These minutes are for information purposes only. For official minutes please contact the Town Clerk's office.

APRIL 4, 2000

REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER

Howard Beach, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Amphitheater, 34 Farms Village Road, Simsbury. The following members were present: Pierce Clayberger, Thomas Sharpless, Richard Miller, William Nowak, John Yocom, Andrew Bucknam and Margerie Winters. Mr. Bucknam departed at 9:00 p.m. Also present were Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer, and other interested parties.

2. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Bucknam to serve for Commissioner Wade.

3. PUBLIC HEARING (CLOSED) - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Discussion and Decision Tabled From March 21, 2000 - Application of River Bend Associates, Inc. and Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc., for a Permit to Conduct Regulated Activities in Connection with "Meadowood" Planned Residential Development, County Road, Hoskins Road, Holcomb Street, Firetown Road, and Barn Door Hills Road

The commission discussed the activities included in the document Factors for Consideration Under Regulation/Section 6 and Statute/22A-41. They addressed the proposed soil mixing and reseeding activities listed on Page 1. Commissioner Clayberger expressed his concern that the tilling concept is new and the 2 sites where it has been done in Connecticut have never had any post-testing. He stated that it is unknown as to whether the tilling will be successful in achieving their goal. Commissioner Nowak agreed that the proposed soil mixing is untried and unproven. He pointed out that by definition this process is dilution and not remediation. Commissioner Nowak expressed his concern that this soil mixing is not the right form of remediation for this site due to: (1) the 22 acres of wetlands on the site, (2) the 4 watershed areas, (3) this area being part of the Farmington River watershed, and (4) the fact that it is an unproven technique.

Commissioner Miller noted that no in-depth analysis as to why alternatives wouldn't work was presented. He pointed out that the applicant first stated that they would remove some soils to a different part of the site and later they said they would remove soil off-site. He expressed his concern that alternatives could have been discussed and evaluated. Commissioner Winters noted that no high contamination locations were tested and they don't know the hot spots on the site to re-sample.

Commissioner Bucknam suggested that the newness of the technology goes to its impact and the potential for distributing pollutants in the soil. He pointed out that increased mobility of pollutants could impact ground water and the wetlands. He noted that the commission was told that the pesticides used in tobacco farming are more water soluble, yet the analysis did not appear very scientific and some chemicals were not tested.

Chairman Beach noted that there is a large amount of mixing and reseeding proposed in the buffer area. He stated that mixing the soil to a depth up to 4 feet will increase the potential for pollutants in the soil to leach into adjacent wetlands and pollute and adversely effect the wetlands from a wildlife and human standpoint. He pointed out that wet soil is 57 times more likely to stick to skin, according to Dr. Callahan, and also to hold pollutants.

Commissioner Yocum agreed that the proposal is to dilute the soil and not for remediation. He suggested that the commission should have reviewed the remediation technique prior to the overall development. Commissioner Bucknam noted that the uplands discussion only included the impact on human health and safety and not the impact on aquatic life from dust particles and runoff.

Commissioner Nowak pointed out that the applicant plans to mix 11.75 acres in the buffer area, 3-4 feet deep. He noted that the Washington based article stated that there is remediation in which you only need to mix to a depth of 6-12 inches. He suggested that the proposal could be disturbing soils to a depth greater than necessary. Chairman Beach stated that it would be reasonable and prudent to remove the 6-12 inches of soil off-site.

Chairman Miller expressed his concern that airborne particles, due to upland activities, could impact the wetlands and watercourses. He noted that he is concerned with the applicants ability to control erosion and sedimentation with less organic soils. Chairman Beach pointed out that they will build foundations for 640 homes over 10 years which will be a continual disturbance of the soil.

Commissioner Sharpless stated that insufficient research was done on how the pesticides were used and whether they were applied uniformly or on a preferential basis. He noted that there were 200 poles per acre and a .004 chance that these locations were sampled. He suggested that tests could have been performed around the poles, but instead they are left with an unknown as to whether the pole areas are hot spots. Commissioner Sharpless stated that little evaluation of the present ecological health of the wetlands was presented, and no evaluation of benthic organisms was performed by which they could evaluate the health of the wetlands. He stated that macro-organism inventories were not performed for all of the wetlands.

