The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH 14 - Supplemental - 1840 Spear StreetWilliam A Countryman Environmental Assessment & Planning 868 Winch Hill Road, Northfield, VT 05663 Ph: (802) 485-8421; FAX. (802) 485-8422 wdcenv@logether.net 8 August 2001 Ken Braverman Retrovest 70 S. Winooski Avenue Burlington, VT 05401-3830 Dear Mr. Braverman, This letter recaps the wetlands delineations that Errol Briggs and I have performed on the Calkins Farm property on Spear Street, South Burlington. These were done on 1 and 3 August. The weather was warm and dry. Very dry conditions have developed over the past several weeks, resulting in non -saturated conditions through most of the wetland. - nevertheless we are confident that our delineations are accurate. Because some of the wetlands on the site are shown on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map for the area, the delineations were made according to the 3-parameter methodology in the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, as specified in the Vermont Wetland Rules for mapped wetlands. This methodology is consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. It would seem unlikely to us that the delineations would change significantly if done strictly under the 1987 Corps Manual, especially given that agriculture has been effectively abandoned in the area and the fields are now becoming well grown up to shrubs. Several data transects were taken to document the delineation (copies to follow). From west to east, the site is characterized by low rolling hills, then a broad shallow valley, then gently rising terrain to the east with large outcropping knolls, a second smaller valley, and more rising terrain. At the eastern edge, the land falls abruptly to a large forested swamp. There are several small wetland areas on the high but level land along Spear Street north of the old farmhouse, but most of the high ground and the slopes are upland. There is a broad band of wetland that bisects the property along the valley floors. These are drained by a seasonal stream that flows north to south across the property. One source of this stream is a wetland in the housing development on the southeast corner of the property. From there, the stream flows north onto the property (in the second valley), turns westerly and descends a few feet to the main valley floor, then turns south becoming the main channel. The small dug pond that is shown on the NWI map is essentially separate from the stream. Soils According to the 1974 Chittenden County Soil Survey, the wetlands have developed mostly on Covington clay (a poorly drained soil) and Livingston clay (a very poorly drained soil). The large wetland along the eastern boundary of the property has muck and peat organic soils. The uplands are characterized primarily by Vergennes clay (a moderately well drained soil), with some areas of Georgia stony loam (moderately well drained), Hinesburg fine sandy loam (well drained) and Farmington extremely rocky loam (well drained). This last occurs on the outcropping knolls. In general we found that the wetland boundaries and the mapping of the soils are in agreement although some areas of Covington soil appear to be slightly more well drained, possibly due to ditching in the past. The band of wetland in the second valley is somewhat narrower than the band of this soil as mapped. Plants. Due to the long history of agricultural use, the plant communities contain a number of species common to fields and pastures throughout Vermont. This is most evident on the upland portions of the fields, which are dominated by such plants as bedstraw (Galium mollugo) and vetch (Vicia cracca)_ The nonforested wetlands, however, are mostly dominated by sedges, especially lake sedge (Carex lacus&is) and hairy -fruited sedge (C. larzugiposa). The forested areas of wetland are dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and racemed dogwood (Corpus racenrosa). It should be noted, however, that even though this species of dogwood is ranked as a "facultative wetland species" it is not a good wetland indicator on this site because it occurs abundantly on uplands as well. Apparently when tillage and pasturage were abandoned, conditions were right for this species to invade wherever the soil was sufficiently damp, even if not wetland. Also noteworthy is the fact that we observed few non-native wetland plants; invasive species such as purple loosestrife and common reed (Phragmites australis) are mostly lacking. Hydrology. The wetlands are characterized primarily by a high water table and impeded drainage rather than by surface waters. The poor permeability of the Covington and Livingston clay soils results in saturated conditions, especially where topographic relief is