June 18,. 2003 inland Wetlands Commission meeting. 1. In our previous comments and in our hearing testimony, ENSR has noted that we have not received plans,calculations,narrative,or other documentation to show that the proposed design Is consistent with a drainage master plan for the project. Representatives of Fuss&O'Neill have indicated that they developed an overall plan and supporting drainage calculations, and that these items were discussed with municipal officials. However, we understand from our communications with your office that there are no such plans or calculations in the public record, which serves as the basis for our review. Without such documentation, we cannot review the basic assumptions, methodologies, and computations upon which the engineer would base an overall assessment of storm water impacts relative to the "foil build-out" scenario of which this project is a part 2. In previous review letters and in our hearing testimony, ENSR has requested documentation of the effectiveness of the proposed storm water management system to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff, including documentation that the system Is designed to achieve 80% TSS removal as required under current Connecticut standards. The engineer has stated that the storm water management facilities achieve greater removal than this standard. However,in the reports and plans in the public record that have been furnished for our review,we have found no calculations that would support the engineees statements. ENSR Is therefore unable to review the assumptions, methodologies, and computations upon which the project engineer has assessed the ability of the design to prevent pollution from the stormwater discharge. 3. The proponents engineering team has agreed that the spillway design should allow for one foot of freeboard. However,they have not provided for this freeboard with the spillway functioning'in a design emergency condition. The freeboard should be figured from the water surface that would prevail in the emergency spillway, Assuming a failure of the ring_ claal s Ili. We have not received documentation showing that this design analysis has been done, Celebrating 30 Years of Excellence In Environmentai Services 06/26/2003 16:27 FAI 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 008 INK Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network June 24,2003 Page 2 4, The engineer did not respond at the June 18 hearing to our comment that prudent spillway design requires the emergency spillway to be constructed in existing ground, if practicable. This practice 10 intended to protect the detention basin embankment from catastrophic failure. We have seen no documentation that adherence to this practice is not practicable. We do not believe that repositioning this device to place it within existing ground instead of the embankment flit is likely to result in an adverse Impact on wetlands,if properly designed. 5. The engineer indicated at the June 18 hearing that the proposed vegetated waterway(located between the parking lot drainage system outlet and the detention basin) would be stable as designed. However, ENSR determined that the waterway would be unstable using the following Information; The waterway gradient, design flow, and other design parameters identified In Fuss & O'Neill's June 11,2003 revision of the drainage report, • The methodology cited by the engineer(HEC-15),and The stability criteria identified by the project engineer. As noted in our June 18 letter, we believe the project engineer did not correctly apply the procedure chosen for the analysis. We therefore recommended that the engineer reconsider the design of the waterway. In addition, we recommended that the engineer also demonstrate how the Swale would be stabilized immediately following construction, when the vegetative lining Is not yet established and therefore cannot provide protection against erosion. 6. Please note that we had other comments in the letter dated June 18, 2003 that were not addressed In detail at the June 18 meeting. As presented in that letter,we believe the peak rate calculations still contain a number of technical deficiencies,and the project submittals still do not Include a documented analysis of the stability of the vegetated waterway downstream of the proposed detention basin outlet. Please contact the undersigned with any questions regarding these comments, Sincerely, ENSR David C.Nyman Caroline Hampton Senior Engineer Senior Engineer cc: Dennis Lowry, ENSR J:%SP1pro1ect8vp100\300 to 399M0351-001 uks sowindsoAS-04.03 ECHN reviaMupdated South Windsor Revkw 2.doo 06/26/2003 16:27 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 0 009 r S ENSR International Box 606 11 Phelps Way Willington,C7 06279 . (860)429-6323 FAX(860)429-5378 June 19, 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT Re: Casle Corporation/ECHN Application Additional Comments Dear Attorney King: ENSR offers the following comments in response to issues discussed at last night's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission hearing that we did not have an opportunity to verbally address: 1. While it was helpful that a submittal was made by John Lanni of Highland Soils confirming his wetland delineations on the site, there was no detail provided of his findings. In particular, it would be useful to know his observations within the Wetland 1 area at the time of his delineation in terms of water table conditions and also soil profile descriptions_ We believe that additional support is needed to confirm the assertion that this area does not currently support a hydric regime. As we have noted,to our knowledge water table conditions have not been documented within this area during the first three weeks of the growing season. No details have been provided concerning the test pits that have been installed in this wetland. Profile descriptions, well construction details, dates of installation and monitoring are needed. No support has been provided concerning the assertion that the construction of Buckland Road and/or the southern watercourse has affected the water table conditions versus the the drain system. However, it would be useful to know if the road construction has affected wetland water tables as dramatically as suggested by the applicant considering forthcoming development on the site. If the change in hydrology within this wetland from some past activity can be used at the current time to negate its significance, proposed conditions on the site relative to such potential changes should be even more carefully considered_ 2. There was no attempt made to address the potential relationship between this wetland and the stream alongside of it. No response was provided as to whether there is a culverted constriction at the cart path crossing of this stream that may cause the stream to back up and flood into the field during certain runoff events. 3. ENSR questions the ability to predict water tables within the proposed wetland mitigation area by the current monitoring. The removal of up to ten feet of 06/26/2003 16:27 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 1010 r MOM MM ENSR International MMMMM ECHN/Evergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT overburden for the construction of this area will change the water table gradients and fluctuation patterns. Further,forthcoming development upgradient of this site will also change the recharge and interflow conditions. As currently proposed, there is no ability to control water levels in the mitigation area to achieve the intended conditions. 4. ENSR again questions the strategy of disturbing the area of this wetland mitigation site. If the wetland area proposed for filling is of no significance as claimed by the applicant, there is no need to propose such extensive disturbance in the riparian zone. Wetland mitigation strategies no longer focus on wetland area replacement, but on wetland function replacement. We are not aware of any regulatory requirement for constructing a wetland replacement area of this size. This issue is of more significance considering the potential occurrence of pesticides in the soil from long term agricultural uses. The mitigation plan states that"topsoil in the field will be used in the created wetland." The presence/levels of pesticides in these soils should be evaluated prior to any such use, and the potential mobility of such pesticides under saturated conditions should be considered. We note that there has been no response from the applicant on this issue to date_ Please call me if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, ENSR Corporation Dennis Lowry Wetland Ecologist -2- 06/26/2003 16:28 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 2011 Q,B'',26/03 THU 15:10 FAX. 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES �100 ?Ova- ENVIRONMENTALICIOL ENGINEERING & HYOROGEOCOGY June 26, 2003 CaNMOTICUT Mr. John King 167NewMaInAvenua Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.O- Pk*vllle,CT 06062800-2d&%21 One State Street 8e0-703-6899 P.O. Box 231277 FAX860.79W71 Hartford, CT 06123-1277 NL4SSACHUSf?rTs RF.- APPLICATION #03.21P, MEDICAL. OFFICE BUILDING IN SOUTH WIN- 1Qa0aMrlaad DSOR, CONNECTICUT(HRP#UPD0007,HG) Bm�nftEO.MA 021ea OW-351-6590 7111-SM-2944 Fax 781-a9.24M Dear Mr. King: Pursuant to your request, HRP Associates Inc. (HRP) has conducted a re- NEW YOU 100 Saratoga W008 Shia View of available environmental data sources with respect to the proposed SUU927 project referenced above. Given the long agricultural history of the site, par- WOO.W 120M ticular focus was given tv establishing the likelihood that the site may have A88-82,3-U27 610-6W-3011 been impacted by application of various pesticides, which are known to be KAXe1e-899-8129 toxic to human health and the environment. Our search included a review of the CT DPH Mapped Monitoring Locations For EDB and Vorlex and a CT DEP file review for investigations conducted on, or proximal to, the proposed �HHsnvaHu► construction site. Our findings and conclusions are presented in the following �246 text. HarlsbWg,PA 17109 $"-M2-9824 The proposed construction site lies directly in the east central portion of an 717.920-1850 area designated as South Windsor Area 2 on the 1985 CT DPH Mapped FAX717.920.13W Monitoring Locations For EDE and Vorlex base figure (to be presented before .the commission). The map indicates that the pesticide EDB has been de- 40MaMOL11u► tected adjacent to both Smith Street and Clark Street, The boundaries of 7001 PdhC-Rood South Windsor Area 2 suggest that the entire area has historically been sub- sulor jest to heavy commercial agricultural use and that the use of EDB was wide- G78MMAIG,SC 29616 $*762-a9 spread. 22 A review of CT DEP files for environmental work performed on properties ad- f'X864-281-9&6 jaeent to the proposed construction site has revealed the presence of addi- tional pesticides beyond EDB in the area. Specifically, a report entitled Phase 1, Il, and Ill Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Fuss & O'Neil Inc. (F&O) and submitted to CT DEP on October 18, 2002 for the Terry Office Park at 465-481 Buckland Road (attached). It should be noted that this location is immedlately to the north of the proposed construotion area and well within the boundaries of South Windsor Area 2. The report Indicates that the pesticides DDT, heptachlor epoxide and dieldrin were found in both site d;pmlddtWng ED6 letter-21 p 06/26/2003 16:28 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 2012 06/e6/03 THU 15:17 FAX 660 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES tQ00 Mr. John King Page 2 June 26, 2003 soils and ground water in concentrations that exceed the CT DEP Remediation Standard Regula- tion (R$R). Given the apparent pervasive distribution of pesticides to the immediate north, south and west of the proposed construction site and its inclusion within the boundaries of South Windsor Area 2, it is reasonably foreseeable that this site has been impacted. Further, it is our opinion that the pro- posed construction on this property is exactly of the type and nature targeted in CT DEP General Guidance On Development of Former Agricultural Properties memo, which was issued in 1999 (attached). Of particular concern is the close proximity of the site to wetlands and the shallow ground water table. The construction plans call for movement of earth about the site and for the installation of infiltration structures known as rain gardens. it is well accepted that disturbance (i.e_ earth movement) of contaminated materials has the effect of mobilizing contaminants to ground water which could be exacerbated by the infiltration design as proposed. As such, placement of potentially contaminated material in close proximity to wetland or waterways will in- troduce highly toxic pesticides to sensitive receptors. It should be noted that the DEP RSR sur- face water protection standards for the dieldrin and heptachlor epoxide are 0.1 and 0.05 parts per billion, which denotes the extreme toxicity of these compounds to surface water receptors (e.g. streams and wetlands). It should also be noted that all of the identified pesticides are known to be toxic to humans as well and given the pedestrian nature of the site design should be consid- ered in the overall site material management protocol. It is our conclusion that a reasonable standard of professional care for this site requires confor- mance with the 1999 CT DEP guidance for development of this site. At a minimum, an adequate investigation to determine the presence or absence of regulated pesticides in the site soils and ground water should be performed. If pesticides are detected on the site, the RSR should be used as the benchmark for environmental compliance as it relates to human health and the envi- ronment. Please note that the RSR provides specific guidance for the placement or "reuse" of contaminated soils and for ground water quality monitoring requirements, which could signifi- cantly impact the current construction design of the site. Please do not hesitate to call us at (860) 793-6899 with any question or concerns_Thank you for the opportunity to be of continued service, Sincerely, HRP A CIAT iel D. s Project anager in FDS letter-21 O:pmlddt�fC g P -w4VV f'W% A 6-1,au...,,, 06/26/2003 16:28 FAX. 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 0 013 Updike, Kelly & SpellacY, P.C. Counselors at Law Hartford - New Haven Stamford Hartfo d.Corn]L ctic�ut 061 e State Street.P. .BQ3E3 1i7 Tri 'M E R I TA S Telephone(660)548-2600 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Facsimile(860)$48-2680 James M. Connor (860)548-2617 (860)548-6018 Fax jconlior(@uks.aom i rune 26, 2003 South Windsor I70and Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor,CT 06074-2786 Re: Appl003-28P Poag &McEwen Lifestyle Centers—Connecticut, LLC West Side of Buckland Road,South Windsor,Connecticut Dear Chairwoman Warren and Members of the Commission: Enclosed please find the following for inclusion in the record of the referenced proceeding: 1. Letter dated June 13,2003 from Denise Ruzicka of the Connecticut Department of Environanental Protection to Michelle Carlson of Fuss &O'Neill,Inc. 2. Letter dated June 26,2003 from Daniel D. Titus.of HRP Associates, Inc.to John C. King of Updike,Kelly&Spellaey,P.C. 3- June 12, 2003 letter from James Durand and Dennis Lowry of ENSR Intewational regarding the Shops at Evergreen Walk. 4. June 18, 2003 letter from Caroline Hampton and David Nyman of ENSR regarding review of Drainage Report for the Shops at Evergreen Walk. We will make available at the continued hearing on July 2 representatives of both HRP and ENSR to make presentations on the subjects of their letters and to respond to any questions. 330086 O0/�6/2003 16:29 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 1a 014 Upolke, Kelly& Spellacy, P.C. