The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15-22P Carla's Pasta Expansion IWA TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN rui�,i�.AU.&j'6OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION APPLICATION Application # Date Received t ��" J 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—N) 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: Suri Realty, LLC Address: 50 Talbot Lane, South Windsor,CT 06074 Phone: (home) (work) 860-432-4042 (fax) 860-436-4073 B. Legal owner's name: Suri Realty, LLC/Hale Realty, LLC Address 50 Talbot Lane, South Windsor�CT_06074 / P.O. Box 300,.ManchesterLCT 06040 Phone(home) (work) 845-561-0160 (fax) 845-562-8412 (List additional owners, addresses,and phone numbers on back of application) C. If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property; a letter by the owner(s) authorizing the proposed regulated activity set forth in the application must accompany this form and will be part of the application. D. Project Name and Location Cat-Ws Pasta 50 Talbot Lane,280 Nutmeg Road South,&75 Connecticut Avenue 1. Contact Person (if further information is needed) Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc. (work) 860-291-8755 (fax) 860-291-8757 E. The geographical location of the property which is to be affected by the proposed regulated activities including a description of the land in sufficient detail to allow identification of the property on the Inland Wetland and Watercourse Map. Assessor's map# 60/47 _ Parcel# 29&31 / 127 Zone I 7 F. Names of all abutting property owners from records in Town Clerk's office. (use separate sheet if necessary) See attached 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? IN ** (you are required to supply a copy of the letter with the list of the names of the abutters).** H. Purpose and description of all proposed regulated activity(s) including amount of disturbance in square feet and types of fill and the time element involved: 177,000 SF building expansion of the existing facility including in)lot expansion new -- - -- shipping/receiving area, associated utilities, landscaping and wetland mitigation area. The proposed work will use native fill and will disturb approximately 500,000 SF+/- 01.48 acres+/- of the site. Construction will be completed in phases, starting in 2415 and completed in 2019. I. A class A-2 map of the property drawn to 1"= 40', showing the area to be developed, extent of the wetlands and watercourses affected, topography, existing and proposed activities and names and locations of adjacent property owners must be submitted. J. Amount of regulated area disturbance and types of fill (including wetlands and 80 foot Upland Review Area). 205,548 SF+/-(4.72 acres+/-)of Upland Review Area disturbance. Fill: native material&engineered fill K. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses in regulated areas to be altered: 0.79 ac+/- (34,343 SF+/-) L. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be created: 1.84 ac +/- (80,000 SF±/-) M. Lineal feet of proposed stream alteration: 0 N. Total land area of project and percentage, which is wetlands: 19,85 acres 15%wetlands O. Identify all other permits or approvals that have been issued, applied for, or required with respect to the proposed activity set forth in this application. (These may include but not be limited to, local Planning & Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, D.E.P., F.E.M.A., D.O.T., The Army Corps of Engineers, and any other State, Local or Federal Permits.) Planning& Zoning, Water Pollution Control Authority___ P. The applicant (or designated representative) hereby attests that a sign will be posted at the following location(s)50 Talbot Lane, 280 Nutmeg Road South,& 75 Connecticut Avenue By Design Professionals, Inc.Name Benjamin P. Wheeler on or before the following date _At least 10 days prior to the meeting 8 0. Ji, Signature: x"- '0 These signs must be displayed continuously for at least ten (10) days prior to scheduled meeting (see Regulations, Section 7.3a) The undersigned hereby applies for the regulated activities listed in paragraph H above, for an Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation permit for the property described herein and confirms that: 1. She/he is familiar with the currently effective Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations of the Town of South Windsor. 2. She/he understands that at any time during the review period, the Agency may require the applicant to provide more information about the wetlands and/or watercourses in question and/or any proposed activity. 3. All information submitted in the application for review shall be considered factual, or in the case of anticipated activity, binding. A knowing failure of the applicant or any of her/his agents to provide correct information, or performance exceeding the levels of activity anticipated, shall be sufficient grounds for revocation of any permit under these regulations. 4. By making this application, the applicant gives permission to the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Commission members and/or its representative to enter the portions of the premises which are subject of the application for the purpose of inspection and investigation and otherwise evaluating the merits of the application both before and after a final decision has been issued. Signature of Owner of Property Date Signature o ppliean , _ Date �y/ 9 P.O. BOX 1167 21 JEFFREY DRIVE �n SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 PHONE: 860.291.8755 � � FAX: 8onalsi .8757 c.com (�� www.designprofessionalsinc.com CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERS/ PLANNERS / SURVEYORS / GIS ANALYSTS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5erving Connecticut, Massachusetts, *Rhode Island March 31, 2015 CERTIFIED MAIL • Re: Carla's Pasta Inland Wetlands & Watercourses/Planning&Zoning Applications 50 Talbot lane, 280 Nutmeg Road South, & 75 Connecticut Avenue Dear Abutting 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 it 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. Furthermore, in accordance with the Rules & Regulations of the South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission, you are hereby notified that an application has been filed on the property located at 50 Talbot Lane, 280 Nutmeg Road South, & 75 Connecticut Avenue, abutting your property, which will be the subject of a meeting by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The application and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department. As an abutting property owner you are invited to the hearing(s)/meeting(s) to ask questions and/or : give comments, however, you are not required to attend. You may also submit written comments regarding the application(s) prior to the meeting if you so desire. For further information regarding the specific hearing date of the Planning & Zoning application, please contact Michele Lipe, AICP, Town Planner, at the South Windsor Planning Department at 860-644-2511, ext. 252. For further information regarding the specific hearing date for the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Application, please contact Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer,Planning Department, 860-644-2511, ext. 229. • If you have any questions regarding the specifics of the plans, please feel free to contact our office at 860-291-8755. Thank you. • Sincerely, DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. t Peter R. DeMallie President Cc: Town of South Windsor Client • G:\lobs\1293.D\Docs\Applications\Inland Wetlands\Abutter List\1293.D 2015-03-31 Abutter Notice.doc TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT Parcel ID Site Address Owner Name Mailing Address Mailing City MailingState Mailing Zip 88900030 30 TALBOT LANE HARRIS REAL ESTATE SOUTH 30 TALBOT LANE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 WINDSOR LLC 6510250M 250 NUTMEG ROAD#M FOUR S LLC 34 BRIAN DRIVE BOLTON CT 06043-0000 6510250N 250 NUTMEG ROAD#N PENN HILLS LLC 54 ASPEN DRIVE SOUTH SOUTH NBURY CT 06073-0000 GLAST65100274 274 NUTMEG ROAD NUTMEG ROAD SOUTH LLC 22 CHAPEL ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 65100260 260 NUTMEG ROAD KF REALTY LLC 175 WHEELER RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 65100287 287 NUTMEG ROAD MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS LLC 7 WEST SEVENTH ST CINCINNATI OH 45202-0000 65100279 279 NUTMEG ROAD 279 NUTMEG ROAD SOUTH LLC 279 NUTMEG ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 SOUTH 65100280 280 NUTMEG ROAD HALE REALTY LLC P.O.BOX 300 MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000 65100290 290 NUTMEG ROAD HALE REALTY LLC P.O.BOX 300 MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000 6510310C2 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C2 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 8385 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310C3 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C3 OSPREY ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 8385 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310C11 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C11 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 8383 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310C12 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C12 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 8383 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310C13 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C13 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 8383 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310C14 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C14 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 8383 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310C15 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C15 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 8383 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310C4 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C4 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 8383 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310D3 310 NUTMEG ROAD#D3 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 300 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310D4 310 NUTMEG ROAD#D4 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 300 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 6510310C16 310 NUTMEG ROAD#C16 OSPREY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 300 MANCHESTER CT 06045-0000 i 3690R006B R006B GOVERNORS HIGHWAY HALE REALTY II LLC PO BOX 8385 MANCHESTER CT 06042-0000 29400144 144 EDGEWOOD DRIVE DRENGA JOHN L&JILL A 144 EDGEWOOD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 DRIVE 29400152 152 EDGEWOOD DRIVE COSTA RUI &AMY 152 EDGEWOODDRIVE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 29400160 160 EDGEWOOD DRIVE KAMINSKI MATTHEW J & 160 EDGEWOOD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 KRISTINA L DRIVE 29400168 168 EDGEWOOD DRIVE LAPENTA BARBARA 168 EDGEWOODDRIVE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 2940R016 R016 EDGEWOOD DRIVE SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN OF 16 EDGEWOOD DRIVE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 88900025 25 TALBOT LANE HALE REALTY LLC P.O.BOX 300 MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000 88900050 50 TALBOT LANE SURI REALTY LLC 50 TALBOT LANE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06040-0000 65100280 280 NUTMEG ROAD HALE REALTY LLC P.O.BOX 300 MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000 65100310 310 NUTMEG ROAD CURRENT RESIDENT 0 23400052 52 CONNECTICUT AVE CONNECTICUT AVENUE 58 A CONNECTICUT SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 ASSOCIATES LL AVE 23400075 75 CONNECTICUT AVE HALE REALTY LLC P.O.BOX 300 MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000 7500015 15 BARBARA ROAD BOLDUC RUSSELL A&JOANNA 1 15 BARBARA ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 48600165 165 JUDY LANE MAURA JOHN W& KATHLEEN E 165 JUDY LANE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 7500039 39 BARBARA ROAD HILL ROBERT M 3636 59TH AVE BRADENTON FL 34210-0000 WEST 7500010 10 BARBARA ROAD STODDARD ROBERT E 10 BARBARA RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 48600175 175 JUDY LANE MARRYAT ALLAN F&JANICE E 175 JUDY LANE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 7500031 31 BARBARA ROAD RAMIREZ RUBEN &STACY 31 BARBARA RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 48600155 155 JUDY LANE PFAU DANIELJ 155 JUDY LANE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 'r 7500023 23 BARBARA ROAD RANDAllO FRANK J 23 BARBARA ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 0750R001 R001 BARBARA ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 i RECEIVED AIPR 15 7015 W" poNBERVANION CO�MMSSION Wetland's Assessment Report Carla's Pasta Expansion South Windsor, Connecticut Submitted to: The Dennis Group 1537 Main Street Springfield,MA 01103 Submitted by: GEI Consultants,Inc 455 Winding Brook Drive,Suite 201 Glastonbury,CT 06033 860-368-5300 April 2015 Project 1504970-*-1000 Kimberly Barber Senior Professional/Ecologist CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLANDS ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary ii 1. Introduction 1 2. Site Description 2 3. Wetland Functions and Values 3 3.1 Wetland Functions 3 3.1.1 Groundwater Recharge/Discharge 3 3.1.2 Flood Flow Alteration 4 3.1.3 Fish/Shellfish Habitat 4 3.1.4 Sediment/Toxicant/Pathogen Retention 4 3.1.5 Nutrient Removal/Retention/Transformation 4 3.1.6 Product Export 5 3.1.7 Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization 5 3.1.8 Wildlife Habitat 5 3.2 Wetland Values 6 3.2.1 Recreation (Consumptive & Non-consumptive) 6 3.2.2 Educational/Scientific Value 6 3.2.3 Uniqueness/Heritage 7 3.2.4 Visual Quality/Aesthetics 7 3.2.5 Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat 7 4. Conclusions g 5. Limitations 11 References 12 Figures I Existing Natural Resources 2 Proposed Site Plan Appendices A Wetlands Report—John Ianni B NRCS Soil Report C Site Photographs D Federal Wetlands Review Carla's Pasta(Site) South Windsor, Connecticut KB/ah hAwproc\project\dennis group,the\expansion of carlas pasta-geotech114170\environmental\£&v report\carla's pasta fv wetlands rpt 3-2012.docx G El co ultarts CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 Executive Summary A Wetland Functions and Values Assessment was conducted at 50 Talbot Lane in South Windsor, Connecticut("Site" or "subjectproperty"). The 16.62 acre Site includes the current J Carla's Pasta food manufacturing facility and a vacant parcel where construction of an expansion of the current facility is proposed. The vacant parcel consisted of successional open sandy habitat and forested habitat cover types as well as delineated inland wetlands. A Site-specific wetland delineation following State of Connecticut wetland delineation criteria was conducted by John Ianni of Highland Soils in May 2010. The delineation identified approximately 3.32 acres of state jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property. The wetland flags locating the extent of the wetland resource areas were surveyed by Design Professionals, Inc. (DPI)of South Windsor, Connecticut. Wetlands on the property had a range of functions and values. The emergent and forested wetland in the southern portion of the property provides wildlife habitat opportunities. It is our recommendation that the proposed development avoid direct impacts to this region of wetland resource located on the Site. This can be accomplished by use of best management practices, maintaining a buffer between the wetland and any development activity as possible. Approximately 0.79 acres of wetland, primarily a previously constructed drainage ditch adjacent to the current facility and within the Lot 5 property, will be filled based on the current expansion plan. Approximately 1.84 acres of constructed wetland, adjacent to and planned to enhance the wetlands in the southern portion of the property is planned as mitigation to the disturbance. Enhancement of the southern wetland region should be considered as mitigation requirements for additional potential impacts to wetland or wetland buffer regions on the Site. e GI Consultants �� CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 1 . Introduction The Wetlands Functions and Values for the wetlands located on the Site have been described in a qualitative, descriptive manner following the guidelines in the New England District Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE)guidance document The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement— Wetland Functions and Values A Descriptive Approach (ACOE 1999). The principal functions and values exhibited by the on-site wetlands are detailed below. The on- site wetland delineation was conducted by John Ianni, a Certified Soil Scientist from Highland Soils in May 2010 (Appendix A). Specific emphasis has been given to the wetlands located nearest or in the footprint of the proposed development. The field-mapped wetland boundary differs from the generalized wetland boundary identified by the Town of South Windsor wetland soils map (Figure I and Appendix B) due to site- specific and regional scale mapping of wetland soils. The Town of South Windsor wetland soils map identifies the location of wetland soils from 1:24,000 scale NRCS soil mapping. A NRCS Soil report for the subject property is provided in Appendix