low. Where relief is more pronounced, as on the Vergennes clay soils on the knolls along the western side of the property, runoff is sufficient to drain the soil so that saturated conditions do not occur. The ground surface is extremely lumpy in the wetlands (and somewhat lumpy even on uplands), probably due to pasturage, with the lumps being exaggerated by frost heaving and plant tussock development in the wetlands. Because the small pond near the center of the site and the large wetland along the eastern boundary are shown on the Vermont Significant Wetlands Map for the area, those and all wetlands that are contiguous with them are Class Two wetlands under the Vermont Wetland Rules. This essentially means that all the wetlands along the valley floor are Class Two Wetlands. Such wetlands have a 50' statutory buffer zone as well. If any development is proposed in those wetlands or their buffer zones, the project will require a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) from the Agency of Natural Resources. A CUD can only be granted if it is demonstrated that there will be no undue adverse effect on the protected functions and values of the wetland. Isolated wetlands would be considered Class Three wetlands, which are basically outside the jurisdiction of the Vermont Wetland Rules, except that impacts to them `"considered under water quality criteria of Act 250 and the Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program. The Corps has jurisdiction over all waters of the United States, including wetlands. In Vermont many activities of up to one acre of impact can be allowed under the Vermont General Permit #58. For this permit, review is undertaken by the Corps in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. If no concerns are raised, and the Corps is satisfied that steps have been taken to avoid and minimize wetlands impacts, then a permit may be granted. If impacts of over one acre are contemplated, then an Corps Individual Permit would be required. Such a permit is usually difficult, costly, and time-consuming to obtain, as it requires a demonstration of (public) need and an extensive alternative sites analysis. I understand that there will be a site visit with April Moulaert of the Vermont Wetlands Office on 15 August. At that time we can review the wetlands delineations and go over any concerns that she may have with the proposed project. It would also be well to schedule a site visit with Marty Abair or Mike Adams of the Corps. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur V. Gilman avg/s cc: Dave Marshall Wetlands on the Calkins Farm: Series Flag #'s Notes A 1-17 A small isolated wetland just behind the residence on Spear Street; note that this also connects to Y B 1-5 A small isolated wetland on a knoll south of the residence C 1-146 Marks the west side of the main central wetland D 1-189 Marks most of the east side of the main wetland (see F) E 1-6 A small isolated wetland on the valley floor, near D F 1-31 Marks the remainder of the east side of the main wetland G 1-4 A small isolated wetland on the east side of the main wetland, near F H 1-29 Together with I, marks out an island within the main wetland I 1-40 See H J 1-11 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street K 1-4 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street L 1-21 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street M 1-11 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street; this outlets at a culvert under Spear Street N 1-9 A small isolated wetland on high ground near Spear Street O 1-5 A small isolated wetland in the forested area on high ground near Spear Street; may fulfill the criteria for "vernal pool" P 1-5 A- small isolated wetland in the forested area on high ground near Spear Street; may fulfill the criteria for "vernal pool" Q 1-6 Isolated wetland on slope R 1-5 Isolated wetland area on slope S 1-9 Isolated wetland area on slope T 1-60 Defines the western boundary of the large forested wetland that Forms much of the s eastern boundary of the property U V 1-8 1-7 A small isolated wetland area along the south boundary, near D Small wetland along surficial drainage course, in shrubby field, drains to D W 1-11 Similar to V and in same draina ewa , connects to D X 1-15 Isolated wetland at toe of slope, near C Y 1-29 Wetland along old dug ditch, near height of land behind residence, connects to A Z 1-5 Isolated wetland near old spring house behind residence AA 1-10 Depressional, isolated wetland under powerlines BB 1-17 With CC, marks wetland on level terrain, valley floor, near but isolated from C CC 1-9 See BB DD 1-11 Isolated wetland along old drainage course on slope, drains to C PLANS ?1WAM BY: U . 