Shunock River Non-Infringement Area Natural Resource Inventory

Shunock River Non‐Infringement Area Natural Resource Inventory

North Stonington, Connecticut

Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team Report

Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation & Development Area, Inc. Shunock River Non‐Infringement Area Natural Resource Inventory 2

North Stonington, Connecticut

Environmental Review Team Report

Prepared by the Eastern Connecticut Environmental review Team

Of the

Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc.

For the

Planning and Zoning Commission North Stonington, Connecticut

May 2008

Report #614

Acknowledgments

This report is an outgrowth of a request from the North Stonington Planning and zoning Commission to the Eastern Conservation District (ECD) and the Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Area (RC&D) Council for their consideration and approval. The request was approved and the measure reviewed by the Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team (ERT).

The Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team Coordinator, Elaine Sych, would like to thank and gratefully acknowledge the following Team members whose professionalism and expertise were invaluable to the completion of this report.

The field review took place on Tuesday, June 19, 2007.

Nicholas Bellantoni State Archaeologist UCONN (860) 486‐5248

Kim Czapla Environmental Analyst II DEP – Aquifer Protection Area Program (860) 424‐

Antoanela Daha Sanitary Engineer DEP – Subsurface Sewage Disposal (860) 424‐3018

Jenny Dickson Wildlife Biologist DEP – Sessions Woods Wildlife Management Area (860) 675‐8130

Laurie Giannotti Trails and Greenways Coordinator DEP – State Parks Division (860) 424‐3578

Scott Gravatt District Director Eastern CT Conservation District (860) 774‐8397 4

Jeffrey Hunter Transportation Planner DOT – Office of Intermodal Planning (860) 594‐2139

Alan Levere Wetland Reviewer DEP ‐ Environmental and Geographic Information Center (860) 424‐3643

Dawn McKay Biologist/Environmental Analyst 3 DEP – Bureau of Natural Resources (860) 424‐3592

Brian Murphy Fisheries Biologist DEP – Inland Fisheries Division (860) 295‐9523

Dave Poirier Staff Archaeologist State Historical Preservation Office (860) 566‐3005

Tom Seidel Senior Planner Southeastern CT Council of Governments (860) 889‐2324

Randolph Steinen Geologist DEP – State Geological & Natural History Survey UCONN – Geology (emeritus) (860) 487‐0226

Eric Thomas* Thames River Basin Coordinator DEP – Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse (860) 424‐3548

Julie Victoria Wildlife Biologist DEP – Franklin Wildlife Management Area (860) 642‐7239

Pat Young Natural Resource Specialist Eastern Conservation District (860) 887‐4163 Ext. 401 5

*Report not yet received.

I would also like to thank Duncan Schweitzer of the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission and the many property owners along the Shunock River for their cooperation and assistance during this environmental review.

Prior to the review day, each Team member received a summary of the proposed project with location and aerial photos. During the field review Team members received additional information, reports and maps. Some Team members made additional visits at a later date (October 2007). Following the reviews, reports from each Team member were submitted to the ERT coordinator for compilation and editing into this final report.

This report represents the Team’s findings. It is not meant to compete with private consultants by providing site plans or detailed solutions to development problems. The Team does not recommend what final action should be taken on a proposed project ‐ all final decisions rest with the town and landowners. This report identifies the existing resource base and evaluates its significance to the proposed use, and also suggests considerations that should be of concern to the town. The results of this Team action are oriented toward the development of better environmental quality and the long term economics of land use.

The Eastern Connecticut RC&D Executive Council hopes you will find this report of value and assistance in reviewing Shunock River Non‐Infringement Area associated with the Commercial Development Zone.

If you require additional information please contact:

Elaine Sych, ERT Coordinator CT ERT Program P. O. Box 70 Haddam, CT 06438 Tel: (860) 345‐3977 e‐mail: [email protected]

Table of Contents

Page

Frontpiece 2

Acknowledgments 3

Table of Contents 6

Introduction 7

Geology 14

Eastern Connecticut Conservation District Review 19

Wetland Review 46

The Natural Diversity Data Base 56

Aquifer Resource, Water Quality and Water Supply 60

Subsurface Wastewater Treatment and Renovation System 67

Planning Considerations 70

Traffic Issues 72

Potential Trail and Greenway Development 74

Archaeological and Historical Review 76

Appendix 77

Fisheries Resources 78

Introduction

The North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) has requested Environmental Review Team (ERT) assistance in reviewing the Shunock River Non‐ Infringement Area associated with the Commercial Development Zone.

The Planning and Zoning Commission has created a Commercial Development Zone (CD) with an internal Non‐Infringement Area that runs along the Shunock River and Interstate 95. It has no set boundaries, but is set by the PZC on a case by case basis, in response to the actual environmental characteristics of a given site. The CD Zone is approximately 420 acres and combines strong economic development potential with important natural resources, historic sites, and some fragile areas. It is the goal of the PZC to see the zone built out in a way which is good business while protective of resources.

It was decided to treat the Shunock River as the central amenity to the zone – hence the creation of nthe‐ no infringement area. The area along the Shunock is unspoiled and contains potential water supply well heads. The few commercial buildings in the zone are almost entirely vacant, and there are large +100 acre undeveloped properties. Some of the large parcels have recently sold and development may soon follow. The PZC in reviewing the Report of the Shunock River Non‐Infringement Area Sub‐committee of the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission, March 8, 2006, and in working with potential developers felt that having a coherent plan for trails (greenway development), water use, sewage disposal, and internal roads would be of great value in achieving the desired outcome: a vibrant commercial zone with a riverway as its centerpiece.

Despite the commercial advantage of proximity to I‐95 at Exit 92, the commercial desirability of the zone is limited by a lack of public water and sewer. The PZC sees that these obstacles may be overcome with the possibility of proper development of package treatment plants and the potential for public water supply well heads within the zone.

While there have been studies done at various locations within the zone (4/73 – Special Land Use Study, SCRPA; 9/79 – Re‐Examination f 1973 Special Land Use 8

Study; 2/95 ERT Report Office Research Zone; and 10/96 ERT Report Reuse Plan for 95A Pendleton Hill Road), it was felt that none of them give the PZC complete information.

Objectives of the ERT Study

The PZC has asked the ERT to address the following issues and goals: Reviewing the Shunock River Non‐Infringement Area Report and the other studies for current relevance, and updating the information as needed, especially in regards to the land south of I‐95, which has never been studied. Planning a series of trails and crossings that connect pedestrians to businesses on either side if the Shunock River and both sides of the highway, and to historic sites along the river, with standards for their review. Reviewing the potential for a central package treatment plant that could serve the entire zone, with possible locations(s) and standards. Preserving the potential groundwater wellheads and water quality of the Shunock in a way that is compatible with and enhances the commercial viability of the zone. Planning for access management and internal roads within the zone that keeps traffic off Route 2 and is also pedestrian friendly.

The ERT Process

Through the efforts of the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission this environmental review and report was prepared for the Town of North Stonington.

This report provides an information base and a series of recommendations and guidelines which cover the topics requested by the town. Team members were able to review maps, plans and supporting documentation provided by the town.

The review process consisted of four phases: 1. Inventory of the site’s natural resources; 2. Assessment of these resources; 3. Identification of resource areas and review of plans; and 4. Presentation of education, management and land use guidelines.

The data collection phase involved both literature and field research. The field review was conducted Tuesday, June 19, 2007. Some Team members made 9

additional site visits. The emphasis of the field review was on the exchange of ideas, concerns and recommendations. Being on site allowed Team members to verify information and to identify other resources. Some Team members attended all the field reviews, while others attended only portions of the field/boat trips.