B. IQ u G E I ConSui[a:vts CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 2. Site Description Kimberly Bradley, Senior Ecologist and Wetland Scientist with GEI Consultants performed site surveys in March 2011, September 2011 in the initial planning stages for the Site. A follow-up site visit/survey was completed on April 8, 2015 to review site conditions and confirm that observed conditions reflected survey results from 2011. Wetlands across the Site, and specifically those located on the southeastern portion of the Site,had a range of vegetative cover. The wetland regions located around the perimeter of the vacant parcel boundary, identified on the current site plans as the"Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" were primarily a combination of forested and emergent wetlands dominated by the invasive common reed (Phragmites austrah; Photos 3, 4, 6 and 10, Appendix C). The wetland region south of the"Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" on the southern portion of the vacant parcel transitions from emergent wetland, to forested wetland dominated by common reed and sedge species,to regions dominated by cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea L.)herbaceous cover, and white birch (Betula papyrifer) canopy (Photo 5, Appendix C), and finally to forested wetland with moss ground cover, and canopy of white birch and maple species (Acer sp.). In addition to wetland cover types, the area of the Site directly adjacent to the current food manufacturing facility is maintained landscape cover(Photos 1 and 2, Appendix C). The vacant parcel consisted of successional open sandy habitat and forested habitat cover types (Photos 7, 8 and 9, Appendix C). Successional open sandy habitat extended primarily across the central and eastern portions of the vacant parcel. This is significant because this cover type is essential habitat for state listed endangered big sand tiger beetles (Cicindela formosa generosa). These beetles were documented on the Site by Chris Davis, a tiger beetle expert, in 2009, and confirmed present in August 2011. The Dennis Group,LLC representing Carla's Pasta has contracted Chris Davis and been working with CTDEEP on mitigation efforts throughout 2013-2014. It is anticipated that mitigation actions that have been completed to date meet the intent of mitigation as required by CTDEEP. G E I Consultants 2 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 3. Wetland Functions and Values 3.1 Wetland Functions Wetland Functions describe the inherent physical properties and processes that wetland habitats exhibit. The relative importance of these functions typically varies by wetland type, size, and position on the landscape. The relative importance of wetland functions represented by any particular wetland can also be affected by the land use and characteristics of the surrounding area and the greater watershed. The New England District ACOE guidance (ACOE 1999) describes wetland functions as: "Self-sustaining properties of a wetland ecosystem that exist in the absence of society. Functions result from both living and non-living components of a specific wetland These include all processes necessary for the self- maintenance of the wetland ecosystem such as primary production and nutrient cycling. Therefore,functions relate to the ecological significance of wetland properties without regard to subjective human values. " The following section outlines the key functions, and relative importance of these functions exhibited by the wetlands identified on the Site. Small wetland depressions exist on the southern portion of the property. These wetlands are small in size, with limited habitat, and dry conditions for the majority of the year resulting in limited function of primarily sediment, toxicant, and pathogen retention. 3.1.1 Groundwater Recharge/Discharge This function considers the potential for a wetland to serve as a groundwater recharge and/or discharge area. It refers to fundamental interaction between wetlands and aquifers, regardless of size or importance of either. The wetlands located on the subject property can be primarily classified as groundwater recharge wetlands. The wetlands and area are underlain by moderately well-drained udorthents(extended to approximately 15 ft. below ground surface) underlain by lacustrine deposits of poorly drained clay and silt. There is moderate permeability in the top 15 feet of soil, with limited permeability of the underlying material. The wetlands were not associated with sand and gravel aquifers. V E Consultants 3 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 3.1.2 Flood Flow Alteration This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland in reducing flood damage by attenuation of floodwaters for prolonged periods following precipitation events. The wetlands located on the subject property provide some ability to reduce flood flow given the relatively flat landscape on the subject parcel. These wetlands have the ability to intercept and retain surface flow, thereby providing limited storage and infiltration following precipitation events. Outflow from impervious surfaces in the vicinity of the current facility are directed to the drainage ditch wetlands and associated palustrine forested wetlands. These wetlands currently have the ability to intercept and retain storm water flow, thereby providing storage and infiltration following precipitation events that might cause local flooding. These wetlands represent capacity for this function. 3.1.3 Fish/Shellfish Habitat This function considers the effectiveness of seasonal or permanent water bodies associated with the wetland in question for fish and shellfish habitat. Only isolated emergent and forested wetlands with no direct connection to surface water bodies are present on the subject property, therefore these wetlands provide no capacity for this function. 3.1.4 Sediment/Toxicant/Pathogen Retention This function reduces or prevents degradation of water quality. It relates to the effectiveness of the wetland as a trap for sediments, toxicants, or pathogens. The watershed associated with the on-site wetlands does have potential sources of sediment and potential toxicants due to adjacent development and impervious pavement. The wetlands located in the"Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement"regions of the Site along the northern western, and southern property boundaries of the vacant parcel are designed to receive flow from adjacent impermeable surfaces. As such, the on-site wetlands have the capacity to effectively trap sediments/toxicants or pathogens. 3.1.5 Nutrient Removal/RetentionlTransformation This function relates to the effectiveness of the wetland to prevent adverse effects of excess nutrients entering aquifers or surface waters such as ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, or estuaries. E G `I Consultants 4 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 The watershed associated with the on-site wetlands does have potential sources of excess nutrients due to development and impervious pavement. The wetlands do not maintain deep or open water, dense emergent or woody vegetation, and ponded water is only present seasonally or during periods of high levels of precipitation. Finally,the wetland complex is not directly connected to a surface watercourse. Therefore, on-site wetlands have limited positive qualifiers for the function for nutrient removal. 3.1.6 Product Export This function relates to the effectiveness of the wetland to produce food or usable products for humans or other living organisms. The on-site wetlands have limited support of this wetland function, as wildlife food sources are present. Evidence of active wildlife use was observed in the form of observed scat, tracks, and individuals. A low level of diversity and abundance of vegetation including flowering plants that may be utilized for nectar gathering insects were identified. Economically or commercially viable products, including fish and shellfish are not found in the on-site wetlands. 3.1.7 Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization This function relates to the effectiveness of the wetland to stabilize stream banks and shorelines against erosion. As previously stated, the wetlands located on the subject property receives storm water runoff,however this is not expected to result in channelized flow. Therefore,the on-site wetlands provide limited capacity for this function. 3.1.8 Wildlife Habitat This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland to provide habitat for various types and populations of animals typically associated with wetlands and wetland edge. Both residents and migrants must be considered. The on-site wetlands may provide limited habitat for populations of resident and migrating species typically associated the wetlands, edge and early successional habitats. The wetland has been highly disturbed by human activity and invasive species are present throughout the subject property. The on-site wetlands may support reproductive amphibian populations, however, wetlands located in the areas identified as"Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" are dominated by disturbance tolerant species, and are fragmented between commercially developed areas. The wetlands located in the southern and northeastern boundaries of the property provide the greatest positive qualifiers for this function with G E I Consonants CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 adjacent forested cover providing potential for overland access by wildlife species. The adjacent upland successional sandy habitat provides essential habitat for the state listed endangered big sand tiger beetles which have been documented on the Site. 3.2 Wetland Values Wetland values represent the inherent benefits wetlands provide to society and human use of the landscape based on the functions that wetlands exhibit. These values take into account the relative importance that humans place on the functions that wetlands provide, such as flood protection and habitat for rare species. The New England District ACOE guidance describes wetland values as: "Benefits that derive from either one or more functions and the physical characteristics associated with a wetland. Most wetlands have corresponding societal value. This is recognized in various federal, state, and local wetland legislation that was enacted to protect these resources. The value of a particular wetland function, or combination thereof, is based on human judgment of the worth, merit, quality, or importance attributed to those functions. " The following section outlines the key values and relative importance of these values, exhibited by the wetlands identified on the Site. 3.2.1 Recreation (Consumptive & Non-consumptive) This value considers the effectiveness of the wetland and associated watercourses to provide recreational opportunities such as canoeing,boating,fishing,hunting and other active or passive recreational activities. Wetlands located on the property may provide very limited opportunities for passive recreation such as wildlife observation, with surrounding commercial and residential development. In addition,the wetlands are located on private property with no public access. There are no opportunities for boating, canoeing, or fishing in these intermittent inland wetlands. 3.2.2 Educational/Scientific Value This value considers the effectiveness of the wetland as a site for an"outdoor classroom" or a location for scientific study or research. The on-site wetlands exhibit limited positive qualifiers for this value. There is minimal potential to utilize portions of the subject property for educational purposes considering the presence of a rare species and wildlife habitat. Targeted management activities could be /�^+ C LOS V ` Consultants 6 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 utilized to maintain early successional habitats and to remove/control invasive species on the subj ect parcel. 3.2.3 Uniqueness/Heritage The value relates to the effectiveness of the wetland or its associated water bodies to produce certain special values. Special values may include such things as archaeological sites, unusual aesthetic quality, historical events, or unique plants, animals, or geologic features. The majority of the wetlands located on the vacant parcel were constructed wetlands serving the purpose of storm water drainage. The upland surrounding the parcel is dominated by commercial and industrial uses. In addition, the limited classes of wetland present on the vacant parcel restrict positive qualifiers for this value. The presence of state listed endangered big sand tiger beetles on the upland successional sandy portions of the Site exhibit positive qualifiers for this value, however this is unrelated to wetlands. 3.2.4 Visual Quality/Aesthetics This value relates to the visual and aesthetic qualities of the wetland. The on-site wetlands provide minimal visual and aesthetic qualities due to its location off main roads along Nutmeg Road. 3,2.5 Threatened& Endangered Species Habitat This value relates to the effectiveness of the wetland or associated water bodies to support threatened or endangered species. The on-site wetlands are not likely to support threatened or endangered species due to human impacts on the wetlands, and fragmentation between commercially developed areas. However,the CTDEEP has identified rare species and/or suitable habitat for rare species in close proximity to the Site. A CT DEEP Natural Diversity Database (NDDB)request was been submitted to confirm documented species and essential habitat in the vicinity of the Site. The upland open sandy successional cover type on the vacant parcel is essential habitat for state listed endangered big sand tiger beetles (Cicindela formosa generosa). These beetles were documented on the Site by Chris Davis, a tiger beetle expert, in 2009, and confirmed present in August 2011. The Dennis Group,LLC representing Carla's Pasta has contracted Chris Davis and been working with CTDEEP on mitigation efforts throughout 2013-2014. It is anticipated that mitigation actions that have been completed to date meet the intent of mitigation as required by CTDEEP. LOW; G EI CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 4. Conclusions Wetlands on the property had a range of functions and values. The emergent and forested wetland in the northeastern and southern portions of the Site maintain wildlife habitat. A preliminary Site development plan provided by DPI shows that this region of wetlands with positive function and value attributes will be avoided, while some regions of wetland will be impacted on the Site. Approximately 0.79 acres of wetland, primarily a previously constructed drainage ditch adjacent to the current facility and along the southern boundary of the Lot 5 property, will be filled based on the current expansion plan(Figure 2). These wetlands were determined to be state regulated and do not fall under federal regulation of the Army Corp on Engineers (Appendix Q. The current impacts of human activity, presence of invasive species, and fragmented nature of this area of wetland result in the limited positive qualifiers for function and value. The primary functions of the wetland are flood flow alteration and sediments,toxicants, or pathogens retention. Construction of 1.84 acres of wetlands contiguous with more extensive wetlands and wildlife habitat located in the southern portion of the property, along with site enhancement including control of invasive species, are proposed as mitigation to the disturbance. DPI and GEI held a meeting with South Windsor Town Conservation officer Jeff Folger on August 26, 2011. It is recommended, in conjunction with the recommendations of Jeff Folger, that the proposed development avoid direct impacts, as possible,to the region of wetland resource located on the southern boundary of the Site. This can be accomplished by use of best management practices, and maintaining a buffer between the wetland and any development activity as possible. Enhancement of the southern wetland region should be considered as mitigation requirements for additional potential impacts to wetland or wetland buffer regions of the Site. Invasive species control on the Site could be considered a positive mitigation effort, specifically with the presence of common reed, as well as autumn olive present across a high percentage 20-30%, with the consideration of the high level of open sandy upland portions of the Site (Photos 3 and 7, Appendix Q. Control measures for common reed in wetland environments can be difficult; however, efforts based on a strategy developed with Jeff Folger are currently underway. The wetland mitigation area is proposed to include a range of depths to provide some open water habitat, and will be seeded with native wetland vegetation (e.g. New England Wet Mix by New England Wetland Plants)with additional contributions for the native seed bank in the adjacent wetlands. The seed mx will include: Lurid Sedge, (Carex lurida), Blunt Broom Sedge, (Carex scoparia), Blue Vervain, (Verbena hastata), Hop Sedge, (Carex lupulina), V ` CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 Green Bulrush, (Scirpus atrovirens),Redtop Panic Grass, (Panicum rigidulum), Tufted Hairgrass, (Deschampsia cespitosa), Tickseed Sunflower/Bur Marigold, (Bidens aristosa), Creeping Spike Rush, (Eleocharis palustris), Soft Rush, (Juncus effusus),Fringed Sedge, (Carer crinita), Square Stemmed Monkey Flower, (Mimulus ringens), Swamp Aster, (Aster