IWWC

Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission

40 Old Farms Road, Willington, CT  06279

May 13, 2019

 Meeting Minutes

Members Present:

Dave Schreiber – Chairman

Tess Gutowski – Co-Chairman

Patrick Lord

Mark Drobney

Members Absent:

Also Present:

Mike D’Amato – Zoning Agent

Emily Perko – Assistant Zoning and Wetland Agent

Attorney Ken Slater

D. Schreiber called the Public Hearing to order at 7:33.

IW-19-1 Application for modification of existing approved permit at 3 Polster Road Owner/Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Store (Received January 28, 2019

Public Hearing or decision within 65 days)

D. Schreiber explained that they can only address wetlands issues and anything previously approved is not on the table tonight; they are only discussing the septic system. 

Ed Pawlak, a Registered Wetland and Soil Scientist, has reviewed the wetland application and does not support or oppose the application.  He visited the site and submitted a letter dated April 22, 2019 with his unbiased opinion based on his expertise and the review is only on the modifications since the prior approval.  Regarding construction phase 2 and the 12.4 acres to be cleared, E. Pawlak stated this is a lot of land to clear and also maintain erosion controls; this phase should be broken out into small sub-phases.  He believes the revised parking lot layout is an improvement and then spoke on the septic revisions.  He said the septic is in close proximity to wetland H, I & J and spoke on the characteristics of the wetlands.  Wetland H is a headwater stream and the health of the headwater stream is critical to the health of the entire river network.  E. Pawlak included informational websites in his letter. 

E. Pawlak referenced letters submitted by Brian Murphy of Fisheries and spoke on the Brook Trout Mr. Murphy witnessed in Wetland H.  He said he observed juvenile Brook Trout in Wetland H in the fall of 2012.  Mr. Murphy installed temperature gauges in wetland H and in Roaring Brook and said wetland H supported very cold ground water and is a unique fisheries habitat.  He also observed flow June through November and believes this wetland is much more than an intermittent watercourse. 

E. Pawlak recommended conducting a Bio-survey and installing a vegetative buffer based on scientific data which is included in his letter.    He added that the recommendations he provided were based on substantial evidence and not opinions.  He also questioned if the applicant is going to alter the existing groundwater flow. 

E. Pawlak asked that the applicant provide the current amount of nitrate nitrogen in Wetland H and Roaring Brook and what it will be after the septic is installed and functioning. He asked the applicant to explain Wetland J’s water source, the proposed clearing limits at the northern edge of the parking lot and where and when Spotted Turtles were identified.  He added that the habitat is also suitable for Eastern Ribbon Snakes.  He would like a Critical Habitat Map generated and have the applicant re-visit Wetland H, I, and J to determine if it is an intermittent watercourse.    

A discussion was held on the Wetland Commission’s authority when regulating impacts to wildlife.  Attorney Ken Slater said that would be a couple steps down the road after they’ve heard all the evidence.  The Commission would have no authority unless they determine there are direct impacts to the wetlands and the upland habitat; at the point they could protect the upland habitat only.  E. Pawlak added that the existence of this wildlife helps a Wetland Scientist determine how valuable these resources are. 

P. Lord asked how many streams in Connecticut support Brook Trout and Mr. Pawlak suggested the Commission visit the CT Eco website which will give them a better sense of the information.  P. Lord questioned the water that eventually discharges to Wetland J from the catch basin off the parking lot and if on a hot day, it could pass through the wetland to roaring brook and raise the water temperature.  Mr. Pawlak said this was one of the questions he suggested the Commission ask the applicant.

P. Lord asked if clearing the canopy would increase the temperature as well as have an impact on the food for the trout.  E. Pawlak said a vegetative buffer would preserve the water quality chemically and physical and believes removing the canopy would have some solar impact. 

D. Schreiber said there does not appear to be a buffer on the side of the infiltration bed between the wetland and open area.  Atty. Slater said that is how he also sees it and E. Pawlak said that is where he is asking for clearing limits to be shown.  P. Lord asked if E. Pawlak reviewed the previous studies on the vernal pools and he said his instructions were to review and comment on only the modifications to the application.  P. Lord questioned if salamanders and other species could move from the wetlands to the vernal pools and Mr. Pawlak said he could not comment as that also was not his charge; his focus was only on the changes that the commission was reviewing.

P. Lord asked if E. Pawlak was in agreement with the limits of the wetlands and he was in agreement with the delineation of the wetland except the question he asked regarding the downgradient aspect of Wetland J. He said there was surface water moving beyond the westerly boundary of wetland J. T. Gutowski asked how Wetland I and J would be classified and Mr. Pawlak said he is going to wait until he hears back from the applicant before he comments.

A discussion was held on the area of clearing and E. Pawlak said the over story would be gone in the area of Wetland I and J. He referenced the vegetative buffer and the impacts as he indicated in his document. P. Lord asked if E. Pawlak was aware of the water that would be drained through the system on a daily basis and he said no but he asked the applicant if the hydrology of Wetland H would be maintained. He added that the applicant would have to prove there would be no impact to functions, values and characteristic of the wetlands and a discussion was held.

