SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING

JUNE 21, 2000

I. CALL TO ORDER

Howard Beach, Jr., Chairman, called the Special Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:39 p.m. in the Amphitheater of Simsbury High School. The following members were present: Pierce Clayberger, William Nowak, Thomas Sharpless, and Margery Winters. Also present were Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer, Lisa Arakelian, Commission Secretary, and other interested parties.

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Winters to serve for Commissioner Wade.

III. PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE (continued from 6/6/00)

A. 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

Robert Melvin, an attorney with Robinson & Cole, announced the receipt of a Notice of Intervention from North Simsbury Coalition. Melvin has reviewed the petition and it has been filed under 22A-19 of the General Statutes and it appears to be a verified pleading. He verified with Wayne Cobleigh of North Simsbury Coalition that the commissioner's acknowledgment of his signature is that of attorney Frank Cochran. He also confirmed that the numerated statements are the coalition's allegations of why this application seeks conduct that is likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing, or destroying the public trust, and air, water, or other resources.

Chairman Beach stated that the petition has been received by the commission and that the North Simsbury Coalition is now an intervenor under 22-19A.

Commissioner Nowak read the call for the public hearing.

Tim Hollister, attorney with Shipman and Goodwin, stated that the applicant has filed an appeal to the commission's decision in April. He noted that, if this current application is approved, the prior appeal would be withdrawn. In the interest of saving time, Hollister proposed to incorporate into the records of this proceeding all documents which were presented from January 2000 through the date of the commission's decision in April 2000.

Mr. Hollister informed the commission that he has requested in writing several times a meeting with ERL, the Town of Simsbury, and the DEP regarding soil remediation, with no success. He expressed his frustration at not being able to get all the parties together to discuss this issue and, once again, requested a meeting.

Bill Richter, Landscape Architect, presented a new illustrative plan and master plan and described revisions made since the commission's decision in April. He noted that the plan has been reduced from 640 units to 371 units. The 371 units are a result of the WPCA denial of the sewer transfer and also represent the number of units that can be used on the site for dedicated sewer allotment and remaining land that is on septic. The single-family lots are on septic systems and the condominium units are on town sewer. The down-sizing resulted in approximately one unit per acre. Of the 23.5 acres of existing wetlands, the proposed project will impact 647 square feet, less than 1% of an acre. Of the 32-1/2 acres of upland regulated areas, the project will impact 8.5 acres, 8.3 acres of which is already farmland cultivated areas. Three acres of sod mixing in upland areas 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 have been removed from the summary chart. One hundred twelve acres (30%) of the site have been dedicated to open space, a key feature being that all of the wetlands have been interconnected.

Richter noted four things that have not changed since the last application:

1) Intermittent Watercourse Activity 3, the replacement of the existing culvert and headwall. Richter could not find a specific reference in the denial package for this. He feels it is a necessary improvement over an existing condition that would be logical as part of this project.

2) the stone dust walkways within the upland areas. While Denial Paragraph K stated that stone dust walkways severed the wildlife corridors, at the same time, the town was requesting that the applicant provide public access to the wetlands and town open space areas. The walks are set on existing grade and they weave in between existing vegetation, so there is no impact or disturbance Any time that the walkway approaches a wetland or intermittent watercourse, the applicants have provided a boardwalk. The boardwalk is detailed on Sheet 15.4.

3) the crossing between wetlands 3 and wetlands 5. This is the expansion of the existing culvert and the creation of a final road over the existing road bed to access area C2. The applicants are providing this new road over an existing road and an existing clearing because it is the only point of access to this area of the site. Any new location of a road to access that area would require more clearing and more extensive wetland disturbance. To deny a crossing at that point is to deny access to that area of the site.

4) the basin bottom plantings in the detention basins. The applicants have offered to construct possible wetland plantings on the bottoms of these basins. The three acres of basin bottoms are an opportunity to add to the existing wetlands.