puniceus), Boneset, (Eupatorium perfoliatum), Rattlesnake Grass, (Glyceria canadensis), Swamp Milkweed, (Asclepias incarnata), Common Sneezeweed, (Helenium autumnale), Ditch Stonecrop, (Penthorum sedoides). Catch basins and slopes planned for the Site will be redirected to a vegetated swale planted with native vegetation (e.g Retention Basin Wildlife Mix By Ernst Conservation Seed which includes: Fox sedge, (Carex vulpinoidea),Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum), Virginia Wildrye, (Elymus virginicus), Lurid Sedge, (Carex lurida), Autumn Bentgrass, (Agrostis perennans), Blue Vervain, (Verbena hastata), Soft Rush, (Juncus effusus), Hop Sedge (Carex lupulina), Green Bulrush, (Scirpus atrovirens), Wool Grass, (Scirpus cyperinus)Flat Topped White Aster(Aster umbellatus), Square Stemmed Monkeyflower(Mimulus ringens), and Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata). Additionally,the wetland mitigation area planned south of the proposed building expansion should include a diversity of wetland plants ranging from the herbaceous plants listed above to wetland shrub species such as northern arrowwood(Viburnum dentatum), silky dogwood(Cornus amomum), winterberry holly(Ilex verticillata), and swamp azalea(Rhododendron viscosum). Upland areas disturbed to the south of the new facility could be planted with conservation mix (example provided from NE Wetland Plants (Species include: Virginia Wild Rye, (Elymus virginicus), Little Bluestein, (Schizachyrium scoparium),Big Bluestem, (Andropogon gerardii), Creeping Red Fescue, (Festuca rubra), Switch Grass, (Panicum virgatum),Partridge Pea, (Chamaecrista fasciculata),Deer Tongue, (Panicum clandestinum), Indian Grass, (Sorghastrum nutans), Ox Eye Sunflower, (Heliopsis helianthoides), Common Milkweed, (Asclepias syriaca), Spotted Joe Pye Weed, (Eupatorium maculatum), Grass Leaved Goldenrod, (Euthamia graminifolia),Blue Vervain, (Verbena hastata),New England Aster, (Aster novae-angliae),Early Goldenrod, (Sohdago juncea)). Shrubby vegetation including winterberry holly (Ilex verticillata) should be considered in transition areas, as it provides wildlife habitat and winter a native food source for birds. The upland open sandy successional cover type on the vacant parcel is essential habitat for state listed endangered big sand tiger beetles (Cicindela formosa generosa). Theis area will be removed with the proposed expansion. A meeting was held to discuss the endangered beetles on December 23, 2011 with representatives of the Department of Economic and Community Development(CT DECD), CT DEEP Wildlife Division, Carla's Pasta, Chris Davis, The Dennis Group,DPI, and GEI. As described above, The Dennis Group and Chris Davis developed a beetle mitigation plan that was submitted to CT DEEP Wildlife Division based on the outcome of this meeting. Mitigation actions have been conducted throughout 6 Conu[atsG C I 9 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 2013-2014. It is anticipated that mitigation actions that have been completed to date meet the intent of mitigation as required by CTDEEP. GE 10 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 5. Limitations This report was prepared for the use of Carla's Pasta and the project design team, exclusively. Our evaluation was based on project information provided to us at the time of this report and may require modification if there are any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed project. Our professional services for this project have been p p J performed in accordance with generally accepted ecological and wetland practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The recommendations in this report are based in part on data obtained from limited observations at the Site. Observations of other living organisms and functions and values may be observed during other seasons and times. 1110 V E I Consui[anFs 11 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT APRIL 2015 References Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement— Wetland Functions and Values A Descriptive Approach. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. December 2010. Map of State and Federal Listed Species and Significant Natural Communities of South Windsor. . Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,Natural Resources Center, June 1982. Atlas of the Public Water Supply Sources and Drainage Basins of Connecticut,DEP Bulletin No. 4. Knobel, E. 1977. Field guide to the grasses, sedges and rushes of the United States. Dover, New York. 83 pp. Peterson, R.T. and M. McKenny. 1968. Wildflowers: Northeastern/North-central North America. A Peterson Field Guide. New York,New York. Petrides, G.A. 1972. Trees and Shrubs. A Peterson Field Guide. New York,New York. j^ V V `1 Consultants 12 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT MARCH 2O12 Figures GConsultants N �I y t � I�FIf F,;Ji '�9 ^y4 I R Ilyll ar I d'I ,i ti is ' w x I P 5 SOURCE: , 1. AERIAL IMAGERY FROM BING MAPS 02008 MICROSOFT EXPANSION OF CARLA'S PASTA CORPORATION ACCESSED THROUGH ARCGIS ONLINE 0 100 200 400 SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT (http://www.arcgis,com) G E I cone m:ne> 2. PROPERTY BOUNDARY FROM AUTOCAD FILE PROVIDED BY SCALE,FEET THE DENNIS GROUP, LLC. DESIGN PROFESSIONALS,UNDATED. SPRINGFIELD,MASSACHUSETTS Project 114170 Path:J:\ProjectsMennis Group,The\Carlas Pasta South Windsor\Site Conditions,mxd Fl QyM9�WmfM\�IiC+R �+amcW IbudYN�681fMt lal Sw839 a62l RA ISA L,M d,DMm+ ay !�8 i5>4 8 a 21 s m s m A •>•g•„- _. pp I^aa� s m — z ° A0 01> IFFII W1 S BLS 19 R Ag �mz t l $g .y \ I l m 11L LIM mi n `�•\ � \\� 1�11 I�I�� /+ � m t�'�fRlYf j � `` �I� f 11 I ��'�' �\ NF �P I ry411h r � Ili _ I I liii li \ \�\\�\� �"\\#,d; •�, ` � "� `i �liluridl l' y iiY ` \ Ilrl+i4' p(yp \ 1 \"1 I�!I /1 1 / , r 141 1I II/I I +Ul M r / 1 I i`--'"—�,��illr+i fill %l, h 4l I m�T -o nli/a I I +7 11 a� I I I : I I \ ", > \ \� . i \ \ y# ��., Fi � 1 T t `\ Ijl I+II 1 I mm �•��2c'. II 1(< \\ \\ I + III Ij GI I I I I�— PA tia�R 4 I 1 `/III il! n� \� �r G, Ill 11 I i I IIIII I l lgi , \#\ r��\\l\t•, i � , !�I w� I a�� ,fl ,� nl 111 \ � I I l l t i 1 I 1 \tax"`•`t\ \i\`, \,, .� I I � 1 tllilal \ _ 'iiiill i i I i I �i I � I I + I :\�• �i,\ i \>\!t� \ , � % I I / IYI 111f i u 1 1111111 11 ) I I 1 t a I \- i .\t,•x\ \i l l I I{1ir11 1 x It II I I I i \ \ r l 1 r Iu 11 _ I I r I �4• itI I i ��1 \ \` ,R�t�{jt'��P\�e�\� \\`t�,\� 11 ( i i /''� �I 11 l\� x i I'II�I-a ,,✓' I 1 1 l r I� ITI ilVU 9 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT MARCH 2O12 Appendix A Wetlands Report —John lanni kk 16 L C.—Itants HIGHLAND SOILSLLC March 21,2011 Larry Geissler,Jr.L.S. Design Professionals,Inc. 425 Sullivan Avenue South lVmdsor,CT 06074 RE. HALEREALTY,LLC CONWECTICUT AVENUE&NUTMEG ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CT Dear Larry: The inland wetland boundaries on the above-referenced property were field delineated on May 4, 2610. The wetlands were field delineated in accordance with the standards of the National Cooperative Soil Survey and the definition of wetlands as found in the Connecticut General Statutes,Chapter 440, Section 22A-38. I have reviewed the plans prepared by your office and have found the representation of the field delineated wetlands to be substantially correct. If you have any questions,or require additional information,please call me at(860) 742-5868. Very truly yours, John P.lanni,M.S. Professional Soil Scientist CPESC cAdocuments and settings\highland soi1s\1et2010\1etcert49.doc P.O.Box 337,Storrs,Connecticut 06268 • (860)742-5868 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR. CONNECTICUT MARCH 2O12 Appendix B NRCS Soil Report MIN G E USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of O NRCS Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State State of Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Connecticut Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Carla's Pasta Site, 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor, CT a ti February 3, 2012 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers,students, and specialists in recreation,waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,protect,or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses.The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning,onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments(http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/)and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center(http://offices.se.egov.usda.gov/locator/app? agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist(http://soils.usda.gov/contact/ state_offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads.Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields.A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S.Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,sexual orientation,genetic information,political beliefs,reprisal,or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information(Braille,large print,audiotape,etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202)720-2600(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination,write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,Washington, D.C.20250-9410 or call (800)795-3272 (voice) or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 HowSoil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap..................................................................................................................7 SoilMap................................................................................................................8 Legend..................................................................................................................9 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10 MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Stateof Connecticut........................................................................................12 13—Walpole sandy loam............................................................................12 15—Scarboro muck.....................................................................................13 21 A—Ninigret and Tisbury soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes...............................15 306—Udorthents-Urban land complex........................................................17 308—Udorthents, smoothed.......................................................................18 References............................................................................................................20 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made y to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area.They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness,length, and shape of the slopes;the general pattern of drainage;the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock.They observed and described many soil profiles.A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently,soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate,water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses(USDA,2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform,a soil scientist develops a concept,or model,of how they were formed.Thus, during mapping,this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change.To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless,these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied.They noted soil color,texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots,reaction,and other features that enable them to identify soils.After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties,the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy,the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile.After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area,they compared the 5 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components;the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions.Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping,intensity of mapping,design of map units,complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements,such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand,silt,clay,salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components.The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component.Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress,samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests.Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources,such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area,they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit.Aerial photographs show trees,buildings,fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest,a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map.Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map o M M 699140 699210 699280 699350 699420 699490 699560 699630 699700 41°49 46' rca 41°49'45° h �i(V �of•�al i 4'f� '.V 1n+a s��il f h. o � v � tf. +i O o c v M M � I � i'I f i 1 M V � O O N N R R O O N N M M 41°49'32" v 41°49 32' 699140 699210 699280 699350 699420 699490 699560 699630 699700 io Map Scale:1:3,050 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet M IN IV Meters 0 40 80 160 240 N ,`\V Feet r 0 150 300 600 900 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Very Stony Spot Map Scale: 1:3,050 if printed on A size(8.5"X 11")sheet. Area of Interest(AOI) Wet Spot Soils The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000. y Other E:] Soil Map Units Special Point Features Special Line Features Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Gully ky Blowout Short Steep Slope Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause ® Borrow Pit misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line X. Other placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting Clay Spot Political Features soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. # Closed Depression *, Cities X Gravel Pit Water Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Gravelly Spot Streams and Canals Landfill Transportation Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service +t Lava Flow +++ Rails Web Soil Survey URL: hftp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 18N NAD83 Marsh or swamp �+ Interstate Highways 9. Mine or Quarry - US Routes This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of � Miscellaneous Water Major Roads the version date(s)listed below. 4 Perennial Water rt!w Local Roads Soil Survey Area: State of Connecticut Survey Area Data: Version 10, Mar 31,2011 Rock Outcrop -I- Saline Spot Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 8/14/2006 Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting Sinkhole of map unit boundaries may be evident. Slide or Slip p Sodic Spot Spoil Area O Stony Spot Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend State of Connecticut(CT600)- Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 Percent of A01 13 Walpole sandy loam 1.6 9.2% 15 Scarboro muck 1.4 8.2% 21A Ninigret and Tisbury soils,0 to 5 percent slopes 1.5 8.4% 306 Udorthents-Urban land complex 0.0 0.0% 308 Udorthents,smoothed 12.8 74.1% Totals for Area of Interest 17.3 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils.Within a taxonomic classthere are precisely defined limits forthe properties ofthe soils.On the landscape, however,the soils are natural phenomena,and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus,the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes.Consequently,every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management.These are called noncontrasting, or similar,components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management.These are called contrasting,or dissimilar,components.They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area,the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each.A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that itwas impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements.The delineation of such segments 10 Custom Soil Resource Report on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition,thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope,stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use.On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series.The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example,Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas.Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar.Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform.An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas,or it can be made up of all of them.Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report State of Connecticut 13—Walpole sandy loam Map Unit Setting Elevation:0 to 1,200 feet Mean annual precipitation:43 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:45 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period. 140 to 185 days Map Unit Composition Walpole and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Walpole Setting Landform: Depressions on terraces, drainageways on terraces Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite and/ or schist and/or gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table.About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity. Low(about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):4w Typical profile 0 to 1 inches:Moderately decomposed plant material 1 to 7 inches:Sandy loam 7 to 21 inches:Sandy loam 21 to 25 inches:Gravelly sandy loam 25 to 41 inches:Stratified very gravelly coarse sand to loamy fine sand 41 to 65 inches:Stratified very gravelly coarse sand to loamy fine sand Minor Components Hinckley Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform.- Eskers, kames, outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape.Convex Merrimac Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Kames, outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape: Linear 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Across-slope shape: Linear Sudbury Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform:Outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Ninigret Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave Scarboro Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Depressions, drainageways, terraces Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Raypol Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Depressions, drainageways Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Raynham Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions, drainageways Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave 15—Scarboro muck Map Unit Setting Elevation:0 to 1,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 43 to 56 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 185 days Map Unit Composition Scarboro and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Scarboro Setting Landform: Depressions, drainageways, terraces Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material:Sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite and/ or schist and/or gneiss 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 6 inches Frequency of flooding. None Frequency of ponding:Occasional Available water capacity: Low(about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 5w Typical profile 0 to 12 inches. Muck 12 to 17 inches: Loamy sand 17 to 31 inches:Stratified sand to loamy fine sand 31 to 72 inches:Stratified very gravelly coarse sand to loamy fine sand Minor Components Walpole Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions on terraces, drainageways on terraces Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Raypol Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions, drainageways Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Natchaug Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform. Depressions Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Catd en Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Windsor Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Karnes, outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Sudbury Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape: Linear 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Timakwa Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Depressions Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Unnamed, silt loam surface Percent of map unit: 1 percent Unnamed, sandy loam surface Percent of map unit: 1 percent 21A—Ninigret and Tisbury soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation:0 to 1,200 feet Mean annual precipitation:43 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:45 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 185 days Map Unit Composition Ninigret and similar soils:60 percent Tisbury and similar soils:25 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Ninigret Setting Landform:Outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material. Coarse-loamy eolian deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite and/or schist and/or gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low(about 5.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):2w Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Fine sandy loam 8 to 96 inches: Fine sandy loam 15 Custom Soil Resource Report 16 to 26 inches: Fine sandy loam 26 to 65 inches: Stratified very gravelly coarse sand to loamy fine sand Description of Tisbury Setting Landform: Outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Coarse-silty eolian deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite and/or schist and/or gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):2w Typical profile 0 to 8 inches:Silt loam 8 to 18 inches.Silt loam 18 to 26 inches:Silt loam 26 to 60 inches:Stratified very gravelly sand to loamy sand Minor Components Merrimac Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Karnes, outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Agawam Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform:Outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Enfield Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Haven Percent of map unit.2 percent Landform:Outwash plains,terraces Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape: Linear 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Sudbury Percent of map unit 2 percent Landform: Outwash plains, terraces Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Raypol Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions, drainageways Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Walpole Percent of map unit. 1 percent Landform: Depressions on terraces, drainageways on terraces Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Unnamed, red parent material Percent of map unit: 1 percent 306—Udorthents-Urban land complex Ma Unit Setting g Elevation:0 to 2,000 feet Mean annual precipitation:43 to 56 inches Mean annual air temperature:45 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 185 days Map Unit Composition Udorthents and similar soils:50 percent Urban land: 35 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Udorthents Setting Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Drift Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to high(0.00 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 54 to 72 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):3e Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Loam 5 to 21 inches: Gravelly loam 21 to 80 inches:Very gravelly sandy loam Description of Urban Land Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):8 Typical profile 0 to 6 inches:Material Minor Components Unnamed, undisturbed soils Percent of map unit: 8 percent Udorthents,wet substratum Percent of map unit: 5 percent Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Rock outcrop Percent of map unit:2 percent 308—Udorthents, smoothed Map Unit Setting Elevation:0 to 2,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 43 to 56 inches Mean annual air temperature:45 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 185 days Map Unit Composition Udorthents and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Udorthents Setting Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches 18 Custom Soil Resource Report Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to high (0.00 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 54 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Loam 5 to 21 inches:Gravelly loam 21 to 80 inches:Very gravelly sandy loam Minor Components Udorthents,wet substratum Percent of map unit: 7 percent Unnamed, undisturbed soils Percent of map unit: 7 percent Urban land Percent of map unit. 5 percent Rock outcrop Percent of map unit. 1 percent 19 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO).2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing.24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M.,V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt,G.W.,and L.M.Vasilas,editors.Version 6.0,2006.Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995.Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 1999.Soil taxonomy:A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. hftp://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. hftp://soils.usda.gov/ Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985.Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. hftp://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. hftp://vvww.glti.nres.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. hftp://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://soils.usda.gov/ 20 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. 21 CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT MARCH 2O12 Appendix C Site Photographs G E I co�s�tart GEI Consultants, Inc. ECOLOGICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT _- Photo No. 1 Photographer:K.Bradley Direction:West — "T Date:3/16/2011 Description: Back portion of current facility,landscaped and paved cover. GEI Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT Photo No.2 .- Photographer:K Bradley Direction:Northeast Date:3/16/2011 Description: Back portion of current facility,landscaped cover. GEI �� CEI Consultants, Inc. ECOLOGICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT Photo No. 3 Photographer:K. Barber Direction: West Date:9/14/2011 Description: "Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" area adjacent to the current facility.Dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis). G E I Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT Photo No.4 Photographer:K. Bradley Direction: East Date:9/14/2011 Description: "Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" area along the southeast boundary of the vacant site. G E I _,. GEI Consultants, Inc. ECOLOGICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT Photo No.5 Photographer:K. Bradley Direction:South Date:9/14/2011 Description: Forested wetland along the southern boundary of the Site. G E I *; :} Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT Photo No.6 Photographer:K. Bradley Direction:Northwest ' - Date:9/14/2011 Description:Culvert located along western boundary of the site in the "Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" area. GEI GEI Consultants, Inc. ECOLOGICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD S f- Site: Carla's Pasta Extension { 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT Photo No.7 Photographer: K. Bradley Direction:South Date:9/14/2011 Description: Boundary habitat between open sandy areas and forested sections of the property. G E I Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,Cr Photo No.8 Photographer:K. Bradley Direction:Southwest Date:9/14/2011 Description:Boundary habitat between open sandy areas and forested sections of the property. GEI ,.., GEI Consultants, Inc. ECOLOGICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT Photo No.9 Photographer:K. Bradley Direction:East/Southeast Date:4/8/2015 Description:Access road to sandy upland portion of the property proposed for expansion. 1 GEI _ Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,CT Photo No.10 Photographer:K. Bradley Direction:Southwest Date:4/8/2015 Description:Drainage swale along the southwest portion of the property proposed for expansion. GEI . !' GEI Consultants, Inc. ECOLOGICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD 1 l +k Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. < South Windsor,CT Photo No.11 Photographer:K. Bradley Direction:South Date:4/6/2015 Description:"Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" area proposed to be filled along the southeast boundary of the vacant site. GEI ,r • .j Site: Carla's Pasta Extension 280 Nutmeg Rd. South Windsor,Cr Photo No.12 Photographer:K. Bradley Direction:Southwest Date:4/8/2015 Description:"Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" area adjacent to the current facility. G E I CARLA'S PASTA EXPANSION WETLAND FUNCTIONS & VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT MARCH 2O12 Appendix D Federal Wetlands Review Carla's Pasta(Site) South Windsor, Connecticut (�• LO V `I C—utt—ts February 5, 2010 ems% E I Ccnsultarrtz Mr. Brian Morden, The Dennis Group, LLC 1537 Main Street, Springfield, MA 01103 Rea Federal Wetlands Review Carla's Pasta(Site)South Windsor,Connecticut Dear Mr. Morden: GEI Consultants, Inc (GEI) was contracted by The Dennis Group, LLC to conduct a review of a wetland region(drainage swale)located on the property of Carla's Pasta, 50 Talbot Lane, South Windsor, Cormecticut,to determine if the wetland would come under Federal jurisdiction. Kimberly Barber Bradley conducted a site visit of February 4,2009 and photo documented the approximately 600 foot wetland region located along the southern property boundary. Wetland soils maps available through the Town of South Windsor and the CTDEP Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB)Map of South Windsor were reviewed to determine site conditions and if the site was proximate to any mapped threatened and endangered species or significant natural community areas. The wetland region mapped on the site is an intennittent drainage swale and does not appear to be a perennial waterbody. This type of drainage feature would not maintain relatively permanent flow. The wetland does not appear to have a significant flow into downstream traditional navigable waters. In accordance with the Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.) and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v Untied States (126 S. Ct. 2208(2006)), it is our opinion that this wetland would not come under Federal jurisdiction. Upon review of the CTDEP Natural Diversity Database Map for the Town of South Windsor, it was identified that the Site is located on the edge of a mapped region of listed species and natural communities(Attachment 1). It is recommended that if development is planned within the mapped shaded region, a Natural Diversity Data Base Request form be completed and submitted to the CT DEP prior to planned activities. If significant natural resources are identified in close proximity to the proposed activity, it could warrant CT DEP oversight and potential Federal agency involvement. Copies of the CT NDDB Map,photos from the site visit, and the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers memorandum concerning the Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. Untied States are attached to this letter, v.v_v C i co n s u i cul t s.Cci ut GEI Consultanrs,Inc. 455 Winding Brook Drive,Suite 201,Glastonbury,Cunuecticut 06033 860.368.5300 fax:860.368.5307 Mr. Brian Morden The Dennis Group,LLC, Springfield,MA February 5, 2010 Page 2 E I co�,�:;itants Sincerely, L GEI Consultants, Inc Frederick W. Johnson,LEP Kiinberl�Barber Bradley Senior Vice President Staff Ecologist %tiFs"«,s,eicnu>u11ilM,.c('III GEIConsultants.Inc. 455 Winding Brook Qr�e_Suite 201,Gl:istonbur),,Connecticut 05033 860.368.5300 lax:860.368.530' e on k _ J/ 1 z / Attachment 1. Selection of CTDEP NDDB Map for South Windsor, CT identifying the Carla's Pasta property is located within a shaded area, indicating a known occurance of listed species or sigficant natural communities in the vicinity of the site. r } r t � _� } � ' � � ,� �AVJ'`,� if �}� �•� �i�1�•�..` ��r-:'Ftif'', 4`t� r�� ,11 il'l, 1 tli r1:1� t '�y � , trl+ Jg D' t}(,J•� 1 +{" J� _ WA lot k 4IP`s r ii- s i `t??�� t £ i •t: �� p5{fit ,. S ti 3 ' �� T�� ly' s � w� td�E `� {t+t�t. �� `3 c-� - -i � t @ yu-.-.,-f I s��•9 � i¢ �� t: f � _ 1� � t�. 1114 NEC 0,3 07 zdE. 4 1 ai F. P { t€ y• i t r 1 Y { ; got s q. r E �AVO i rr 1p a r• 1 # r5 I + 7 .i1 YS f'�i,� �; `:�� 14�t�� 6F ' s � r,} + vs` 01 7 1 (* 3 f � � Etf -�jl E Ism - l.+"'C .f� Sd `i�.l t{LfrT,�srjl"" _ ',�� i 5 i _ .' 14 _ • 1 l, RIP{ Y+i g t+y{{1+'}' I t ,��Fr4 +_{ 1 w -Ail iEr �)(� }�S5{{ '1 II 1, r-Ai i l r 't• � €�'i�4„ ��{��s 1ii f tl I, � E :l,zll _ t ' 4 S ��> �r. }'I�. {j 'I.�lil # S �i� s+_lrt) I i f r AJ ( ' 4' c 1 HY if lw l i • e e • • s - o - es e. e ' e se- tEtYs TVA .f. � Jlj} $ � JE } 4= a• � S' it' ±�ra '., � r#i � -'rJ - �+a '. tFill " '�I� r} s ( 6 �;' �► �i�- � r 'a-� � r�E 1 } 1�Jai � ,�iC�� .�54 Jai - _ 1 � it ° � a`'�`� ��►� � � t ED Srq��- Clean Water Act Jurisdiction s s Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision In Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States 4i PROI 4 This memorandum' provides guidance to EPA regions and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ["Corps"] districts implementing the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (herein referred to simply as "Rapanos") which address the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act.3 The chart below summarizes the key points contained in this memorandum. This reference tool is not a substitute for the more complete discussion of issues and guidance furnished throughout the memorandum. Summary of Key Points The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: • Traditional navigable waters • Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters • Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally(e.g,,typically three months) • Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: • Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent e Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non- navigable tributary The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features: • Swales or erosional features(e.g.,gullies,small washes characterized by low volume,infrequent,or short duration flow) • Ditches(including roadside ditches)excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows: • A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical,physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters • Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors 1 This guidance incorporates revisions to the 1 PAJA.rrny Memorandum originally issued on June 6,2007, after careful consideration of public comments received and based on the agencies'experience in implementing the.Rapanos decision. 126 S,Ct.2208(2006). 33 U.S.C.