1 67 1 I I I 1 r ' l -- 1 1 I ) i 1 l 1 1 i—Ls jI L lid ti Or - --� f` '� ,ram----- ?. �� '-� ,/��•-` '., � E'2 t i i GRAPHIC SCALP, 1 =bL = 20O :t. 200 10th�j405 N.MNII., T-.— 372M T.I.nhmw d15 725 1110 a 615 726 1112 :3�11N Osm APPLICANtI The '.2etrovest Companies PROJECT CONSULTA.`dM: ALWAWNi9R6fi9ECT LOCNEY RKM xw NAWALL.E, iN CAM BVGVAEW ME ENQAEE% MOASS0W7M &IMAUT", vr MD &M)NEERM V4 ' W Ala,--W £CT H91t Ta1TA LAND -WORM PROJECT PAR= - IIUF ACPM MODU l M vr ZDAM-SCUMS r QUADwrr arc PUMAM a �► PROJECT TITLE: SIiaW LDr AM-i1=w AFL nWAL AE - tDTFFONA19E-AeFT IM LOr RIONAA-Fr SOUTH VILLAGE AU AEMOSOM OMM- 1J' W40. AWAY SOTM010 South a u r I 1 R I t o R, V— 1— 1 AMM 2aPr Thu R c 1 r o v u. 1 C o m e- R 1 e e Sw AGW 50Fr SPEAR STREET & 0 RIONr MW s7B"OK ON All llEOGMA7® ODUAC cR AMOS ALLEN ROAD Arun-FAIMM ANUM LOT AAM-1{a009FrwLM AM LUr MKWr = MOCAL Alrj - TAD IT MkL LOT R10NrAW MIT Aft[ AE8C9J M -1.2 LYAd RIM bIT ACf b14' AFAR mpr SO RIOIIr MIRO 8[rB1CJr ON AIL Dt'8SY1 W COLIECM FK" utmlaf HEMLOM oonenw. an &&arms aaJAw ODMOV a-<fu F#KVOM a LOna C016IALE-eau AMXMM LOT COMMAE-4M eansAn LOT OOWEVAE- c11t ,IorO - — O016NOr- M" oxrrER ac ,a - AMU R G SRAM P.O. SM M L"MOMAUF I? 0=1 IM AVROVEST OCAQVIiS8 PROPOSED 3-0497 A -am BARl.6Vfi70J114 V06U01-8980 A?CWV^r1-0047XW SITE MOO PLAN n vr O"M nLn JUNE, 2M ouram AIm® �- � 200' C3A l it it MIC— 1-H PLAN Pmi.M BuRAK` ANDERSON MELLONI �. Counsellors a La vv Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Retrovest (the "Developer") Dear Mr. Dinklage: Michael L. Burak" Gateway Square a 30 IVWn Siree; .ion Anderson Post Office Box 787 Thomas R. Mellon? Burlington, Vermont 05402-0737 Brian J. suf3ivant Phone: 802 862.050C Michael B. Rosenberg® Fax 802 862-8176 Jeremy 1. Farkas # e-mail: attorney@vdawl.con Jon I Alexaudert www.vtiawl.com "Also admitted in New York TAlso admitted in Illinois -)Also admitted in the District of Columbia TAlso admitted in Massachusetts December 3, 2002 This firm represents Skip and Denise Vallee (the "Vallees") who own a home located just south of the western and middle portions of the proposed Retrovest project. We understand that the land on which Retrovest proposes to build (the "Downing -Calkins Land") is owned by the Downing -Calkins Trust or its successor. The Vallees have lived in their home for six years and they have hiked and skied frequently on the Downing -Calkins Land. The Vallees are keenly aware of the natural features — including wetlands and wildlife habitat - that characterize the environment of the central portion of the Downing -Calkins Land, which consists of two allegedly drier acres located within a large wetland (the "Central Area") as shown on Map C3 C submitted by the Developer (Attachment, 1). Although housing development east and west of this wetland area may be appropriate, the Development Review Board should carefully consider any development that would intrude into the Central Area. We raise these issues now in sketch plan review so that the Developer will have ample opportunity to redesign its proposal in light of these and other serious concerns. Although our research is on -going, we call to your attention the following: Wetlands Delineation — We understand that the Developer delineated wetlands in August, 2001 after "very dry conditions [had] developed" on its property. The result is a claim that wetlands comprise a considerably smaller portion of the Downing -Calkins Land than had been indicated by any previous wetland delineation. A preliminary delineation by our consultant indicates that the Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 2 BmkK INDERSON 1� MELLONIPLc Developer's delineation may understate the scope of the wetland areas on this property. (See Attachment 2 hereto.) Wetlands are most accurately delineated in the spring when plant species that characterize wetlands are most easily identified. We expect to make available to you the conclusion of the excellent wetlands consultant that we have employed, assuming that she is provided access to the property as necessary for her work.' You may also wish to seek the assistance of state and federal personnel familiar with wetlands delineation. 