Once Team members had assimilated an adequate data base, they were able to analyze and interpret their findings. Individual Team members then prepared and submitted their reports to the ERT coordinator for compilation into this final ERT report. 10

Geology

This section summarizes the geology sections of the two earlier reports of the Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team (1995 and 1996).

Geology

The Shunock River Valley (see Fig. 1) comprises a lowland that is slightly less than a mile wide. Deposits of stratified sand and gravel occupy the valley bottom and form the Shunock Aquifer (Shafer, 1968; Stone et al, 2005). The stratified deposits have good intergranular porosity and permeability and wells developed in this aquifer can be expected to produce high yields of groundwater. A portion of the area was mined for gravel in the past. The gravel removal operation drastically modified the topography and altered the environment.

The aquifer is at least 50 feet thick in places (Cervione et al, 1968). It was formed by deposits left by glacial melt‐water streams at the end of the last Ice Age (Fig. 2, 3). The deposits form terraces (Fig. 3) on either side of the Shunock River. The terraces represent the level at which the glacial streams flowed. Most of the areas ha a hummocky topography with numerous closed depressions. The depressions are referred to as kettles (good examples may be found north of Ct. Rte. 184 and south of I‐95). This is typical of stratified deposits formed in contact with left over ice that had not completely melted when stream deposition occurred. Thus, the sand and gravel was deposited adjacent to or over remnant ice. A short ridge, located east of Rte. 2 and south of I‐95 (see chevrons on Fig. 1), had a slightly different origin. It is referred to as an esker by Stone et al. (2005). Filling of an ice‐walled crevasse or a tunnel in the glacier may have formed this ridge.

Bedrock is locally exposed in till‐covered highlands on either side of the valley. The bedrock consists of well‐foliated gneiss (Feinenger, 1965, Rodgers, 1985) that is referred to as the Potter Hill Granite Gneiss (pre‐Cambrian in age). The bedrock contains widely spaced steeply‐dipping fractures that are interconnected by prominent near horizontal fractures and, because of this; it forms a bedrock aquifer suitable for development of domestic water supplies. Low to moderate well yields may be expected from this aquifer.

Former mining activities have drastically modified the local environment. Mining operations resulted in removal of gravel in some locations to the depth of the water 15

table. Close to the Shunock River this activity enlarged the flood‐way dramatically1 so that now it is reported that flood debris has been observed almost a quarter of a mile east of the present stream‐course in areas that formerly had an elevation well above the flood elevation. In addition to excessive removal of material the area has received little or no restoration or reclamation. Thus, little or no soil covers the gravel surface in much of the mined out area. Both these situations make redevelopment of the area difficult.

Because the remaining gravel has high porosity and permeability pollutants that may enter the aquifer will rapidly disperse down the hydraulic gradient (down‐ stream). This is a potential threat to down gradient wells and well fields, including that of the Town of Westerly, R.I. Strict aquifer protection measures should be enforced by the Town of North Stonington not only within the buffer zone, but also over the entire aquifer. Pollutants developed anywhere within the drainage basin of the Shunock River could, under the right circumstances, enter the aquifer through either surface or subsurface recharge. Potential polluting land‐uses within the drainage basin should be regulated and carefully monitored.

References

Cervione, M.A., Grossman, I.G., and Thomas, C.E., Jr., 1968, Hydrogeologic data for the Lower Thames and Southeastern Coastal River Basins, CT. CT Water Res. Bull. #16, 65p.

Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team, 1995, Office/Research Zone, North Stonington Connecticut: A special land use study. E. Conn. Environ. Rev. Team Rpt. #505, p. 4‐8.

Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team, 1996, Reuse plan for 95A Pendleton Road, North Stonington, Connecticut. E. Conn. Environ. Rev. Team Rpt. #523 (unpagenated).

Feinenger, Thomas, 1965, Bedrock Geologic map of the Ashaway Quadrangle, Connecticut‐Rhode Island. U.S. Geol. Survey Map GQ‐403.

Rodgers, John, 1985, Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Nat’l. Resource Atlas Series, 1:125,000.

1 This suggests that the FEMA flood hazard maps should be reviewed for current accuracy in this area. If they were constructed prior to termination of gravel removal operations, they may not accurately forecast the area flooded by anticipated storm events of a given magnitude. 16

Schafer, J.P., 1968, Surficial Geologic map of the Ashaway Quadrangle, Connecticut‐ Rhode Island, U.S. Geol. Survey Map GQ‐712.

Stone, J.R., Schafer, J.P., London, E.H., DiGiacomo‐Cohen, M.L., Lewis, R.S., and Thompson, W.B., 2005, Quaternary Geologic Map of Connecticut and Long Island Sound Basin (1:125,000). U.S. Geol. Surv. Sci. Invest. Map # 2784.

Figure 1. Map showing area along Shunock River underlain by sand and gravel aquifer. Note that the terraces on both sides of the river stand 20‐30 feet or more higher than the river elevation. Terrace tops have a hummocky topography with numerous closed depressions. Esker indicated with chevrons in south‐central part of area. Map redrawn by author from Department of Environmental Protection’s Environmental Conditions On‐line. 18

A. B. Figure 2. Views of terrace in southern part of area. Because the gravel was deposited against ice it is referred to as a kame terrace. A. Photograph taken from base of kame located along north side of Shunock River adjacent to farm near confluence of the Shunock and Pawcatuck Rivers. Terrace top elevation greater than 30 feet above Shunock River flood plain. B. Cobbles of rounded rock protruding above thin soil on slope of terrace. Rounded nature of rocks indicates that cobbles were shaped by stream processes. The entire terrace is composed of deposits from a river flowing at a higher elevation than the modern Shunock River. During deposition of the terrace material, it is likely that left‐over ice filled the valley which the Shunock River occupies today.

A. B. Figure 3. A. View of top of kame terrace located north of CT Rte. 184 outside area of Non‐Infringement Zone. B. Rounded river rocks that make up the kame deposit.

Eastern Connecticut Conservation District Review

Introduction

The Shunock River is part of the Pawcatuck River watershed. Its total watershed covers an area of about 16.8 square miles. Numerous reviews have been conducted in this watershed with the expressed focus of identifying and protecting both surface and groundwater resources. Surface water quality is mapped as A/AA by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) indicating good to excellent water quality. According to previous reviews by DEP’s fisheries biologists, the river supports a large variety of native finfish. A sizable stratified drift aquifer has been identified as a potential future water supply. Groundwater quality is listed as GAA/GA for the majority of the area indicating that the natural quality is considered suitable for drinking water purposes. Considerable effort has been expended in an attempt to balance resource protection while encouraging responsible development.

Two large areas of land, one northwest of I-95 and one southeast, have been identified as appropriate for commercial development due to existing uses and present road network systems. These areas however are not currently served by public water or sanitary sewer. The Shunock River runs through both of these areas flowing in a southeasterly direction to the Pawcatuck River. The town has expressed a vision that would place the Shunock River as a central amenity in this zone and set the tone for future development. The proposed Shunock River Non- Infringement Area is the planning tool designed to ensure that the Shunock River corridor is preserved. For general mapping purposes, the proposed width is 100 feet upland of mapped wetlands along each side the river, or in the absence of any wetlands, from the top of the river bank. Additional areas are shown as possible increases in the Non- Infringement Area and take into consideration steep slopes and “regular boundaries”. It is anticipated that any additional non-infringement areas beyond the proposed 100 feet would be set lot by lot, based on site specific resource mapping.