§1251 et s�Mc. December02,2008 dean Water Act Jurisdiction Back-eround Congress enacted the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act") "to restore and maintain the chemical,physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.,A One of the mechanisms adopted by Congress to achieve that purpose is a prohibition on the discharge of any pollutants, including dredged or fill material, into "navigable waters" except in compliance with other specified sections of the Act.S In most cases, this means . compliance with a permit issued pursuant to CWA §402 or §404. The Act defines the term"discharge of a pollutant"as"any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source[,]"b and provides that"[t)he term `navigable waters' means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas[,]." In Rapanos, the Supreme Court addressed where the Federal government can apply the Clean Water Act, specifically by determining whether a wetland or tributary is -a "water of the United States." The justices issued five separate opinions in Rapanos (one plurality opinion, two concurring opinions, and two dissenting opinions), with no single opinion commanding a majority of the Court. The Rapanos Decision Four justices, in a plurality opinion authored by Justice Scalia, rejected the argument that the term "waters of the United States" is limited to only those waters that are navigable in the traditional sense and their abutting wetlands.$ However, the plurality concluded that the agencies' regulatory authority should extend only to "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water" connected to traditional navigable waters, and to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to" such relatively permanent waters.9 Justice Kennedy did not join the plurality's opinion but instead authored an opinion concurring in the judgment vacating and remanding the cases to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.'() Justice Kennedy agreed with the plurality that the statutory term "waters of the United States" extends beyond water bodies that are traditionally considered navigable.t 1 Justice Kennedy, however, found the plurality's interpretation of the scope of the CWA to be "inconsistent with the Act's text, structure, and purpose[,]" and he instead presented a different standard for evaluating CWA jurisdiction over wetlands and other water bodies.12 Justice Kennedy concluded that wetlands are"waters 4 33 U.S.C.§ 1251(a). s 33 U.S.C.§ 1311(a), §1362(12)(A). 6 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12)(A) 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). See also 33 C.F.R.§328.3(a)and 40 CF.R. §230.3(s). s Id.at 2220. 9 Id.at 2225-27. '0 fd.at 2236-52. While Justice Kennedy concurred in the Court's decision to vacate and remand the cases to the Sixth Circuit, his basis for remand was limited to the question of"whether the specific wetlands at issue possess a significant nexus with navigable waters." 126 S.Ct,at 2252. In contrast,the plurality remanded the cases to determine both"whether the ditches and drains near each wetland are `waters,"'ar�i "whether the wetlands in question are`adjacent'to these`waters'in the sense of possessing a continuous surface connection...." Id. at 2235. " Id. at 2241. ^ 1z Id at 2246. December 02, 2008 2 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction of the United States" "if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as `navigable.' When, in contrast, wetlands' effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term `navigable waters.',13 Four justices,in a dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stevens, concluded that EPA's and the Corps' interpretation of"waters of the United States"was a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act.14 When there is no majority opinion in a Supreme Court case, controlling legal principles may be derived from those principles espoused by five or more justices.ls Thus, regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a water body if either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard is satisfied,16 Since Rapanos, the United States has filed pleadings in a number of cases interpreting the decision in this manner. The agencies are issuing, this memorandum in recognition of the fact that EPA regions and Corps districts need guidance to ensure that jurisdictional determinations, permitting actions, and other relevant actions are consistent with the decision and supported by the administrative record. Therefore, the agencies have evaluated the Ra anos opinions to identify those waters that are subject to CWA jurisdiction under the reasoning of a majority of the justices. This approach is appropriate for a guidance document. The agencies will continue to monitor implementation of the Rgpanos decision in the field and recognize that further consideration of jurisdictional issues, including clarification and definition of key terminology, may be appropriate in the future, either through issuance of additional guidance or through rulemaking, t3 Id.at 2248. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion explaining his agreement with the plurality, See 126 S, Ct,at 2235-36, 14 Id. at 2252-65. Justice Breyer wrote a separate dissenting opinion explaining his agreement with Justice Stevens'dissent. Se &126 S.Ct.at 2266, 15 See Marks v.United States,430 U.S. 188, 193-94(1977);Waters v.Churchill, 511 U.S, 661,685(1994) (Sauter,J.,concurring)(analyzing the points of agreement between plurality,concurring,and dissenting opinions to identify the legal"test... that lower courts should apply,"under Marks,as the holding of the Court);cf. League of United Latin American Citizens v.Perry, 126 S.Ct.2594,2607(2006)(analyzing concurring and dissenting opinions in a prior case to identify a legal conclusion of a majority of the Court); Alexander v. Sandoval,532 U.S.275,281-282(2001)(same). 16 126 S.Ct. at 2265(Stevens,J.,dissenting)("Given that all four justices who have joined this opinion would uphold the Corps'jurisdiction in both of these cases—and in all other cases in which either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's test is satisfied--on remand each of the judgments should be reinstated if either of those tests is met,")(emphasis in original). The agencies recognize that the Eleventh Circuit,in United States v.McWane,Inc.,et al.,505 RM 1208(11`I'Cir.2007),has concluded that the Kennedy standard is the sole method of determining CWA jurisdiction in that Circuit. The Supreme Court denied the government's petition for a writ of certiorari on December 1,2008. December 02, 2008 3 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Agency Guidance17 To ensure that jurisdictional determinations, administrative enforcement actions, and other relevant agency actions are consistent with the Rapanos decision, the agencies in this guidance address which waters are subject to CWA § 404 jurisdiction.18 Specifically, this guidance identifies those waters over which the agencies will assert jurisdiction categorically and on a case-by-case basis, based on the reasoning of the Rapanos opinions.19 EPA and the Corps will continually assess and review the application of this guidance to ensure nationwide consistency, reliability, and predictability in our administration of the statute. 1. Traditional Navigable Waters (i.e.,"(a)(]) Waters')and Their Adjacent Wetlands Key Points • The agencies will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters,which includes all the waters described in 33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)(1),and 40 C.F.R. §230.3 (s)(1). • The agencies will assert jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters,including over adjacent wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters. EPA and the Corps will continue to assert jurisdiction over"[a]ll waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or 1' The CWA provisions and regulations described in this document contain legally binding requirements. This guidance does not substitute for those provisions or regulations,nor is it a regulation itself it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA,the Corps,or the regulated community,and may not apply to a particular situation depending on the circumstances. Any decisions regarding a particular water will be based on the applicable statutes,regulations,and case law. Therefore,interested persons are free to raise questions about the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a articular situation and EPA pp g p and/or the Corps will consider whether or not the recommendations or interpretations of this guidance are appropriate in that situation based on the statutes,regulations,and case law. This guidance focuses only on those provisions of the agencies'regulations at issue in Rapanos--33 C.F.R. §§328.3(a)(1),(a)(5),and(a)(7);40 C.F.R. §§230.3(s)(1),(s)(5),and(s)(7). This guidance does not address or affect other subparts of the agencies'regulations,or response authorities, relevant to the scope of jurisdiction under the CWA. In addition,because this guidance is issued by both the Corps and EPA,which jointly administer CWA §404,it does not discuss other provisions of the CWA, including§§ 311 and 402,that differ in certain respects from §404 but share the definition of"waters of the United States." Indeed,the plurality opinion in Rapanos noted that",..there is no reason to suppose that our construction today significantly affects the enforcement of§1342...The Act does not forbid the `addition of any pollutant directly to navigable waters from any point source,'but rather the`addition of any pollutant to navigable waters."'(emphasis in original) 126 S.Ct.2208,2227. EPA is considering whether to provide additional guidance on these and other provisions of the CWA that may be affected by the Rapanos decision. "' Cn 2001,the Supreme Court held that use of"isolated"non-navigable intrastate waters by migratory birds was not by itself a sufficient basis for the exercise of federal regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA. See Solid Waste Ageaov of Northern Cook County(SWANCQ v. U.S.Army Corps of En id_531 U.S. 159(2001). This guidance does not address SWANCC,nor does it affect the Joint Memorandum regarding that decision issued by the General Counsels of EPA and the Department of the Army on January 10,2003. See 68 Fed.Reg. 1991, 1995(Jan. 15,2003). December 02,2008 4 Clean Water,lctJurisdiction foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide."20 These waters are referred to in this guidance as traditional navigable waters. The agencies will also continue to assert jurisdiction over wetlands "adjacent" to traditional navigable waters as defined in the agencies' regulations. Under EPA and Corps regulations and as used in this guidance, "adjacent"means "bordering, contiguous, or neighboring." Finding a continuous surface connection is not required to establish adjacency under this definition. The Ra anos decision does not affect the scope of jurisdiction over wetlands that are adjacent to traditional navigable waters because at least five justices agreed that such wetlands are"waters of the United States.s21 The regulations define"adjacent"as follows: "The term adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers,natural river berms,beach dunes and the like are `adjacent wetlands."'22 Under this definition,the agencies consider wetlands adjacent if one of following three criteria is satisfied. First,there is an unbroken surface or shallow sub-surface connection to jurisdictional waters. This hydrologic connection may be intermittent. Second,they are physically separated from jurisdictional waters by man-made dikes or barriers,natural river berms,beach dunes, and the like. Or third,their proximity to a jurisdictional water is reasonably close, supporting the science-based 20 33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)(1);40 C.F.R.§230.3(s)(1).The"(a)(1)"waters include all of the"navigable waters of the United States," defined in 33 C.F.R.Dart 329 and by numerous decisions of the federal courts,plus all other waters that are navigable-in-fact(e.g.,the Great Salt Lake,UT and Lake Minnetonka MN).For purposes of CwA jurisdiction and this guidance,waters will be considered traditional navigable waters if. • They are subject to Section 9 or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act,or • A federal court has determined that the water body is navigable-in-fact under federal law,or They are waters currently being used for commercial navigation,including commercial water- borne recreation(e.g.,boat rentals, guided fishing trips,water ski tournaments,etc.),or • They have historically been used for commercial navigation, including commercial water-borne recreation;or • They are susceptible to being used in the future for commercial navigation,including commercial water-home recreation. Susceptibility for future use may be determined by examining a number of factors,including the physical characteristics and capacity of the water(e.g.,size,depth,and How velocity,etc.)to be used in commercial navigation,including commercial recreational navigation,and the likelihood of future commercial navigation or commercial water-borne recreation. Evidence of future commercial navigation use,including commercial water-home recreation(e.g.,development plans,plans for water dependent events,etc.),must be clearly documented..Susceptibility to future commercial navigation,including commercial water-bome recreation,will not be supported when the evidence is insubstantial or speculative.Use of average flow statistics may not accurately represent streams with"flashy"flow characteristics. In such circumstances,daily gage data is more representative of flow characteristics. 21 Id.at 2248(Justice Kennedy,concurring)("As applied to wetlands adjacent to navigable-in-fact waters, the Carps' conclusive standard for jurisdiction tests upon a reasonable inference of ecologic interconnection,and the assertion of jurisdiction for those wetlands is sustainable under the Act by showing adjacency alone."). 22 33 C.F.R. §328.3(c). December 02 2008 5 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction inference that such wetlands have an ecological interconnection with jurisdictional waters, Because of the scientific basis for this inference, determining whether a wetland is reasonably close to a jurisdictional water does not generally require a case- specific demonstration of an ecologic interconnection. In the case of a jurisdictional water and a reasonably close wetland, such implied ecological interconnectivity is neither speculative nor insubstantial. For example, species, such as amphibians or anadramous and catadramous fish, move between such waters for spawning and their life stage requirements. Migratory species,however, shall not be used to support an ecologic interconnection. In assessing whether a wetland is reasonably close to a jurisdictional water,the proximity of the wetland(including all parts of a single wetland that has been divided by road crossings, ditches,berms,etc.) in question will be evaluated and shall not be evaluated together with other wetlands in the area. Z Relatively Permanent Non-navigable Tributaries of Traditional Navigable Waters and Wetlands with a Continuous Surface Connection with Such Tributaries Key Points • The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally(e.g.,typically three months). • The agencies will assert jurisdiction over those adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to such tributaries(e.g.,they are not separated by uplands,a berm,dike,or similar feature.) A non-navigable tributary24of a traditional navigable water is a non-navigable water body whose waters flow into a traditional navigable water either directly or indirectly by means of other tributaries. Both the plurality opinion and the dissent would uphold CWA jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries that are "relatively permanent"— waters that typically(e.g., except due to drought) flow year-round or waters that have a 23 See e.g.,United States v.Riverside Bayview Homes,Inc..474 U.S. 121, 134(1985)("...the Corps' ecological judgment about the relationship between waters and their adjacent wetlands provides an adequate basis for a legal judgment that adjacent wetlands may be defined as waters under the Act."). 24 A tributary includes natural,man-altered,or man-made water bodies that carry flow directly or indirectly into a traditional navigable water. Furthermore,a tributary,for the purposes of this guidance,is the entire reach of the stream that is of the same order(i.e.,from the point of confluence,where two lower order streams meet to form the tributary,downstream to the point such tributary enters a higher order stream). The flow characteristics of a particular tributary generally will be evaluated at the farthest downstream limit of such tributary(i.e.,the point the tributary enters a higher order stream). However,for purposes of determining whether the tributary is relatively permanent,where data indicates the flow regime at the downstream limit is not representative of the entire tributary(as described above)(e.g.,where data indicates the tributary is relatively permanent at its downstream limit but not for the majority of its length, or vice versa),the flow regime that best characterizes the entire tributary should be used. A primary factor in making this determination is the relative lengths of segments with differing flow regimes. It is reasonable for the agencies to treat the entire tributary in light of the Supreme Courts observation that the phrase"navigable waters"generally refers to"rivers,streams,and other hydrographic features." 