2. Wildlife Habitat - There is considerable reason to believe the Central Area is an important wildlife habitat. As the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources ("ANR") observes in a memorandum prepared to summarize its observations with respect to this project. (See Attachment 3 hereto): This area is very rich biologically and serves a myriad of wildlife functions. Grassland birds have been observed including bobolink. Historical site for threatened upland sandpiper, but recent observations have not shown any of this species. Not sure of the adequacy of the survey by Briggs [the Developer's consultant]. Also, may be good New England cottontail habitat which could be an issue. Also, likely nesting habitat for woodcock. Observed a deer. Good habitat for raptors including potential habitat for northern barriers. Again, the Developer's studies appear to understate the scope of this challenge to the project. We offer the assistance of a consultant that we have employed to consider this issue and ask that he be provided access to the property as necessary for his work. 3. Access Roads — To access the Central Area, the Developer proposes using two roads to cross the wetlands that ring the Central Area. Without these crossings, the allegedly drier portion of the Central Area is inaccessible. Although South Burlington may wish to require the Developer to reserve a right-of-way for an eventual road (to be constructed at a point when South Burlington is as densely settled as a major city), it is extremely doubtful that Retrovest will be able to construct a through road anytime soon. We are working to flesh out the wildlife ' Retrovest has denied access to the Downing -Calkins Land to experts employed by the Vallees except on terms unprecedented to my knowledge in Vermont. We do not understand what environmental issues Retrovest seeks to shield from discovery and we have been trying to negotiate access for our consultants so that all regulatory authorities will have the best possible information on which to base their decisions. Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 3 BumK MDERSON & MELLONIPyc issues associated with this proposed road construction. Nevertheless, Attachment 3 hereto, a memorandum by ANR, describes the problem as follows: So. Burlington expects to require a through road that would bisect the property and wetlands. This would be a huge impact to the wildlife functions of this habitat. Wetlands deserve wide buffers and permanent conservation, but buffer may prove difficult since much of the area around the open sedge wetlands is also open meadow. Not much for visual or auditory buffers. A road bisecting the property would seem unacceptable based on our current level of understanding of the wildlife values of the site. High density housing would also not be compatible with this site. Too many people would create as great an impact on these wetlands as physical alteration. The wetlands challenge may be described as follows: Under federal wetlands rules, a permit to encroach upon wetlands will only be issued if the disturbances ... are "avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable." Attachment 4, p. 10. Even extreme remedies, such as greater reliance on public transportation to avoid the need for a new road that disturbs wetlands, must be unavailable. See Attachments 5 and 6. State and local wetlands rules are of similar effect. See SBZR § 3.204. 4. Residential Density — We would ask the City of South Burlington to carefully consider the maximum legal housing density allowed for the parcel. As we understand zoning provisions applicable to the SEQ District, the maximum density is no more than 1.2 residential units per acre. We would ask you to carefully ascertain the area of land to which this limit would be applied. We believe such area excludes land in Shelburne and land developed for other purposes including, for example, transmission lines owned by VELCO, the Developer's proposed community center, etc. Even if the land area to which this limit would be applied is as large as is claimed by the Developer (222 acres in South Burlington), the maximum residential density would be 265 housing units rather than the more than 300 units depicted by the Developer's plans. Additionally, we see no reason to relax this legal standard to enable maximum density on the Downing -Calkins Land. If anything, the allowable density should be decreased in light of the environmental characteristics of the property. As shown by the attached testimony submitted on behalf of the Downing -Calkins Trust (Attachment 7), the Developer proposes to more than triple the number of Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 4 BumK AnasoN MELLONIPLC units the Downing -Calkins Trust believed [only eight years ago] was appropriate to build on its property. As the following exchange demonstrates, the engineer for the Downing -Calkins Trust was "astounded" by the notion that even as many as 244 units would be allowed on the Trust property: 9.Q Why were you surprised or "astounded", by the allowable density on the Trust property? 