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission June 26, 2003 Page 2 Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Very truly yours, 7 ES M. CONNOR JMC/ cc: Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental Planner John R. Mallin,Esq. Enclosures 330098 06/26/2003 16:29 FAX-860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV Q 015 <6/26iO3 11:o6 FAX e60 424 4075 DEP/IWRD I0002 STATE OF CONNEC'T'ICUoTECTzoN DEPARTMENT' Cad' ENYTRONMENTAL PR_ qw A- 7 iune 13,2003 - bachelle Carlson Senior project Manager Fuss &O'Neill,Inc. I46 l iardord Road Manchester, CT 0604.0-5921 Re: Application No_PGP-200203024 ' Town of South Windsor proposed Gateway Trunk Sewer L1nelEvergreen Walk c Dear Nfs.Carlson: Wo are in rzc4pt of your letter dated May 15,2003 regarding tfle meeting on April 28, OQ3 at • discussed the Town of So urh Windsor's Gateway Truk Sewer and Evergreeih Walk which we discuss der the projects and the additional documentation needed to complete the application filed un ,e d=meetlnl )v "L Subsequent t0 b, Army Corps of Engineer s progammatic General Permx q received your submittal of May 15,2003 incIuding Your leer,drainage calculations for axisiing and potenrisl conditions, it snap titled, "Evargrocn Walk, Conceptual Plan, Sanitary Sewer Alternatives,` elands Quality and Potential,Nfiitigadon Areas" dated May 9,2003 and a trap titled,"Evergreen Walk, Conceptual flan with Drainage Areas and Proposed Storm Water Detention"dated May 9,2003. At the April 28, 2003 meeting we identified and discussed-the documentation needed to cvznplete the application including the scope of the analysis of alternatives for owcf-mg[lte Eyvergrccn Walk project within the Gateway Development Zone.The information provided in .0- May 15,2003 letter with respect to SeWerlAg alternatives i5 not sufficient. Conclusions 9= your wever,the specific presented regarding wetlandiwnpacts, cost and feasibility of altemadves. �Io detailed information and documentation necessary to support the conclusions have not been provided. For cacti alternative,the analysis needs to 1)identify and quantify specific wetland i=pacts,2)provide a breakdowns of specific costs, and 3)identify and explain in detail the specific factors that affect feasibility. entitled,The plan -conceptual Plan with Drainage Arms and Froposed Storm Water Detention" shows project elements with areas of wetland impacc that have not been addressed in the application including: (PTleted oh Raz7ded rlptr) 79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127 http:Ild e Q s tape.�e.ua Art EgaRl opporjWdry Employer 06/;6/2003 16:29 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly *IV U 016 0t3/T3/03 11:09 FA3 460 Uss .4075 PEYII1VRD It►Ub Application No. PGp-200203024 - 'Town of South Windsor Gateway"Trunk SewerMve-rgmett Walk .� 3uncs 13, 2003 papZof3 A roadway running north-south located writ of the l~CMN and Lifestyle Center crossing four wetland aueas. These wetland impacts have not been quantified or evaluated. • Two roadway wetland crossings within the Lifestyle Center parcel. These wetland impacts have not been quanufied or evaluated. d associated An area of wetland impact for t1in constsuct�on of the EC�iN building parking. This wetland impact has not been quantified or evaluated. as Additionally,the May 9,2003 project plans show swormewater de'e�t�d buffer several areas immediately adjacent to wetland areas�d�tate��ad ac�ctct�ettands within the proposed Lifestyle for parking with fill slopes located imme Center with no allowance for a wedand buffer. The aunk severer line and the Evergroen Walk projects are iftextricably linked and as such Dead to be evaluated and permitted as a Single and complete project. Cmreatly,only the Town of South Windsor has fled an application seeking Section 404 auth.orizadon frora the Army Corps of State of Connecticu H-nginews and Section 401 authorization from the t under Category II of the Army Corps'Programmatic General F'�t- The Town's application seeks atithorizativn for the trunk sewer portion of the project. The appmpxiate party for the vetgreeu Walk portion of tho project has filed no application. This issue needs to be resolved. Wetland impacts for the single and complete project Cwmk sewer line and Evergreen Wall devel.opmemt)need to be identified,quantified and evaluated and the information submitted in order to have a complete and sufficient application for revl.ew and for tlae departrn,ent to be able to determine whether the project Tneets the conditions for Section_401 Certification under Category II of the Prob ammatie General Permit-The applicant mu.Gi demonStrate that impacts to wetlands have been avoided and i inimized and that unavoidable wetland impacts are being appropriately mitigated. Please be adAsed that based on the review of the May 9,2003 project plans,the dopaYtm,ent is concerned that several project elements are not eonsistcnt with the Corinecticut's goal of storing and maintaining the integrity as e w the (�ci i�nopact to Wetlands fo under r the 's Water Quality Standards. Specific concerns construction of the ECHN facility and the location of several stOnnwater detention basins and parldng areas with fill slopes immediately adjacent to wetlands with no wetland buffer- The placement of the ECI�N building and parking would impact±2 acres of wetlands and is not considered a minimal impact to surface wa • The applicant should evaluate an alternative location for the placement of the proposed]~CHN building and associated parking outside of of the wetlands. AdditionallY, alternatives for the location of detention basins and design lay out Lifestyle Center that allow for the incorporation of meaningN wetland buffers should also be evaluated and considered. 06/26/2003 16:30 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV U 017 06/25/03 i1:09 M 960 424 4075 DRP/IWRD 004 Application No. pGP-'00'03024 - Town of SOUth Windsor Gateway Trunk Sewer/Evergean Wdk .Tune 13, 2003 ?age 3 of 3 if project tModificajions can be made to resolve the departments concerns,then the dep�en�t would ct able to consider Scotian 401 authorization under Category 1I of the Army CorP's pxogrammatic General permit provided total wetland impacts do not exceed one acre and a determination is made that the project(timk sewer line and Evergzeen Walkdeveiopmern will not adversely affect state-liswd species. It is our understanding that a survey of suitable habitat for stare-listed grassland bird species is cuneridy being conducted. if you have any questions,need additional 1 th I�� Wateron or /puld like to Resauzces Dtix�sion t(850)�24- depextMent staff,please call Sara Yates �9ax. ce ly, Denise R cka U Assistant Director Inlazid Water Resources Division • saR9�Y:EMG CC_ Diane Ray,U'S Aazny corps of Buginew Michael Marsh,TJS EPA Greg Manesto,US Fish and Wildlife Service To;;;of South Windsor,Wand Wetlands Agency Pred Shaw,South Windsor W FCA Matthew Galligan,South Windsor Town Manager Lane Wa=i,Fsq.,Cummings&Lockwood 06/26/2003 16:30 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 018 r Owl ENSR Intemalional Box 506 11 Phelps Way Willington,CT 06279 (880)429.5323 FAX(880)429,5376 June 12, 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street P.O. Sox 231277 Hartford, CT 06123-1277 Re: Review of The Shops at Evergreen Walk Inland Wetlands Application Dear Attorney King: As requested, ENSR has prepared this letter in regards to ENSR's initial review of the project plans and associated documents riled with the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation (IWWC) and Planning and Zoning applications for the above- referenced project. Based upon ENSR's review of The Shops at Evergreen Walk application and review of information we have received to date, we offer the following comments and questions. 1. We maintain that The Shop at Evergreen Walk project(referred to in this document as The Shops) along with the other aspects of the overall Evergreen Walk development should be reviewed as a single and complete project'in terms of overall site layout, alternatives analysis, cumulative wetland, watercourse and upland review area impacts, and mitigation. a. As an example, the project plans indicate that the maximum lot coverage for the project(presumably The Shops at Evergreen Walk project)includes EXPO, ECHN and Entire Evergreen Walk Property. This once again appears to be contradictory to the project proponent's claim that the multiple, phased projects being proposed for the 200+ acre Evergreen Walk development be considered as individual projects not associated with the overall development scheme for the project. 2. The site plans depict the location of the proposed Gateway Sewer Trunkline crossing of Wetlands/Watercourse#9 and 0A. The site plans also shows one (1) additional crossing of WetlandNVatercourse#9 presumably for the purpose of traffic circulation through The Shops development, We submit that the Town of South Windsor and the project proponent of The Shops evaluate re-routing, at a minimum, the sewer to the east, in line with the proposed roadway of The Shops development. This alternative would reduce the proposed impacts to Wetland #9 as well as co-locate the sewer and roadway crossing at the narrowest section of Wetland#9 thereby further reducing wetland impacts. Evaluating this altemative design may also eliminate the need to construct an elevated berm across Wetland#9 (as shown on sheet G.1.0.3. Eliminating the proposed earthem berm across Wetland/Watercourse 06/26/2003 16:30 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 019 ENSR International ECHNIEvergmen Walk,Review,South Windsor, CT 99 would further reduce inland wetland impacts and not alter the hydrology of Wetlands#9 and 09A. Plans submitted for the overall Evergreen Walk development indicate that the sewer trunkline may be extended to the north crossing at the juncture of Wetlands #5 and #4—what is the status of the sewer design and why aren't these wetland impacts incorporated into The Shops application? The master plans for the Evergreen Walk development also depict a "ring road"for the development, which is shown to be co- located with the sewer crossing of Wetlands#9 and#9A. What is the status of toe "ring road"? If it still proposed, we submit that the additional inland wetland impacts, as a result of the construction of this roadway, be addressed in The Shops application. 3. No documentation was submitted with the application to provide justification as to why a roadway crossing of Wetland#9 is warranted, nor is there justification for the filling the eastern-most edge of Wetland#9. It appears, at a minimum,that site and building layout of Building 200 could avoid and/or minimize wetland impacts to Wetland#9. 4. The application discusses detention basin 93 and indicates that this basin will be used as a temporary sedimentation basin during construction. Detention basin#3 is also supposed to serve as a permanent water attenuation and water quality feature for the ECHN facility. How will detention basin#3 serve multiple functions over the course of this phased project (i.e., overall Evergreen Walk development). Simultaneous construction of a multi-phased project such as the Evergreen Walk development creates a higher probability of creating indirect wetland impacts such as sedimentation and reduction in water quality of receiving waters. 5. Sheet C.G.1.4 depicts a proposed drainagelgrass swale,which is to direct storm ro water flows into detention basin#3, In reviewing the estmg and proposed contours, it appears that a majority of the watershed contributing to Wetland 08 (and in particular the finger-like projection of Wetland#8)will be intercepted and redirected to detention basin 43. Loss of contributing watershed could change the hydrology of portions of Wetland#8, and we believe that this issue warrants further investigation and evaluation by the project proponent. 6. The Shops application indicates that there are 2 proposed crossings of Wetland/Watercourse#5. In actuality there are three proposed crossings of Wetland #5. The western-most crossing involves a crossing at what presumably is the location of an old cart path, however, this proposed crossing still results in impacts to inland wetlands. 7. Other than a very brief discussion on the design scenarios evaluated for the overall Evergreen Walk development, there is no detailed discussion on alternatives or justification for the three (3) proposed crossings of Wetland#5. It appears that alternate designs and site layouts, such as reducing at least one of the proposed crossings or providing cul-de-sacs instead of wetland crossings, could still serve the functions of traffic circulation and safety equipment access while reducing the overall impacts to Wetland/Watercourse#5. 8. A previous plan entitled Portion of Gateway Zone Development, Wetlands Quality Assessment Plan, dated January 17, 2003, depicts Wetland#11 within the boundaries of The Shops development. Wetland#11 is not depicted on the current -Z- 06/ 6!2003 16:31 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 020 ENSR Intematiohal ECHYIEvergreen Walk Review,South Windsor, CT plans for The Shops at Evergreen Walk nor is it discussed in the application. What is the status of Wetland#11, as it appears to be entirely eliminated under the proposed development conditions? S. Impacts (i.e., fill)to Wetland#12 are proposed, however, there is no discussion providing the reasoning or justification for filling of portions of Wetland#12. It appears that an alternate grading scheme could avoid impacts to Wetland#12. 10.The plans and application call for proposed improvements to three (3) existing "end walls" located at the eastern end of Wetland#5, This proposed work will result in impacts to Wetland#5, however, there is no information provided in regards to proposed impacts to the watercourse within Wetland N. One would presume that improvements to an existing end-wall/headwall/culvert would at a minimum result in temporary-impacts to Watercourse#5, 11.The calculations performed to determine the square footage impacts to Wetlands#5 and#9 as a result of the roadway.crossings should be clar�ed and the proposed wetland and watercourse impacts should be itemized. a. The project plans do not depict the locations (e.g., stream banks) of the watercourses within Wetlands#5 and N. b. The application indicates that there will be 0 impacts to watercourses. We question whether this statement is accurate as it relates to potential temporary impacts incurred during construction of the proposed roadway/bridge crossings. c. The project detail sheet shows a Concept Elevation-Bottomless Arch Bridge Wetland Crossing detail. Based on our review, it appears that this conceptual detail infers that there will be additional wetland impacts as well as impacts to watercourses (impacts to Wetlands/Watercourses#5,#9 and NA)_ Installation of the footings for the bridges and stabilization of the stream banks will more than likely result in at least temporary inland wetland and watercourse impacts. These impacts should be calculated and presented on the plans and in the application, including a discussion of construction methods and mitigation. d. In our opinion, all cumulative wetland and watercourse impacts have not been accounted for in The Shops application. In particular,the installation of the proposed bridges will result in permanent wetland impacts as well as temporary impacts during construction and secondary impacts, such as shading impacts to the underlying wetlands and watercourse. These temporary and secondary wetland and watercourse e. The Shops application indicates that the total inland wetland Impacts is 4,910 square feet. As stated in one of our earlier comments, it appears that this calculation does not include the third wetland/roadway crossing of Wetland#5, nor does the project proponent's calculation include temporary or secondary impacts to either inland wetlands or watercourses. The cumulative inland wetland and watercourse impacts for the project should be clearly and thoroughly documented. f. The Corps of Engineers Programmatic General Permit(Category 1) covers projects that meet the general conditions of the PGP, as well as result in less than 5,000 square feet of inland waterway and/or wetland fill, and including -3- 06/26/2003 16:31 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV Q 021 Mae ENSR Intemadonal EMCNvergreen Walk Review, South Windsor, CT secondary Impacts. It appears that The Shops project has approached and will ultimately exceed the POP Category 1 criteria. 