Webb Mountain Park Extension King's Mark Environmental Review Team
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Webb Mountain Park Extension Monroe, Connecticut King’s Mark Environmental Review Team Report King’s Mark Resource Conservation & Development Area, Inc. Webb Mountain Park Extension Monroe, Connecticut Prepared by the King’s Mark Environmental Review Team of the King’s Mark Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc. for the Conservation and Water Resources Commission Monroe, Connecticut October 2005 Report #330 CT Environmental Review Team Program 1066 Saybrook Road PO Box 70 Haddam, CT 06438 (860) 345-3977 www.ctert.org E-mail: [email protected] ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is an outgrowth of a request from the Monroe Conservation and Water Resources Commission to the Southwest Conservation District (SWCD) and the King’s Mark Resource Conservation and Development Area (RC&D) Council for their consideration and approval. The request was approved and the measure reviewed by the King’s Mark Environmental Review Team (ERT). The King’s Mark 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 Wednesday, April 20, 2005. Nicholas Bellantoni Archaeologist Office of State Archeology (860) 486-5248 Joseph Hickey Recreation Planner CT Greenways Council DEP – Parks and Recreation (Retired) (860) 529-4363 Diane Chisnall Joy Director DEP – Kellogg Environmental Center (860) 734-2513 Dawn McKay Biologist/Environmental Analyst DEP - Environmental and Geographic Information Center (860) 424-3592 Joe DiRisi Environmental Analyst Southwest Conservation District (203) 269-7509 Donald Mysling Fisheries Biologist DEP – Fisheries Division (860) 567-8998 David Poirier Staff Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office (860) 566-3005 iii Lawrence Rousseau Forester DEP – Western District Headquarters (860) 485-0226 Julie Victoria Wildlife Biologist DEP – Franklin WMA (860) 642-7239 I would also like to thank John Brooks, chair, conservation commission, Andy Nunn, first selectman, Dan Tuba, town planner and Dina Franceschi, conservation commission member, and Tom Ellbogen, concerned citizen, 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 soils maps. During the field review Team members were given additional information. Some Team members conducted a map review only and others made additional site visits. Following the review, 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. 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 King’s Mark RC&D Executive Council hopes you will find this report of value and assistance in the review and management of these newly acquired additions to Webb Mountain Park. 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] iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iv Introduction 1 Southwest Conservation Review 5 Aquatic Resources 20 Natural Diversity Data Base 22 Forest Resources 24 Archaeological Review 27 Recreation Planner Review 28 Environmental Education 30 Appendix 49 Soils Descriptions Vernal Pool Sample Survey Maps, Figures and Tables Location Map 3 Topographic Map 4 Soils Map 14 Figure 1 – Recreational Potential Impacts for On-site Soils 15 Figure 1A – Camp Area, Picnic Areas, and Playgrounds 16 Figure 2 – Woodland Management and Productivity 17 Figure 3 – Suitable Vegetation for the Various Soil Types 18 Farmland Soils Map 19 Forest Cover Type 26 Schematic of Additional Hiking Trail 29 Core Science Curriculum 40 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction The Monroe Conservation and Water Resources Commission have requested Environmental Review Team (ERT) assistance in conducting a natural resource inventory for property purchased by the town to extend Webb Mountain Park. Recently the town, with the help of The Trust for Public Land, was able to purchase two properties and an easement for a total of 171 acres of open space adjacent to existing Webb Mountain Park and Aquarion Water Company Land. One parcel of 106.6 acres had been previously approved for a residential housing development and the second parcel, directly adjacent to Webb Mountain Park, is 60.66 acres. The town also received a conservation easement on 4.46 acres. The ERT conducted a study in 1979 for the135 acre Webb Mountain Park to evaluate it for passive recreation and to assist in management planning. Objectives of the ERT Study The town has requested the ERT to assist them in a natural resource inventory for the new parcels and to provide planning information consistent with the use of Webb Mountain. Specific concerns included vernal pools and waterbodies, use of the area for trails and environmental education. The ERT Process Through the efforts of the Monroe Conservation and Water Resources Commission this environmental review and report was prepared for the Town of Monroe. 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 applicant. 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 Wednesday, April 20, 2005. 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. 2 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. 3 4 Location Scale 1” = 2000’ Approximate Site 5 Southwest Conservation District Review All information provided by the Southwest Conservation District is advisory in nature and is intended to assist the town in managing their natural resources. Inventory of Property Natural Resources a) Soils Note: Soil descriptions may be found in the appendix of this report. Soils descriptions are from the Fairfield County Soil Survey. Onsite soils surveys should be completed to determine soil characteristics as necessary for individual projects on the park lands. List of Soil Types Found on this Site From USDA NRCS Connecticut Soils Datamart and the Fairfield County Soil Survey Map Unit 2 - Ridgebury Fine Sandy Loam Map Unit 3 - Ridgebury, Leicester, and Whitman Soils, Extremely Stony Map Unit 4 - Leicester Fine Sandy Loam Map Unit 17 - Timakwa and Natchaug Soils Map Unit 18 - Catden and Freetown Soils Map Unit 46C -Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam, 8 to 15 Percent Slopes, Very Stony 45B - Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam, 3 to 8 Percent Map Unit 50B - Sutton Fine Sandy Loam, 3 to 8 Percent Slopes Map Unit 73E - Charlton - Chatfield Complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes, very rocky 73C - Charlton - Chatfield Complex, 3 to 15 Percent slopes, very rocky Map Unit 79E - Rock Outcrop - Holyoke Complex, 3 to 45 Percent slopes Map Unit 84B - Paxton and Montauk Fine Sandy Loams, 3 to 8 percent slopes 86D - Paxton and Montauk Fine Sandy Loams, 15 to 35 percent, extremely stony. 6 The recreational potential of the soils found onsite are given in Figure One. Figure One A is USDA NRCS criteria for determining recreational potential of soils. Figure Two indicates the potential of the soils for woodland management and productivity. In sensitive areas adjacent to vernal pools, restricted woodlot management criteria should be applied (see below section d) to Wetlands/Vernal Pool areas. Figure Three indicates the soils potential for specific crops and trees and for wildlife. Other Soils Data b) Soils – Wetland soils, natural drainageways, where water is near or at the surface seasonally (these can be included within upland soils delineations), and prime farmland soils are priorities for conservation. c) Prime farmland would include the areas of Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam (WxB) and Paxton Fine Sandy Loam (PbB). Farmland soil of statewide importance would include Leicester Fine Sandy Loam (Lc). Farmland Soils map indicates the approximate location of these soils. Prime and Farmland of Statewide Importance areas should be left open as potential future agricultural areas and not be disturbed by permanent or semi-permanent alterations such as road or parking lots or by any activity which involves removing or disturbing top soil. d) Wetlands/Vernal Pools The vernal pool complex on this property is an important natural resource.