9.A The zoning regulations for the City of South Burlington indicate that the purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District is to encourage open space preservation, scenic views, natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, and the open character of the area. It was immediately obvious to me that the high allowable density was in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of formation of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. When I questioned Mr. Weith on the point he indicated that the Village at Dorset Park was used as a model for the 4 unitper acre allowable density. He went on to explain that the Dorset Park development was a Planned Unit Development that involved clustering of homes to maximize open space and was well screened from major highways and neighboring properties. Upon further inquiry, I learned that Dorset Park involved a total of 108 acres. The project was approved for 177 units clustered on only 40 acres (4.4 units/acre) with the remaining 68 acres to be used for the Park. 10.Q How does the Trust property compare to the Dorset Park development? 10.A The Trust property is much larger in area (222 acres) than Dorset Park (108 acres). The Trust property is significantly similar in terms of visibility from major public views. Much of the interior portion of the property cannot be seen from public roads or neighboring properties. Therefore, development densities could easily be increased in the interior of the property without off -site visual impact. If the Calkins family decides to increase the number of lots in the interior proportion of the property above what is currently shown on Exhibit D-C2, this higher density would seem to fit the Dorset Park model and the intent of the Southeast Quadrant District. Some increase in density may be required as we consider the economics of development costs for the infrastructure improvements. However, based on our preliminary BURAK ANDERSON MELLONIPLC Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 5 estimates, we do not anticipate more than 100 lots for the entire project with no more than 1 unit per acre in the designated development areas that are visible from public roads including Allen Road, Spear Street and Dorset Street. Prefiled Testimony of Bernard X. Chenette, p. 2 on behalf of the Downing - Calkins Trust, Application of MBL Associates #4L0948-EB, November 21, 1994, pp. 2 — 3. 5. Designated Restricted Areas — A substantial amount of housing proposed by the Developer, including substantial housing in the Central Area, is located in designated restricted areas. Housing may not be built in designated restricted areas (South Burlington Zoning Code ("SBZC") § 6.501) as the Developer proposes to do unless the South Burlington Development Review Board determines "that the development activities are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District ("SEQD"). The purpose of the SEQD is as follows (SBZC § 6.00): A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The open character and spectacular scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that will best preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited except those which are allowed as conditional uses. The following must also be considered: The Planning Commission shall review proposed development activity or the location of residential development lots in a restricted area according to the following criteria: (a) Designated open space shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic enjoyment of users of the site, surrounding properties, and roads in the vicinity. Mr. John Dinklage, Chair BURAK ANDERSON &- MELLONIPLC City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 6 (b) Proposed buildings, lots, streets and other structures shall be placed so as to maximize potential of land for open space and natural resources preservation, scenic view protection, and /or continued agricultural use. In an effort to maximize the above goals, the following shall be considered: (i) Existing natural resources on the site including streams, wetlands, floodplains, conservation zones, wildlife habitats and special features such as mature maple groves or unique geologic features. (ii) Scenic view corridors from existing or planned public ways. (iii) Existing agricultural use and/or ability of the land to be improved for agriculture. (iv) Size and shape of contiguous open space and potential for combination with open space and adjacent lots. (v) Natural topography and existing vegetation and forest lands. In this regard, we call to your attention the following: a. As outlined above, the Central Area is characterized by significant natural areas including wetlands and wildlife habitat. b. To construct any housing in the Central Area will require the construction of a road across the wetlands and wildlife area. Such construction may seriously compromise the connectivity of existing. wetlands and wildlife areas. 