12.The Shops application indicates that the project will result in 452,127 square feet or 10.38 acres of impact to the 80-foot upland review area. A review of the project plans indicates that a vast majority of the 80-foot upland review area will be permanently altered much of which resulting from tilling and grading. The grading lines of the proposed contours closely approach the boundaries of the inland wetlands in many instances on the project site. It appears that little undisturbed buffer will be provided within this 80-foot upland review area to buffer the existing inland wetlands and watercourses from the project development and project operation (i.e., day-to-day use of the development)-this would include such factors as snow removal and stockpiling,trash disposal, etc. 13.The project plans indicate that The Shops project exceeds the required number of parking spaces by 404 additional spaces, Is there a legitimate need for these extra parking spaces,which only add to the overall total of impervious cover on the site? Were any efforts made to negotiate with the Town to reduce the number of parking spaces required for this development, such as using shared parking with the other phases of the overall Evergreen Walk development? 14.There is no soil scientist report or other documentation provided to document and support the wetland/hydric soil delineation on the site. 15.In correspondence prepared by Me, Penelope Sharp, she indicates that there are no rare, threatened or endangered species on the site. Her report further indicates that the principal Wetland function of the inland wetlands on the site is wildlife habitat— wildlife usage primarily avian_ Therefore, it seems reasonable that the project proponent address the CT DEP Natural Diversity Database's recommendation to conduct a grassland bird survey during the breeding season to assess the present use of this area by state-listed species. There is no documentation provided in the application in regards to responding to this request for a grassland bird survey, nor is there documentation as to any other rare species surveys (i.e., state-listed reptiles or amphibians) conducted for The Shops project or the overall Evergreen Walk development. 16.A general suggestion regarding the storm water management system would to have the project proponent evaluate providing a greater setback between the discharge outlets and the boundaries of the inland wetlands. Providing a greater setback to the storm water discharges would help to reduce potential scour, sedimentation, water quality, and invasive plant species colonization impacts to the receiving waters. Please call Dennis Lowry or me if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, ENSR Corporation James Durand Dennis Lowry Wetland-Soil Scientist Wetland Ecologist -4- 06/,26/2003 16:31 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 16022 4 _ ENSR International 2 Technology park Drive WesOord,MA-01VA (978)589-3000 FAX(978)589.3100 June 18, 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street P.O, Box 231277 Hartford, CT 06123-1277 Re: Review of"The Shops at Evergreen Walk" Drainage Report and Mans Dear Attorney King: As requested, ENSR has prepared this letter in regards to ENSR's initial review of the following plans and report filed with the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation (IWWC) and Planning and Zoning applications for the above-referenced project. A. "Drainage Report, The Shops at Evergreen Walk, Buckland Road", dated May 1, 2003,'prepared by Fuss &O'Neill, Inc. B. Drawings containing information relevant to drainage system design, dated May 8, 2003, prepared by Fuss & O'Neill, Inc., FLB Architecture & Planning Inc, and F.A Hesketh Associates. The following sheet numbers were included in our review: GI.0,2, G1.0.3, GI.0.4, CS.1.1 - CS.1.6, CG.1.2 — CG.1,23, CU.1-CU.1.6, CU,5.1, CI,5,2,C1.5.3, CI,5.4. C. Letter from Jeffery Folger, Environmental Planner for Town of South Windsor dated May 14, 2003. Based upon ENSR's review of The Shops at Evergreen Walk application and review of information we have received to date, we offer the following comments and questions. Given the limited time we have had for our review, and the complexity of this project, we also request additional time to further evaluate the above materials, and subsequent submittals made by the project proponent. A. G�eneral Analysis 1, ENSR recommends that The Shops at Evergreen Walk project (referred to in this document as 'The Shops") should be reviewed together with the other components of the overall Evergreen Walk development as a single and complete project. As this project is reportedly part of a larger development scheme, it is important to have an assessment of the ultimate build-out relative to drainage impacts and cumulative 06/26/2003 16:32 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV [a 023 y E11 ENSR Intemational The Shops W Ennmen Walk Dratnage Review,South Fmdsor, CT water quality and quantity impacts. From other eorrespondenos, we understand that an overall drainage plan has been discussed with the Town of south Windsor. However, the drainage report for this project does not reference that plan, and does not provide documentation to show how the current submittal complies with the overall concept. Further,we have seen no overall drainage analysis with complete calculations for the full build-out condition. We are concerned that this incremental approach to stormwater management design for the larger parcel may IQse the opportunity to design for the most effective management of peak rates, wafter quality control, and wetland -resources hydrology, in the various receiving waters affected by the proposed development. 2. Sheet CG.1.4 depicts a proposed drainage/grass Swale, which Is to direct storm water flows Into detention basin#3, In reviewing the existing and proposed contours, it appears that a majority of the watershed contributing to Wetland #8 (and in particular the finger-like projection of Wetland #8)will be intercepted and redirected to detention basin 0. Loss'of contributing watershed could change the hydrology of portions of Wetland #8, and we believe that this Issue warrants further investigation and evaluation by the project proponent. 3. The proposed storm water management design is likely to adversely affect the continued hydration of the on-site wetlands in other areas, as well. In reviewing the storm water conveyance system, it appears that the area which drains to each of the three wetland systems on-site will be significantly altered under proposed conditions, with runoff re-routed to detention basins and discharged at points downstream of the wetland systems. The design should include measures such as recharge of roof runoff, low impact development measures, and maintenance of wetiand contributory areas to sustain the hydration of the entire wetland system. B. Management of Peak Rates 1. Appendix B of the drainage report includes the Existing Conditions analysis. The analysis does not include a watershed map with watershed boundaries and time of concentration paths for either the site. This information is required for a complete review of the existing conditions analysis. 2. The curve number (CN) calculation for the Evergreen Walk watershed Includes a description of Woods for the soiltsurface description. The CN associated with the Woods-$ description appears to be for Woods-grass combo -- good eondltion according to the TR-55 Table 2.2b Runoff Curve Number table. The table describes this combination as an orchard-tree farm with 50%woods and 50% grass. Is this an appropriate description of the ground cover? 3. The drainage report includes. a table that compares pra vs. post-conditions peak rates. Since the existing condition analysis does not include a drainage boundary plan for the site, we are unable to determine what design point has been used to create the peak rate comparison table. The proposed condition drainage plan 06/.26/2003 16:32 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 2024 � e ENSR Intemationd xhe Shops ai Evergreen Walk Drainage Review,South Windsor,CT includes multiple intermediate discharge points, and does not clearly show the ultimate discharge point used for analysis. The site analysis and the peak rate eompallson table need to be based on dearly defined discharge points. The same points used for existing conditions should be used for proposed conditions analysis. Sufficient points of analysis should be selected to clearly document the Impacts on each major weband resource and watercourse affected by the project, 4. The narrative indicates that the Evergreen Walk includes 240 acres. The existing condition CN calculations only include 204 acres, The proposed condition calculations only include 202.4 ages. The applicant should correct the calculations and the narrative so they are consistent, and verify that the entire parcel is properly accounted in the drainage calculations. 5. The proposed condition analysis appears to review the Impacts of construction of The Shops at Evergreen Walk and the Expo Center on the Podunk River watershed. The analysis does not appear to account for the recently submitted ECHN project. See our comment above regarding our concerns that a wholistic approach is not being taken toward the design of storm water management measures that will effectively serve this site at ultimate build-out. Reported Existing vs. Proposed Peak Flows, Plum Gulley Brook at Clark Street 2 77 75 73 tit ? ? 10 336 334 334 331 ? ? 25 584 581 581 577 ? ? 100 1139 1133 1138 1130 ? ? ••Drainage Report,Expo Deslpn Center,Buckland Road',dated November 27,2002labast revision January 27,2003, prepared by Fuss&4'NeW,Inc. '*'Dralnaee Report,Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network,Buddand Road",dated April 4,2003 latest revision,rune 11,2003,prepared by Fuss&O'Neill,Inc. *"'Drainage Report,The Shops at Evergreen Walk,BucWnd Road",dated May 1,2003.prepared by Fuss&o'Neill, Ina -3. 06/.26i2003 16:32 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 025 - _ BNSR International The Shops at EverWree►r Walk Drajsage Review,South Wii ndsor, CT Reported Usting vs. Proposed Peak Rows, Podunk River at Route 30 2 158 158 158 158 ? ? 10 899 897 897 895 ? ? 25 1663 1560 1561 1557 ? ? 100 3088 3084 3088 3082 ? ? "Dwrage Report,Expo Design Center,Buddand Road,dated November 2T,2002latest re on January 2T,2003, prepared by Fuss&O'Neill,Ina "'Drdhaoe Report,'Eastern Connecticut Healthcare NeNvak,Buddand Road",dated April 4,2003 latest revision June 11,2W3,prepared by Fuss&O'Neil,Inc. '"Drainage Report,The Shops at Evergreen Walk,Buddand Road%dated May 1,2003,prepared by Fuss&O'Nelu, Inc. B. The proposed condition node diagram includes a drainage area for roofs. The CN and area calculations for this drainage area should be included in the report. How will the roof runoff be treated? T. The drainage boundary for both the"existing condition"and the "proposed condition" should extend beyond the limits of all proposed grading; some of the proposed grading and the large detention basins are outside of the drainage boundaries, 8. The time of concentration (fc) paths should be indicated on the proposed conditions drainage area plan. Since,these have not been included we have not been able to review the Tc calculations provided. 9. The applicant used Sheet Flow lengths of 200 feet for time of concentration calculations. In connection with other work undertaken by ENSR, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has indicated that for New England, Sheet Flaw lengths greater than 50 feet are generally not appropriate, except under certain unique conditions where a well-graded surface can maintain sheet flow. For natural topography, and for land that has been cultivated and retains furrows such as on the subject site; sheet flow lengths would be considerably less than the 200 feet used. The portion of the overland flow path exceeding 50 feet should be calculated as Shallow Concentrated Flow, -4 06/26/2003 16:33 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV Z 026 .. ENSR Intemational YU Shops at Evemreen Walk Drainage Review,South Windsor, CT 10. Some of the "shallow concentrated flow" paths also seem excessively long. Typically, with the lengths Indicated in the calculations, one would expect that this flow would become channelized within pronounced gullies, intermittent streams, or other drainage channels. Has the engineer field verified the assumption of shallow concentrated flow? 11.The proposed conditions PondPack analysis includes drainage area BW8. This area is not shown on the drainage area plan, Detention Basins 3 and 4 are included in the analysis but not called out on the plans. The proposed condition node diagram includes a structure labeled as Detention Basin 8, This detention basin should be included In the PondPack analysis and shown In the drainage area plans. 12,The narrative includes a discussion of the Podunk River analysis and how the Plum Gulley Brook and Podunk River drainage area analyses were calibrated to the FEMA flows. The engineer should provide documentation of this analysis for review. 13.The storm water conveyance system has been sized for the 1 0-year design storm to comply with Town regulations. The detention basins appear to be designed to control peak discharges for storms up to the 1oQ-year event. For these basins to be effective, the runoff from the indicated contributing areas must be conveyed to the basins. If the conveyance does not occur within the piped system, then overland flow must be directed to the appropriate detention facility. The project engineer should show how runoff from larger storm events would be conveyed via overland flow to the detention basins so that such flows will be adequately controlled relative to peak rates, and so that these flows will not cause erosion or impact water quality. 14.,Jeffrey Folgers letter dated May 14 indicates a concem about the impact of the extended peak runoff volumes on the stream channel geometry of the receiving watercourse. We suggest that the applicant provide a a detailed report evaluating the long and short-term effects of the proposed development on the receiving watercourses, particularly as they may be affected by extended peak runoff volumes, more frequent bankfull discharges, and alteration of base flows as a result of reduced recharge, C. Management of Long-term Water Quality 1. The area of contiguous impervious surface of the proposed'commercial development will exceed 5 acres, Indicating that the project will requlre filing under the Connecticut General Perm# for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Commercial Activity, This general permit requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan incorporating a number of specified Stormwater Management Measures. We suggest the Commission be provided a copy of the proposed Stormwater Management Plan, to ensure consistency between that plan and the proposed design and operation of the facility to meet local standards and .requirements, 2. The area of proposed site alteration for building, paving, and other earthwork appears to be greater than 5 acres, indicating that the project will require filing a CT 06 26/2003 16:33 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 12 027 ENSR Intemaationai The Shops at Evergreen Walk Drainage Review,South Windsor, CT Genera! Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction AcfivNes. This general permit Includes requirements for management of long term water quality. The permit requires that "the permittee shall Install post-construction stormwater management measures designed to remove suspended solids from stormwater, A goal of 80 percent removal of total suspended scuds from the stormwater discharge shall be used in designing and Installing stormwater management measures." We recommend that the applicant provide documentation, Including TSS removal calculations,to demonstrate compliance with this requirement and to show that pollution would not occur as a result of the proposed project storm water discharge. There are accepted engineering practlCes available to quantitatively demonstrate compliance with the total suspended solids removal rates specified In that permit. 3. We recommended that the applicant document that the design complies with the Hydrologic Sizing Criteria (Chapter 7) of the Draft Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual,to show that pollution would not occur as a result of the proposed storm water discharge, The draft manual contains a number of guidelines that have been developed and applied for a number of years in other jurisdictions. While the manual Is currently a draft, and is not incorporated into local regulatory standards, we believe the guidelines reasonably reflect the "state of the art" for stormwater management, and comprise a reasonable methodology for quantitatively documenting the storm water management effectiveness of this project. 4. The plans show three off-line Storm Water Treatment chambers (SWTC), Why Is a chamber not shown for the discharge from Culvert End#93? 5, Mr. Folger states that additional rain gardens should be placed within the development to maximize the retention and infiltration of storm water within the development We believe that more extensive consideration be given to the development overall, to Incorporate "low impact development" strategies to minimize increased runoff, ma)dmize recharge, preserve wetland hydrology, and provide effective storm water quality treatment, D. Management of Construction, Runoff 1. The area of proposed site alteration for building, paving, and other earthwork appears to be greater than 5 acres, Indicating that the project will require filing a CT General Permit for the Discharge of Stonnwater and D®watering wastewaters Associated with Construction AcUvifies. We suggest the Commission be provided with the documentation that the applicant must prepare for this permit, to ensure consistency between that plan and the proposed design and operation of the facility to meet-local standards and requirements.. 2. One temporary sedimentation basin is Indicated on the drawings. It is not dear how discharge from this basin to the adjacent wetland area will be accomplished. There -6- 06/26/2003 16:34 FAA 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV [a028 - J ENSR Intemational The Shops at Evet'gmen Walk Drainage Review,South Windsor, CT appear to be no details for an outlet device from fhis.basin shown on the drawings. The basin should be designed (and the design documented) in accordance with the Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (2002), Also, how will storm water be treated and discharged at this location to control water quality and erosion once the temporary basin Is removed? E. Other Desicin Issues 1. As indicated in Jeffrey Folger's May 14 letter, all catch basin's should be equipped with 4-foot sumps and trap hoods to increase the capacity of sediment retention and increase the efficiency of floatable and hydrocarbon capture. Further, we recommend that the storm water conveyance system design should be modified to provide for an absolute minimum of"flow through" catch basins, Deep sump catch basins with hoods are most effective when they do not have an incoming pipe. A better design is to provide a "trunk-Ilne" storm drain with manhole structures at the junctions,with individual catch basins connected to these manholes. 2. The stage-storage table for Detention Basin 3 includes a lowest elevation of 85. The engineer should add spot grades at this elevation to the plans. 3. The stage-storage table for Detention Basin 4 includes a lowest elevation of 73. The engineer should add spot grades at this elevation to the plans. 4. The drawings show an emergency spillway constructed within the limits of the proposed embankment fill for Detention Basin 4, This is not a recommended pracdoe. The spillway should be constructed in existing ground, if practicable. Furthermore, the spillway should provide for a minimum freeboard at the design flow for the spillway. We recommend that the emergency spillway should be designed (and supported by calculations)assuming the principal spillway is non-functional. 5, Detention Basin 3 should include an emergency spillway, 8. The calculation output indicates that there will be less than one foot of freeboard for Detention Basin 4 during the 100-year storm. NRCS typically recommends at least a foot of freeboard over the maximum water depth in the pond during emergency overflow conditions. The Engineer should document that the detention basin design meets the dam and detention basin embankment requirements for CT, including provision of adequate freeboard (see,for example, the Connecticut Guidelines for Sal Erosion and Sediment Control, which.pontains detailed guldelines for basin design in the section applicable to sediment basins). An additional allowance of freeboard capacity should be provided to account for embankment settlement. 7. The vegetated waterways (swales) should be properly designed for both capacity and stability, using HEC-15-or other standard of practice that-accounts for vegetative linings and for stability design, Some of the waterway slopes in the calculations appear to be inconsistent with the drawings; the engineer should confirm that correct slopes are used to design the swales. T- 06426/2003 16:34 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 0 029 r � b EWSR Intema5onai Ae Shops at Evergreen Walk Drainage Review,South Windsor, CT 8. It appears that the swale that discharges to Detention Basin 3 roe Ives flow from two separate discharges. The design should include a better transition between the discharges and the beginning of the swale to make sure that the contractor under stands the intent of the des fin, and to ensure that storm water will not bypass the swale and di scharge rge directlyto regulated a reg well and area, 9. The Storm Water Treatment Chamber(SWTC) detail does not include details for the chamber proposed at MH#36, Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, ENSR Corporation a4u kA David C. Nyman Caroline Hampton Senior Engineer Senior Engineer -8- 06/26/2003 16:34 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 030 + 06/26/03 THU 16a17 FAX 560 793 3416 IMP ASSOCIATES IM00 13 ,t,,jmx a,�-m aea��, vot-c, ENVIRONMENTALIC►VIL ENGINEERING & HYDROGEOtOOY June 26, 2003 Mr. John King Updike, Kelly& Spellacy, P,C, One State Street ool�eenour P.O. Box 231277 Mville 6rlT 0602lxl� pIpl,lvple,CT 06�62 Hartford, CT 06123-1277 aGa-246,9021 W-793.6699 PAX 860-793.6e71 RE: APPLICATION #03.28P, LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC. IN SOUTH WIN- DSOR,CONNECTICUT (HRP#UPD0007.HG) MpssAclluserls 720 FDVm R0dd SL t9 404 &ab*F'VA 02104 Dear Mr. King: 800-MI-sm 781.36fr2944 Pursuant to your request, HRP Associates Inc. (HRP) has conducted a re- FAX791.368,2409 view of available environmental data sources with respect to the proposed project referenced above. Given the long agricultural history of the site, par- N6WV0RX ticular focus was given to establishing the likelihood that the site may have 100s«atoodv4logeeiVC been impacted.bj application of various pesticides, which are known to be Suhc27 toxic to human health and the environment. Our search included-a review of MORC11W 12020 the CT DPH Mapped Monitoring Locations For EDB and vortex and a CT 888-323 22 DEP file review for investigations conducted on, or proximal to, the proposed 518.69M011 FAX 618-899-8129 construction site. Our findings and conclusions are presented in the following text. PENamlrANaa -rhe proposed construction site lies directly,in the east central portion of an L807.brEdownRoad area designated as South Windsor Area 2 on the 1985 CT DPH Mapped Sufe246 Monitoring Locations For EDB and Vorlex bass figure (to be presented before Hcelat g.?A 17109 96�23�'792d the commission). The map Indicates that the pesticide EDB has been de- 717.9alWO tested adjacent to both Smith Street and Clark Street. The boundaries of FPX717-920-1353 South Windsor Area 2 suggest that the entire area has historically been sub- ject to heavy commercial agricultural use and that the use of EDB was wide- 604010AROUNA Spread. 7001 FOcmkod A review of CT DEP files for environmental work performed on properties ad- �e&w .3c 29616 jacent to the proposed construction site has revealed the presence of addi- wo-7sz-3922 tional pesticides beyond EDB in the area. Specifically, a report entitled 664-09-03T1 phase 1, 11, and I/I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Fuss & eE'"zalAea6 O'Neil Inc. (I=&O) and submitted to CT DEP on October 16, 2002 for the Terry Office Park at 465-481 Suckland Road (attached). It should be noted that this location is immediately to the north of the proposed construction area and WWW hrpassodaimm well within the boundaries of South Windsor Area 2- The report indicates that the pesticides DDT, heptachlor epoxide and dieldrin were found in both*site o:pmWdt\King EDB letter-28p 06.426/2003 16:35 FAX 860 548 2680 Updike Kelly #IV 031 r' 06/26/03 THU 15:18 FAX 860 793 3418 HRP ASSOCIATES 00 Mr. John King Page 2 June 26, 2003 Solis and ground water in concentrations that exceed the CT DEP Remediation Standard Regula- tion (RSR). Given the apparent pervasive distribution of pesticides to the immediate north, south and west of the proposed construction site and its inclusion within the boundaries of South Windsor Area 2, it is reasonably foreseeable that this site has been impacted. Further, it is our opinion that the pro- posed construction on this property Is exactly of the type and nature targeted in CT DEP General Guidance On Development of Former Agricultural Properties memo, which was Issued in 1999 (attached). of particular concern is the close proximity of the site to wetlands and the shallow ground water table. The construction plans call for movement of earth about the site and far the inStallation of infiltration structures known as rain gardens. It is well accepted that disturbance (i.e. earth movement) of contaminated materials has the effect of mobilizing contaminants to ground water which could be exacerbated by the infiltration design as proposed. As such, placement of potentially contaminated material in close proximity to wetland or waterways will in- troduce highly toxic pesticides to sensitive receptors. It should be noted that the DEP RSR sur- face water protection standards for the dieldrin and heptachlor spoxide are 0.1 and 0.05 parts per billion, which denotes the extreme toxicity of these compounds to surface water receptors (e.g. streams and wetlands). It should also be noted that all of the identified pesticides are known to be toxic to humans as well and given the pedestrian nature of the site design should be consid- ered in the overall site material management protocol. It Is our conclusion that a reasonable standard of professional care for this site requires confor- mance with the 1999 CT DEP guidance for development of this site. At a minimum, an adequate investigation to determine the presence c:e or absence of regulated pesticides in the site soils and ground water should be performed_ If pesticides are detected on the site, the RSR should be used as the benchmark for environmental compliance as it relates to human health and the envi- ronment. Please note that the RSR provides specific guidance for the placement or "reuse" of contaminated soils and for ground water quality monitoring requirements, which could signifi- cantly impact the current construction design of the site. Please do not hesitate to Gall us at (860) 793-6899 with any question or concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to be of continued service. Sincerely, HRP AS TES C. ,r an D. Projeot Hager o:pmWdtNlQng We letter-28P Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, F.C. Counselors at Law Hartford New Haven Stamford One State Street,P.O. Box 231277 -TIT- Hartford, Connecticut 06123-1277 M E R I TA 5 Telephone(860)548-2600 LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Facsimile(860)548-2680 James M. Connor (860)548-2617 (860)548-6018 Fax jconnor@uks.com June 26, 2003 RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2003 HAND DELIVERED south Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental Planner CONSERVATION COMMISSION Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074-2786 Re: Appl#03-21P -The Casle Corporation(Eastern Connecticut Health Network) West Side of Buckland Road, South Side of Deming Street, South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Mr. Folger: My letter to the Commission dated June 26, 2003 concerning the referenced application misidentified two of the enclosures as items that were contemporaneously being submitted in connection with another hearing which will continue on July 2. Items 3 and 4 (both of which were in fact submitted under cover of the letter concerning the Casle Corporation) are correctly identified as follows: 3. June 19, 2003 letter from James Durand and Dennis Lowry of ENSR International regarding the Casle Corporation application(identified in the original letter as a June 18, 2003 letter regarding the Shops at Evergreen Walk). 4. June 24, 2003 letter from Caroline Hampton and David Nyman of ENSR regarding review of Drainage Report for Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network building (identified in the original letter as a June 24, 2003 letter regarding the Shops at Evergreen Walk review of Drainage Report for). I apologize for any confusion resulting from this error. 330086 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission June 26, 2003 Page 2 Also, I enclose several additional copies of the attachment to the HRP letter submitted yesterday, so you will have sufficient copies available for Planning Department and Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission use. Very truly yours, W , 3�'� AMES M. CONNOR JMC/ cc: Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental Planner John R. Mallin, Esq. Enclosures 330086 �o Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040-5992 8 8 TEL sso 646-2469 FAX aso 643-6313 INTERNET:www.fussandoneill.com Other Offices: West Springfield,Massachusetts Providence,Rhode Island Trumbull,Connecticut Columbia,South Carolina Greenville,North Carolina July 2, 2003 Mr. Jeff Folger Wetlands Enforcement Officer Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: The Casle Corporation/Eastern Connecticut Health Network Application#03-21P Dear Mr. Folger: As the agent for and on behalf of the Casle Corporation, we hereby give authorization for an extension of the Public Hearing through July 17, 2003. Sincerely, Jay J. Giles, Senior Vice President /dmp GAP2000\481\C10\Extension LetterJJG 07-02-03.doe Corres.(HQ) J EPLVO MMMM- ENSR International 2 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 (978)589-3000 FAX(978)589-3100 www.ensr.com July 2, 2003 John King, Esquire Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. One State Street Hartford, CT RE: Updated Comments Review of Drainage Report for Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network ENSR Project Number 10351-001 Dear Mr. King: ENSR offers the following additional comments relative to our review of the ECHN plans and drainage report. These comments are in addition to those presented in our letter dated June 24, 2003. These additional comments relate to the memorandum from Jay Giles (Fuss & O'Neill) to Atty. Jane Warren, dated June 25, 2003 ((RE: Response to Caroline Hampton Letter of June 18, 2003). 