Conservation Commission Meeting Agenda/Materials 109R and 131 Clark Lane Exhibit List (linked)

FIFTBEN ROPE FERRY ROAD WATERFORD, CT 06385-2886
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Date: February 9, 2023 C-22-14
109R &
To: | Waterford Conservation Commission PUBLI ou orn LANE
From: Maureen FitzGerald, Environmental Planner EXHIBIT # 38
Re: 109R & 131 Clark Lane Parcel
Located in Jordan Brook Watershed Area
Commissioners,
The property at 109R & 131 Clark Lane is located in the lower, southeastern portion of the Jordan
Brook watershed. State drainage basin mapping incorrectly identifies this riparian wetland
complex as being part of the Fenger Brook watershed area. The stream channel which flows
through the subject property at Clark Lane is identified as Fenger Brook on state mapping
resources, however it does not flow under the railroad to Alewife Cove. The watercourse instead
flows west parallel to the railroad, continues west behind the Waterford High School and
discharges to Jordan Cove at the millpond dam.
The Jordan Brook watershed management plan identifies the watercourse and adjacent wetlands
as “East Brook”. The wetland portion contained in the subject property is identified as EM3 and
identified as a relatively high value wetland of special significance in the watershed. [Refer to
attached watershed boundary mapping and Table 6 from the Jordan Brook watershed
management study (2000)].
The Jordan Brook watershed management plan recommends measures to protect water quality in
wetland EM3, treat stormwater run-off to control pollutant discharge to the wetland with the goal
of “no net increase” in pollutant loading compared to existing conditions, considering maximum
attainable reductions in stormwater pollutant loadings, maintain groundwater base flows, and
maintain a minimum 50 ft. width upland protection zone.
Also attached is a watershed boundary map of the Fenger Brook watershed boundary presented in
the 1995 Fenger Brook watershed management study. The Clark Lane parcel is not within this
mapped watershed boundary.
The recommendations in the Fenger Brook and Southeast Shoreline documents submitted to the
record are pertinent to any watercourse. At the subject site, the implementation of the Jordan
Brook watershed management plan recommendations are encouraged.
Maureen rinconp
Environmental Planfier
attachments:

—
JORDAN
BROOK
WATERSHED
BOUNDARY
Ry
Station 1: STREAM CROSSING
IN WOODs,
Station 2: IN WOODS NORTHEAST
OF INDUSTRIAL DRIVE,
Station 3: DOWNSTREAM OF DOUGLAS
LANE.
Station 4; DOWNSTREAM OF CROSS
ROAD.
Station §: DOWNSTREAM OF PARKWAY
SOUTH,
Station 6: DOWNSTREAM OF POST ROAD.
Station 7: UPSTREAM OF ROPE FERRY
ROAD.
Station 8: SOUTH END OF DAM AT MILL
POND.
MAP REFERENCE;
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM THE FOLLOWING
7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP:
MONTVILLE, CONN. 1983,
NIANTIC, CONN.-N.Y. 1983
NEW LONDON, CONN.-N.Y. 1984
LEGEND:
@ WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATION
© CRITICAL DETENTION LOCATION
SCALE = 1: 48000
; 2MILE
a SS es |
4000 8000
SCALE: 1*= 4000"
Connecticut
Quadrangle Location
FIGURE 1
JORDAN
JO) Fuss & O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers
p=} TIS HARTFORD ROAD, MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT Uo0l
(080)846-2469
COVE
LOCATION MAP
JORDAN BROOK WATERSHED
JORDAN BROOK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
WATERFORD CONNECTICUT
PROJ. NO. 93154A2 DATED : OCTOBER 1998 SCALE: {"« 4000)
JADWO\P93193154\A2\FIGURE1.PPT
——

iJ
T
a—l
Town of Waterford
WETLANDS SUMMARY
WETLAND VALUES
[lg VERY HIGH
[ig HIGH
[il AVERAGE
fy Low
/\/ MAJOR ROADWAYS
4000
SCALE: 1 INCH = 4000 FT
oO 4000 Feet
Project Site
Fog Plain Road
) \7~Rt. 1
Miner Lane
i- Neck Road
GISWIIGAPROJECTSISPECILWETAPR