126&Ct. at 2222(Justice Scalia,quoting Riverside Bayview,474 U.S.at 131).The entire reach of a stream is a reasonably identifiable hydrographic feature.The agencies will also use this characterization of tributary when applying the significant nexus standard under Section 3 of this guidance. December02, 2008 6 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g,, typically three months).25 Justice Scalia emphasizes that relatively permanent waters do not include tributaries "whose flow is 'comingand going at intervals Des26 ss „ g g als ... broken, fitful. Therefore, relatively permanent waters do not include ephemeral tributaries which flow only in response to precipitation and intermittent streams which do not t yppcally flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally. However, CWA jurisdiction over these waters will be evalu ated under the significant nexus standard described below. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over relatively permanent non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters without a legal obligation to make a significant nexus finding. In addition,the agencies will assert jurisdiction over those adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with a relatively permanent,non-navigable tributary, without the legal obligation to make a significant nexus finding. As explained above, the plurality opinion and the dissent agree that such wetlands are jurisdictional.27 The plurality opinion indicates that"continuous surface connection"is a"physical connection requirement."28 Therefore,a continuous surface connection exists between a wetland and a relatively permanent tributary where the wetIand directly abuts the tributary(e.g., they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike,or similar feature).29 25 See 126 S.Ct.at 2221 n.5(Justice Scalia,plurality opinion)(explaining that"relatively permanent" does not necessarily exclude waters"that might dry up in extraordinary circumstances such as drought"or "seasonal rivers,which contain continuous flow during some months of the year but no flow during dry months"). 26 (d. (internal citations omitted) " Id. at 2226-27(Justice Scalia,plurality opinion). 21 Id, at 2232 n.13(referring to"our physical-connection requirement"and later stating that Riverside Bayview does not reject"the physical-connection requirement")and 2234("Wetlands are`waters of the United States'if they bear the`significant nexus' of physical connection,which makes them as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States.")(emphasis in original). See also 126 S.Ct.at 2230("adjacent"means"physically abutting")and 2229(citing to Riverside Bayview as"conftrm[ing]that the scope of ambiguity of`the waters of the United States'is determined by a wetland's physical connection to covered waters...")(emphasis in original).A continuous surface connection does not require surface water to be continuously present between the wetland and the tributary. 33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)and 40 C.F.R. §232.2(defining wetlands as"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions"). 24 While all wetlands that meet the agencies' definitions are considered adjacent wetlands,only those adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection because they directly abut the tributary(e.g., they are not separated by uplands,a berm,dike,or similar feature)are considered jurisdictional under the plurality standard. December 02, 2008 7 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction 3. Certain Adjacent Wetlands and Non-navigable Tributaries That Are Not Relatively Permanent Key Points • The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable,not relatively permanent tributaries and their adjacent wetlands where such tributaries and wetlands have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water. • A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical,physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters. • "Similarly situated"wetlands include all wetlands adjacent to the same tributary, • Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic factors including the following: - volume,duration,and frequency of flow,including consideration of certain physical characteristics of the tributary - proximity to the traditional navigable water - size of the watershed - average annual rainfall - average annual winter snow pack • Significant nexus also includes consideration of ecologic factors including the following: - potential of tributaries to carry pollutants and flood waters to traditional navigable waters - provision of aquatic habitat that supports a traditional navigable water - potential of wetlands to trap and filter pollutants or store flood waters - maintenance of water quality in traditional navigable waters • The following geographic features generally are not jurisdictional waters: - swales or erosional features(e.g.gullies,small washes characterized by low volume,infrequent,or short duration flow) - ditches(including roadside ditches)excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following types of waters when they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: (1) non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent,°(2) wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, and (3) wetlands adjacent to, but not directly abutting, a relatively permanent tributary (ems, separated from it by uplands, a berm, dike or similar feature).31 As described below, the agencies will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself, together with the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to that tributary, to determine whether collectively they have a significant nexus with traditional navigable waters. 3o For simplicity,the term"tributary'when used alone in this section refers to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, 31 As described in Section 2 of this guidance,the agencies will assert jurisdiction,without the need for a significant nexus finding,over all wetlands that are both adjacent and have a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent tributaries. See pp.6-7,supra. December 02,2008 8 Clean Water Abet Jurisdiction The agencies' assertion of jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters is supported by five justices. Justice Kennedy applied the significant nexus standard to the wetlands at issue in Rapanos and Carabell: "[W]etlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come within the statutory phrase `navigable waters,' if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical,physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as `navigable."';'- While Justice Kennedy's opinion discusses the significant nexus standard primarily in the context of wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries,33 his opinion also addresses Clean Water Act jurisdiction over tributaries themselves. Justice Kennedy states that, based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Riverside BMiew and SWANCC, "the connection between a non-navigable water or wetland may be so close, or potentially so close, that the Corps may deem the water or wetland a `navigable water' under the Act. Absent a significant nexus, jurisdiction under the Act is lacking."04 Thus, Justice Kennedy would limit jurisdiction to those waters that have a significant nexus with traditional navigable waters, although his opinion focuses on the specific factors and functions the agencies should consider in evaluating significant nexus for adjacent wetlands, rather than for tributaries. In considering how to apply the significant nexus standard, the agencies have focused on the integral relationship between the ecological characteristics of tributaries and those of their adjacent wetlands, which determines in part their contribution to restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's traditional navigable waters. The ecological relationship between tributaries and their adjacent wetlands is well documented in the scientific literature and reflects their physical proximity as well as shared hydrological and biological characteristics. The flow parameters and ecological functions that Justice Kennedy describes as most relevant to an evaluation of significant nexus result from the ecological inter-relationship between tributaries and their adjacent wetlands. For example,the duration, frequency, and volume of flow in a tributary, and subsequently the flow in downstream navigable waters, is directly affected by the presence of adjacent wetlands that hold floodwaters, intercept sheet flow from uplands, and then release waters to tributaries in a more even and constant manner. Wetlands may also help to maintain more consistent water temperature in tributaries, which is important for some aquatic species. Adjacent wetlands trap and hold pollutants that may otherwise reach tributaries (arid downstream navigable waters) including sediments, chemicals, and other pollutants. Tributaries and their adjacent wetlands provide habitat (e.g., feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young) for many aquatic species that also live in traditional navigable waters. " Id.at 2248. When applying the significant nexus standard to tributaries and wetlands,it is important to apply it within the limits of jurisdiction articulated in SWANCC. Justice Kennedy cites SWANCC with approval and asserts that the significant nexus standard,rather than being articulated for the first time in Rapanos,was established in SWANCC. 126 S.Ct.at 2246(describing SWANCC as"interpreting the Act to require a significant nexus with navigable waters"). It is clear,therefore,that Justice Kennedy did not intend for the significant nexus standard to be applied in a manner that would result in assertion of jurisdiction over waters that he and the other justices determined were not jurisdictional in SWANCC. Nothing in this guidance should be interpreted as providing authority to assert jurisdiction over waters deemed non jurisdictional by SWANCC. " 126 S.Ct.at 2247-50. 34 Id.at 2241 (emphasis added). December 02,2008 9 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction When performing a significant nexus analysis,35 the first step is to determine if the tributary has any adjacent wetlands. Where a tributary has no adjacent wetlands, the agencies will consider the flow characteristics and functions of only the tributary itself in determining whether such tributary has a significant effect on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters. A tributary, as characterized in Section 2 above, is the entire reach of the stream that is of the same order (i.e., from the point of confluence, where two lower order streams meet to form the tributary, downstream to the point such tributary enters a higher order stream). For purposes of demonstrating a connection to traditional navigable waters, it is appropriate and reasonable to assess the flow characteristics of the tributary at the point at which water is in fact being contributed to a higher order tributary or to a traditional navigable water. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation needs to recognize the ecological relationship between tributaries and their adjacent wetlands, and their closely linked role in protecting the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of � g y downstream traditional navigable waters. Therefore, the agencies will consider the flow and functions of the tributary together with the functions performed by all the wetlands adjacent to that tributary in evaluating whether a significant nexus is present. Similarly, where evaluating significant nexus for an adjacent wetland, the agencies will consider the flow characteristics and functions performed by the tributary to which the wetland is adjacent along with the functions performed by the wetland and all other wetlands adjacent to that tributary. This approach reflects the agencies' interpretation of Justice Kennedy's term "similarly situated" to include all wetlands adjacent to the same tributary. Where it is determined that a tributary and its adjacent wetlands collectively have a significant nexus with traditional navigable waters, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands are jurisdictional. Application of the significant nexus standard in this way is reasonable because of its strong scientific foundation — that is, the integral ecological relationship between a tributary and its adjacent wetlands. Interpreting the phrase"similarly situated" to include all wetlands adjacent to the same tributary is reasonable because such wetlands are physically located in a like manner(i.e.,lying adjacent to the same tributary). Principal considerations when evaluating significant nexus include the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and the proximity of the tributary to a traditional navigable water. In addition to any available hydrologic information (e.g., gauge data, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, statistical data, personal observations/records, etc.), the agencies may reasonably consider certain physical characteristics of the tributary to characterize its flow, and thus help to inform the determination of whether or not a significant nexus is present between the tributary and downstream traditional navigable waters. Physical indicators of flow may include the presence and characteristics of a reliable ordinary high water mark (OHWM) with a channel defined by bed and banks,36 Other physical indicators of flow may include 35 In discussing the significant nexus standard,Justice Kennedy stated: "The required nexus must be assessed in terms of the statute's goals and purposes. Congress enacted the[CWA]to`restore and maintain the chemical,physical,and biological integrity of the Nation's waters' ,,." 126 S.Ct.at 2248, Consistent with Justice Kennedy's instruction,EPA and the Corps will apply the significant nexus standard in a manner that restores and maintains any of these three attributes of traditional navigable waters. 'b See 33 C.F.R. §3283(e). The OHWM also serves to define the lateral limit of jurisdiction in a non- navigable tributary where there are no adjacent wetlands. see 33 C.F.R.§328.4(c), While EPA regions December 02, 2008 10 Clean Water act Jurisdiction shelving, wracking, water staining, sediment sorting, and scour.37 Consideration will also be given to certain relevant contextual factors that directly influence the hydrology of tributaries including the size of the tributary's watershed, average annual rainfall, average annual winter snow pack, slope,and channel dimensions. In addition, the agencies will consider other relevant factors, including the functions performed by the tributary together with the functions performed by any adjacent wetlands. One such factor is the extent to which the tributary and adjacent wetlands have the capacity to carry pollutants (e.g., petroleum wastes, toxic wastes, sediment) or flood waters to traditional navigable waters, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters that would otherwise enter traditional navigable waters.38 The agencies will also evaluate ecological functions performed by the tributary and any adjacent wetlands which affect downstream traditional navigable waters, such as the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon vital to support downstream foodwebs (e.g., macroinvertebrates present in headwater streams convert carbon in leaf litter making it available to species downstream), habitat services such as providing spawning areas for recreationally or commercially important species in downstream waters, and the extent to which the tributary and adjacent wetlands perform functions related to maintenance of downstream water quality such as sediment trapping. After assessing the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, the agencies will evaluate whether the tributary and its adjacent wetlands are likely to have an effect that is more than speculative or insubstantial on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a traditional navigable water. As the distance from the tributary to the navigable water increases, it will become increasingly important to document whether the tributary and its adjacent wetlands have a significant nexus rather than a speculative or insubstantial nexus with a traditional navigable water. Accordingly, Corps districts and EPA regions shall document in the administrative record the available information regarding whether a tributary and its adjacent wetlands have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water, including the physical indicators of flow in a particular case and available information regarding the functions of the tributary and any adjacent wetlands. The agencies will explain their basis for concluding whether or not the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, when considered together, have a more than speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a traditional navigable water. Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) are generally not waters of the United States and Corps districts must exercise judgment to identify the OHWM on a case-by-case basis,the Corps' regulations identify the factors to be applied. These regulations have recently been further explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter(RGL)05-05(Dec.7,2005). The agencies will apply the regulations and the RGL and take other steps as needed to ensure that the OHWM identification factors are applied consistently nationwide. 