Commissioner Bucknam questioned whether any wetland water quality samples were taken. Commissioner Sharpless stated that they did a fair job of sampling sediments inWetland 10, less was done in Wetlands 5 and 2, and no sampling was done in Wetland 9. Commissioner Miller noted that several samples were over the limit and its hard to know if there would be an impact on amphibian life. He suggested that they need to look at the impact as a result of a change in use.

Commissioner Sharpless stated that there could be more chlordane on the site, because if pesticides were poured on the concentration would be heavier in certain areas. He noted that erosion of soil that bears pesticides, and increased mobility due to mixing, could effect the ground water and ground water drains to the water bodies and wetlands. Chairman Beach pointed out that some soil mixing would be done below the ground water depth and could effect the hydrology of a specific site.

Commissioner Nowak noted that soil mixing will occur in the buffer area once, but other soil disturbances will occur multiple times on the site, such as (1) the construction of roads, (2) the laying of utilities, (3) the construction of foundations, and (5) the installation of the septic systems. He suggested that these activities could impact the wetlands over a period of time, 6-10 years.

Commissioner Sharpless stated that soil removal would cause less of an impact from future excavations. He suggested that the major impact from sedimentation and contamination reaching the wetlands, and not knowing the present state of the wetlands, makes this activity risky to allow. Dwight Merriam, Attorney for the Town, noted that the applicant did not provide the volume of soil if removed from the regulated areas and hot spots, the truck traffic, or the cost compared to mixing.

Commissioner Bucknam questioned how the commission can know if there are feasible alternatives if they weren't provided with the analysis. Commissioner Clayberger stated that a list of 5 alternatives was noted without any facts in support. Mr. Merriam stated that the commission was told that the alternatives were not practical and economic solutions. Commissioner Nowak pointed out that none of the alternatives were explored in detail. Ms. Whitten noted that it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives.

Commissioner Sharpless stated that he is not convinced of the uniform application of pesticides and therefore the sampling should have been done better with dense sampling in certain areas. Chairman Beach noted that the ex-employee had no recollection of pesticides that were found on the site.

Commissioner Bucknam moved to request that staff prepare a draft motion, on the activities listed on Page 1 of the March 31, 2000 document entitled Factors for Consideration Under Regulation/Section 6 and Statute/22A-41, regarding soil mixing and reseeding activities in Wetlands, 10, 11, 12, 13, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 and to consider feasible and prudent alternatives and Commissioner Sharpless' list of those items likely to impact the wetlands and watercourses.

Commissioner Bucknam withdrew his motion.

Commissioner Bucknam requested that staff indicate, in a draft motion, that soil mixing activities are likely to effect wetlands and watercourses, feasible and prudent alternatives were discussed, and suggestions were provided from Commissioner Sharpless.

The commission addressed Page 2 of the document, in consideration of Wetland 7. Commissioner Miller expressed his concern with slope issues near the proposed BEBO arch and the potential for sedimentation and erosion of the wetlands with the use of heavy equipment for clearing and building the roadway.

Commissioner Bucknam noted that the north/south wildlife corridor is located on Wetland 7 and no feasible and prudent alternatives were provided to address avoiding the wetland crossing, since it may be part of a larger ecological system. He stated that large wildlife and amphibian migration are a concern with regard to the vernal pools and the fragmentation of the ecological system. He suggested that it is absurd to think that amphibian life would not be effected by this change to the site.

Commissioner Nowak pointed out that Wetland 7 and 13 are part of a wetland corridor linking to other wetland areas which include Great Pond, McLean and possibly further. He stated that an arched structure will effect wildlife and he questioned why a span structure wasn't presented as a feasible and prudent alternative.

In response to Commissioner Miller, Ms. Whitten stated that there is a 30% slope at the proposed arch and the storm drain to the north is 27%. Commissioner Miller noted that steep slopes become an issue at greater than 20%.

Commissioner Bucknam stated that there is no evidence to know if the activities would effect the 3 species of concern. He noted that there is State endangered plant life at Great Pond. Commissioner Miller stated that fragmentation of the wildlife corridor will increase mortality. Chairman Beach noted that there will be a substantial number of vehicle trips per day at this location.