The upland areas northwest of I-95, flanking both sides of the river, have seen significant alteration due to several large commercial buildings and a previous gravel excavation site. Gravel excavation, as well as the majority of previous commercial uses, is currently abandoned.

Although it was not possible to complete a full ground survey, it was noted that there is at least one roadway crossing of the river, approximately in the middle of the northern reach. 20

At this crossing there are two culverts in place. Route 617 and Interstate 95 add at least three more crossings to the stream corridor as shown on the map below.

While the crossings are typically box culvert structures, they may or may not have been designed to provide sustained flow depths for fish passage.

To the southeast of I-95, with the exception of a power substation and transmission lines, development consists primarily of residential structures along Route 49. Large portions of the area appear to be previously used for pasture but are now forested. It appears that there was at least one in-stream crossing, most likely associated with past agricultural use. The stream corridor in this area appears relatively undisturbed, with only minor historical grading activity within close proximity to the river.

This report is in response to the Town’s request for information on the appropriateness of the width of the non-infringement area as well as measures that would allow and encourage passive use, while protecting and possibly improving the corridor ecology. Further, the Town is seeking information on how to provide for commercial development while preserving future groundwater supplies. 21

General Development Potential

Overview

The area of land affected by the Non-Infringement Area within the commercial district can be divided into two distinct areas: northwest of I-95 and southeast of I-95.

Northwest of I-95

Overview

The area to the northwest of I-95 is defined by four major road systems (Route 617, Route 2, Route 184 and Route 49). Over the years, portions of this land area have seen significant alteration, mostly associated with the gravel excavation operation and previous commercial development. While a few of the buildings appear to have tenants, the majority of the developed sites have been abandoned. Several small agricultural fields were noted in the northeastern portion of this area.

In addition to the 100 foot setback, steep slopes have been included on the map entitled “Shunock River Non-Infringement Area” as the possible extent of the non-infringement area. Identification of the Non-Infringement Area early in the pre-development process highlights the importance of the river resource and allows potential developers to set realistic expectations when defining buildable areas.

Recommendations

• As large portions of this area have already been impacted, it would appear reasonable to utilize those areas for the most intense development, provided water resources are still protected. • Steep slope areas, especially those associated with the river corridor should be shown as part of the Non-Infringement Zone. • The Town could include language allowing minor modification of the Non- Infringement Zone to be permitted if it felt that it was in the overall best interest of the development scheme. • Internal access within this section should be limited to the existing crossing location. See comments under River Corridor section.

Southeast of I-95

Overview

The area to the south of I-95 is roughly one half the size of the northwestern portion. The Shunock River meanders through this area, with a larger associated wetland system in the southern part. Topography is gently to moderately sloping with a few areas of very steep slopes. The majority of the “buildable land” is located east of the river primarily along Route 22

49. There is one sizable portion of land west of the river, not impacted by wetlands or the proposed non-infringement area.

Recommendations

• To limit the number of river crossings, access to the western portion of this area should be from the Liberty Street frontage. A pedestrian connection could still be considered. See comments under River Corridor section.

• Preservation of steeper slopes not associated with the river corridor may be best managed on a lot by lot basis.

River Corridor

Overview

The Shunock River flows in a southeasterly direction, joining the Pawcatuck River a short distance beyond the limits of the proposed Commercial District. The upper section of the Shunock above I-95 is generally associated with a narrower riparian wetland system. The width of adjacent wetlands expands heading south. To the south of I-95, active floodplain wetlands interspersed with poorly drained soils make-up the landscape adjacent to the river. Establishment of a River Corridor Non- Infringement Area is an important step in acknowledging the significance of this resource. Further, it declares the Town’s intent to preserve the area and allows future developers clear direction on the Town’s expectations.

Recommendations

• The presence of wetlands adjacent to the river not only increases the ecological value of the entire system but also serves as additional buffering from landward uses. Where these riverine wetlands are minimal or absent, increasing the Non- Infringement Area to 150’ will offer further protection. • During a site tour of the property, it appeared that there are several areas south east of I-95 which may qualify as vernal pools. A juvenile wood frog, a species dependent on vernal pools for breeding purposes, was noted on site. A springtime review can confirm the presence and location of ecologically functioning vernal pools. • Several wetland areas are identified on the map with peat/muck soils. These types of wetlands can sometimes harbor unique species and are worth a closer evaluation by a wildlife biologist/botanist who will make specific recommendations aimed at preserving the ecology. 23

• There are several resources which the town has considered in determining the width of the non-infringement zone. These include the river proper, adjacent wetland areas, and upland areas within 100 feet of regulated areas. Additional resources include floodplains, floodways, and aquifer contribution areas. These areas should be included in the Non-Infringement Area to the extent feasible. • While fringe buffers between parcels offer some visual aesthetic benefits and can be used as water and wind filter strips, larger parcels of undeveloped land offer the most protection for wildlife and allow species requiring more expansive ranges to inhabit the area. • Use of the Non-Infringement Area should be limited. It would be desirable to limit it to trail systems and vegetation management. Realistically however, stormwater outlets need to be directed to locations that can handle flow velocities and may sometimes be best located within the Non-Infringement Area. However, the Town should be aware that even when outlets are constructed to recommended guidelines, a large percent fail, due to rill erosion, if not continually maintained. Long term erosion potential should be a primary consideration with outlet placement. Where appropriate, outlets can be bioengineered with native vegetation to promote soil stability and soften the transition zone. • While outlets may need to be included in the Non-Infringement Area, much of the stormwater remediation should take place outside this area. • Trails should be appropriately designed for their intended use. Surfacing would ideally generate minimal runoff while providing a stable medium. The corridor side chosen should have the least amount of wetland disturbance, avoid steep slopes and be concentrated in areas that have already been disturbed. Access to the main trail from each parcel could be laid out in preliminary fashion at this point. Some parcels may need to connect to other parcels to access the main trail. When possible, access points between two parcels should be combined to create a larger greenspace. • The shared trail and corridor maintenance responsibilities should ideally be carried out by one entity. • The river corridor is presently crossed at about half a dozen locations (including each of the I-95 points), from Route 184 to the Pawcatuck River. Additionally there is at least one internal crossing within the northern reach between Route 184 and I-95. There is also an on old stone bed crossing within the southern reach, just south of the highway. If an internal crossing is anticipated in the northern section, it should be located at the existing crossing. Provided there is no noteworthy historical significance, the existing two culvert system should be removed and a bridge, inverted U or buried box culvert should be used as this would allow restoration of the streambed. A pedestrian access bridge could be hung off the bridge. If an internal crossing is 24

not necessary, this is still the best location for a pedestrian bridge and the streambed should still be restored. • Where there are stands of invasive species, such as autumn olive, or where disturbance is necessary in the Non-Infringement Area, native plants should be used during restoration to enhance existing corridor vegetation. Species chosen should be placed according to drainage and shading specifications and be selected based on wildlife, bank stabilization and aesthetic value. Small groupings tend to work best when trying to replicate natural settings.

Aquifer Protection

Overview

The town has completed the first step towards aquifer protection by identifying the resource. While specific development details can be worked out on a site by site basis, aquifer protection should be a primary consideration up front.