A letter from Fuss & O’Neill dated May 15, 2019 was submitted for the record.  Matt Germine, a Special Engineer with Fuss & O’Neill and an expert in waste water treatment, was present for the applicant.  He said they have many safe guards and redundancies in place for soil and sediment control measures. He said Fuss & O’Neill will be on site every day as well as a Clerk of the Works that will provide verification that all control measures are in place. M. Germine went through the safeguards in place and said there will be no thermal impacts to Wetland H from the subsurface absorption system.  They have gone before a judge during the State Adjudication process and made their case with facts and scientific evidence. M. Germine added that no surface water will discharge into Wetland H. 

In response to Brian Murphy’s graphs on groundwater temperature, M. Germine said they looked at the data and digitized it from his graph; they overlaid the air temperature and Roaring Brook’s temperature and believe it is a good correlation.  He gave more details on the graph’s design and their findings and a discussion was held on the temperatures.

P. Lord questioned the subsurface temperatures and if the applicant took into account the tree clearing and direct sun light.  M. Germine said the groundwater discharges into the ground and it takes approximately 30 days to reach the edge of the liner; by the time it reaches the wetland, the soil contact would normalize any water temperature.  T. Gutowski questioned impact to Wetland H and if there would be more water and M. Germine said there would be the smallest fraction to the increase in flow.

M. Germine referenced the comments on the reduction in the vegetative buffer and said there is a debate between a vegetative buffer and bushes/grasslands and which one is better.  He believes they both function equally.

Further discussion was held on the thermal impact on Wetland H and clearing. Josh Wilson said they are going to implement additional plantings and maintain as many mature trees as they can on the downgradient slope; this will maintain surface cooling.  He said their goal has always been to minimize impacts to the upland area and minimize disturbance in the buffer while accomplishing the goals of the project; that’s why they pushed the buffer to 20 feet. J. Wilson said although they are now increasing the clearing, they are still looking at the same amount of clearing that was approved in the original application. T. Gutowski said the original approval wasn’t within 20 feet of Wetland H and J. Wilson said it was further back but the work that was going to be done in that area was more intensive.  Further discussion was held on the clearing, the plantings and the erosion control measures.

J. Wilson said they are providing many levels to protect the wetlands; silt fence backed by hay bales, sediment swales in some areas and daily monitoring by several parties to minimize impact. M. Germine said, in regards to the retaining walls, DEEP referred them to the Erosion and Sediment Control Manual and retaining walls are recommended; it is also considered a Best Management Practice. J. Wilson gave an overview of the drainage system design and the flow of the water provided in their comments.

J. Wilson said Roaring Brook is also stocked with trout and their goal is to maintain existing conditions in regards to flow and temperature.  He said the Spotted Turtles were observed in standing, non-flowing water and Ribbon Snakes prefer wet meadow and would be in the south western part of the site.  They did not see any vernal pool habitat on the northern part of the site.  He said there were 3 vernal pools on the southern half of the site and all migration would be in that portion of the site.

E. Pawlak said DEEP’s Public Hearing documents have been submitted for the record and further discussion was held on water flow and water quality. T. Gutowski questioned the nitrates going into the stream and E. Pawlak said from the edge of the lines, there is still additional distance before getting to the wetland.  He added that this is a 2 step pretreatment system and there will be a treatment plant operator on site.  If  there is a problem with the system, it will not get down to the leech field; the problem will be addressed. 

J. Wilson said they are maintaining at least a 20 foot buffer and planting native trees that will provide adequate shading.  They will be testing for water quality and temperature twice a year and will do supplemental plantings if needed. M. Germine referenced the chart in their document on the different constituents for wetland treatment and went over the various types of buffers. J. Wilson said they inspected the resources of Wetland J and I and they believe the level of protections with the buffer will protect the qualities of Wetland I and J.

P. Lord questioned cleaning products and chemicals. M. Germine said anything that goes down the floor drains will go to a designated tank and other cleaning products such as dishwashing and toilet cleaners will be treated the same at the truck stop as they would be at your house.  T. Gutowski asked if they reviewed the upland reviews areas and buffer with DEEP and M. Germine said they did and the design is to mitigate adverse impacts to the wetlands.  J. Wilson said it was designed to get what they need as well as protect the resources on the site and stay close to what was approved in 2013. The applicant added that they will provide a list of the species on the site. 

P. Lord asked if they looked at other feasible alternatives and M. Germine said they did; they started at the top of the hill and worked their way down.  The soils at the top of the hill were terrible; no permeability or drainage.  He said they looked at all the numbers and eventually found the area toward the bottom with the best sandy material. 

Kelly Trueb asked the deadline for closing the hearing and Atty. Slater said per State Statute the applicant can grant 65 days of extension and the hearing has to be closed by May 29th.  A decision has to be made 35 days after the hearing is closed. Kathy Demers, of the Conservation Commission, asked if they could potentially move the septic up the hill since they are bringing in fill with a liner. M. Germine said they would still have to replace the soil all the way down the hill until they reach the sandy soil if they did that. 

Ms. Trueb asked the Commission to move the application along or kill it as it has been ongoing for 10 years. 

The Public Hearing was continued to May 20, 2019.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michele Manas

Michele Manas

Recording Clerk