6. Consistency with South Burlington's Plan — We ask you to consider whether the Developer's proposal implements the following provisions of South Burlington's Municipal Plan (pp 47-55) for the Southeast Quadrant. Among the relevant provisions are the following: • Goal Statement: It is a goal of this City to promote a pattern of land use and development that respects and maintains the special character of the Southeast Quadrant. The City will strive to encourage well Mr. John Dinklage, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board December 3, 2002 Page 7 BumK ANDERSON & MELLONIrrG planned residential development at densities and layouts that protect and preserve large contiguous areas of open space, important natural areas and scenic views. • Residential Development Densities: Areas designated as appropriate for development were based on the following general objectives: ❖ Preserve natural features such as wetlands, floodplains and drainage ways. ❖ Protect enough wooded area to maintain viable wildlife habitat and maintain connections between habitats for movement. ❖ Cooperate with the Towns of Williston and Shelburne to plan compatible uses and densities along Town/City lines. • Natural Resources ❖ Preserve and protect the natural resources of the Quadrant including water and drainageways, soil, open spaces, wetlands, wildlife habitat and corridors, Potash Brook source and Muddy Brook. We look forward to working with you to adjust, as justified and necessary, the Developer's proposal to a scale appropriate for Vermont and consistent with South Burlington's goals for the Southeast Quadrant. Very truly yours, on Anderson JTA\alb SAClient Matters\72835\Letters\jta dinklage.doc OV a �>' fo wX L9 '5 v w z � i 111 ��yCL �tONv 111uj it oil fix ted 1i I k k "'fit • • ) x y " ` - • .. . ,F .-a"'�o'�wweew , wet " �. lip JADI- eewewwee"�w�A i •: w w ! s + r: J ` e�>AeeAwe013wA* ♦ lwweey.; ' a _ �weeAAeeAAAAAAA> a. AJAwewca �J 71 1 yx r , .y w Y. , _v' . ".' "'.' . ' .' , ®® • �* .. ., r u .#k it . • 1 r+ • Y � � PIN x ar= - .� s �+ P:tle. South Village Calkins Property South Burlington, Vt etav Pre ared by: ARRO`'WOOD ENVIRONMENTAL WwiTE y 00 U., •iWC Key: Proposed Wetland Crossings ° ` (Approximate) h' Property Boundary `A (Approximate) l Wetland Boundary (Approximate) South Burlington Wetlands .. ,* ►�o�+t 1 ® Additional Wetland Areas 4¢ ►ww �• ♦ � Aa:>Jet Wetland boundary approximated from wet�ieiwd tie Wetland Plan by Civil Engineering eo+�eoeeA ♦ewwa'www�wt Associates, page C2, August 2001. s e eeeae ,eAe ♦ > A A ♦ t o� Additional wetland impact areas use awi®eoa�A� +A ewawees>wAA st ',►w �,� :° '0gk�;,. identified by Arrowwood Environmental through preliminary ApelAJel+weave wwwo•Dwwo oe,;eyeeww� pweewA. ;, y Y �W site evaluation, not formal .• ► ♦ ♦ w ♦ > w e ♦ i � delineation protocol. ,�. swAw♦wwe♦ wew ►wowt veoe� rweweoAw� r�,• , Map base Orthophotographyby wig>wr!'iwiewei e♦>wt+w. -, � Vermont Mapping Project, . A.ea �iesA.o. ;� , • photo date, 1999. ♦wJwe♦ ♦e•)Ae♦ ♦ w w w ♦ A ♦t te♦ `�`` South Burlington Wetlands from City of South Burlington. .9e i'weeAwe� Map for personal use only, ' ' + ' w w ♦ n A� we♦ wewA1 errors may exist. zo,�� w 6 4t Prepared for Skip Vallee M,JIMA A&� Y Scale: ` t qw 100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet ♦ tr. prepared by: AW Date: I / f a -• December 1, 2002 : aqr. project: c:\gis\projects\southvillage\southvilllage.apr Dec-02-02 11:12A P_O2 Yea —vc—erg t.c : i l rrl wvr< t trLtYibt�r?T�N S@243 s'_'g©Z P_ cal Caulkintt hraperty. SUUth 80rlington Site Review on August 17. 200 t l'rt:Wilt on site n view: Jahn Austin, Jodi Sltippov, Dave Marshall, Errol Triggs, Art Gilman, Ken 13ravzl•III an- ()b4Zt'Vatione7 Lmensive Wetlands sun•oundcti by islands orinature mixed wood foresr with abundant 90N'ood (rnnstt) white Dine). blush of the property is fallow mcadow a result of abandoned farm land.. Tt has grown up to dugwoOd in ii pateh%*Ork pattern with griis!ifand intermixcd. The ► tilands arc largely open ;edge, with urte glonl,vater pond Nvalt abundant evidence of wildlife use (feeding on crayfish, crayfish burrowint, in mud bunk, racoon tracks, GD heron tracks, consultant~ observed ducks, likely used by oucr, mink, u casv)), a forested roil inapic sw:trttp at ci sT end of property is cxcetlenr wildlife habitat, and an island of almom pure oak end hickory in fidd- 1,1119area is very' ftfitk4ogh-aty oriel serves a myriad of wildlife !'unctions. Grassland birds have bctn observed including bOvlink. Ilistnrical site for threatened upland sandpiper, but rccenr observations have not shin, n any of this species. Nut sure of the adequacy ol'the survey by Briggs Also, may be geod New England COI(Q11mil hobital which could be an issue. Also, likely rtesrins habitat IZf, -oodcock. Oy C-rvetl deer. Good habitat for raptors inelutlitig poteatisl habttat for northern harriers. So. burlingtnn cxpcct5 to rquire a through road that would bisect tho property and wet laiids. iliis •could be a huge impact to the wildlife functions ofthis habitat. WcOands dccer>.