Recommendations

• If not already completed, the next step in aquifer protection planning would be to conduct Level B mapping to show the zone of influence. While this is not as definitive as Level A mapping, it provides an aerial view which can than be shown on a zoning/resource map. • Uses in the zone of influence, should be modeled after those allowed under the State Aquifer Protection Guidelines which can be found at; http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/aquifer_protection/modelmuniregs.pdf • The Town has requested information on package sewage treatment systems. Since the effluent is discharged back into the ground after secondary treatment, these systems have the result of recharging the groundwater. There are however, two primary concerns with this. The first is ensuring that the effluent discharged to the ground is “clean” since it is recharging groundwater supplies. Large areas of soils in the rezoned area have been stripped and disturbed and careful review will be necessary to ensure that groundwater pollution is not an end result. To this end, areas of appropriate discharge should be identified at this stage so that they are not lost to development. The second concern is long term management. If the town does not have experience with packaged sewage treatment systems, ECCD recommends that it contact other towns in the region to gather information about structuring the appropriate management mechanism.

Stormwater Considerations

Overview

Stormwater runoff and snowmelt recharge both the surface and groundwater. Contaminants that have been deposited on the ground can enter the surface water via run-off or infiltrate to 25 the groundwater. This is known as non-point source pollution and is one of the leading causes for degradation of water quality. One of the most critical components when considering future development will be stormwater impacts. Both quantity and quality should be addressed.

Recommendations

• Stormwater management on this site will need to be a balance of ensuring that water quality issues have been met, that the downstream channel capacity is not overloaded, and that enough water is recharged to the underlying aquifer and to the river, especially during low flow periods. • If not already completed, a “water budgeting” analysis should be done to determine how much water should be recharged to the aquifer, based on anticipated withdrawal rates. • A full watershed analysis can be the best tool for determining the amount of water that needs to be retained on site for specific storm events. By knowing the timing of watershed peaks, individual lot development can be designed to fit into the overall watershed picture. Many towns have a requirement for no increase in peak discharge from a site. While this is a step up from uncontrolled discharge, it can still unknowingly add to the overall watershed peak, since the peak window is often extended way beyond original site flows. Extended peaks, even if they are below the highest discharge peak, can be detrimental to the river channel. The benefit of a watershed analysis is that it facilitates development design and may result in less stormwater storage volume being needed. This can result in less land being dedicated to retention basins/storage facilities and more available for open space and/or development. Therefore ECCD recommends that a watershed analysis be completed for the Shunock River. Each parcel that is developed in the watershed should then follow the specifications established in the analysis when designing their stormwater management system. • With any stormwater treatment system, long term management and maintenance is the key to ensuring that it continues to function to original design standards. Proper management and maintenance must include the whole system from rainfall impact to the river. A management plan should be submitted as part of any request for permitting. Condensing the specific management activities into a one page checklist format that can be readily available as part of routine grounds keeping, will assist in ensuring that tasks are performed as recommended. • Routine inspections by the Town will ensure proper stormwater management and maintenance. Establishing a “user fee” to offset the Town’s cost of inspections should be included in the application requirements or by Town Ordinance. • Stormwater treatment should be a combination of structural controls and biological controls to deal with the variety of associated pollutants. Infiltration methods such as porous pavement may offer opportunities to reduce stormwater runoff, but should also be evaluated in light of potential groundwater contamination. • While sometimes overlooked, building roofs and construction materials can have an impact on water quality. Roof runoff can contain contaminants, such as bacteria from bird waste or heavy metals leached from roofing or drainage materials. Further, roof 26

temperatures can exceed 120°F on a hot summer day. Alternatives such as green roofs, hazard-free building materials, and harvesting of roof water for irrigation should be considered. • ECCD strongly recommends that the Town have individual development plans reviewed by a stormwater management professional to make certain that all aspects of design and maintenance have been addressed and ensure a high likelihood of success.

Soil and Erosion

Overview

Attached to the end of this section are two soil maps from the “NRCS Soil Web”. Due to the size of the area, one map represents northwest of I-95 and the other southeast of I-95. Also included is a comparison of the suitability of soils on site for infiltration systems, local roads and streets, and stormwater basins. This is not intended to substitute for a detailed on- site analysis of soil suitability, but is meant to highlight areas of concern or potential uses. Large portions of the site have been mined for sand and gravel and are indicated on the soil map as Udorthent soils, meaning they have been disturbed or modified.

Recommendations

• Future development should include sediment and erosion control plans that meet or exceed the 2002 Guidelines for Sediment and Soil Erosion Control. • On larger parcels, construction should be phased to minimize erosion issues. • Inspection of erosion controls is critical during the construction phase. Many towns have limited staff availability to perform weekly site inspections during active construction periods. Third party inspection with timely reports submitted to the Planning/Engineering Department should be incorporated into development permitting to ensure the site is being closely monitored.

Species of Concern

Overview

According the Natural Diversity Data Base Mapping, cross-hatched dots appear along the river system just north of Route 184 and also in the southeast portion of town where the Shunock River joins the Pawcatuck. These dots represent the reported presence of species of concern, which are floral or faunal species that are threatened or endangered. It is likely that the parcels involved in the recent rezoning have not been reviewed on site for species of concern.

Recommendations

• Further information about the species represented by the dots should be sought from Connecticut DEP. By knowing the specific species and their preferred habitat, it is possible to determine the likelihood of their presence on the land under review. (Please refer to the Natural Diversity Data Base section.) • Since both dot locations appear to be within water/wetland habitats, existence of species of concern would further support the dedication of the Non-Infringement Area.

Conclusion

In conclusion the ECCD strongly supports the implementation of the Non-Infringement Area along the Shunock River. It is a resource worth protecting. If limitations are not set to protect the river and underlying aquifer, water quality will likely be negatively impacted. With careful planning, the Town will be able to realize its vision of an environmentally sensitive commercial development with the Shunock River as a central amenity.

Note: Eastern Connecticut Conservation District staff members have visited the site on two occasions. The first, as part of the formal ERT scheduled field visit on June 19, 2007, and the second on October 4, 2007.

Every attempt has been made to address the major resources of the property, however due to the size of the parcel (420 acres) some findings are reflected in more general terms.

31 32 33

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Wetland Review

Introduction

Protecting wetlands and watersheds is often an opportunity. Where many towns and development proposals feel they are forced to “work around” wetlands protection, North Stonington is in the enviable position of being able to incorporate the Shunock River into its plans for growth along the river corridor, and in combination withe th commercial opportunities presented by the proximity of the local highway interchanges.

It will take a long view to make it work, but the foresight will pay off. Many towns that have lost access to their waterways during their historic growth of industry and commerce have spent millions of dollars to reclaim the access and clean up the riparian zone from the debris of outdated infrastructure.

The Review

The Team was asked to review the Shunock from SR 184 south to Route 41 (Voluntown Road/Pendleton Hill Road). To do this the Team visited the site on June 19, 2007 and accessed and viewed the Shunock River via a series of road stops. In all, approximately 2.1 miles of the length of the stream were spot checked and/or reported on.

Our review of the Shunock River broke down into four sections as follows: SR 184 south to SR 165 5,494 feet Between state route 165 and I‐95 986 feet Under and through the I‐95 complex 550 feet I‐95 to Route 41 (Voluntown Road/Pendleton Hill Road) 4,010 feet

Through these combined areas the Shunock meanders about 2.1 miles of its overall length of approximately eight miles. 47

Route 184

I-95 Route 617

Pendleton Hill Road

The area between the two dots is the study area for the ERT Team. The Shunock River is seen in blue, the drainage boundary is the crooked black line. The straight black line is the town boundary. The base photograph is 2004. 48

More than 70 per cent of North Stonington’s 54.9 square miles drains to the east and southeast into the Pawcatuck River. That 70 per cent, or 38.5 square miles, is dominated by the Wyassup/Green Fall River drainage which makes up about ~19 square miles, and the Shunock River which drains ~16.5 square miles. Thus, the Shunock River drains about 30 per cent of the town. And notably, very nearly the total drainage is within town boundaries, from the headwaters to the mouth, giving North Stonington complete control over the fate (i.e.: future water quality) of the river.