As part of the changes made as a result of the April denial, Richter stated that all the detention basins have been pulled out of the upland areas, in accordance with Denial Paragraphs E, F, G, I, and J. There is no disturbance of upland areas except for utility crossing, soil mixing, and location of walkways. The road crossing of Wetland 7 connecting D1 to D2 has been removed. This crossing and the intermittent watercourse crossing over the existing farm road were the only access to area D1. The applicants are proposing to place a smaller lot around the water tank, extend the public road into the area, and provide a second means of fire access. This extension of the off-site roads is a result of Denial Paragraph E. If there was a connection across where the existing road now crosses the intermittent watercourse between C2 and D1, extension of the off-site roads would not be necessary.

Mr. Richter noted that Denial Paragraph F does not allow the widening of Firetown Road because it severs the wildlife corridor. Given that this activity is not needed for local traffic, it has been withdrawn from the proposal.

Richter explained that Denial Paragraph H states that regrading of the existing farm field east of wetlands 1 disturbed the sensitive ecology of the area. this area will not be regraded, but will be revegetated so that there is a more extensive habitat around wetland 1. Also, as a result of Denial Paragraph I, the detention basin at Wetland 12 is being pulled out. In addition, as a result of Denial Paragraph J, the detention basins have been pulled out of the uplands near Wetland 1 and the applicants have provided an open space connection between Wetland 1 into the large block of Wetlands 2, 3, 5, and 10.

Jerry Cura, Environmental Consultant with Menzie-Cura & Associates, described his qualifications and addressed the environmental concerns involved with the project. Cura reviewed his memo of 6/21/00 detailing the results of ecological risk assessment screening performed in the wetland areas of the proposed development. He explained that the general method was to compare measured concentrations of compounds in sediment and surface water to sediment benchmarks (Ontario Sediment Guidelines) and Connecticut Surface Water Quality Standards. The benchmarks in the screening are the Lowest Effect Levels (LEL) and Severe Effect Levels (SEL). No contaminants in sediment exceeded the SEL. Stations in Wetlands 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 exceeded the LEL. In all other wetlands, the sediment concentrations of contaminants did not exceed the LEL.

Individual concentration of contaminants in surface water were also compared using the Connecticut Surface Water Quality Guidelines. All surface water contaminants were below the guidelines' criteria with the exception of the surface water over Wetland 8. However, Cura recognized an uncertainty in this opinion in that many of the detection limits in the surface water sampled exceeded the surface water standard for chronic exposures.

Risk to small mammals and birds in the wetlands from exposure to sediment contaminants through the food chain using data from the highest measured sediment concentrations in Wetland 10 was also calculated. The model used the exposure of shrews and robins as the representative species. No potential risk to small mammals and birds from exposure to measured pesticides in the wetlands was found.

Cura also commented on soil mixing. He explained that soil mixing does not inherently increase bioavailability of a contaminant. In general, availability of hydrophobic contaminants to biota from soil or sediment is dictated by an equilibrium partitioning expressed as Ct/Lt--(Cs/TOC) x K, where ct =concentration in tissue, Lt=Tissue lipid, Cs=Contaminant concentration in soil, and TOC=Total organic carbon in soil. Cura noted that any process (such as mixing) will decrease soil organic carbon and soil contaminant concentrations in equal proportion (assuming that the underlying soil layer is low in both organic carbon and the contaminant). Therefore, the terms of the equation do not change, and the contaminant is no more bioavailable after mixing than before. He did note that there is some potential for the contaminant in the soil to be transported via ground water. However, that is a much slower process to the wetlands than that which is occurring now. Therefore, Cura stated that, in his professional opinion, soil mixing would not change the current condition of contamination in the sediment and would not have any substantial adverse effect on the wetlands.

Commissioner Sharpless asked why Cura thought it was appropriate to introduce equilibrium to the situation. Cura answered that he was trying to understand whether the process of mixing itself had any potential to increase the bioavailability and he views the bioavailability as an equlibrium. Sharpless then asked when equilibrium would be achieved. Cura replied that organisms placed into an environment with contaminants would come to equilibrium in days or weeks, depending on the organism.