•e.vide buffers and permanent conscrv'ation. but buffer may pru.e difficult since much ofthe area around the opcn sedge wctlantds is also o»n riwaduwv. Not much: for visual or auditor> buffers. A road biscetirt-, the property +nine seem unaccepmble hosed on our current level of underskutdinK or thy; w ildliN � alues of the site. High density housing would also not be compi0ble .,itlt this site. Ton many peons would create as ureat in impact on these weikind: as physical alteration. The south,vest portion of the property Shows the must promise for light dcYctopnicnt. Pv51-i4" pax Now 767E P19d' 70 Frnm ' Go nPPt Co Phone > PI11,nY " � Ax Y Fax " ATTACHMENT 4 Permit NO: GP-58 Effective Date: 15 October 1997 Expiration Date. 15 October 2002 Applicant: General Publac-State of Vennout Aepartment of the Army General Permit State of Vermont The New England Division of the I.T.S. Army Corps of Engineers `Corps) hereby issues a general permit (GP) that expedites review of minimal impact work as defined by the Corps in navigable and inland waters and wetlands within the State of Vermont. GENERAL I Activities with rminimal impacts, as specified by the terms and conditions of this GP and on the attached APPENDIX A: DE LNITION OF CATEGORIES, are either: z ACTIVITIESCOVERED: Work and structures identified in the attached Appendix A, "Definition of Categories" sheets when 'such work is located In, or affects, navigable waters of the United Mates as regulated by the Corps under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and the discharge of dredged or fin material into waters of the United Mates, including wetlands as regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. For clarification, the term "discharge of dredge or fill material" includes certain discharges resulting from excavation. (as per 33 C FR PART 323.2 (iii) the term "diseharge of dredged material" means any addiUon of dredged material into & including any redeposit of dredged material within the waters of the United dates). Following is a list of State permits that may be required for work in waters and wetlands in the State of Vermont: -Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) approval of a Conditional Use Determination under the Vermont Wetland Rules; -VT DEC approval of a Stream Alteration Permit under Title 10, Chapter 41, Subchapter 2; -VT DEC approval of a Lake Encroachment Permit under Title 29, -Chapter-111-Manage ment of Lakes -and Ponds; -VT DEC approval of a Dam Construction Permit under Title 10, Chapter 43, Dams; -VT DEC approval of a 1272 Order under Title 10, Chapter 47, ® Department of Fish and Wildlife (VT F&W) approval of a Stream Obstruction Permit under Title 10, Chapter 111, Section 4607. T7% P ederal and State jurisdictions may differ in some instances. However, all required State and local permits must be obtained in order for any authorization under this GP to be valid, see condition I of this document, page 7. page 2 011 Raw MUTE lot 'WM;WGI*VA'tIK Mill =LM A= Federal Re, ource Agee =" I GPauthorizations consist of bath Category A and B type activities as outlined In append bi A of this docum-ent. The thresholds outlined in this document are intended ensure that the GP result in minimal impact to the aquatic environment. To insure that these projects will, in fact, result in minimal impact, the Corps will coordinate review of Category B Activities with the Federal Resource Agencies and the State of Vermont and may require project modifications or mitigation to minimize impacts. All wetland boundaries must be determined in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manu, al and any applicable subsequent federal guidance. Non-reporting/Mini'mal Impacts; Ewig iii Activities in Vermont that are: -Subject to Corps jurisdiction, *Meet the definition of Category A on Appendix A, Deflnition of Categories -Meet the conditions of this GP listed on pages 7-12, DIQ D!C Note that the review thresholds under Category A apply to single and complete projects only (see condition 5) and the applicant must obtain, any of the necessary state permits listed on page 2 of this GP. There are also restrictions on national lands as well as conditions which must be met in order for projects to be eligible for authorization under this GP. Refer to conditions 6 through I I and Appendix A of this GP. page 3 PROCEDURES, (continued) Although abegfo A ro ects ax,& raragn reportaa the Corns w1H e ercigt d;.s r r m u- °d e reviewif r concerns for thg :aaluatic env~lror ent or any other factor of the �u�lic . , ince st tit s comae to � tte is Refer