This graphic depicts the extent of the drainage within North Stonington of the Shunock River.

Much of the riparian area of the streamcourse is unhindered by encroachment. Because of this condition it yields many functions and values to the stream and abutting wildlife ecology.

Team Observations

It should be noted that the Team was only able to observe the Shunock from three locations in the study area. These were at or south of Route 617. However, from these vantage points the following observations were possible.

Stop one: the southern most of the two Morgan properties. This is as close as the river comes to any structure in the study area, being about +/‐150 feet away. The photo depicts a generally full canopy cover which shades the stream.

Three levels of vegetation occur right up to the river’s edge: the herb layer, shrub layer and tree layer. All three play a vital part in the river’s ecology and to the water quality.

Additionally, vegetative diversity is also a benefit to a diverse wildlife population. Indeed the long undisturbed vegetative cover has allowed few invasives to gain a foothold. (Invasives are often at their ’best’ in disturbed areas and/or areas recently opened to sunlight.)

It should also be noted that regarding the water regime in the drainage area in general and in the area the Team visited in particular, that little to no land within in hundreds of feet of the river have been compacted or rendered impervious by 50 various land uses. The net effect is excellent groundwater recharge, excellent water quality and persistence of flow (measured in cubic feet per second, CFS) throughout the basin throughout the year. Stop two: northern Morgan property. This is ~1500 feet south of the I‐95 bridge. Note water clarity, transparency and overhanging vegetation.

Stop three: just below the Route 617 crossing: This is the downstream or southern side of the crossing where a large twin box culvert forms the bridge over the stream.

The bottom of the culvert, having been installed below the bed of the stream has allowed for natural bedding to become emplaced. This has kept the look and feel of natural stream bed for the macroinvertebrates and fish populations that make use of this reach of the stream. Additionally, its broad width is open enough to allow for the passage of wildlife.

These three images of the stream (above) consistently show several things:

Clear water ‐ the stream is noticeably free of suspended sediments and visibly clear to the bottom. Sediments cloud the water, can affect water temperature, dissolved oxygen content, certain fish species and often indicate upstream areas of erosion and sediment control issues.

Well shaded ‐ and as importantly well treed; the stream is so unhindered by development that the riparian corridor has been allowed to grow to its natural fullness to shade the stream thereby keeping the shallow water cool (an important aspect for fisheries). Annual leaf fall in the riparian corridor contributes organics for the macroinvertebrate population in the stream bed, which in turn become part of the fish diet. Additionally, the riparian zone leaf cover, along with coarse woody debris, slows, and often pools, precipitation and snowmelt runoff thereby allowing infiltration into the ground for river recharge.

Bankful ‐ June is a normally bankful time of year for a stream. But it is noteworthy that rainfall, as measured in inches at the Groton‐New London Airport, for the months of May and June of 2007 were below normal as follows:

May June Normal (average) 3.82 3.65 Actual 2007 1.41 2.32

The numbers indicate that rainfall of almost exactly 50% of normal for several weeks before the Team’s observation, watershed recharge kept the stream flowing bank full.

No litter – except for some ancient farm equipment in the woodlands, the vicinity is generally free of litter. Noticeably absent were plastic and Styrofoam cups and bags, fishing line, beverage cans and bottles, tires and shopping carts, all too often the signs of lax or absent maintenance and inactive Friends groups.

In addition to the visual water quality being excellent, the river was free of odor. As of this writing the DEP has classified the Water Quality of the Shunock from its headwaters to its mouth as “A”. This is on a rating scale of “AA” being the best, “A” being next, then “B”, “C”, and finally “D”. The further into the alphabet the letter, the more degraded the water quality. (The full text of the DEP’s Water Quality Standards and Criteria can be found on the web at: http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water/water_quality_standardsl/wqs.pdf )

Historic View of the Shunock

In the year 1934 the state of Connecticut completed the first‐in‐the‐nation photographic inventory of the state’s surface from the air. The State Library has these aerial images available on‐line. A review of the land use those photographs captured is interesting to shed light on “what‐they‐knew” nearly 75 years ago.

Below is the ERT Team study area of the Shunock Valley as it appeared in the spring of 1934. It was very much the same as it is today. Observe that the farmers of the time gave it a wide berth for its floodplain; that is; they did not cut agricultural fields right up to the river’s edge. It is noteworthy that historically, at that time, farmers generally made use of every acre of land possible to maximize their income. The fact that the farmers gave the Shunock River floodplain its ‘space’ in 1934 is a lesson future land use decision makers can take to heart. 53

This is a 1934 photographic composite of aerial photo numbers 00088 and 00089 from the collection of the Connecticut State Library. The land use of the Shunock valley is very much the same today except for the addition of the interstate highway and other roads, and the removal of the gracefully curving railroad.

Suggestions

There is no question that the value of commercial land in and around developing interstate interchanges is high. If development is done well and with foresight the integration of the stream corridor with the commercial area will add value to the entire region. At this juncture North Stonington has the opportunity wfe towns do to make the most of this location.

The Center for Watershed Protection in Ellicott City, MD makes available an “eight tools audit” that is a good workbook to evaluate the status of the run of the river and to establish baseline data before impacts occur. While not every one of their points is applicable to every situation, those that are give good pause for thought. http://www.cwp.org/wetlands/articles/WetlandsArticle2AttB.pdf

The successful preservation of the Shunock River, the abutting landscape and the ecological elements that make the river system work should be included in any plan of development.

All those concerned should plan accordingly for:

• Water diversions ‐ that is extractions of the stream’s waterflow for various uses

• Impervious surfaces ‐ as imperviousness increases water quality inevitably decreases

• Loss of shading ‐ has been described above regarding cause and effect. (Water temperature, etc.)

• Steep slopes ‐ not all riparian areas are created equal. Those that are steep of gradient may need to be incorporated into a wider buffer to prevent erosion and sedimentation problems in the future.

• Snow removal dumpage ‐ often laden with literally tons of road sand, this can be a source of considerable sedimentation problems in the stream bed.

The future should not be difficult to picture. Trails that pass along the river provide scenic access to the water and a line of connectivity between commercial districts. 55

They inevitably become popular and well used as alternate means of transportation in the area.

A typical plan view of the watercourse with nearby trails (dark serpentine lines) shown abutting the stream and roads. Commerce is emplaced at sufficient buffer distance to keep the river ecology intact as seen below. Depending on the length of trail and its ability to tie into other local trail systems, commercial store fronts featuring food, drink, bicycle rentals, and like businesses will locate to take advantage of foot traffic brought to the area as the waterfront trail becomes a destination.

This graphic is modified from the Putnam Connecticut River Mills Heritage Trail map. Please visit their web site http://www.putnamct.us/ and click on Maps and Trails for additional information.

l Trail scenes typical of a variety of trails around Connecticut. Surfaces are most often paved where there is heavy use and stone dust or gravel where mountain bikers and hiker/walkers dominate.

The Natural Diversity Data Base

The Natural Diversity Data base maps and files regarding the project area have been reviewed. According to our information there are records for two species of State Special Concern Margaritifera margaritifera (Eastern pearl shell mussel) and Calaopteryx amata (Superb jewelwing dragonfly) that occur in the vicinity of the project site.