Ed Pawlak, of Connecticut Ecosystems, gave his supplemental wetlands/biological review. He stated that his study was initiated as a result of comments made by Dr. Michael Klemens at the 1999 public hearing where he postulated that as many as four species of special concern may occur on the site, specifically the eastern box turtle, hog-nose snake, blue-spotted salamander, and eastern ribbon snake. Pawlak initiated a study on May 3, 2000 to determine if any of these species occurred on the site and concluded the study on June 19, 2000. He did a total of nine site inspections during this time. Combined with the 12 site inspections performed in 1999, Pawlak has done a total of 21 site inspections. As a result of the study, he did find five box turtles on the site, four on the west end, and one on the east end. No other species of special concern were found. He is, however, raising a salamander larva found in wetland 2 which he believes to be a spotted salamander. A total of 93 different species were recorded on the site. Pawlak stated that, in his professional opinion, besides the five box turtles, no other species of special concern exist on the site.

Pawlak stated that the box turtles found on the west side of the site utilize a habitat block of approximately 34 acres. The box turtle found on the east side likely utilizes a habitat block of approximately 25 acres. In his opinion, considering the small range in which this species roams (150 to 750 feet) and the large habitat blocks that will remain available to the species, by preserving an adequate diversity and amount of habitat, the species will be conserved following development of the property. There is a potential effect on the box turtle inhabiting the east end of the site if sod mixing is performed during the turtle's hibernation period, normally between mid-October and late April. Therefore, Pawlak is proposing that no soil mixing occur during the time that the turtle is hibernating and that silt fencing be erected around the area where the soil is to be mixed in early April, before the turtle emerges from hibernation to prevent it from entering the area when it does emerge.

In addition, Pawlak stated that, in his opinion, the proposed walking trails and boardwalks across the wetlands on the site will not impede wildlife movement. Pawlak also noted that the applicants are proposing the use of slow-release fertilizers, manual treatment with organic fertilizers and an integrated pest management plan in order to reduce the impact of lawn chemicals on the wetlands.

Dave Ziaks, engineer, reviewed the revisions made to the stormwater management plan. He reiterated that the stormwater basins have been relocated outside of the regulated areas, and there have been substantial changes made to the stormwater management plans at wetland 7 and corridors 3, 5, and 10. There are 12 stormwater basins proposed on the site. At the wetlands in corridor 7, there is a proposed stormwater basin on both sides of the corridor so that the wetland does not have to be crossed. At wetlands 3, 5, and 10, a series of stormwater basins are proposed throughout the area to accomplish the zero increase in runoff and the stormwater polishing that's necessary. The stormwater management plan is consistent with the goals and requirements outlined in the town's master drainage study. Ziaks explained that all of the detention areas are basins, not ponds. Each basin will have a 2-foot sump at the bottom, allowing two feet of water to be stored at the bottom of the basin. He has found this design to be particularly effective in establishing viable manmade wetland vegetation. Ziaks did note, however, that, at the town's request, some or all of the basins could be redesigned as ponds.

Roger Kellman, engineer, reviewed the aquifer recharge, sedimentation and erosion controls, and sewer and septic layout. He stated that, at the Conservation Officer's suggestion in her memo of June 19, 2000, some of the riprap will be moved further away from the wetlands, and he recognized that there is a lack of detail regarding expansion of an existing culvert. He will provide those details as soon as possible.

Kellman stated that the activity referred to in the memo as Wetland Activity #3 will cause a temporary disturbance of approximately 200 square feet,and the fill removed will be replaced. He also noted that, because the site is very flat, it's easy to control erosion. Silt fences will be installed, hay bales will be used around catch basins, and construction exit pads will be installed before construction begins. The silt fencing will not be extensive as there are no steep slopes.

Kellman noted that the septic systems proposed on the site will assist in recharging the aquifer, and that Farmington Valley Health District found soil conditions on the site to be suitable for the installation of septic systems, with the exception of Lot 65, which has a shallow ledge, and Lot 15, which was not tested.

Eric Mas, Environmental Engineer, discussed the revised stormwater quality analysis performed for the revised development plan. The evaluation method has been modified from the previous submission in response to comments by the town's engineering consultant that the previous P8 evaluation did not address pollutant loads under existing conditions. The modified stormwater quality evaluation includes calculation of stormwater pollutant loadings from the site under pre- and post-development conditions.