The commission addressed Page 3 of the document, in consideration of Wetland 9. Commissioner Bucknam stated that he has the same concerns with the wetland corridor. He pointed out that the increased impervious surface and structures are impediments to amphibian migration and create a general fragmentation of the whole site. Chairman Beach stated that the road widening will move the road closer to Wetland 9 and make the wetland more susceptible to salt and sediment. Commissioner Bucknam questioned whether curbing is included in the application. Commissioner Sharpless stated that he would consider this a permissible activity as long as the road is without curbs.

The commission addressed Page 4 of the document, in consideration of Wetland 5. Commissioner Sharpless noted that sampling was done at only 1 site in Wetland 5 and the chlordane found was greater than 40. Commissioner Bucknam stated that he has the same issues as with Wetland 7 with regard to fragmentation and feasible and prudent alternatives to crossing the wetland.

Commissioner Miller suggested that the storm water outlet structure would create more frequent inundation and more sediment disturbance which will effect amphibious and aquatic species and the ecological system. He stated that this effect will be different from the current impacts from surface run-off in the area . He noted that Wetland 5 is connected to Wetland 10 and a higher chlordane level was found in Wetland 5. Chairman Beach stated that during a big storm the water could backup to the wetlands. He noted that a fluctuation in the water table effects the ability to support wildlife. Commissioner Miller questioned the runoff from the road into the wetland. Commissioner Sharpless stated that a wider road will effect sedimentation and increase siltation. Commissioner Miller questioned whether there will be any enhancements to the culvert. Chairman Beach stated that the 42 inch culvert will be changed to a box culvert. He stated that the hydrology and sedimentation in the wetland are a concern due to fill.

The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.

The commission addressed Page 5 of the document, in consideration of Wetlands 6, 3 and 10. Commissioner Sharpless noted that this is an area with pesticide contamination and any excavation and construction of a flared end section, level spreader and the laying of sanitary sewer lines will increase the sedimentation level to Wetland 6. He stated that no analysis was performed of the sediment in Wetland 6 and therefore it would not be prudent for the commission to approve this activity. He noted that Wetland 6 could be in poor health. Chairman Beach stated that he would like the sewer flared end and level spreader pulled further back from the buffer to alleviate the overland flow and allow for nutrient renovation. Commissioner Sharpless pointed out that the intermittent watercourse south of Wetland 6 could be a source of sediment contamination and should be tested. He stated that he is opposed to filling the intermittent watercourse because it will increase the sediment load to Wetland 6.

Commissioner Miller expressed his concern with the addition of a stone dust walkway with erosion in to the wetlands. He stated that clearing in the area, in conjunction with the slopes, will increase the runoff in this area.

Chairman Beach noted that Wetland 3 was covered under the commission's discussion of Wetland 5. He stated that the level spreader at the edge of Wetland 3 he would like pulled back further to increase the distance between the outflow and the wetlands. Commissioner Sharpless noted that they need to assess the ecological health of the wetlands.

Commissioner Sharpless stated that the applicant did not give detail on the remediation plan for Wetland 10. He noted that Wetland 10 drains to Wetland 3 and Wetland 5 and there is a risk of runoff from Wetland 10. Commissioner Miller agreed that a lack of remediation was discussed in this area and as well as the present condition of Wetland 10. He stated that with a change in use and the fact that higher levels of pesticides exist in sediments they need to be informed of how the potential impacts will be mitigated. Commissioner Sharpless noted that there is an intermittent watercourse to the north of Wetland 10.

The commission addressed Page 6 of the document, in consideration of Inland/Wetland 3. It was the consensus of the commission that this activity would be an improvement to the area.

The commission addressed Page 7 of the document, in consideration of Wetland 2. Commissioner Sharpless stated that he opposes these activities for the same reasons previously discussed. Chairman Beach suggested that they should pull back the flared ends further from the buffer zone, which should be done for the whole site.

Commissioner Nowak questioned whether storm water discharge will effect the vernal pool and the aquatic life residing there. Ms. Whitten noted that the applicant stated that they are deliberately discharging into the vernal pool for positive recharge. Commissioner Nowak pointed out that Dr. Klemens stated that the recharge to the vernal pool could have a negative impact on aquatic life.

The commission addressed Page 8 of the document, in consideration of Wetland 12. Commissioner Sharpless noted that the basin is currently in a cultivated area and pesticides could enter Wetland 12 during construction.