The Superb jewelwing dragonfly is associated with cold water streams with rocky shallow bottoms. The adults are in flight in June and July. The nymphs (young or immatures) are totally aquatic and are often found in the substrate at the bottom of streams and brooks. This species is dormant from November 1 to April 1 and has been negatively impacted by the loss of suitable habitat or the loss of their associated plant species. If a proposed project will affect the waterline then it may affect the stems of aquatic grasses and reeds and subsequently the substrate on the bottom of the brook and the Superb jewelwing dragonfly.

Title Calopteryx amata (1) Subject Calopteryx amata, Superb Jewelwing, male damselfly Description Odonata: Calopteryigidae: Calopteryx amata Hagen, male. Locality: Pennsylvania, Centre County, Black Moshannon State Park, Black Moshannon Creek. Creator Tom D. Schultz Date 10-Jun-05 Format JPEG Source Digital photo Collection name Tom D. Schultz Insectary Rights You are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and to make derivative works under the following conditions: You must give the original author credit. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. 57

DEP Search:

Eastern Pearlshell

Margaritifera margaritifera

SPECIAL CONCERN

Key Features Size: Up to six inches. Shape: Elongate. Older individuals often have a pronounced ventral curvature that gives them a slight External shell “banana-shaped” appearance. Periostracum: Thick. Dark. Shell rays absent. Color light brown (juveniles) to black (adults). Lateral Teeth: Absent. Department of Pseudocardinal Teeth: Present Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street and well developed—two on the Hartford, CT 06106-5127 left valve and one on the right valve. Phone: Nacre: Usually white, with faints (860) 424-3000 Internal shell, right valve Voice/TTY pits centrally located, each with a faint “tail” that points toward Directions the beak cavity.

Often Confused With... Close-up of pits on the nacre Eastern Elliptio

Receive DEP news updates by e-mail. Habitat

Subscribe now or update your The eastern pearlshell is found e-Alerts in streams and small rivers that

support trout or salmon Hinge teeth populations, and exists in a variety of substrate. This species is not found in lakes or ponds.

Range in Connecticut The eastern pearlshell is found in most major watersheds in Connecticut, though it is most common in the northern and northwestern parts of the State. 58

Conservation The eastern pearlshell is listed as special concern in Connecticut. The scarcity and continual loss of coldwater habitats in the State contribute to its rarity. It is more common in northern New England where there are more coldwater streams and rivers. Its host fishes include Atlantic salmon, brook trout and brown trout. Climate change may negatively affect this species if rivers become too warm to support trout or salmon.

Freshwater Mussel Fact Sheets Eastern Pearlshell Creeper Eastern Pondmussel Dwarf Wedgemussel Eastern Elliptio Tidewater Mucket Triangle Floater Eastern Floater Yellow Lampmussel Brook Floater Alewife Floater Eastern Lampmussel

The Freshwater Mussels of Connecticut

Printable Version

Home | CT.gov Home | Send Feedback

If the Shunock River will actually be manipulated with any proposed project, this could have a serious impact on the mussels. In this case, the Wildlife Division would recommend:

That no vegetation be removed from the stream banks adjacent to the mussel habitat since land clearing activities will affect the mussels. There can be no erosion or siltation discharged into the river than can bury ad kill these mussels. There can be no polluted runoff such as chemicals or fertilizer discharged into the river, resulting from this project that can contaminate the water.

If you are planning to conduct work during the active period in the water in the Superb jewelwing dragonfly or in Eastern pearl shell habitat, the Wildlife Division recommends that an invertebrate biologist familiar with the habitat requirements of these species conduct surveys. A report summarizing the results of such surveys should include habitat descriptions, invertebrate species list and a statement/resume giving the invertebrate 59 biologist’s qualifications. The DEP doesn’t maintain a list of qualified invertebrate biologists. A DEP Wildlife Division permit may be required by the invertebrate biologist to conduct survey work, you should ask if your invertebrate biologist has one. The results of this investigation can be forwarded to the Wildlife Division and, after evaluation, recommendations for additional surveys, if any, will be made.

Please be advised that should state permits be required or should state involvement occur in some other fashion, specific restrictions or conditions relating to the species discussed above may apply. In this situation, additional evaluation of the proposal by the DEP Wildlife Division should be requested.

Natural Diversity Data Base information includes all information regarding critical biological resources available to us at the time of the request. This information is a compilation of data collected over the years by the DEP’s Geological Natural History Survey and cooperating units of DEP, private conservation groups and the scientific community. This information is not necessarily the result of comprehensive or site-specific field investigations. Consultations with the Data Base should not be substitutes for on-site surveys required for environmental assessments. Current research projects and new contributors continue to identify additional populations of species and locations of habitats of concern, as well as, enhance existing data. Such new information is incorporated into the Data Base as it becomes available.

Also be advised that this is a preliminary review and not a final determination. A more detailed review may be conducted as part of subsequent environmental permit applications submitted to DEP for the proposed site.

Aquifer Resources, Water Quality and Water Supply

Aquifer Resources

The Shunock River Non‐Infringement Area and Commercial Development Zone consists of substantial stratified drift deposits of sand and gravel. These geologic conditions, where thick and saturated deposits are connected to large streams or rivers, like the lower Shunock River, are favorable for storing and transmitting large quantities of groundwater. (See Figure 1.) This area is considered a potential moderate yield aquifer, and is considered a locally significant potential public water supply or a potential supplemental public water supply for the region.

Currently, the Town of North Stonington does not have any State Aquifer Protection Areas (APA). The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) identifies state Aquifer Protection Areas as the critical protection areas around public water supply wells in stratified drift that serve over 1000 people. If a new well serving 1000 or more people is developed in the area, then the Town will have a designated state aquifer protection area and will have protection responsibilities under the state program. However, this aquifer area is currently undeveloped for supply.

The Town of North Stonington has recognized aquifers in previous land use studies and plans. The town has worked with DEP to establish a local aquifer protection overlay zone and local aquifer protection zoning regulations to protect important groundwater resources in town, including the site area. The aquifer protection zone restricts certain types of activities that present a high threat to groundwater quality and requires certain controls or mitigation measures. These local regulations are generally consistent with the 2004 State Aquifer Protection Area Land Use Control Regulations, which include the following protection requirements:

• Restricted underground fuel/chemical storage tanks or transmission lines • No industrial and other non‐domestic wastewater discharges to the ground • Restricted use, storage or handling of hazardous materials • Protection Standards (Best Management Practices) • Material Management/Pollution Prevention Plan for the facilities 61

• Stormwater Management Plan for the site

With the overlay zone restrictions, proposed uses of the land would be generally consistent with DEP recommended land use policies for the protection of proposed drinking water supply aquifers, and policies as found in the State Conservation and Development Policies Plan for urban growth areas within these aquifer resource areas.

It should also be noted that the site also is within the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designated Pawcatuck Sole Source Aquifer. This designation broadly denotes the entire Pawcatuck River Watershed as highly dependent on groundwater for private and public drinking water supplies. Any federal project or use of federal funds in the area would require US EPA review.

Water Quality

The site is classified by CT DEP as Class “GA” groundwater quality indicating an area of existing private, and potential public, water supply. (See Figure 2.) Groundwater quality conditions are generally good, and assumed suitable for drinking without treatment. Industrial and other non‐domestic wastewater discharges to the ground are prohibited. (See Attachment 1.)

Known or potential pollution threats indicate conditions in the southeastern portion of the site as the groundwater quality classification as “GA‐Impaired” from a now inactive industrial/wastewater discharge from the former Posi‐Seal Int. Company. This site has now been remediated and existing groundwater quality now meets DEP groundwater protection criteria (drinking water quality) for the “GA” classification.