1. When performing drainage calculations, the total pre-development area of analysis should be identical to the post-development area of analysis. Within this overall watershed area, sub- catchment boundaries may be different be tween re and post-development p p s development conditions, but the total drainage area should be identical for both conditions. This is not true of the analysis provided. The drainage calculations remain deficient in this respect. 2. When performingtime of concentration calculations F - Fuss & O'Neill uses a 200 foot length for sheet flow. Fuss & O'Neill states that the NRCS maximum is 300 feet. The NRCS (formerly SCS) methodology as outlined in TR-55 indicates a maximum sheet flow length of 300 feet, but this criterion is being changed. Beta testing has been completed on an updated version of TR- 55 (WinTR-55). User documentation for the development of the updated procedure has been available for some time (at least since April 2002) and limits the sheet flow component to a maximum of 100 feet. An informational reference titled "Frequently Asked Questions" further documents the NRCS position that sheet flow should be no more than 100 feet, and is also posted at the WinTR-55 web site at: www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/hydro/hydro-tools-models-wintr55.html We have based our recommendation of 50 feet on published guidance used in the neighboring state of Massachusetts, which was developed based on MA DEP consultation with NRCS personnel, and has been applied in practice since 1987. 3. The engineer indicates in the June 25 memorandum that the proposed vegetated waterway (located between the parking lot drainage system outlet and the detention basin) would be stable as designed. The following parameters have been cited by Fuss & O'Neill in the June 25 memo and in the June 11, 2003 calculations: Celebrating 30 Years of Excellence in Environmental Services Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network July 2,2003 Page 2 • Waterway gradient: 5%; • Flow: 13.38 cfs; • Bottom width: 12 feet; • Side slopes: 2 horizontal to 1 vertical; • Vegetation Class: "C"; • Methodology:described in HEC-15; and • Stability criteria: shear stress not to exceed 1.0 lb/sq. ft. Using the HEC-15 procedure, ENSR computed the depth required to convey the flow of 13.38 cfs would be 0.48 feet, with a Manning's n of approximately 0.089 (corresponding to a hydraulic radius of approximately 0.44 feet). The shear stress would be approximately 1.5 lb/sq. ft. This exceeds the allowable shear stress, which means the channel would not be stable. As noted in our June 18 and June 24 letters, we believe the project engineer has not correctly applied the procedure chosen for the analysis. We therefore recommended that the engineer reconsider the design of the waterway. Please contact the undersigned with any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ENSR Lw David C. Nyman Senior Engineer cc: Dennis Lowry, Caroline Hampton; ENSR i JAESP\Projects\P100\300 to 399\10351-001 As sowindsor\ECHN review\7-02-03\updated South Windsor Review 3.doc "O*N Sf4 y F Town, O-P SOUZA ?d O a m 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR•c0 AREA CODE 860/644-2511 July 21, 2003 Certified#70001670000775519706 Mr. John Manners The Casle Corporation. 200 Fisher Drive Avon, CT 06001-3739 RE: Appl.#03-21P—The Casle Corp.westerly of Buckland road, and southerly of Deming Street, GD, Gateway Development zone Dear Mr. Manners: At the July 16, 2003 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved with conditions application#03-21P—Buckland Road—Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application to construct a medical office building,parking lots, stormwater structures, and associated improvements on property located westerly of Buckland Road, and southerly of Deming Street. GD, Gateway Development zone. This approval is subject to the following conditions: l. 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 16, 2008. 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. The rain garden shall be constructed under the supervision of Dr. Clausen. 7. A maintenance plan be developed and implemented for the rain gardens. The implementation will be the responsibility of the landowner. The Casle Corporation July 21, 2003 Page 2 8. Any onsite topsoil that is to be used for landscaping or the mitigation area must be tested for contaminants consistent with the historical agricultural use. 9. We recommend a bond in the amount of$20,000 be submitted to the Planning&Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures. 10. We recommend a bond in the amount of$25,000 be submitted to the Planning&Zoning Commission to ensure installation of the stormwater structures including the detention basin. 11. We recommend a bond in the amount of$100,000 be submitted to the Planning&Zoning Commission to ensure creation of the mitigation area. The mitigation area is to be monitored for three consecutive years to insure the proper establishment of the proposed plant community. Any disturbances caused to this area will result in the continuation of the monitoring period until the three consecutive year monitoring period can be completed. 12. The recommendations from the Town Engineer listed in the July 2, 2003 memo must be incorporated into the plan. Very truly yours, ti6 Eliza bet arren, Chai erson INLA D WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION EW:dr Cc. Fuss &O'Neill John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Curriculum Vitae John C. Clausen December 2002 University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources 1376 Storrs Road, Storrs, Connecticut 06269 Ph: (860)486-2840, Fax (860)486-5408 John.Clausen(a uconn.edu Educational Experience 1981 Ph.D. College of Forestry, University of Minnesota Major: Forest H, dy rology 1973 M.S. College of Forestry. University of Minnesota Major: Forest Hydrology 1971 B.S. with distinction. College of Forestry, University of Minnesota Major: Forest Resources Development 1963 High School Diploma, DeLa Salle High School, Minneapolis, Minnesota Work Experience 1999-current Coordinator, Graduate Pro rams, Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering, University of Connecticut 1993 - current Associate Professor, University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources 1990 - 1993 Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources 1989 - 1990 Research Associate Professor, University of Vermont School of Natural Resources 1981 - 1989 Research Assistant Professor, University of Vermont School of Natural Resources 1985 - 1987 Director, Vermont Water Resources Research Center University of Vermont, School of Natural Resources 1973 - 1981 Hydrologist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources St. Paul, Minnesota 1977 - 1981 Adjunct Research Associate. University of Minnesota, College of Forestry, St. Paul, Minnesota 1971 - 1973 Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota College of Forestry, St. Paul, Minnesota 1969 - 1971 Research Assistant. University of Minnesota, College of Forestry St. Paul, Minnesota Military Experience 1963 - 1966 SP 5, E 5. U.S. Army Field Artillery Operations and Intelligence. 1 t John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Publications Dissertation Clausen, I C. 1973. A hvdronomic analysis of forest management alternatives for environmental quality: a case study of Itasca County. Part I• The economic evaluation of water and forest management alternatives M. S. Report University of Minnesota St. Paul. Clausen, J. C. 1981. Methods for assessing the quality of runoff from Minnesota peatlands Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota, St. Paul Book Chapters Clausen, J.C. 2002 Part 615 Analysis of Water Quality Monitoring Data In National Water Quality Handbook. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Washington D. C Clausen, J.C. 2002 Part 614 Water Quality Monitoring System Design In National Water Quality Handbook. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Washington D. C Refereed Articles Clausen, J. C., and K. N. Brooks. 1983. Quality of Runoff from Minnesota Peatlands: I A Characterization. Water Resources Bulletin 19(5)•763-767 Clausen, J.C. and K.N. Brooks. 1983. Quality of runoff from Minnesota Peatlands: II A method for assessing mining impacts. Water Resources Bulletin 19(5)•769-772 Clausen, J.C. 1985. The St. Albans Watershed RCWP• A Case Study of Monitoring and Evaluation. In Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution U.S. EPA 440/5-85-001 P. 21-24. Hopkins, R.B. and J.C. Clausen. 1985. Land Use Monitoring and Assessment for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. In Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution U.S. EPA 440/5-85-001. P. 25-29. Jamieson, C.A. and J.C. Clausen. 1988. Tests of the CREAMS Model on Agricultural Fields in Vermont. Water Resources Bulletin 24(6)•1219-1226 Clausen, J.C. and G.D. Johnson. 1990. Lake Level Influences on Sediment and Nutrient Retention in a Lakeside Wetland. J Env. Quality 19(1)•83-88 Schwer, C.B. and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Vegetative Filter Treatment of Dairy Milkhouse 2 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Wastewater. J. Env. Qual. 18(4):446-451. Clausen, J.C. and D.W. Meals, Jr. 1989. Water Quality Achievable with Agricultural Best Management Practices. J. of Soil and Water Cons. 44(6):593-596. Brynn, D.J. and J.C. Clausen. 1991. Postharvest Assessment of Vermont's Silvicultural Management Practices and Water Quality Impacts. No. J. Applied For.•8(4):140-144 Clausen, J. C. 1991. Developing a Monitoring System for Rural Surface Waters: Individual BMPS. In Seminar Publication: Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop. EPA 625/4- 91/027. Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. EPA, Washington, D.C. P. 99-102 Clausen, J. C. 1991. Evaluating Individual BMPS and Models. In Seminar Publication: Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop. EPA 625/4-91/027. Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. EPA, Washington, D.C. P. 143-144 Schellinger, G. R. and J. C. Clausen. 1992. Vegetative Filter Treatment of Dairy Barnyard Runoff in Cold Regions. Journal of Environmental Quality 21(l).40-45. Clausen, J. C., D. W. Meals, and E. A. Cassell. 1992. Estimation of Lag Time for Water Quality Response to BMPs. The National RCWP Symposium. Orlando FL September 13-17. EPA/625/R-92/006. P. 173-179. Dressing, S. A., J. C. Clausen, and J. Spooner. 1992. A Tracking Index for Nonpoint Source Implementation Projects. The National RCWP Symposium. Orlando FL September 13- 17. EPA/625/R-92/006. P. 77-87. Robillard, P., E. Flaig, J. C. Clausen, and D. Martin. 1992. Research Needs and Future Vision. The National RCWP Symposium. Orlando FL September 13-17 EPA/625/R-92/006. P. 385-392. Clausen, J.C., K.G. Wayland, K.A. Saldi, and K. Guillard. 1993 Movement of nitrogen through an agricultural riparian zone: 1. Field studies J of Water Science and Technology 28:3-5. Cassell, E.A. and J.C. Clausen. 1993. Dynamic simulation modelling for evaluating water quality response to agricultural BMP implementation J of Water Science and Technology 28. Nikolaidis, N.P., H. Shen, H. Heng, H.-L. Hu and J.C. Clausen. 1993. Movement of nitrogen through an agricultural riparian zone: 2. Distributed Modeling J of Water Science and Technology. 28. 3 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Douglas, W.S., A. McIntosh, and J.C. Clausen. 1993. Toxicity of sediments containing_ Atrazine and Carbofuran to larvae of the midge Chironomus tentans. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 12:847-853. Clausen, J. C. 1993. Post-audit verification of the model AGNPS in Vermont agricultural watersheds. U.S. EPA 841-R-93-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Office of Water. Washington, D.C. Clausen, J. C. and J. Spooner. 1993. Paired watershed study design. U.S. EPA 841-1793-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv. Office of Water. Washinatton, D.C. Clausen, J. C., W. E. Jokela, F. I. Potter III, and J. W. Williams. 1996. Paired watershed comparison of tillage effects on runoff, sediment, and pesticide exports. J. Environ. Qual. 25(5):1000-1007. Clausen, J. C. 1997. Standard guide for monitoring aqueous nutrients in watersheds. ASTM D6146-97. Newman, J. and J. C. Clausen. 1997. Seasonal effectiveness of a constructed wetland for processing milkhouse wastewater. Wetlands 17(3):375-382. Nikolaidis. N. P., H. Heng, R. Semagin, and J. C. Clausen. 1998. Non-linear response of a mixed land use watershed to nitrogen loading. Agriculture Ecosystems, and Environment 67(2-3):251-265. Newman, J. M., J. C. Clausen, and J. A. Neafsey. 2000. Seasonal performance of a wetland constructed to process milkhouse wastewater in Connecticut. Ecological Engineering. 14:181-198. J. C. Clausen K. Guillard. C.M. Sigmund, and K. Martin Dors. 2000. Water quality changes from riparian buffer restoration in Connecticut. J. Environ. Qual 29.1751-1761 Bull, N. H. and J. C. Clausen. 2000. Structured group learning in undergraduate and graduate courses. J. of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education. 29.46-50 Sonstrom, R.S., J. C. Clausen, and D.R. Askew. 2002. Treatment of parking lot stormwater using a Stormtreat system. ES&T 36(20):4441-4446 Phillips, R.A., J. C. Clausen, J. Alexopoulos B. L. Morton, S. Zaremba, and M. Cote 2003 BMP Research in a Low impact development: construction phase Stormwater, 4 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Published Conference Proceedings Clausen, J. C. 1980. The Quality of Runoff Waters from Natural and Disturbed Peatlands in Northern Minnesota. U.S.A. Proc., Sixth Int'l. Peat Congress. Aug. 17-23. Duluth MN. Clausen, J. C., J. R. Lewis and K. N. Brooks. 1980. The Quality of Waters Discharged from Minnesota Peatlands. 'Proc., Sixth Int'1 Peat Congress. Aug. 17-23. Duluth, MN. Clausen, J. C. 1986. Environmental and Social Implications of Logging Effects: Sedimentation Water Chemistry and Temperature. Proc. Forest Water Quality and Erosion Control in Vermont. April 30-May I. White River Junction, Vermont Invited presentation King, J. R. and J. C. Clausen. 1989. Havland Manure Applications and the Quality of Surface Runoff. Prop. Int'l. Svmp. Dairy Manure Management. Syracuse NY February 22- 24, 1989. King, J.R. and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Havland Manure Applications and the Quality of Surface Runoff. Proc. Int'l Svmp. Dairy Manure Management. Syracuse NY February 22-24, 1989. Clausen, J. C. 1996. Structured experiences to enhance group learningin n an introduction to water resources course. Proceedings, First Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources. Penn. State Univ. University Park PA March 3-5. - Newman. J. M. and J. C. Clausen. 1996. A constructed wetland for processing_ milkhouse wastewater in Connecticut. Proc. Constructed Wetlands for Animal Waste Management. Second National Workshop. Fort Worth, Texas May 15-18 Clausen, J. C_, M. Hull, J. Alexopoulos, M. P. Cote, B. L. Morton and S. Zaremba 1997 Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project Proceedings National Watershed Water Quality Project Symposium US EPA Office of Research and Development. EPA/625/R-97/008. P. 201-206. Miscellaneous Publications Clausen, John C. and Arnett C. Mace, Jr. 1972. Accumulation and Snowmelt on North-South Versus East-West Oriented Clearcut Strips. Minn For. Res. Note No 234 Clausen, John C. et al. 1974. Baseline Ecosystems Survey for Voyageur's National Park University of Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota. 5 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 O'Hayre, Arthur P., John C. Clausen, and Arnett C. Mace, Jr. 1975. A Hydronomic Analysis of Forest Management Alternatives of Environmental Quality: A Case Study of Itasca County. Water Resources Research Center Bulletin No. 83. Johnson, Walter K. and John C. Clausen. 1977. Save Water in Your Home! The Minnesota Volunteer, Vol. 40 No. 231. Brooks, K. N. and J. C. Clausen. 1978. Water, Forests and Research: A Minnesota Partnership. Minnesota Science. Spec. For. Issue. U. of M. Ag. Expt. Sta., St. Paul MN. Clausen, J. C. and K. N. Brooks. 