Revised P8 modeling of the proposed stormwater quality management system was used to estimate pollutant removal efficiency. The proposed stormwater quality management system is predicted to achieve moderate to high levels of pollutant removal in a majority of the subwatersheds on the site. Site-wide average pollutant removal efficiencies are between 60 and 90 percent for the stormwater pollutants considered. The highest average removals are predicted for total suspended solids (greater than 90 percent), while somewhat lower removal rates are predicted for nutrients and metals (60 to 80 percent). The model-predicted removal rates for nutrients and metals are lower than the particulate pollutant removal rates, in part, because P8 does not account for chemical and biological mechanisms responsible for contaminant removal, such as biological uptake by vegetation. A majority of the proposed stormwater control structured (i. e., extended detention basins, infiltration basins, and biofilter swales) contain emergent or wetland vegetation which will enhance uptake of soluble pollutants.

Several of the subwatersheds in the proposed development have stormwater controls consisting of sumped catch basins and street sweeping. Nominal levels of pollutant removal (less than 10 percent of particulate pollutants) are anticipated in these watersheds. However, these watersheds will contain minimal development (i. e., back yards and open space areas) or will primarily consist of undeveloped open space and low-density residential development. Therefore, stormwater pollutant loadings in these watersheds will likely be significantly lower than in other portions of the site.

The second component of the revised stormwater quality evaluation is the pre-and post-development pollutant loading evaluation to compare pollutant export under existing and proposed site conditions. The "Schueler Method" (also known as the "Simple Method") was used for the pre-and post-development pollutant loading analysis. The Schueler Method is an empirical equation for estimating pollutant export from development areas. The method is applicable to small watersheds (less than one square mile) for decision-making at the site planning level. According to the method, the annual storm pollutant export from the site is due to four major parameters: 1) annual rainfall depth; 2) the imperviousness of the site; 3) the watershed area of the site; and 4) the runoff pollutant concentrations.

Mas noted that pesticides were not explicitly modeled in the evaluation. However, TSS (total suspended solids) is considered a reliable surrogate for pesticides in this application as residual pesticides in the soil are highly insoluble and will be contained in the runoff as attached to particles. The Scheuler Method was applied to each subwatershed on the site under existing and proposed development conditions. Pollutant loads from individual subwatersheds were summed to obtain loads at each TR-55 design point, which correspond to discharges to the major on-site receiving waters.

The results of the evaluation predicted significant reductions in annual stormwater loadings of four of the six pollutants modeled, with the exception of zinc and copper. Percent reductions in annual site-wide loadings of total suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, and lead are between 11 and 81 percent. Model results predict a slight increase in annual zinc and copper loads from the site (six percent and 11 percent, respectively). However, the magnitude of this increase is only 0.5 to 1.8 pounds per year, which translates to 0.6 to 2.1 grams per day.

Bob Potterton, engineer, talked about the soil mixing plan and the revised aquifer recharge analysis. The analysis looked at recharge to the aquifer under pre- and post-development conditions to determine what the change to the aquifer recharge might be associated with the development. The analysis was modified to include discharge from the additional roofing area and incorporated additional discharge associated with the individual septic systems. Under the new proposed development, there will be an increase of 1.3 acre feet of water per year within the Bissell Brook aquifer. The Hoskins aquifer is proposed to have a deficit of 5 acre feet per year. These figures are as close to an ideal balance for recharge as is possible.

Potterton stated that, at the commission's suggestion wells were re-sarnpled under high water table conditions in April 2000 and no EEB was found. He also stated that he believes that there are no impacts to the groundwater from pesticides on this site.

Potterton noted that the revised soil mixing plan looked at eight different methods of remediation. These included capping, oxidation, reduction, soil washing and vitrification. These were all screened out very early in the process because they either were not very effective for the types and concentrations of pesticides that were observed on the site or they precluded future site development as a result of the nature of the method. Potterton stated that the sod mixing analysis found that soil mixing is the most effective and cost-effective means of dealing with the soil on this site.

Included in the revised soil mixing plan is provision for soil excavation in Hoskins 7 and the buffer for wetlands #2. The soil in these areas will not be mixed but, rather, the top six inches of soil will be removed, the areas resampled to assure that they are in compliance with the RSR'S, and then proceed with site development. Any areas that exceed the RSRs will have additional excavation.