Water Supply

Existing water supply in the site area is primarily from on site private and non‐ community public supply wells. These supplies are drilled into the bedrock aquifer and are generally adequate for domestic use. The Westerly Water Department has water mains in areas of the site, and serves several facilities. The Town of North Stonington however has the Exclusive Service Area for the site and surrounding area. (See Figure 3.)

The Town of North Stonington has developed a water supply plan for the town and the Southeastern Connecticut Water Authority (SCWA) has developed a regional water supply plan. The Town water supply plan indicates:

Short Term (5 years) – The site area will be served by on‐site wells.

Long Term (10 years) – The Town will examine options to develop a public water supply for the area from area service extensions or development of a new community well in the Shunock/Pawcatuck aquifer area.

The town should plan for water infrastructure needs now by examining options in more detail. If a new source were needed, it would be advantageous to identify a site and protect it for future use by purchase or easement in the near future. Specific yields of well field sites could vary but could estimated. However, the withdrawal would have to be permitted through the DEP Water Diversion Permit process, and would have to assess the environmental impacts of the withdrawal including affects to seasonal stream flow needs. If an existing nearby service extension provider is proposed, their existing supply source capability would have to be assessed.

Subsurface Wastewater Treatment And Renovation System

The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) of North Stonington has created a Commercial Development (CD) Zone with an internal Non‐Infringement Area running along the Shunock River. The 420‐acre CD Zone has strong economic development potential as well as important natural resources and historic sites and it is the Planning and Zoning Commission’s goal to protect these. The lack of public water and sewers in the area made it less desirable for large‐scale development. One of the issues PZC has requested the Environmental Review Team (ERT) to address was the wastewater generated by the proposed development especially analyzing the possibility to construct a central package treatment plant that would serve the entire zone. With the proximity of Pawcatuck Wastewater Treatment Facility serving Stonington, it is probably easier and more economical to negotiate the use some of the excess capacity in this plant rather than developing a new facility with a surface water discharge to serve development in this area. Plans and specifications for the sewer extension, if this is the route pursued, should be submitted to the Municipal Facilities Section of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) for review and approval. Another alternative for treating the wastewater generated by the site consists of employing an On‐site Wastewater Renovation System to serve the entire development. Whether using a conventional system (septic tanks followed by leaching fields) or advanced technology including secondary biological treatment for pollutant renovation, the on‐site systems always include a subsurface wastewater absorption system. The CD Zone is a large area and if the desire is to treat the wastewater in a centralized on‐site system, the flow generated by the desired activities will be in excess of 5,000 gallons per day of domestic sewage. Therefore, a state discharge permit issued by the Commissioner of the Department Environmental Protection is required under the provisions of section 22a‐430 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The on‐site wastewater renovation system must be designed in accordance with the requirements contained in Section 22a‐430 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. In accordance with the statutes and regulations the system must be designed to function hydraulically and to meet the goals set forth in the Connecticut Water Quality Standards (WQS). The proposed system must treat the wastewater to 68

at least drinking water standards prior to reaching any point of environmental concern for the pollutants, which are likely to be present in domestic sewage. These pollutants are bacteria, viruses, nitrogen and phosphorus. Previous studies established that the site has limitations for on‐site wastewater disposal due to hardpan soils, wet soils and shallow depth to bedrock. The studies also state that the area with sand and gravel was overly excavated and groundwater is very close to the ground surface. However, the CT DEP has not witnessed any site investigation nor have the local health officials. Therefore, the opinion of this Department must be based on the limited information that has been received, as well as available soil maps and suggested bedrock geology. The previous studies include soil maps for on‐site disposal use. According to these studies there are few areas on the property that may be used for on‐site disposal. However, the topography of the central area of the CD Zone was changed due to the sand and gravel operation. The hydrogeologic setting may have also been affected by these activities. When designing an on‐site wastewater renovation system the applicant must perform site investigation to determine the site characteristics in the area of the proposed leaching field and to establish soil permeability, depth to groundwater, groundwater gradient and site constraints. The soils beneath and down gradient of the leaching field must have adequate hydraulic capacity to transmit the effluent and renovate the pollutants of concern. If the site cannot treat the pollutants to acceptable levels, additional treatment may be employed. The following is a brief summary of the administrative procedures that must be followed in processing a 22a‐430 discharge permit application for an on‐site wastewater renovation system:

Upon receipt of a complete permit application and a conceptual design report with supporting documentation, if satisfied with the technical aspects of the design the Department’s staff will recommend a positive tentative determination. The tentative determination will be published in the local newspaper.

Upon completion of the public process (public notice or public hearing) the Commissioner will make a final determination on the application.

If the Commissioner concurs with staff and authorizes the discharge the applicant will submit construction plans and specifications for the Commissioner’s review and approval.

Plans and specifications are approved with conditions. One condition will require that a professional engineer licensed to practice in Connecticut will provide oversight over the construction. The engineer will also be required to prepare and submit as‐built drawings to verify that the system has been installed in accordance with the approved plans and specification.

Once construction is completed and it is verified that the system has been installed in accordance with the approved plans and specification the permit to discharge is issued. The permit will contain specific terms and conditions, establish effluent limits, monitoring requirements, maintenance requirements and prescribe a reporting schedule.

If additional treatment is necessary, a properly certified operator must operate the pretreatment plant. Discharge monitoring reports will be submitted monthly to the CT DEP, the North Stonington Health Department and the North Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA).

Planning Considerations

The planning concept of a non‐infringement area between the Shunock River and development occurring within the Commercial Development zone is desirable for such reasons as aquifer protection, low impact recreation uses such as hiking trails, fisheries, storm water renovation, and wetlands/habitat protection.

One item that could use updating is the re‐examination of the Shunock River flood plain, which over the years has mostly likely been altered by extensive gravel mining. CT DEP is currently evaluating flood plain areas in Connecticut for FEMA and the engineering firm conducting this analysis is Camp, Dresser and McKee in Cambridge, MA. Laura Keating is the contact person for southeastern Connecticut and her phone number is 617‐452‐6336. North Stonington should contact this firm about the current FEMA depictions and the need for any changes to the Shunock River flood zones.

The basic question with public sewers is the desirability and impact of a new package plant in North Stonington versus utilizing the existing sewage treatment plant in the Pawcatuck area of Stonington. Originally a portion of this Stonington plant capacity was reserved for North Stonington use. It would seem that discharge from a new package plant in North Stonington could potentially impact not yonl water quality in the Shunock Basin itself (and aquifers developed here in the future) but also downstream water quality after the Shunock River joins with the Pawcatuck River, which is utilized for the Westerly and Pawcatuck public water supply. Since sewers serve the existing I‐95 rest area and the adjacent Route 2, it should be fairly easy to extend this line, rather than build a new treatment plant.

In terms of aquifer utilization, the US Geological Survey did test well drilling and projected yield analysis in the early 1970s for the Shunock valley. This analysis might still provide good data on potential well location and recharge areas, as well as the DEP aquifer protection program that could relate to, and help justify, the non‐ infringement area. North Stoning also has aquifer protection regulations in Section 406 of its zoning regulations that encompass this entire Commercial Development zone according to the zoning map.

More recently, the 2003 Southeastern Connecticut Regional Water Supply Plan prepared by Fuss and O’Neill indicates the Shunock River as a potential groundwater supply source in Figure 6.3 and Table 6.1. Because of this potential 71 long term aquifer use efforts should be exerted now to preserve ground water integrity and quality for future generations.