1980. The Water Resources of Peatlands: A Literature Review. Report to the Minn. Dept. of Nat. Res. Pp. 139. Clausen, J. C., K. N. Brooks, and D. P. Guertin. 1981. The Water Resources of the Peatlands: Summary of Two-Year Results Report to the Minn Dept of Nat Res Pp. 100. Clausen, J. C., D. G. Asmussen, and D. Karasov. 1981. Peatland Development: Impact Assessment Methods and Application. Report to the Natl. Science Foundation, Grant No. DAR 78-06266. Anderson, M. L., J. C. Clausen, and V. Kurmes. 1981. The Revegetation of Mined Peatlands: I. Physical Characteristics. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources St. Paul, Minnesota. Brooks, K. N., . C. Clausen, D. P. Guertin, and T. C. Stiles. 1982. The Water Resources of Peatlands: Final Report. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St Paul MN Clausen, J. C. 1991. Final Report St. Albans Bay Watershed Rural Clean Water Program. Sections 7.2, 7.41 7.6.3. USDA-ASCS. Burlington, VT. Clausen, J. C. 1994. Riparian zone restoration to treat nonpoint pollutants. Progress Report to Ct. Dept. Environ. Prot. Clausen, J. C. 1995. Riparian zone restoration to treat nonpoint pollutants Progress Report to Ct. Dept. Environ. Prot. Clausen, J. C. 1996. Riparian zone restoration to treat nonpoint pollutants Progress Report to Ct. Dept. Environ. Prot. Clausen, J. C. 1996. Constructed wetland to treat nonpoint source pollutants 6 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Progress Resort to Ct. Institute of Water Resources. Clausen, J. C. 1996. Jordan Cove Urban Watershed National Monitoring Program Project Annual Report. CT DEP and US EPA. Clausen, J. C. 1997. Riparian zone restoration to treat nonpoint pollutants. Final Report to Ct. Dept. Environ. Prot. Clausen, J. C. 1997. Jordan Cove Urban Watershed National Monitoring Program Project Annual Report. CT DEP and US EPA. Clausen, J. C. 1998. Jordan Cove Urban Watershed National Monitoring Program Project Annual Report. CT DEP and US EPA. Clausen, J. C. 1998. Video film script. USDA — Natural Resources Conservation Service. Training Manual. National Handbook of Water Quality Monitoring USDA — NRCS. Clausen, J. C. 1998. Facilitator's Guide. USDA — Natural Resources Conservation Service. Training Manual. National Handbook of Water Quality Monitoring USDA — NRCS. Manuals Clausen, J. C. Laboratory Manual for NRME 100: Environmental Science. UConn Co-M. Unpublished papers and presentations Clausen, J. C. and R. O. Morganweck. 1978. Environmental Consequences of Utilizing Peat as an Alternative Source of Energy. Paper presented at the 14th Amer. Water Res. Conf. and National symposium on Wetlands, Nov. 6-10. Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Clausen, J. C. 1979. The Potential Effects of Peat Mining on Water Resources. Paper presented at the conference: "Management Assessment of Peat as an Energy Resource" July 24, Washington, D. C. Proc. Cassell, E. A., D. W. Meals, Jr., J. C. Clausen, and R. C. Furbush. 1982. The LaPlatte Watershed Project in Vermont: I. Water Quality Monitoring. Presented at North Atlantic, American Society of Agricultural Engineers Meeting. Burlington VT August 10, 1982. Clausen, J.C. 1983. Studies of Agricultural Non-Point Pollution of St. Albans and Shelburne Bays in Lake Champlain. Lake Champlain Symposium, 26th Conference on Great Lakes 7 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Research, International Association for Great Lakes Research. May 23-27, 1983 Oswego, New York. Clausen, J. C. and A. Pisanelli. 1985. Temporal and Spatial Variability of Streamflow Acidification in Vermont. Presented at New England Association of Aquatic Biologists Conference March 6-8. Lake Morey, Vermont. Invited presentation Clausen, J. C. 1985. The St. Albans Bay Watershed Rural Clean Water Program: A Case Study of Monitoring and Assessment. Presented at New England Association of Aquatic Biologists Conference March 6-8. Lake Morey Vermont Invited presentation Clausen, J. C. 1986. Hydrology and Water Quality as Indices of Wetland Discharged Recharge. Presented at Northeastern Workshop on Wetlands and Watercourses Association of State Wetland Managers. June 3-5, New London Connecticut Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1986. Water Quality in Relation to Fertilizer Management Presented at Vermont Association of Conservation Districts and Natural Resources Conservation Council Annual Meeting. December 2-1, Burlington, Vermont Invited presentation Clausen, J. C. 1987. Sediment Transport in the St. Albans Bay Watershed Vt. Geological Survey. January 24. Burlington VT. Invited presentation Clausen, J. C. 1987. Assessing Wetland Hydrology: Utilization of Existing Data New Data Gathering. Presented at Symposium on Wetlands and River Corridor Management Association of State Wetland Managers. June 17-19 Silver Bay, New York Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1987. Land Treatment for Reducing_Agricultural Nonpoint Phosphorus Loading. Presented at 1987 National Association of Conservation Districts meeting_ Au st 9-12. Burlington, Vermont. Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1987. Sources of Nonpoint Priority Pollutants Within the Lake Champlain Basin. Presented at Priority Pollutants Within the Lake Champlain Basin Workshop September 17, Burlington, Vermont. Invited presentation Clausen, J. C. 1987. Summary of Current Research on Priority Pollutants Within the Lake Champlain Basin and Overview of Perceived Needs Presented at Priority Pollutants Within the Lake Champlain Basin Workshop September 17, Burlington Vermont Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1988. Agricultural Management. Presented at EPA-Region I Nonpoint Source Pollution and Best Management Practices Conference May 9, Durham New Hampshire 8 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1988. Monitoring for Nonpoint Source Effects..Presented at EPA National Symposium on Water Quality Assessment. June 1-3, 1988. Annapolis, MD. Abstract. Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1988. A Paired Watershed Study of Pesticide Losses. Presented at 1988 Rural Clean Water Program Workshop. U.S. EPA and U.S.D.A. September 12-15, 1988. St. Paul, MN. Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1988. Developing a Pesticide Management Program for NPS Control. Panel session. Presented at 1988 Rural Clean Water Program Workshop. U.S. EPA and U.S.D.A. September 12-15, 1988. St. Paul, MN. Douglas, W.S. and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Toxicity of Sediments Containing Atrazine and Carbofuran to Larvae of the Midge Chironomas tentans). Presented at Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Annual Conference. November 2 1989 Toronto, Canada. Clausen, J. C. 1988. Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment: General Information Needs. Presented at 1988 Rural Clean Water Program Workshop. U. S. EPA and U.S.D.A., September 12-15, 1988. St. Paul, MN. Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1988. Relating Water Quality Data to Land Treatment: Technical Approaches Presented at 1988 Rural Clean Water Program Workshop. U. S. EPA and U.S.D A September 12-15, 1988. St. Paul, MN. Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1988. _Final Plenary Session: Pesticide Management. Present at 1988 Rural Clean Water Program Workshop. U.S. EPA and U S D A September 12-15, 1988 St Paul, MN. Clausen, J. C. 1988. Nonpoint Pollution and Management and Maintenance of Watersheds and Open Reservoirs. Presented at Green Mountain Water Pollution Control association and Vermont Water Works Association. Burlington, VT. November 3 Invited presentation. Clausen, J. C. and R. Croft. 1988. Agricultural NPS Monitoring and Evaluation the LaPlatte River Watershed Experience. Presented at the Northeast State Conservationists Meeting_ Portsmouth, ME. November 16-18. Invited Presentation. Clausen, J. C. 1989. Nonpoint Sources and Water Quality Standards. Panelist and moderator. National Symposium: Water Quality Standards for the 21 st Century. U S Environmental Protection Agency. Dallas, Texas, March 1-3 Invited presentation 9 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Clausen, J. C. 1989. Monitoring and Evaluation of Vermonts' NPS Control Program. Presented at National Nonpoint Conference: The Water Quality Act--Making Nonpoint Programs Work, NACD, NASCA, EPA. April 23-26, St. Louis, MO. Clausen, J. C. 1989. St. Albans Bgy Watershed RCWP. Project Results and Effectiveness-- Lessons Learned. Presented at 1989 Rural Clean Water-Program Workshop. -Burlin on, VT. September 25-28, 1989. Clausen, J. C. 1989. Examples of Land Use/Water Quality Analysis: Vermont Multivariate Approaches. Presented at 1989 Rural Clean Water Program Workshop. Burlington, VT. September 25-28, 1989. Clausen, J. C. 1991. Riparian Zone Restoration to Treat Nonpoint Pollutants. New England Interstate Water Pollution control Commission. North Hampton, MA. July 10. Invited. Clausen, J. C. 1991. Riparian Zones. Tolland County Soil and Water Conservation District. Vernon, CT. October 24. Invited. Clausen, J. C. 1991. Functional Values and Water Quality Impacts. Workshop: Wetland Regulations and Impact Assessment. Univ. of CT. Storrs, Ct., August t 26. Clausen, J. C. 1991. Riparian Zones. USDA interagency water quality meeting. E. Windsor, CT., February 27. (Invited Presentation). Clausen, J.C. 1991. Riparian Buffer Zones for Non-Point Pollution Control. Presented Non- Point Source Pollution and Water Quality Conference. So. New England Chap. Soil and Water Cons. Soc. Winter Mtg. Feb. 21. E. Windsor, CT. Clausen, J. C. 1991. Causality in Water Resources Research. Environmental Research Institute Seminar. Univ. of CT. Sept. 20. (Invited Seminar). Clausen, J. C. 1991. Estimating Causality in Research: Some Water Resource Examples. Univ. of Mass., Amherst, MA. Dept. of Forestry and Wildlife Mgmt. March 1 (Invited Seminar). Clausen, J. C. 1991. Global Climate Change. Univ. of CT. Honors Seminar. March 27. Clausen, J. C. 1992. Nonpoint Source Monitoring Experimental Design. Proc. EPA Region 3 Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop. Cacapon State Park, W.V. March 24. Clausen, J.C., K.A. Saldi, and K.G. Wayland. 1992. Riparian zone restoration to treat nonpoint pollutants. 1 st Annual Long Island Sound Research Fund Symp Abstract and 10 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 poster. May 28. Storrs, Ct. Clausen, J.C. 1992 Riparian buffer zones. Connecticut Institute of Water Resources. Invited Seminar Dec. 9. Storrs, Ct. Clausen, J.C. 1993 Riparian Buffers University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resource Science. April 2. Invited Seminar. Clausen, J.C. 1993. Estimatingthe he Lag Time for water Quality Changes due to BMPs. Dept. of Plant Science. University of Connecticut. March 10. Invited Seminar. Clausen, J.C. 1993. Riparian zone restoration as a nutrient management tool. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Com. 4th Annual NPS Meeting. May 24-27. Cromwell, Ct. Guillard, K., D. W. Allinson, J.C. Clausen, and G.S. Warner. 1993. Seasonal fluctuations of nitrate-nitrogen in soil water collected from intensivelygrazed pastures. p. 12. In Northeastern Branch American Society of Agronomy Abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI. Clausen, J.C. 1994. Long Island Sound monitoring_program: nonpoint sources. Workshop-on Monitoring Program for Lond Island Sound_Marine Sciences Research Center. SUNY- Stoneybrook, NY. January 12-13. Newman, J. M. and J. C. Clausen 1995. Constructed wetland to treat dairy milkhouse wastewater. Society of Wetland Scientists Meeting. Boston May 29. Clausen, J. C. 1995. Watershed project case study discussion. Proceedings Third National Nonpoint Source Watershed Monitoring Workshop. US EPA. Seattle, WA. Oct. 2-6. Clausen, J. C. 1995. Land treatment monitoring: data needs, collection, and management. Proceedings Third National Nonpoint Source Watershed Monitoring Workshop. US EPA. Seattle, WA. Oct. 2-6. Clausen, J. C. 1995. Applying paired watershed designs. Proceedings Third National Nonpoint Source Watershed Monitoring Workshop. US EPA. Seattle, WA. Oct. 2-6. Clausen, J. C. 1995. Riparian Zone Restoration as a BMP for Nonpoint Source Pollution. 1995 Annual Conference of the New England Section of the American Water Resources Association. Storrs, CT. Nov. 17. 11 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Clausen, J. C. 1996. WILI Radio Morning Program with Wayne Norman. March 26. Clausen, J. C. 1996 Jordan Cove Project, Ct. Proceedings NEIWPCC's 7th Annual Nonpoint Source Meeting. Glens Falls, NY May 21-23. Clausen; J. C 1996 1996 Plenary Session: The role of watershed projects in regional programs: Jordan Cove Long Island Sound. Proceedings Fourth National Nonpoint Source Watershed Monitoring_Workshop. US EPA. Harrisburg, PA. Sept. 16-20. Clausen, J. C. 1997. Jordan Cove Urban Watershed. Invited Seminar. U.S. EPA Boston, MA. May 14. Clausen, J. C. 1997. Jordan Cove Urban Watershed. Invited lecture. Ct. Dept. of Environmental Protection. Hartford. Feb 10. Clausen, J. C. 1998. Innovative Nonpoint Source Best Management Tour. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. August 18-19. Clausen, J. C. and N. H. Bull. 1998. Group learning in agriculture and natural resources. 1998 Northeast Regional Teaching, Workshop. Poster and Abstract. University of Connecticut. Sept. 10-12. Clausen, J. C. 1998. Water quality and buffers. Riparian Buffer Systems: A Training Program for Resource Managers in Connecticut. Haddam, CT. Sept. 30 Clausen, J. C. 1998. Jordan Cove Project. Proc. Water Quality in the Quinnipiac R. A Symposium on the Impact of Non Point Source Pollution in the Quinnipiac River Watershed. Yale University. Nov. 23. Enghahl, J.-J. and J. C. Clausen. 1998. Residential construction impacts on water quality and quantity in Connecticut. Sixth National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop. Iowa Dept. Nat. Res. Cedar Rapids. IA. Sept 21-24. Abstract. Clausen, J. C. 1999. Branford River Stewardship project. Session I : Water and Site Assessment. Branford CT Mar. 30 and Apr. 20. Clausen, J. C. and K. Filchak. 1999. Rain Gardens. WILI Radio Morning Program. May 25. Clausen, J. C. 1999. Water quality and buffers. Riparian Buffer Systems: A Training Program for Resource Managers in Connecticut. Brooklyn Agricultural Center. Brooklyn, CT Jun. 3. Clausen, J. C. and J. J. Engdahl. 1999. Impacts of residential construction on water quality and 12 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 quantity in Connecticut. Seventh National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop. Morro bay, CA. Sept. 12-17. Abstract. Clausen, J. C. 1999. Study design workshop. Seventh National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop. Morro bay, CA. Sept. 12-17. Abstract. Clausen, J. C. 2000. Success stories in ecologically friendly development. Maine Water Conference 2000. Augusta, ME April 13. Clausen, J. C. 2000. A new introduction to the natural world. Connecticut Coop. Ext. System. Workshop May 5-7. Woodstock, CT. Clausen, J. C. 2000. Water Quality Monitoring Workshop. Cobleskill, N. Y. Jan. 10-14. Ran workshop. Clausen, J. C. and K. Guillard. 2000. Research on pollution control by a restored riparian buffer in Connecticut. Symposium Riparian Buffers. AS& CSSA, and SSSA Annual Meeting_ Minneapolis. Nov. 5-9. Grants 1979 - 1981 The Peat Policy Formulation Process. National Sciences Foundation, Washington, D.C. J. Clausen -PI 1983 - 1990 Supplement LaPlatte River Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis Project- Special Studies ofHayland, Barnyard, Milkhouse sources. U.S.D.A. S.C.S. $309,000. J. Clausen- PI 1983 - 1990 LaPlatte River Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis Project - renewal. U.S.D.A. S.C.S. $135,000/yr. J. Clausen-PI 1983 - 1990 St. Albans Bay Watershed Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Rural Clean Water Program. USDA A.S.C.S. $1,682,100. J. Clausen-PI 1984 - 1990 Conservation Tillage Use of Pesticides for Corn: Surface Water Contamination. U.S.D.A. S.C.S. $291.000. J. Clausen-PI 1988 - 1990 St. Albans Bay_Watershed Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Rural Clean Water Program. U.S.D.A. A.S.C.S. $479,000. J. Clausen-PI 1988 St. Albans Bay Watershed Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Rural Clean Water Program. U.S.D.A. A.S.C.S. $106,102. Supplemental. J. Clausen -PI 1988 - 1990 Post - Audit Verification of the Model AGNPS in Vermont Agricultural Watersheds. U.S.D.I. E.P.A. - $75,000 J. Clausen -PI 1990 -1991 St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP. U.S.D.A. A.S.C.S. $7556. J. Clausen- PI. 1991 - 1994 Riparian Zone Restoration to Treat Nonpoint Pollutants -Action Plan Demonstration Project. US EPA- $73,000. 