Fuss & O'Neill Inc,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Jordan Brook drains from an 8.2 square-mile watershed located along the eastern edge of the
Town of Waterford. This watershed includes several major developments, including the Crystal
Mall, and is bisected by the 1-395 and I-95 highway right-of-ways. While a significant
percentage of the southern portion of the watershed has been developed, water quality in Jordan
Brook generally meets State drinking water standards, and the watershed wetland systems
remain in relatively good condition.
Large areas of the watershed remain undeveloped, especially in its northern reaches.
Uncontrolled future residential, commercial, or industrial development in the watershed would
increase pollutant loadings from stormwater runoff to receiving wetlands and watercourses,
zeduce groundwater base flows that are necessary to maintain dry weather flows in streams,
increase peak flows and flooding, and continue to encroach on upland fringe areas that “screen”
wetlands from development.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing watetshed resources and develop a
recommended plan to protect those resources from potential impacts as identified above. The
following paragraphs summarize the major findings and recommendations of this study.
® Wetland areas generally in good condition:
Wetland areas within the watershed remain in good condition and many have features
that justify the wetlands as having special significance. Some wetlands appeat to have
been impacted by encroaching development and water quality impacts, and other
wetlands would be sensitive to any future impacts to water quality.
e Surface water quality generally fishable and drinkable:
Surface water quality in the watershed generally meets “fishable and drinkable”
standards established for the State of Connecticut with the exception of total coliforms,
Since the source of total coliform can include non-pollution sources such as plant
matter, this finding is not conclusive evidence of sanitary contamination,
e Development impacts water quality:
While surface water quality still meets standards, in-stream concentrations ofpollutants
increase downstream as development and impervious surfaces increase. Based on
modeling of future pollutant loads, stormwater pollutant loadings could increase by
more than 100% for zinc and between 30 and 50% for phosphorous, copper, and lead
with future development. Copper, lead, and zine can be toxic to aquatic life at certain
concentrations in aqueous form, Phosphorous is a limiting nutrient for algal growth in
surface water impoundments,
. Water Quality Management Plan:
A sutface water quality management plan has been developed that specifies the levels
of controls that would be recommended to be implemented based on the level of risk
93154\A2\EVM1203B, WPD
Corres.

Fuss. & ONeill Inc.
93154\A2\EVM1203B. WPD
Cores,
that a new development would pose to water quality, Three tiers of controls are
recommended.
L Base level controls would apply to developmenits with only small potential for
impacts and would require controls to remove gross contaminants and minimize
the risk of accidents such as spills causing major water quality impacts.
18 Secondary controls would apply to developments with greater risk for water
quality impacts and would require a minimum of 80% removal of total
suspended solids.
I. Tertiary controls would apply to developments with the greatest risk for water
quality impacts and would require developers to demonstrate no net increase in
pollutant loads from pre-development conditions,
Continue surface water quality monitoring:
Surface water quality should continue to be monitored to evaluate trends in water quality
and confirm that new developments have appropriate controls,
No net increase in peak flows:
Evidence of flooding and channel scour was observed during watershed visits. It is
recommended that future developments demonstrate no net increase in peak flows at
downstream points-of-concern. The number of downstream points-of-concem to be
evaluated is proposed to be dependant on the size of the development and its potential
to increasé flooding risk. A watershed-wide hydrologic model has been developed that
should be incorporated into future evaluations,
Maintain pre-development groundwater base flows:
Pre-development groundwater base flows should also be maintained. At a minimum,
“clean” roof runoff should be infiltrated into the ground. This approach does not require
a complicated technical evaluation of current on-site infiltration to groundwater, would
typically maintain or increase base flows, and would minimize the risk of groundwater
pollution by infiltrating only clean runoff.
Designate upland areas as open space and implement Upland Protection Zone:
A number of upland areas in the watershed would provide value as open space by
improving the value of watershed wetlands by screening developments, providing fringe
habitat, maintaining wildlife access, and improving human access to wetlands of, special
significance. Upland areas that could provide value have been evaluated and ranked. in
terms of their importance. A 50-foot Upland Protection Zone is also recommended for
all wetlands and a 100-foot Upland Protection Zone is recommended for perennial
streams, Factors which should be considered in adjusting these widths are discussed.
vi