Traffic Issues

The CT Department of Transportation would like to review more detailed traffic information before making any final recommendations.

Pertinent issues that should be considered are as follows:

• Traffic analysis, including AM and PM peak hour volumes, would need to be generated for any major development as well as areas which contain multiple, smaller developments. Summer peak and weekend peak hour traffic data will also be needed.

• To limit ingress and egress points along Route 2A a Curb Cut policy could be implemented by the Town. A parallel frontage road could be considered to preserve Route 2 and further limit ingress/ egress points and provide access to businesses.

• Signage may be used by the Town of North Stonington to improve way‐ finding and reduce sightline issues for business ingress/egress points on Route 2. This could include the use of single signs for multiple businesses at ingress points.

• An accident analysis for Route 49 at Route 617 should be performed for any developments located near the zone of influence for this intersection.

• Proposed developments in this area that are considered to be major traffic generators will be evaluated on an individual basis to determine potential impacts.

• Sightline factors, ramp and intersection zones of influence, vehicle type and frequency should be considerations for any major traffic generators.

• Review of previous Corridor management studies for neighboring Towns (Preston, Ledyard, and Waterford) could prove highly beneficial in the way of access management ideas, or possibly initiating the Town’s own Study with the assistance of the Southeastern Council of Governments.

• Review of Neighboring Town’s Zoning regulations may also give some insight on how to maintain a balance of Commercial Zoning while keeping 73

the rural “New England” characteristics (for example look at Town of Tolland’s regulations).

Potential Trail and Greenway Development

Site Visit and Observations

The ERT Team entered the project area from Pendleton Hill Road where it intersects the CL&P power line. There is a large sand and gravel area there that the Team was able to use for parking. The Team easily found an existing unimproved approximately seven (7) foot wide path that they followed along the Shunock River’s east side north to the I‐95 crossing. The property owners informed the Team during the site visit that they are currently utilizing the path for walking, running and horseback riding. This section provides many opportunities to view the river.

The Team then observed the river crossing under Frontage Road. The group parked about 200 yards east of the culvert in a driveway for lot 3195 which is tribal land (subject of the ERT Report “Pendleton Hill Re‐use Plan” 1996). As this reviewer walked along Frontage Road toward the culvert she noticed that the sroad ha a wide shoulder and there was not much traffic during the visit (late morning).

Finally the Team drove north on Rte. 49, west on the Providence New London Turnpike and accessed the river corridor from two properties off of Surrey Lane just north of Route 184. In this area the river bank is steep and then widens into a large marsh area. Northwest of this marsh lies land owned by the Avolonia Land Trust. The Land Trust has recently proposed to develop a trail along the east side of the Shunock River between Babcock Road and CT Route 184.

Potential for Recreational Trail Development:

The existing unimproved path along the Shunock River between Pendleton Hill Road and I‐95 appears to lend itself well to the development of a recreational trail. This path could accommodate foot traffic with little or no improvements. With some additional design and improvements the path may be able to support horsemen, mountain bikes or motorized recreational vehicles if desirable. The sand and gravel area at the intersection of Rte. 1 and the CL&P power line has potential to serve as a trail head and parking area.

Moving north, there appear to be opportunities to continue a river bank area trail through the State Rest Area (serving I‐95) and the tribal land as recommended in the Pendleton Hill Re‐use Plan 1996:

2. The applicant should consider the development of a hiking trail along the Shunock River to encourage access for hikers and anglers. Since the property has been disturbed due to previous utilization, vegetation that re‐ colonized the riparian zone is very dense, inhibiting access to the river. A trail can be constructed which would minimize impacts to existing riparian area vegetation and not create any soil erosion. A small designated parking lot would have to be created to control public access to the trails.

It may be worth exploring ways to continue the trial along the river bank area under I‐95 and then Frontage Road. Alternatively, finding a linkage from the river area east to Pendleton Hill Road and then utilizing the wide shoulders on Frontage Road to take people around I‐95 might be an option.

The Shunock River corridor could provide a recreational asset (and potential alternate local transportation route) for the Town bringing people (on land and/or water) from Long Island Sound north along the Pawcatuck and Shunock Rivers.

Steps toward developing a continuous river bank area trail would include: • Develop an idea of what assets the trail would bring to the area and the Town. • Working with abutting landowners and to assess their willingness to allow access. The local land trust might be a partner in this investigation as they often have experience educating and working with landowners. • Updating the Non‐Infringement Area to add recreational trail development as an encouraged use and a map suggesting a potential trail route.

Archaeological and Historical Review

The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review suggests that the Non‐Infringement Area possesses a high sensitivity for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. State site archaeological files and maps indicate a known pre‐Contact Native American camp site along the Shunock River. In addition, previous walkovers have noted extant stone foundations and raceways associated with former 19th‐century small‐scale mill operations, as well as surviving trolley‐related right‐of‐way and bridge abutments. The Town of North Stonington should supplement and complement its existing information on historic structures by applying for grant assistance from Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism (CCT)(SHPO) to conduct a property‐wide assessment of prehistoric, historic and industrial archaeological resources that may exist within the project areas boundaries.

A comprehensive historic and archaeological inventory would facilitate responsible planning and decision‐making regarding the community’s cultural heritage by the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission.

The Office of State Archaeology maintains an electronic version of archaeological sites in the Town of North Stonington including prehistoric, historic and industrial sites. They treat mapped versions of these sites similar to the Department of Environmental Protection’s Natural Diversity Database. With guidelines provided due to threats of vandalism, OSA would be willing to work with the Town of North Stonington in providing data for site protection within their planning and zoning regulations.

The OSA and SHPO offices are available to provide technical assistance to the Town of North Stonington to accomplish the above recommendations. Should you have any questions regarding this review you may contact them directly.

Appendix

Fisheries Resources

May 10, 2006 Letter to Duncan Schweitzer, Chair of the Shuncok River Non‐ Infringement Area Subcommittee

78 79 80

ABOUT THE TEAM

The Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team (ERT) is a group of professionals in environmental fields drawn together from a variety of federal, state and regional agencies. Specialists on the Team include geologists, biologists, foresters, soil specialists, engineers and planners. The ERT operates with state funding under the supervision of the Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Area — an 86 town region.

The services of the Team are available as a public service at no cost to Connecticut towns.

PURPOSE OF THE TEAM

The Environmental Review Team is available to help towns and developers in the review of sites proposed for major land use activities. To date, the ERT has been involved in reviewing a wide range of projects including subdivisions, landfills, commercial and industrial developments, sand and gravel excavations, active adult, recreation/open space projects, watershed studies and resource inventories.

Reviews are conducted in the interest of providing information and analysis that will assist towns and developers in environmentally sound decision‐making. This is done through identifying the natural resource base of the project site and highlighting opportunities and limitations for the proposed land use.

REQUESTING A REVIEW

Environmental reviews may be requested by the chief elected official of a municipality and/or the chairman of town commissions such as planning and zoning, conservation, inland wetlands, parks and recreation or economic development. Requests should be directed to the chairman of your local Conservation District and the ERT Coordinator. A request form should be completely filled out and should include the required materials. When this request is reviewed by the local Conservation District and approved by the ERT Subcommittee, the Team will undertake the review on a priority basis.

For additional information and request forms regarding the Environmental Review Team please contact the ERT Coordinator: 860‐345‐3977, Eastern Connecticut RC&D Area, P.O. Box 70, Haddam, Connecticut 06438, e‐mail: [email protected].