1991 - 1997 Riparian Zone Restoration to Treat Nonpoint Pollutants. CT DEP - 13 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 $216 095 J Clausen and K. Guillard Co-PI. 1991 - 1993 Nonpoint Source Studies of Nutrients in Glacial Soils of Connecticut. Ct. Dept of Environmental Protection. $133.713. N. P. Nikolaidis, J C. Clausen Co-Principal Investigators. 1991 - 1998 The Role of Forested Riparian Zones in Stream Water Quality. Storrs. Agricultural Experiment Station. $10 000/yr. J. Clausen-Principal Investigator 1992 - 1996 Constructed Wetland for Treatment of Dairy Milkhouse Wastewater. CT. Institute of Water Resources. $64.297. 1992 - 2000 Constructed Wetland for Treatment of Dairy Milkhouse Wastewater: A Cooperative Technology Development and Demonstration Project. U.S.D.A. - Soil Conservation Service. $72.100. 1993 - 1998 Milkhouse Wastewater Constructed Wetland. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Ct. Dept. Environmental Conservation. $20 000. J. Clausen - Principal Investigator. 1994-1995 Improving a course using "Discovery Learning" Ct. Teaching Institute. Univ. of CT. $2,500. 1995-1997 Riparian Zone Restoration to treat Nonpoint Pollutants. Ct. Dept. of Environmental Protection. $106.314. J. Clausen and K. Guillard. 1995 — 2002 Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Project. US EPA& Ct. Dept. Environ. Prot. - 530,000 J Clausen J. Alexopoulos, K. Guillard, T. Morris. 1997- 2000 Ground Water Contamination from Agricultural Waste Storage Facilities. USDA- Nat. Res. Cons. Serv. $6,445. 1997-2001 Stormwater Treatment Devices. US EPA and CT DEP. $72,902. 2000-2001 Branford River Urban Water Quality Project. US EPA and CT DEP. $12,000. J. Clausen and K. Filchak. 2001 Rain garden Workshop Connecticut Institute of Water Resources $6,055. 2002-2003 Monitoring the Effectiveness of a Rain Garden. Long Island Sound License Plate Program. With M. Dietz Teachin University of Minnesota FR 5153 Advanced Forest Hydrology, 1979-81, assisted FR 5114 Forest Hydrology, 1979-81, assisted FR 5115 Forest Hydrology: Field Applications, 1979, assisted FR 3101 Field Forest Ecology (Itasca, Mn), 1980-81 FR 5402 Interpretation and Management of Forest Environments, 1980-81, assisted FR 1200 Introduction to Forest Resources, 1981, assisted FR 5403 Introduction to Natural Resources: Forestry for Teachers, 1980 (10%) FR 5003 Fundamentals in Natural Resources Education, 1980-81, (25%) 14 14FF John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 University of Vermont NR 102 Water as a Natural Resource. 1987 (33%) NR 185 Global Climatic Change and Ecological Effects, 1990 NR 272 Environmental Impact Assessment, 1989 NR 278 Water Resources: Analysis Planning and Management. 1983 (50%) NR 285 Acid Precipitation, 1984-86 NR 285 Water Resources Modeling, 1986. 1988 University of Connecticut NRME 100 Environmental Science. 1992-98 NRME 204 Wetlands Biology and Conservation, 1991-02. It. year NRME 230 Principles of Forest Management. 1990 NRME 245 Introduction to Water Resources, 1993-97 NRME 246 Water Quality Management. 1999-01. alt. year NRME 236 Watershed Management, 1991-92 NRME 239 Natural Resources Planning and Management 1999-02 NRME 298 Introduction to Natural Resources 1998-00 (10% NRME 299 Independent Study, 1990-02 NRME 401 Research Methods in Natural Resources 2002. NRME 431 Small watershed modeling 1995-2002 (50%) NRME 350 Principles of Nonpoint Source Pollution, 1992-01. alt year NRME 397 Graduate Seminar in Ecosystem Health: An Experiment in Distance Learning Technology. 1999 (14%) Professional Organizations American Society of Testing and materials — Chair Task Group D19.02.09 Standard Guide for Watershed Monitoring of Nutrients. 1994-1997. American Water Resources Association — Member: Aquarius membership Club; New England Regional Director. Board of Directors 1990-93• Vice-president New England Section 1993; Conncecticut Director 1994- 1997. Soil and Water Conservation Societe — Chair So. NE Chapter Student Committee 1991 — present, Stategic Planning Committee So NE Chapter 1993; Advisor, Univ. of Connecticut. Student Chapter, 1993-present. The Socigy of Sigma Xi M Sigma Pi 15 John C. Clausen Curriculum Vitae December 2002 Society of Wetland Scientists Awards M Sigma Pi Undergraduate teaching Award CANR Junior Faculty Teaching Award — 1995 CANR Alumni Teaching Award — 1996 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Merit Award — 1997 Sabbaticals & International Experience 1997 — USDA-NRCS Portland. OR Sabbatical 2001 2002 — Patagonia. Chile Expedition D:\jack\cv&bio\cv2002.doc 16 ERR David C. Nyman, PE Years Experience: 32 Technical Specialties ■ Stormwater management engineering ■ Stormwater quality treatment analysis and design ■ Stormwater Best Management Practices guidance manual development ■ Civil Engineering design&permitting of complex development projects in sensitive environmental settings ■ Site development permitting and design, including residential projects, industrial& commercial development ■ Peer reviews of subdivision and site development designs ■ Stream/river aquatic resource enhancement design ■ Ecological restoration design ■ Environmental impact studies for major developments ■ Subdivision design and permitting ■ Lake restoration engineering design ■ Erosion and sedimentation control design Professional History ■ ENSR Consulting and Engineering ■ Land Plan Associates,Inc. ■ Sebago Technics,Inc. ■ E.C.Jordan Co. ■ C.E.Maguire ■ Pako Homes,Inc. Education ■ BS (Environmental Engineering)Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ■ N/A(Graduate Studies in City and Regional Planning)Cornell University Professional Registrations and Affiliations ■ Professional Engineer,Maine ■ Professional Engineer,Massachusetts ■ Professional Engineer,New Jersey ■ Professional Engineer,Ohio ■ American Society of Civil Engineers ■ Boston Society of Civil Engineers ■ Soil and Water Conservation Society Representative Project Experience Berger Lehman Associates/Connecticut Department of Transportation, River Restoration Design, Waterbury, CT. Project manager and technical director for the analysis and design of habitat enhancements for relocated sections of the Mad River and June,2003 David C.Nyman,PE Page 1 E11� Beaver Pond Brook. The project was conducted in conjunction with a highway reconstruction project along I-84, under the auspices of the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Project components include: analysis of existing river reaches relative to geo- morphological characteristics and habitat features; design of culvert replacements and extensions incorporating fish passage features; design development of base flow channels for relocated river segments to incorporate naturalized stream characteristics; development of fisheries enhancement structures in conjunction with the relocated channel design; and improvements to an existing flshway previously constructed in a partially removed dam. TPA Design Group, Mad River Habitat Restoration, Waterbury, CT. Design of aquatic resource enhancement measures for the relocation of a segment of the Mad River in Waterbury,CT with particular emphasis on fish habitat and fish passage issues. The project was undertaken in conjunction with a major commercial redevelopment project and involved the application of"ecological engineering" techniques to provide biologically-appropriate in-stream improvements capable of withstanding the high- energy flow conditions encountered within the historically modified river channel. The river improvements included: provision of fish passage features in an 1100-foot long,multiple-barrel box culvert;fishways formed by a series of rock weirs and pools at locations along the river where the hydraulic gradient presented obstacles to fish passage; physical channel modifications (boulder placements, wing deflectors, rock- vortex weirs, thalweg construction) to improve pool-riffle ratio, promote low-flow channel velocity/sedimentation conditions conducive to the development of benthic communities, and provide bottom conditions suitable for fish habitat; reconstruction of natural substrate in sections of relocated channel; and provision of selected plantings of riparian vegetation to improve fisheries and wildlife cover and moderate stream temperatures. City of Danbury, CT, Still River Restoration Projec4 Danbury, CT. Senior engineer and project manager for the design of restoration activities for the Still River corridor. Design included development of river bank stabilization measures, and enhancements of the river flood plain to preserve and improve stormwater treatment functions of the riparian area. Massachusetts Highway Departmen4 MassHighway Stormwater Handbook, Massachusetts. Developed Stormwater Handbook for use by highway and road designers to comply with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy. The handbook addresses specific constraints associated with roadways, when designing for stormwater management for peak rate control, groundwater recharge, and stormwater quality treatment. Development of the manual involved close working relationship with MassHighway Environmental Division staff and a working committee of highway Page 2 David C.Nyman,PE June,2003 E11[�9t. design, environmental compliance, and maintenance professionals. Manual development also included coordination and negotiation with other state agencies involved in the implemtentation of stormwater management policy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Hydrology Handbook for Conservation Commissioners,Massachusetts. Project Manager and principal author of a handbook for Massachusetts Conservation Commissioners, to provide guidance in understanding hydrologic concepts relative to wetlands and other water resource areas. This handbook presents basic information on hydrology, the hydrologic cycle, the hydrologic regime of wetland resources, and hydrologic factors of concern when evaluating development activities near wetland resource areas. The handbook provides a foundation for understanding development submittal documentation, including stormwater management designs and supporting calculations. Connecticut DEP, Office of Long Island Sound Program, Develop Guidance Document for Nonpoint-source Pollution, Connecticut. Development of a guidance document for dealing with nonpoint-source pollution from coastal marinas for the Connecticut Long Island Sound Program. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidance Document, Maine. Development of a Best Management Practices guidance document for stormwater quality control for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Massachusetts Highway Department, On-call Environmental Services Contract, Massachusetts. Project Manager for an on-call contract to provide consulting services to the MassIlighway Environmental Division. Typical services include wetland delinations,environmental permit preparation and follow-up, wetland mitigation design, stormwater management guidance, development of compliance measures and policies under EPA NPDES stormwater program, sediment sampling and analyses for highway work affecting stream banks and stream beds, design of self-regulating tide gates for highway work adjacent to coastal wetlands, and other specialized studies relative to wetlands and waterways. Metropolitan District Commission (MDQ Gates Brook Stormwater Treatment Project, West Boylston, MA. Project Manager and engineer for the evaluation of feasible stormwater treatment designs to reduce watershed inputs of nutrients and sediment to Wachusett Reservoir from the Gates Brook Watershed. Wachusett Reservoir is a primary drinking water supply reservoir for the City of Boston. The Gates Brook is a major tributary to the reservoir. Existing and ongoing development within the brook's watershed comprises a significant source of stormwater that conveys sediment and nutrients to the reservoir. June,2003 David C.Nyman,PE Page 3 E11�. The project included: characterization of the existing watershed hydrology; watershed hydrologic analysis using GIS, development of a watershed hydrologic water quality model to characterize pollutant loadings and removals; alternatives analysis consisting of evaluation of multiple stormwater treatment technologies and locations; selection, design,piloting,and analysis of a preferred treatment alternative. The preferred alternative comprises an innovative enhanced in-reservoir treatment system that optimizes pollutant removal within a confined cove area where the Gates Brook enters the reservoir. Specially designed floating silt curtains were installed within the Gates Brook Cove, to disperse flows from the brook as it discharges into the cove. The floating baffles were designed to facilitate fish passage to and from the brook. The resulting flow regime was designed to enhance the natural ability of the cove to settle and trap sediments,prior to reaching the main body of the reservoir. Field monitoring of the pilot installation confirmed the performance of the system to meet design objectives. Metropolitan District Commission, Shoreline Stabilization and Stormwater Treatment, Wachusett Reservoir,Boylston,MA. Project Manager and Senior Engineer for the development of a shoreline stabilization concept for a segment of shoreline on the South Cove of Wachusett Reservoir. A primary objective of the innovative stabilization measure design was the provision of a constructed wetland fringe that would provide stormwater quality treatment for runoff from the roadway located immediately adjacent to the reservoir. Whittemore Shores Condominium Association, Shoreline Stabilization, Bridgewater, NH. Senior Engineer for the analysis of shoreline erosion and design of corrective measures, to stabilize the waterfront area of the Whittemore Shores condiminium property. Hanover Planning Board Design Review Services, Hanover, MA. Project management and technical direction of engineering review services for the Hanover Planning Board,for review of projects under Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Bylaw. Town of Scituate, MA, Design Review Services, Scituate, MA. Project management and technical direction of review services provided to the Scituate Planning Board, to assist with its review of projects under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Town Zoning Bylaw. Also provided review services relative to stormwater management issues for the Town's Conservation Commission. Town of Hull Conservation Commission, Design Review Services, Hull, Massachusetts. Technical review services for the Conservation Commission, to assist the commission with the evaluation of stormwater management measures proposed for a condominium development located near an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Page 4 David C.Nyman,PE June,2003 E11bmmv�o t. with a particular focus on project compliance with the Massachusetts Stormater Management Policy under the Wetlands Protection Act. MassHighway, Design of Self-Regulating Tide Gates, Revere, MA. Senior Engineer for MassHighway project involving the design of five self-regulating tidegates (SRTs) for culverts along Route IA in the City of Revere,Massachusetts. The SRT devices are designed to allow tidal flushing of a coastal marsh system adjacent to the roadway, while providing protection to