Potterton noted that Paragraph D5 in the denial indicated that soil mixing was an unproven, and untested, and unregulated method of remediation. He recognized that this is a relatively new method of remediation, but disagreed with the commission's opinion. Potterton distributed information from New Jersey that summarizes five sites where soil mixing has been used and pointed out that the New Jersey DEP is actively implementing soil mixing on a number of sites. He noted that backup data had been distributed earlier to the town supporting correspondence and date associated with those five sites. In addition, he noted that the applicants have indicated through pilot tests that this technology is viable on the site. The applicants are, however, proposing to do an additional extensive area of pilot testing and would be willing to accept, as a condition of approval, a successful conclusion to that pilot test area.

Potterton explained that the applicants are proposing to do additional tests on the site:

1) Additional sampling around areas of current and former tobacco sheds. Twenty dfferent samples will be taken in those areas.

2) Thirty more samples scattered throughout the area of Meadowood East. This sampling would consist of three different intervals at each location. The upper two intervals would be analyzed and the lower interval analyzed if, in fact, the lower interval of those two samples indicated residual pesticides.

3) Two pizometers, downgrading of the Hoskins 7 area for monitoring groundwater quality, at the suggestion of ERL. Two separate rounds of groundwater testing would be performed there.

4) A 10-acre pilot study for chlordane concentrations. The area to be tested, generally, has about one part per million of chlordane. Fifty locations within the area will be sampled. Two pre-mixing samples will be taken, then three post-mixing samples will be taken at a depth of 3.5 feet. The 50 samples taken with the highest concentrations will be subjected to SPLP testing to determine the potential for leaching. The results of the SPLP tests will be used to determine what post-mixing testing will be done on the remainder of the site.

5) Install five more downgradient pizometers, combined with pizometers 11, 5, and 3 which are already installed on downgradient areas of the site.

Commissioner Sharpless asked if the proposed pre-mixing analysis will be performed after town approval of the project. Potterton replied that the applicants would be willing to accept that as a condition of approval.

Commissioner Sharpless asked if the applicants intend to sample near the shade poles. Potterton replied that they could sample the pole areas, but he didn't think that it would provide any useful data, as the sampling will be done to detect chlordane and chlordane hasn't been used on the site in more than 40 years. Since that time the shade poles have been relocated to different areas on the site, so it is unlikely that chlordane will be detected near them. Jay Fisher confirmed that testing of the pole areas would take place.

Kevin Miller, toxicologist, stated that an additional 25 sediment samples and an additional eight surface water samples have been collected, for a total of 35 sediment samples and nine surface water samples.

Miller noted that comment was made in Paragraph D of the denial that all of the chemicals that are in appendix A of the Connecticut DEP and Agricultural Station Bulletin were not tested for on the site. He stated that, while not all of the chemicals were on the hit list, the vast number and methods of technology that were used would have detected all of the chemicals on the list, with the exception of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde was used 30 years ago primarily for seeds in a .1% solution and, it is his belief that, even if it was used 30 years ago, in that kind of solution, it couldn't be detected today.

Miller explained that the dust monitoring plan has been revised to include wetting of the mixing areas before mixing is performed and during mixing. In addition, total dust monitoring at ax limit 10 mcg. per meter cube, and real-time dust monitoring with the ax limit down at 3 mcg. per meter cube.

In addition, four high-volume monitors will be placed around the area of mixing. They will be moved on a daily basis to whatever area mixing is occurring. They will collect samples and perform pesticide analysis on those four monitors.

Miller also noted that a letter was received on June 13, 2000, and is included in the commissioners' packets, from Stuart Shupe of Farmington Valley Health District, who evaluated the plan.

Commissioner Sharpless asked how the sediment sampling was done. Miller replied that the surface sediment samplings were collected with a disposable scoop, placed in an analytical jar, and taken to the laboratory. Sharpless then asked if the laboratory dried the samples. Miller replied that he wasn't sure.

Commissioner Winters asked if the $1 million proposed cost for soil mixing included just one mixing or if it took into consideration re-mixing. Potterton replied that it took into account one soil mixing.

Wayne Cobleigh, President of the North Simsbury Coalition, presented a letter and asked that all of the Coalition's previous oral and written testimony become part of the record of the revised application.

V. ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made by Commissioner Clayberger to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowak and carried unanimously.