37 See Justice Kennedy's discussion of "physical characteristics,"126 S.Ct.at 2248-2249. 38 5ce, eg nerallX, 126 S,Ct. at 2249-53;see alsq 126 S.Ct,at 2249("Just as control over the non- navigable parts of a river may be essential or desirable in the interests of the navigable portions, so may the key to flood control on a navigable stream be found in whole or in part in flood control on its tributaries....")(citing to Oklahoma ex rel.Phillips v.Guy F.Atkinson Co..313 U.S. 508,524-25(1941)). December 02, 2008 11 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction because they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to downstream traditional navigable waters. In addition, ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water are generally not waters of the United States because they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to downstream traditional' navigable waters.39 Even when not jurisdictional waters subject to CWA §404, these geographic features (e.g., swales, ditches) may still contribute to a surface hydrologic connection between an adjacent wetland and a traditional navigable water. In addition,these geographic features may function as point sources (i.e., "discernible, confined, and discrete conveyances"), such that discharges of pollutants to other waters throl these features could be subject to other CWA regulations(e.g., CWA §§ 311 and 402). ° Certain ephemeral waters in the and west are distinguishable from the geographic features described above where such ephemeral waters are tributaries and they have a significant nexus to downstream traditional navigable waters. For example, in some cases these ephemeral tributaries may serve as a transitional area between the upland environment and the traditional navigable waters. During and following precipitation events, ephemeral tributaries collect and transport water and sometimes sediment from the upper reaches of the landscape downstream to the traditional navigable waters. These ephemeral tributaries may provide habitat for wildlife and aquatic organisms in downstream traditional navigable waters. These biological and physical processes may further support nutrient cycling, sediment retention and transport, pollutant trapping and filtration, and improvement of water quality, functions that may significantly affect.the chemical,physical, and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters. Documentation As described above, the agencies will assert CWA jurisdiction over the following waters without the legal obligation to make a significant nexus determination. traditional navigable waters and wetlands adjacent thereto, non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent waters, and wetlands with a continuous surface connection with such tributaries. The agencies will also decide CWA jurisdiction over other non- navigable tributaries and over other wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with traditional navigable waters. For purposes of CWA §404 determinations by the Corps, the Corps and EPA are developing a revised form to be used by field regulators for documenting the assertion or declination of CWA jurisdiction. Corps districts and EPA regions will ensure that the information in the record adequately supports any jurisdictional determination. The record shall, to the maximum extent practicable, explain the rationale for the determination, disclose the data and information relied upon, and, if applicable, explain what data or information received greater or lesser weight, and what professional judgment or assumptions were used in reaching the determination. The Corps districts and EPA regions will also demonstrate and document in the record that a particular water either fits within a class identified above as not requiring a significant nexus determination, or that the water has a 39 gee 51 Fed. Reg.41206,41217(Nov. 13, 1986). '° 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). December 02, 2008 12 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction significant nexus with a traditional navigable water. As a matter of policy, Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial(and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. All pertinent documentation and analyses for a given jurisdictional determination (including the revised form shall be adequately reflected in the record } q y d and clearly demonstrate the basis for assertingor declining CWA jurisdiction. Maps, aerial g J p , 1 hoto a h p gr soil surveys, watershed studies local development P Y � o Y fans literature citations, and references from studies pertinent to the parameters being reviewed are examples of information that will assist staff in completing accurate jurisdictional determinations. The level of documentation may vary among projects. For example, jurisdictional determinations for complex projects may require additional documentation by the project manager. Benjamin H. Grumbles John Paul Woodley, Jr. Assistant Administrator for Water Assistant Secretary of the Army U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Civil Works) Department of the Army 41 For jurisdictional determinations and permitting decisions,such information shall be posted on the appropriate Corps website for public and interagency information. December fit,2008 13 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction CoverageCERTIFIED MAI CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT > _a I (Domestic Mail OnIV; r_ i .(Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) No insurance .0 O _- • delivery . . O 7ER T E; r%-EF- OF o ��t �,,� Imo " ° �'ti �G U r";) r U' Postage $ $0.49 0874Ul Postage $ $0,49 0874 Posiey7e $ $0.49 0874 0 Certified Fee Certlnad Fee Certified Fee N $3.30 10 C3 $3.30 10 la $3.30 10 Postmark p Postmark Return Receipt Fee Return Receipt Fee Postmark Roan Receipt Fee (Endo—merd enquired) $2.70 Here o (Endorsement Required) $2.70 Here O (EndorccmeM Required) $2.70 Here Restdcted Doltvery F9e Restricted Del very Fee Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) $0.00 p (Endorsement Required)Ln $o.ply (Endorsement Required) $0.00 N p N Total Pesteee&Fees $b.49 . Q4/03/2015 Total Postagee&Fees � Total Postage&Fees $ $G_.49 04/03/2015 co n $ $6,49 04/03/2015 0 Hale Realty II LLC Town of South Windsor _ ant s Osprey Associates — o Ser rrl Ta P.O. Box 8385 ° ra (16 Edgewood Drive) •-------•----- --...... � P.O. Box 300 m Sir. O Srreer,A _ m s„ Manchester,CT 06042 r- or POB, 1540 Sullivan Avenue r- or PO o erPoes Manchester',CT 06045 .------- .... c y srai ... ..... v -di South Windsor,CT 06074 cn crq srar 0 Postal • , PostalCERTIFIED MAIL,,, RECEIPT CERTIFIED MAIL,,, RECEIPT Ln (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT (Dornestic Mall Only;No insurance Coverage Provided) (Domestic Mail Only;No insurance Coverage Provided,' r 13 T For delivery information visit our webslte at wwwuspsxorn�; S" Ml"Nl #4 l U Information visit our webslte at ,r, E �fgnrr a ." . J _ Er rbift -,tea rn Postage $ $0.49 0874 E r • n Postage $ $0.49 Q874 '� m Postage $ $0.49 0874 Certified Fee $3.30 10 r_1 Certified Fee 0 Postmark Certified Fee $3.30 A $3.30 10 Postmark p Holum Receipt Fee Here r� 10 Postmark Retum Receipt Foo (Endorsement Required) $2.70 � Holum Receipt Fee Here 3 (Fidorsement Required) $2.70 Here O Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) $2.70 � (Endorsement Required) $0,(� Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) $0.00 r_r7 p (Endorsement Required) , r-R Toler Postage&Fees n $6.. 0 04/03/2015 ur a $b.49 Q4/03/.�Ol: � Total Postage&Fees $ $6.49 04/03/2015 rn 279 NUTMEG ROAD SOUTH LLC sent To HARRIS REAL ESTATE SOUTH WINDSOR n o * ......slraer,Ai LLC -••••-• HALE REALTY LLC ' N ..�.. .. 279 NUTMEG ROAD SOUTH r` or .. o P.O.BOX 300 6D .. r cm srei 30 TALBOT LANE "" r- ....... SOUTH WINDSORCT06074-0000 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000 �`, 1 �1 Apr 09 15 09:05a Design Professionals, Inc 860-291-8757 p.2 Postal CERTIFIED , RECEIPT CERTIFIED MAIL71., RECEIPT nj •. , y;No Insurance CoverageProvided) ru .. Only, , . rm� PosW 0674 rn Postage s 40.49 0874 Q Certified 7 0 p CerttF�d Fee 13.30 10 Postmark Return Receipt Postmark Return Receipt Fee Here C3 (Endorsement Re lHere 0 (Endorsement Required) $2.70Restricted Delivery Reshtcted DeryeeA !Endorsement Requir p (Endorsement Required) $Q.00�F u7Telal Postage&F . 03/2015 a Total Postage&Fps $ U.49 04/03/2015 O s KF REALTY LLC s Sera MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS LLC r-1 _ r-q 0 _n C3 b'bee ......� of 175 WHEELER RD "" 7 WEST SEVENTH ST r`- or PC SOUTH WINDSORCT06074-0000 CINCINNATIOH45202-0000 Postal ru CERTIFIED MAILT%I RECEIPT Cr r.9 (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) it •' • N • ? For delivery information visit our �` sue► SO F4M t A . Z 4 M Postage $ $0.49 0974 m r-1 Postage $ $0.4% 087y CerhTfed Fee ,30 10 Certlfted Fee Pcsrnerk p $3.30 10 0 Retum Receipt Fee Here 0 Return Recelpt Fee Postmark t3 (Endorsement Required) $2.70 (Endorsemerrt Required) $2.70 }{ore Restricted Delivery Fee Reshlcted Delivery Fee a (Endorsement Required] $0.00 (En dorsernenlAequired) .� u7 1-3 r I Total Postage&Fees_ $ $6.49 04/03/2015 O Total Postage&Fees $ $6•44 04103r'Z015 �. sera LAPENTA BARBARA DRENGA JOHN L&1ILL A r-q _...._._ © sire.tt ---------.--•-- (� or PI 168 EDGEWOOD DRIVE 144 EDGEWOOD DRIVE - _ - Gm' SOUTH WINDSORCT06074-0000 SO UTH W I N DSO RCT06074-0000 -- Postal nj CERTIFIED MAIL,,,, RECEIPT • g3 (Domestic Mail Only.;No Insurance Coverage Provided) (` AL USE •• Cr � r+ m Postage S $0.49.. 0874 r ��`" 14 A � ra . Certified Feb R) $330 10 Postage $ Postmark$0.49 Return Receipt Fee Here Certlfkaol Fee 0874 0 (Endorsement Required) 3P.70 r-� . 0 $3.30 Resirlcted Delivery Fee C3 Return Piece,*Fee 10 Q (Endorsement Requred) $0.00 Q (Endorsement Required) Postmark tat Restricted Dellve $2.70 Here ra Total Postage S Fees O (Endors�em. t.egryufre�d} S&44 04/OY2015 i $0'0 sent o COSTA RUI &AMY C3 rcrat Postaaa r�Fees $ .---__ K •44 OV0312015 C3 �� 152 EDGEWOOD DRIVE AMINSKI MgjTHEw J t.•- or PO Bo; KRISTINA L s SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000 c i 160 EDGEWOOD DRIVE �n SOUTH WINDSORCT06074-000 -- Apr 09 15 09:05a Design Professionals, Inc 860-291-8757 p.3 1 •• —stal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT -0 (Domestic Only; r IrL---MR f#Z 130 M4601 41. Ljf . rmq Postage S $0.49 0874 ri CerlNiedFee $3.30 10 QReturn Re Fee Postmark 0 (EndorsementR uked) $2.70 Here tae91dcted Delivery Fes O (Endorsement Required) .� Ln oTOtat Postage&Fees 1 $ $6.49 04/03/24015 = se,rtr NUTMEG ROAD SOUTH LLC 3ff"f 22 CHAPEL ROAD "' or PO Cliy S SOUTH WINDSORCT06074-0000 Postal CERTIFIED MAILT, RECEIPT - Ill (Domestic Only; Provided) 171- Cr t�� I IL USE M Postage s 10.49 0874 Certlfled Fee •,3.30 10 � Postmark O Return Receipt Fee Here C7 (Endorsement Required) $2.70 Restricted Delivery Fee p (EndorsernentRequired) $0,.00 Ln o Total Postage&Fees $ $6.49 04/03/2015 -r se, Four S LLC r-1 ------ -- or, 34 Brian Drive -~- -~ 'cit Bolton,CT 06043- Postal CERTIFIED MAIL., RECEIPT S (Domestic Mafl Only; N M Postage $ $0.49 0874 r-1 certified Fee $3.30 10 0 Postmark Return Receipt Fee Here O (Endorsement Required) Q.70 Restricted Delivery Fee p (Endorsement Required) $0,00 ul � Tout Postage&Fees,$ $6,49 04/0312015 ? & Penn Hills,LLC _ C-q ---------- N a1 54 Aspen Drive ---.. a South Glastonbury,CT 06073 SOW N Sf4 710v� O-P Sou� ?d&U&COlt 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�OSOR•c° TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 To: Andrew Krar Date: April 20, 2015 Design Professionals 21 Jeffrey Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 From: Jeffrey H. Folger Environmental Planner Town of South Windsor Re: Appl# 15-22P - Review of the Carla's Pasta site plan- Plans dated 03/31/2015 I have reviewed the site plans for the proposed re subdivision plan with the following initial comments: 1. The proposed grassed swale's seeding rates for the grass species proposed within the grassed swale should be increased to 4-5 lbs/1000 sqft. An immediate, dense ground cover is essential to mitigate flow velocities during storm events and provide water quality renovation. I would recommend utilizing Tall Fescue as the optimum grass species in these areas.. 2. The proposed planting plan lists White pine as one of the tree species to be added. A different icon is used on the plan, "PIAB". Please correct. 3. The stormwater operations and maintenance plan must include the gross particle separator, the grassed swales and the infiltrators. 4. The Upland Review Area must be shown on the plans. 5. Please show the location of stockpile areas with the appropriate erosion controls. 6. Please add stone check dams at interval along the grass swales. 7. Is there a need for a leak-off in the southwest parking area? 8. Add inlet protection to the pipe at the northern plunge pool/stilling basin. 9. Show the location of the catch basin at the western entrance. 10. Landscaping notes for the mitigation area call for the use of top soil taken from the wetland areas to be disturbed. If the current wetland areas contain invasive plants,then using that top soil is not advisable. Any top soil or other planning mediums proposed must be free of seed contaminants. 11. The submitted Wetlands assessment report mentions the proposed wetland mitigation in generalities. A detailed wetland mitigation construction narrative must be submitted which should include current and proposed site hydrology data, grading and seeding sequencing, invasive plant control, and a construction and post construction inspection and maintenance schedule done by the consulting ecologist. cc. Town Engineer Town Planner IWA/CC MEMORANDUM To: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission. From: Jeffrey H. Folger—Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer Date: April 28, 2015 Re: Appl# 15-22P - Review of the proposed Carla's Pasta Industrial Site. Plans dated 03/31/15. The project is to construct a 176,000-sgft addition on the existing industrial building, parking and stormwater structures on a 19.8 acre parcel. Proposed disturbances include permanent alteration(filling) of 34,343 sqft of regulated area, disturbance within the upland review area(URA) 205,548sgft, and the creation of a wetland mitigation area of 80,000 sgft. Site: The site is located in the Newberry Brook watershed. The total land area equals approximately 19.8 acres. The old roadbed of Newberry Road traveled through the property. Lots #5 and a portion of#8 of the Constitution Landing Industrial subdivision will be utilized for the expansion. Both lots are located south of the existing building with lot#5 being directly adjacent to the existing building and lot#8 being south of lot #5. Historically,the site was utilized for production agriculture. In the 60s the site was excavated to provide fill for the Filene's warehouse and other projects. It appears that the seasonal water table was intercepted in various areas on the site, and by the middle 1980's Wetland areas were widespread on the site. The watercourses and current distribution of wetland areas on the site have originated from drainage ditches dug to drain the site. The grading work to create the ditches was part of the wetland approval in 1986 and was accomplished between '86 and '89. There is abundant wetland vegetation present in the watercourses. The wetland vegetation is comprised of a monoculture of either phragmites, or cattails, or a mixture of both. There are three areas of regulated wetlands or watercourses on the site. Two linear wetlands occur along the northern and southern boundaries of lot#5. Both are remnant drainage ditches from the old sand pit. Major functions of these wetlands would be nutrient and sediment trapping, stormwater conveyance, flood control. I would consider wildlife habitat values to be low to moderate in that the ditch areas are the only source of water in the area available to wildlife. The linear wetlands are dominated by Phragmites, which has very limited wildlife values. The southwest corner of the proposed site contains a wetland area with a more diverse vegetation component. Phragmites occurs there but in lesser densities than in the linear wetlands. Understory and over story plants include cinnamon fern,various sedge species, Birches and red maples. Major functions of the forested wetland to the east would be flood control, nutrient and sediment attenuation, and wildlife habitat. Impacts: The soils on the site are disturbed soils due to past sand excavation activities. The present soil in the upper horizon of the soil profile consists of medium sands. Erosion potential for activities on the site is expected to be low. Due to the level nature of the topography, sediment containment using perimeter controls should be adequate. Stormwater for the western paved portion of the site is proposed to sheet flow into the existing swale which flows through the subdivision into the detention/water quality basin to the southwest. Roof runoff is routed into subsurface infiltrators with an overflow to the western swale. The surface runoff from the eastern portion of the site enters a catchbasin/pipe system which discharges into the proposed mitigation area. A level spreader is proposed to be placed between the discharge outlet and the created wetland. I am questioning the effectiveness in pre-treating runoff prior to its