nearby properties against coastal flood events affecting the Pines River. Work included coordination with the highway department, the USEPA, the City of Revere, and other state and federal agency representatives to determine project constraints and develop the design of the SRTs, plus coordination with the tide gate developer, and the manufacturer of the device to adapt the gate design to the project setting. Because of existing culvert conditions,tidal ranges, and accessibility issues, the engineering team developed an innovative design placing several of the SRT's at the upstream end of the culverts(normally,tide gates are placed at the discharge end). Work on this project also included preparing documentation for the necessary environmental permits for the SRT installation, design of the gates, coordination of structural design services, preparation of drawings and specifications for bidding, and review of shop drawings. Edwards & Kelcey, Design of Self-Regulating Tide Gates, Revere, MA. Project Manager/Senior Engineer for design of self-regulating tidegates (SRTs) for US Route 1/Town Line Brook,Revere and Malden,Massachusetts. Provided engineering services to MassHighway for the design of self-regulating tidegates (SRTs) at the U.S. Route 1 crossing of Town Line Brook. MassHighway desired to renovate a multiple barrel,high capacity culvert,including repairs to the concrete structure,and rehabilitation of existing conventional flap-type tide gates. The municipalities of Revere and Malden desired the rehabilitation of the tide gates to improve the level of flood protection for the area located upstream of the structure. In coordination with USEPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Massachusetts DEP, MassHighway also sought to provide for tidal cycling in the upstream estuary. The SRT devices provide the opportunity to allow tidal inundation of the upstream coastal marsh areas, while providing improved security against coastal flooding. Work included development of technical documentation for permitting the project at the state and federal levels; evaluation of the culvert structure for its adaptability to the use of SRTs; analysis of the performance of a combination of SRT's and refurbished flap gates for controlling flooding, and providing tidal inundation during normal tidal cycles; development of the size and configuration of SRTs that would provide optimal performance, given the constraints of the existing structure; coordination with the gate June,2003 David C.Nyman,PE Page 5 manufacturer to finalize the design of the SRT devices; input to structural engineering firm to coordinate design of gate installation; preparation of specifications; and review of shop drawings. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Mitigation Banking,Hopkinton-Everett;MA. Senior Engineer, Wetland Mitigation Banking Project, Hopkinton-Everett Flood Control Facility, New Hampshire. Assisted U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District,with site evaluation anddesign services for created wetland,to provide mitigation bank for offsetting impacts to wetland resource areas associated with facility improvement and expansion at the Corps' flood control facility at Hopkinton and Everett, New Hampshire. Work included evaluation of physical constraints of site and its hydrogeologic setting, and the development of site development plans and specifications for the created wetland. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Mitigation Banking, Winchendon, MA. Contributing Project Engineer, Wetland Mitigation Banking Project, Birch Hill Flood Control Facility, Winchendon, Massachusetts. Participated on engineering team to assist U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, with site evaluation and design services for created wetland, to provide mitigation bank for offsetting impacts to wetland resource areas associated with facility improvement and expansion at the Corps' flood control facility at Birch Hill. Work included evaluation of physical constraints of site and its hydrogeologic setting, and the development of site development plans and specifications for the created wetland. Town of Arlington, MA, Pond Restoration, Arlington, MA. Senior Engineer for the design of the "dry" dredging of Hills Pond, including the design of sediment handling areas, construction of stormwater quality treatment chamber and wetland system, and restoration of park facilities disturbed by the construction activities. Cohasset Golf Club, Pond Outlet Structure, Cohasset, MA. Design of an outlet structure to improve control of water levels in an existing pond at the Cohasset Golf Club's course. Baptist Convention of New England,Design of Site Plan,Northborough,MA. Project manager and senior engineer for design of site plan for development of new administration building for the Baptist Convention of New England,Northborough,MA including design of stormwater management infiltration system in compliance with aquifer protection bylaw and State Stormwater Policy. Ole Intervale Farms, Stormwater Management System Design, Northborough, MA. Design of stormwater management system, including infiltration system to comply with aquifer protection bylaw and State Stormwater Policy. Page 6 David C.Nyman,PE June,2003 a E1169t. New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Environmental Impact Statement; Salem to Manchester,NH. Project manager for developing the EIS for the widening of 18 miles for the Interstate-93 highway from Salem to Manchester,NH. Superior Mining Company, Bald Mountain Project, Northern Maine. Preliminary stormwater management design and permitting studies for the Superior Mining Company's Bald Mountain Project(proposed open-pit mine in northern Maine). Mining Company,Environmental Feasibility Analysis, Coastal Maine. Environmental Feasibility Analysis for a potential mining project in coastal Maine, with a particular focus on stormwater runoff, tailings management, and general management of water balance. Getty Mining Company, Mount Chase Projec4 .Northern Maine. Environmental baseline studies for the Getty Mining Company Mount Chase Project in northern Maine, with a particular focus on stormwater management, tailings management, and general issues relative to the project water balance. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Embankment Preload Design, Northern Vermont. Design of an embankment preload for a highway crossing a contaminated peat deposit in northern Vermont. Electric Power Company, Surface Water Drainage System Design, Augusta, ME. Design of a fail-safe surface water drainage system for a power utility facility handling transformers containing PCBs. Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Policy Advisory Committee. Participation in committee established by the DEP to advise the agency regarding issues encountered in the implementation of the state's Stormwater Management Policy. This policy addresses water quality and quantity issues related to urban stormwater discharges, and establishes performance standards for management of stormwater runoff from new and redeveloped sites in Massachusetts. Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Technical Advisory Committee. Member of this technical committee comprised of members of technical professions involved in the management of stormwater and urban runoff impacts. This committee is a subcommittee of the DEP Stormwater Policy Advisory Committee, and advises that group on technical issues related to the state's implementation and application of the performance standards under the Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Management Policy. Publications Nyman, D.C. 2002. "Estimating Average Annual Recharge: Development of a Methodology for Application in Massachusetts." Presentation to Storm Water June,2003 David C.Nyman,PE Page 7 Infiltration and Groundwater Recharge, a Conference on Reducing Runoff while Maintaining Water Quality, Southern New England Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society,Worcester,MA,May,2002. Nyman, D.C. et. al. 2002. Hydrology Handbook for Conservation Commissions: A Guide to Understanding Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,Boston,MA. March 2002. Nyman, D.C. 1999. "Aquatic Habitat & Fish Passage Enhancements for the Mad River." Presentation to the Urban Riparian Buffer Conference, Southern New England Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society,Enfield,CT,April 1999. Nyman, D.C. 1998. "Restoring Natural Streambed in an Urban River Channel' in ASCE Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration Conference,Denver,CO. Nyman, D.C. 1998. "Design of a Boulder/Slot Fishway for the Mad River" in ASCE Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration Conference,Denver,CO. Nyman, D.C. 1995. "Urban River Aquatic Resources Enhancement" in Integrated Water Resources Planning for the 21st Century(M.F.Domenica,ed.).American Society of Civil Engineers,New York. Nyman, D.C., et.al. 1995. Stormwater Management for Maine: Best Management Practices. Maine Department of Environmental Protection.Augusta,ME. Nyman,D. 1994. Maine Marine Facilities,Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution: Facilities Survey and Report. Fugro East, Inc., Northborough, MA on behalf of Maine Marine Trades Association,Biddeford,ME. Nyman, D. 1992. Contributing author to: Best Management Practices for Coastal Marinas, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs and Bureau of Water Management. Hartford,CT Page 8 David C.Nyman,PE June,2003 1 ' DRAINAGE REPORT EASTERN CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE NETWORK ' BUCKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTI09ECEIVED April 4,2003 Revised May 15,2003 J U N 12 2003 Revised May 29,2003 South Windsor Revised June 11 2003 CONSERVATION WETLANDS COMMISSION ' f CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1 % Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040-5921 TEL 86o 646-2469 FAX 86o 643-6313 78 Interstate Drive,West Springfield,MA 01089 TEL 413 452-0445 FAX 413 846-0497 ' 56 Quarry Road,Trumbull,CT 06611 TEL 203 374-3748 FAX 203 374-4391 The Foundry Corporate Office Center 275 Promenade Street,Suite 350,Providence,RI 02908 TEL401861-3070 FAX401861-3076 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. ' Executive Summary ' This report summarizes the changes in drainage that will occur as a result of construction of a proposed facility for Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network (ECHN) southwest of the intersection of Buckland Road and Deming Street. Runoff from the proposed ECHN parking lots and access driveway will drain to a detention basin to the west of the property which will attenuate the runoff to below pre-development flows. The pre and post development flows for the site will be as follows: 2 2.89 2.50 -0.39 10 9.30 5.33 -3.97 25 13.31 7.04 -6.27 100 21.05 10.54 -10.51 The effect of the proposed project on downstream portions of the watershed was also ' investigated. Pre and post-development flow rates for Plum Gulley Brook at Clark Street will be the following: 2 76.74 72.67 -4.07 ' 10 335.85 333.56 -2.29 25 583.84 580.98 -2.86 ' 100 1138.83 1137.76 -1.07 Pre and post-development flow rates for the Podunk River at Vinton's Millpond dam will be: 2 158.15 157.69 10 898.72 897.36 -1.36 ' 25 1562.57 1560.72 -1.85 100 3088.24 3087.98 -0.26 The proposed parking area storm drainage system was designed to convey the 10 year design storm. Storm runoff will be treated through a variety of methods,including catch basins with four foot sumps and trap hoods,and by vegetative contact while traveling through over 350 feet of grassed swale. Sediments will further be filtered out by settling action in the proposed detention basin. F AP2000\481\C I Wrainrep.d oe ' Con•es. Fuss&O'Neill Inc. ' Existing Conditions ' The subject property is part of large tract of farmland located west of Buckland Road,north of Smith Street and south of Deming Street in South Windsor. The proposed ECHN building will be located on a 4.26 acre parcel to be subdivided from the larger property. Soils are Wilbraham ' silty loams and Tisbury silty loams, which are Soil Conservation Service soil types C and B, respectively. Proposed Conditions The proposed building will cover approximately 0.6 acres. The adjacent parking areas will ' create approximately 2 more acres of impervious area. The proposed additional impervious area will increase the amount of runoff discharging from the site if undetained. However,a detention ' basin is proposed 500 feet to the west of the parcel which will attenuate the increase in runoff to below pre-development rates. Peak rates further downstream of the property will also be decreased as illustrated In the tables above. ' The detention basin will have a total storage volume of approximately 1.2 acre-feet. The pond will have a 6 inch diameter low-level outlet and a second stage emergency catch basin outlet. ' The bottom of the pond will be at an approximate elevation of 79 feet and the highest elevation of the basin's berm will be approximately 84.5 feet. During the 100 year storm,there will be nearly 1 foot of freeboard within the basin. Storm sewer systems were designed to convey the 10 year storm. Minimum pipe cover is 3 feet and minimum pipe slope is 1%. Runoff from the roof will discharge to a level spreader ' southwest of the building. Although the roof runoff is not detained, the detention basin attenuates flows from the parking area enough so that there is still a net decrease in runoff from the entire site. Runoff from portions of the parking area will flow to rain gardens which will store the runoff and allow it to infiltrate and settle out sediments. Overflow from the rain gardens will re-enter the storm sewer system. For the Pondpack and StormCAD calculations, the rain gardens were not assumed to attenuate the flow enough to decrease the peak flow out. ' Method ' U.S.D.A.Natural Resources Conservation Service(SCS)TR-55 methods were used to develop input information which was input into the Pondpack hydrologic computer model, which is ' based on SCS TR-20 methods. Please see Appendix B for the Pondpack calculations and drainage map. For Pondpack analysis, the drainage area (please refer to maps included in Appendix B)was delineated to a point of interest at the outlet of the proposed detention basin. The proposed drainage area is approximately the same as the existing drainage area to this point of interest. The storm sewer system was sized using the StormCAD computer model. Input information for the model was derived using Rational Formula methods based on the drainage areas depicted in the drainage area map in Appendix A. Times of concentration for all areas were assumed to be FAP2000\481\C I Wrainrep.doc ' Cones. ' Fuss&O'Neill Inc. the minimum allowable time of 5 minutes. The StormCAD output indicates that all of the proposed pipes will have adequate capacity. Summary With the use of the proposed detention basin,proposed peak discharges from the site will be less than existing flows through the 100 year storm,as required by Town regulations. The proposed storm sewer system meets Town regulations of adequately conveying the 10 year storm. FAP2000\481\CIO\drainrep.doc ' Cones. ;�Q��. � � -`'.yam r `�.� _ i� ��_ .��i qI � }o� l�� � 1"��+}"' �i3 �' • - `-- �'1 � } ,� ZIT. `.� •; _ a=s �a. "ems i 34,__ 133 SITE LOCATION •,� �= j.1 {, ��. - � .-•.�, •y _' zoo ' 00 3 �� ✓ 'ate'+: �`/+ � - -. Q � � �a - i >- a ' } SCALE=1:24000 ' 0 112 t MILE 0 2000 4000 SCALE:1"=2000' FIGURE 1 MAP REFERENCE: �n^- Fuss&O'Neill Inc.Consulting Engineers THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM THE FOLLOWING J� l4a HARTFORD ROAD,MANCHESTER.CONNECTICUT 06040 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS: caso>sas-zass MANCHESTER,CONN.1963 PHOTOREVISED 1984 SITE LOCATION MAP EASTERN CONNECITCUT HEALTHCARE NETWORK SOUTH WINDSOR BUCKLAND ROAD CONNECTICUT Quadrangle Location PROJ.NO.2000481A10 DATED:JUNE 2001 SCALE:1"=2000' t APPENDIX A ' STORM SEWER SIZING 1