Watershed
Boundary
LEGEND
Upper Alewifé Cove
Middle Alewife Cove
Lower Reach
Feriger Brook:
Océan Beach Park
Ridgewood.
Peppérbox Hil
Stuart Hill
Minér Lane:
Ocean Avenue
‘Greenway Road
Piggery
Waterford Landfill
Niles Hill Road
Glenwood Avenue:
MAP REFERENCE:
THIS MAP IS PREPARED: FROM 2.5 MINUTE
: MAP QUAT
AND NEW LONDON 1984), CONNECTICUT
NEW: YORK,
New London Pump:Station
“CONNECTICUT
“QUADRANGLE ‘LOCATION:
NOT RELEASED FOX Consrauction FIGURE NO. 14
FUSS: & O'NEILL INC. Consulting Bnginzers:
146 HARTFORD ROAD, MANEHESTER, GUNNECTICUT :06049
03> 646-2469
PROJ. MGR:
| SITE LOCATION MAP
FENGER BROOK. WATERSHED: MANAGEMENT STUDY:
NEW_LORDON/ WATERFORD
-CONNECTICU’
CHIEF DSGNR:
PPP: “[DATE: MARCH
}OB NO: 2=605A1
+
j

Fuss & O'Neill Inc,
| B.1 Summary of Findings
E.1.1 ‘Watershed Management/Land Use
1, The most significant land uses in the: watershed are urban and residential.
2. Some existing stormwater management measures in thé watershed canbe improved.
Such improvements: include better ‘catch ‘basin maintenance. in New London and
improved erosion-control implementation and street sweeping measures in Waterford.
3, ‘A'number of aréas adjacent to the Cove remain un-sewered;, Additionally, a sanitary
sewer pump station along the perimeter of the Cove has historically failed, resulting
it the release’ of untreated sewage to the Cove. Both of these potential sources will
be’ eliminated with tie-ins to a new sewer main and the replacement of the pump
station.
4, The regulations for both Waterford and New London aré adequate in most sections
for reducing ‘non point source pollution impacts. The most: significant shortcoming
is the lack of a requirement for buffer zones adjacent to wetlands and watercourses.
Enforcement of specific sections: of the regulations can also be improved by ‘both
imunicipalities.
(3) A portion of the Feriger Brook Watershed has possibly’ been diverted to a nearby
coastal watershed due:to the construction ofa railway in the 1850s; however, it isnot
certain that the area in question, was a part of the original. watershed. The topography
of the area makes it difficult to determine whether the area north of the railroad line
drained to Fenger Brook or to another watershed prior to. the construction of the
railroad.
« B.l.2, Water Quality Characterization
1. Anecological assessment of Alewife Cove indicates that the Upper’ Coveis eutrophic.
This is‘consistent with previoiis studies of the Cove. High nitrogen concentrations are
thé.cause of the eutrophic: conditions as the. Cove is an estuarine system.
aes 2. Fecal bactéria concentrations in the Cove are above shell fishing standards resulting
‘1 in the banning of shell fishing:
3. The Cove-is subject.to high localized sediment loads from discrete stormwater system
outfalls,
4. Previous studies. indicate that freshwater flushing associated. with. stormwater’ causes
ahigh salinity variation iti the Cove resulting in stress on organisms within the Cove.
5. ‘The-wetland assessment indicated that the wetlands within the watershed are of good
integrity. Some impacts to the wetlands as a result of stormwater discharges,
Specifically channeling, erosion, and sedimentation, were identified.
oe
F | 92603\A1\CTEO1314, WP. 
7
¢ ‘Corres. Vil