entering the mitigation area. Data on the sizing of the level spreader is inconclusive. I have asked for additional information. Roof runoff from the eastern portion of the building is proposed to enter infiltrators with an overflow into the mitigation area. Mitigation: Proposed wetland losses are proposed to be mitigated by creating a wetland area in the southern portion of the site adjacent to the southwestern wetland. The excavated area is proposed to be planted with a wetland seed mix on the bottom and a wildlife seed mix on the sides. The area of the mitigation area is twice the size of the area to be disturbed. The resulting mitigation area will have a higher ecological value than the wetland areas proposed to be eliminated. S 0-sN Sf4 c -' . w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�°sox.CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 To: Andrew Krar Date: April 28, 2015 Design Professionals 21 Jeffrey Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 From: Jeffrey H. Folger Environmental Planner Town of South Windsor Re: Appl# 15-22P - Review of the Carla's Pasta site plan-Plans dated 03/31/2015 I have reviewed the site plans for the proposed re subdivision plan with the following additional comments: 1. A portion of the stormwater system shown discharges into the proposed mitigation area. The stormwater flow passes through a level spreader prior to entering the mitigation area. I'm concerned that pollutants from the developed site will enter into the mitigation area with inadequate treatment necessary to remove those pollutants. Does the level spreader contain the recommended water quality volume for the receiving drainage area? If not, then the spreader must be enlarged to achieve the necessary water quality volume. I cc. Town Engineer Town Planner IWA/CC RECEIVED P.O. BOX 1167 21 Jeffrey Drive ■ MAY 1,P 1015 SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 gR`■ PHONE: 860.291.8755 ■ pey FAX: 860.291.8757 Is RVAMION www.designprofessionalsinc.com CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERS / PLANNERS / SURVEYORS / GIS ANALYSTS ! LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Serving Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode/s/and May 19, 2015 : Town of South Windsor, Connecticut Attn: Jeff H. Folger Environmental Planner 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 : • Re: Response to Comments DPI No.: 1293.D Dated 4/28/15 & 4/20/15 Carla's Pasta Application #: 1 5-22P Dear Jeff: Our office has received two sets of review comments dated April 28th and 20th, 2015 regarding Application 15-22P - Review of the Carla's Pasta Site Plan - Plans dated 3/31/2015. Abbreviated responses to the comments are provided below: • 4/28/2015 Comments 1. Calculations were conducted to prove the adequacy of the level spreaders to retain the required water quality volume for their contributing drainage areas. All calculations are included at the end of this response letter. : 4/20/2015 Comments 1. Done 2. Done 3. Done 4. Done 5. Done 6. Done : 7. Curbing with leakoffs added to back of south west parking area. Rip rap swale will provided conveyance to a level spreader sized to retain the water quality volume for their contributing drainage area. 8. Done 9. Done 10. Done : 11 . Done : Should you have any questions or require any additional information. Please feel free to contact our office. • Sincerely, i Daniel H.Jameson, E.I.T. sign • ion 1 1 / D E SI,&,v GY: D ANIEL �. AT E� 0UA� IrY PQo ** ; I�293. 0 K. \ V VvLu (Y) ES F A R CA57 L Gy Et, S PPEADER ( SautH aF: BorLOIA1 6 ) DO-kln/AGE AREA -4 0. `7S Af PPS rm PE-aLno os -a 99 0. 05 t 0. ooy ( _) 4 0 , �3, S to� sir f 312. y CPT ( PP O PO SC D) MIC)ULE LEvF-G SPFtADER ( ,,djTN (ajr t�vrLp n�C) Z)aAlivAI,15 -!o 0.26 ACQes 20) R : o oSt o oo yt'• �'a) 12 _ v, a sgl x 3, %o ,r- �cRe CFT (PE00zPED) C.FT ( P A&P 0 S E D) P4R WF5T LEvEL �PREAD to ( SUVtN OF 3UTL t7��tJG i t11 i7 f d ►, J6 U e� --al 'r9 3/a w av -_ Lf2 5 � 91. TS' C,FT (PROPvSE()) V TO MAY �J �OLQhI'Yl0.+It1f �� CORVAT�flN OMMf� G E Consultants Geotechnicat Date: May 18, 2015 Environmental To: The Dennis Group, LLC Water Resources CC: Peter DeMallie, Ben Wheeler, and Andy Krar, Design Professionals, Inc. Ecological From: Kimberly Bradley, GEI, Inc. RE: Wetland Mitigation Narrative for Carla's Pasta Properties Project Talbot Lane,South Windsor,CT Introduction GEI Consultants Inc. (GEI) has prepared this technical memorandum to support the submission of the Inland Wetland,Watercourses, and Conservation Permit Application for the Carla's Pasta Expansion Project. The project includes the properties located at 50 Talbot Lane,280 Nutmeg Road South,and 75 Connecticut Avenue in South Windsor,CT.A 177,000 SF building expansion of the existing facility including parking lot expansion, new shipping/receiving area,associated utilities, landscaping and wetland mitigation area are proposed. Wetlands—Existing Conditions and Proposed Impacts A Site-specific wetland delineation on the property,following State of Connecticut wetland delineation criteria,was conducted by John lanni of Highland Soils in May 2010.The delineation identified approximately 3.32 acres of state jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property.The wetland flags locating the extent of the wetland resource areas were surveyed by Design Professionals, Inc.(DPI)of South Windsor, Connecticut.GEI has supported the Dennis Group, LLC in the evaluation and assessment of wetland and natural including a completion of the Wetland Assessment Report submitted to the Town of South Windsor Inland Wetland Commission in April 2015. Kimberly Bradley,Senior Ecologist and Wetland Scientist with GEI Consultants performed site surveys in March 2011,September 2011 in the initial planning stages for the Site.A follow-up site visit/survey was completed on April 8, 2015 to review site conditions and confirm that observed conditions reflected survey results from 2011 and finalize the Wetland Function and Value Assessment Report.Wetlands across the Site,and specifically those located on the southeastern portion of the Site, had a range of vegetative cover.The wetland regions located around the perimeter of the vacant parcel boundary, identified on the current site plans as the"Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement"were primarily a combination of forested and emergent wetlands dominated by the invasive common reed (Phragmites australis).The wetland region south of the"Drainage Ditch and Maintenance Easement" on the southern portion of the vacant parcel transitions from emergent wetland,to forested wetland dominated by common reed and sedge species,to regions dominated by cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea Q herbaceous www.geiconsultants.com GEI Consultants,Inc.,P.C. 110 Walt Whitman Road,State 204,Huntington Station,New York 11746 631.760.9300 fax:631.760.9301 2 1 P a g e cover,and white birch(eetula papyrifer)canopy, and finally to forested wetland with moss ground cover,and canopy of white birch and maple species(Acersp.). The proposed Site development plan for the Carla's Pasta site expansion provided by DPI shows that approximately 0.79 acres of wetland, primarily a previously constructed drainage ditch adjacent to the current facility and along the southern boundary of the Lot 5 property,will be filled based on the current expansion plan (Figure 2).The primary functions of the wetland areas proposed to be impacted are flood flow alteration and sediments,toxicants,or pathogens retention. Construction of 1.84 acres of wetlands contiguous with more extensive wetlands and wildlife habitat located in the southern portion of the property,along with site enhancement including control of invasive species,are proposed as mitigation to the wetland disturbance resulting from the expansion project. The current proposed location of the wetland mitigation area is a relatively flat upland region with topography graded toward the wetlands on the southwestern portion of the site. A high gradient slope with an upper elevation of 83 ft.and toe location at 73 ft. mark the eastern extent of the proposed mitigation area.The area proposed for wetland creation ranges from a peak elevation of approximately 73 ft.to the west to approximately 68 ft.along the wetland delineation boundary line. There is currently limited available site-specific data on groundwater table conditions in this area. It is recommended, per correspondence with Jeff Folger at the Town of South Windsor,that two test pits be placed in the proposed wetland mitigation area (one of the eastern side and the other on the west side). Following review of the test pits, stand pipes should be installed to monitor the groundwater table in the proposed mitigation area.This will allow appropriate design parameters. Proposed Compensatory Wetland Creation The Carla's Pasta Expansion development plans include alteration/filling of approximately 34,343 sq.ft.or 0.79+/-acres of wetland, and provide a plan for the construction of a 1.84+/-acre wetland creation area to be located in the southern eastern portion of project site,on a portion of the Lot 8 property.The area of the site where the wetland mitigation is proposed, is located to the south of the proposed developed portions of the site,and connects abutting conservation easement parcel to the east and an upland area dominated by forested cover and an existing wetland to the east/southeast dominated by forested transitioning into emergent wetland areas. The mitigation plan provides an opportunity to develop a 1.84 acre wetland area that can support a broader range of wetland function and values than the disturbed isolated drainage swale wetlands that will be disturbed/filled based on the proposed expansion development plan. The current design identifies an excavation of the entire wetland mitigation area down to an elevation of 69 ft.which is anticipated to be the approximate ground water table elevation. The design for the wetland creation includes two deeper excavation areas, down an additional 1-3 feet 3 1 P a g e (final elevations of 68-65 ft.) in the center of the wetland mitigation area.The development plan for the expansion of the Carla's Pasta facility includes shedding of storm water runoff through a vegetated Swale, across a level spreader,and into the created wetland. The wetland creation design is proposed to be made through an excavation that extends down to or below the seasonal water table.As described above,groundwater monitoring wells are to be installed within the proposed wetland mitigation area.Water table elevations in these wells will be regularly monitored. Information obtained from the monitoring will provide a better determination of the seasonal high water table as well as an indication of the rate of fluctuation in the ground water table during the period of monitoring. A variety of different water regimes will be provided within the wetland creation,which may result in a range of vegetative wetland habitats.A wet meadow condition will be the dominant vegetative cover,with wetland creation at or just below the elevation of the seasonal high ground water table.This will be established by seeding with native wetland vegetation (e.g. New England Wet Mix by New England Wetland Plants) and additional contributions for the native seed bank in the adjacent wetlands as appropriate.The seed mix will include: Lurid Sedge, (Carex lurida), Blunt Broom Sedge, (Carex scoparia), Blue Vervain, (Verbena hastata), Hop Sedge, (Carex lupulina), Green Bulrush, (Scirpus atrovirens), Redtop Panic Grass, (Panicum rigidulum),Tufted Hairgrass, (Deschampsia cespitosa),Tickseed Sunflower/Bur Marigold, (Bidens aristosa),Creeping Spike Rush, (Eleocharis palustris),Soft Rush, (Juncus effusus), Fringed Sedge, (Carex crinita),Square Stemmed Monkey Flower, (Mimulus ringens),Swamp Aster, (Aster puniceus), Boneset, (Eupatorium perfoliatum), Rattlesnake Grass, (Glyceria canadensis),Swamp Milkweed, (Asclepias incarnate), Common Sneezeweed, (Helenium autumnale), Ditch Stonecrop, (Penthorum sedoides). This seed mix contains a wide variety of native seeds that are suitable for wetland areas that are not permanently flooded.All species are best suited to moist ground as found in most wet meadows,scrub shrub, or forested wetland restoration areas. Deeper excavations(1 to 3 feet)facilitate prolonged to permanent inundation that may support marsh habitat conditions or even small pockets of shallow,open water.The wetland creation will be planted with native wetland seed mixes as described above and side slopes planted with native tree and shrub species as indicated in the landscape plan.The range of vegetative conditions proposed will provide potential habitat for a broad range of wildlife. Wetland Mitigation Procedures The Landscape Plan and Landscape Details developed by Design Professionals, Inc. for the Carla's Pasta Expansion Project provides the detailed planting schedule and notes for the Wetland Mitigation Area as well as the stormwater features and upland areas of the site. In addition to the notes on the Landscape Plan, the following recommendations are provided: r I �If South Windsor,CT 06074 � - - 860-432-4020 . a - V 6 60 432 4042 CT 0 t_: C6"PLEX aw /'�' Yl(1 - -MAP REFERENCE: - - - - - -_ _ ': - - Cpe.PAD L"LNAIA7./AK . FENCE WF EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN TAKEN_ aF N NALE REALM Liz FROM 'BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY', 50 TALBOT LANE, :.. U AGE iS•g VOL ME/044 P 2/G F DATED 6/0/1R PREPAREDSOUTH WNDSO , CT. DESIGN PRE AREDfOR SURIREALTY LLC PROFESSIONALS, Q Im + EGEG I -.: - GOVERtORS S"RE AS50.S/A7E5 - - -- -- - - -- - - LO _ (Cq`1MERClAL CLIVDL'1"f/NIUHS) � u YA{I' N/F 5UR1 REALTY, LLG' - - _ _ cl t d RTS _ VOLUME 1215 PAGE 21 - '� - - t 12'VA GRAVEL �4v ► e1 � _ =='jt 5O TALBOT LANE y t / FIRE LANE °� \ 'f j i T � ��11 Q'ISTIFAW SUILD/AY. l �6 =Eit -- _. THE TdWl�FA TN _ _ - _ :77.55Zl � • .17 MALE REALM LLc - .- \ \ �\ � � �'J -1,22-1)110/0.44 PAGE 2/6 x OCATED LIGHT 3 J o V v STANDARD / . _ 9> / .. . O W4wg3ry. IN 10 o / \\\ \\ \',` ► . _Otoo In o TRIPED PARKING STALLS � pp / a � Hs$S _ �IIIL MALE REALTY-LLc. - - .. / .i - - - - - VLYUh/E/L/L PAGE 3/8 -.:.`. � �\ - - ..- EASE7'IENT M FAVLIP Of TLIWN ORmew AND MAINTENANCE / EASEMENT fAP SwALE ACLESS IN FRWR OF LOT 5 cwTD LOT 9 30'W DE PA QPER7Y LINE 1/. DRIVEWAY _. /.. TRUCK LOADING 10 BE EXTiNWI$HEl)" • , i PROPOSED BUILDING a EXPANSION \""a,��► /�� a d '. .. a 178.890t SO.FEET Y.- .-jw. O ` m� 'w % %. EASEMENT NUTMEG Ra4O 6y/ ` TO BE EXTINGUISHED NGUISHED H avyH In tLc :. : �SYG 0 PAGE/BB / / J ROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN FAVOR nvP/uLE REALM.LLc .. / .� ETAINING WA OF HALE REALTY, LLC 214 .. ��` / \ - (SHADED REGION) - --- - 200 NU7T/EG R04D 3GY/TN -_ AREA�26 0 - - - 77 SQUARE FEET LUNG BASIN 20'M70E PA / . y . / !FIRE LANE /� \ 30'WIDE EASEMENT / / - \ TO BE EXTINGUISHED SO'tlRA/NAGS O/TCN AND \ - -: -- - ._ WALKING TRAIL EASEMENT - - MAINTENANCE EASEMENT VOGW'fE n92 PAGE 231. ILVTL 1 / ETAINING WALL K.F.RFi1LTY,LLO VCYUME/4u PAGE224 ! BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PARKING. \ \ / AL l N/F HALE REii4M LLC / N/F VOLUME'1044 PAGE 2/6 ,\ /':. .TOWN OFSOUTH WINDSOR -- - VOLUME 122-AGEA239 - - - \ / / 17UMINOUS CONCRETE PARKING I ` (FORrl V OF LOT B TO BE DEEDED - TO$UR/REALM LLC) - - :- - - - N/F . 30'DRAINAGE DiTCN AND. - - \ .. - N/F MALE REM AL LLC .: /- -/ _ _ - - : _ PAUL R.MARLOWE i MAINMMAeE EASEMENT VOLUME-\ - VOLUME/O4/PAGE 24% GAIL A.MASSARO - . COVSERVATIOv - - (VOL.311 PG.. _ - - mN?E-//92 PAGE WETLAND MITIGATION AREA. Z : 1.84 ACRES e9)/ / N/F ROPERTY LINE _TO.: j DAVID S. EP9TE EXTINGUISHED E EXTIN ED :. - O NE L.CALDSERONI- � Q (VOL. 1607 PG. I / N/F FOUR 5 L L.C. N/F / VOLUME 1703�P4GE:OO/ - - - -� � /. --: ROPERTY LINE TO BE EXTINGUISHED - � � JORAI I J/LL DREAr.4 (VOL:115 PG. - Wx.UME-l?50 PAGE 22/ - -� BARHARA M.Q. - - [ WF / N OF AL J/F - - - ,SOUTHWWINDSOR :-. _ gOWN St � . U �7 OPS & 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�OSo -co�' TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 Certified #70111570000063328468 May 27, 2015 Peter DeMallie Design Professionals, Inc. 21 Jeffrey Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Appl. #15-22P—Suri Realty LLC, 50 Talbot Lane Dear Mr. DeMallie: At the May 20, 2015 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved Appl. #15-22P—Suri Reality LLC—50 Talbot Lane—Inland Wetlands/Conservation Commission application for approval for the construction of an industrial building expansion, parking, stormwater structures and associated utilities on property located south of Governor's Highway and east of Nutmeg Road South, Industrial (1) Zone, with the following conditions: 1. The final approved copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon must be submitted to the Planning Department. 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 applicant 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 May 20, 2020. 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. Bond shall be collected in the amount of$10,000 for installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls; $20,000 for installation of stormwater structures; $50,000 for installation and maintenance of wetland mitigation. 5. Maintenance of the wetland mitigation to be increased from a minimum of two years to five years. 6. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 7. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION Elizabeth A Warren, Chairperson cc: Director of Planning Chief Building Official