The commission addressed Page 9 of the document, in consideration of Wetland 1. Commissioner Sharpless noted that almost no data was supplied regarding Wetland 1 and the wetland will be affected by discharges from the site. He stated that any disturbance to the soil in the area is likely to cause pollutant laden sedimentation to Wetland 1. Chairman Beach suggested that they should pull back the detention basin and level spreaders to provide more overland flow.

The commission addressed Page 10 of the document. Commissioner Sharpless stated that the stone dust walkways can be done without disturbing the soil conditions. He noted that they will need to dig for activities involving support posts and this will disturb the soils. He suggested that they not permit the construction of sidewalks, gazebos or bituminous walkways until they know where the soils will go. Commissioner Nowak stated that he believes the wetlands are connected and the proposed activities

won't help the situation. He suggested that the application could have been more friendly to wildlife and amphibian life and their ability to migrate could be done more freely without the activities listed on Page 10. He recommended that some of the walkways should be located further outside of the wetland areas.

The commission addressed other areas of concern. Chairman Beach stated that if the applicant brings in topsoil for deposition in the buffer areas and areas adjacent to the wetlands there could be a problem with sedimentation and erosion. Commissioner Miller suggested that expecting the Homeowner's Association to enforce the use of organic based fertilizers is unrealistic and unenforceable over time. He stated that the issue of feasible and prudent was not addressed in this area.

Commissioner Nowak noted the punitive effect if pesticides are mixed and then contaminate the wetlands. He stated that the applicant proposed using the usual erosion control measures, but there is a large amount of soil disruption proposed and they may need temporary berm structures. He stated that he is not satisfied with the amount of erosion controls proposed, especially during the soil mixing.

Commissioner Yocom expressed his concern that the applicant plans to wet the soils if there appears to be dust, instead of keeping the soil wet while they mix. He noted that by wetting the soil they may not need to use air monitors.

Commissioner Miller discussed pollutant mobility criteria and the movement of 25 foot buffer soils into the mixing site. He stated that he doesn't think the State will accept this as a remediation technique. He questioned what the boundary is for handling pollutant mobility criteria with 640 homes.

The commission addressed the Intervenor Petition. Commissioner Sharpless stated that the commission might consider permitting 4 activities on the site: (1) the widening of Firetown Road, (2) the stone dust walkways, (3) replacing the pipe, catch basins and headwall near Holcomb Street, and (4) abandonment of the culvert under Holcomb Street.

The commission addressed the Aquifer Protection Zone referral to the Zoning Commission. Chairman Beach stated that mixing 6 inches of topsoil with sandy soil will dramatically increase the permeability of the soils and decrease the absorption rate of pollutants due to the reduction in organics. He noted the increased potential for pollutant mobility in the aquifers which supply Simsbury with their water. He stated that he is also concerned with pollutant mobility where there is 1 foot 6 inches to bedrock.

Commissioner Miller stated that the perched water table is a potential pathway to the aquifer, as are the wetlands. He stated that they are mixing the pollutants closer to the water table and there have been reports of chlordane found in wells in Connecticut. Commissioner Miller questioned why the applicant did not test for pesticides more soluble than dieldrin and chlordane. He suggested that soil mixing could cause pesticides to enter the aquifers. Commissioner Sharpless stated there are probably not increased amounts of more soluble pesticides in the soils. He stated that the methods used screened for large numbers of pesticides, but he is concerned with the sampling method.

4. DISCUSSION

a. Open Space Issues

Commissioner Miller stated that the BOS is appointing the Open Land Preservation Subcommittee to which Chairman Beach will be appointed, along with Joan Howard, Anita Mielert and 2 at large members.

5. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

a. Application of James A. Calabrese for a Permit to Install an Above Ground Swimming Pool, 16' x 32' Within Regulated Area at 97 Wildwood Road

b. Application of the Masters School for a Permit to Construct an Athletic Field Within a Portion of Wetlands and Regulated Area at 36 Westledge Road

6. MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2000

Commissioner Yocom moved to accept the minutes of the March 21, 2000 meeting, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

7. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Ms. Whitten reported that Talcott Acres is appealing the commission's approval of idNet.

8. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 10:44 p.m.