to condition 4 on Discretionary Authority. ority. The Corps has set the Category A threshold for inland waters and wetlands' , page l of appendix A at 3,000 s.f. based on protection of valuable regional wetlands and the State of ilermont98 ability to issue water quality certification for up to 3,000 s.f. of wetland impact. The Corps will review the 3,000 s.flimit one year from the date this GP becomes effective to determine if the limit is appropriate. idaiia v - Activities in Vermont which area ®Subject to Corps jurisdiction, -Meet the definition of Category B in appendix A, Definition of Categories, and ®Meet the conditions of this GP listed on pages 8-:13 Require wdt QM & • ese projects wM be reviewed through interagency screenlAg coordination to determine whether such act!-Atles may be authorized under this GP. The Corps and the Federal Resource Agencies and the VT DEC will comprise the interagency review team. The Corps will determine eligibility for projects with aquatic impacts between 3, 000 s.f. to 5, 000 s.f. All projects impacting over 5, 000 s.f of water or wetland will be screened by the interagency review team to determine eligibility. To be eligible and subsequently authorized, an activity must result in_ al impacts to the aquatic envir®hment- as dieter ed by the Corps based on cor=ents from the review team in addition to meeting the criteria listed herein. Compensatory mitigation may be required to compensate for unavoidable impacts to render net effects of a project minimal. When necessary, the Corps shall contact the applicant to discuss concerns raised during screening. Note that review thresholds under Category B apply to single and complete projects only (see condition 5). There are also restrictions on national lands as well as conditions which must be met in order for projects to be eligible for authorization under this GP. Refer to conditions 6 tl3rough 13. exc!uding lake Champlain,. Lake Memphremagag,, Wallace Pond,. and adjacent and special wedands as defused on rage 6 of Appendix A. page 4 PROCEDURES, (continued) In order for the Interagency review team to review a project, the applicant must submit adequate plans. These include a Plans which illustrate the proposed work in reference to the limits of Corps jurisdiction as applicable. Plans should be on 8.5 " by 11 - paper and contain all other appropriate information. ® A description of the project purpose and location, including a locus map and photographs, if applicable. a A narrative description of the habitat(s) including dominant plant community(ies)present, soil type and relevant existing and adjacent land uses. ADwication Procedures - Applicants will apply directly to the Corps at the Vermont Field Office. The Corps will review the application for completeness and screen complete applications for Category B activities impacting between 5, 000 s.f. and one acre with the Federal resource agencies. Federal/State Screenin- Procedures - Joint screening coordination between the Corps and the Federal Resource Agencies will occur on a regular basis for L11 Category B activities impacting between 5,000 s.f. and one acre of waters and wetlands. The Corps will coordinate with the VT DEC for all Category B projects who will make a determination as to whether or not an individual water quality certfflcation is required. The Corps wi'll coordinate screenings monthly and, when necessary, hold coordination meetings at the Corps" Vermont, Project Office in Colchester, Vermont. However, efforts will be made to complete the coordination process through the mail. page 5 PROCEDURES9 (continued) During the screening coordination, the Corps will determine, in consultation with the Federal Resource Agencies, if applications for Category B work: (1) require additional Informat-lon; (2) axe eligible under the GP as proposed; (3) are -ineligible under the terms and/or conditions of tWs GP; (4) wM require prqjject modification, mitigation or other specW- conditions to rya impacts and protect the aquatic environment to be eligible for this GP; or (5) require Individual permit rev -Jew irrespective of whether the to and conditions Of this G? are met, based on agency concerns withi their area of expertise or based on other concerns for the aquatic environment or any other factor of the public interest (see Condition 4, Discretionary Authority). If a Federal resource ag6ncy raises concerns during the screening - process, the Corps may contact the applicant - to discuss the concerns and possible modifications or mitigation to the project. If the applicant is unable to resolve the concerns or modify the project, the Corps will require an individual permit for the activities if that agency so requests. The Corps will notify the applicant in writing within 25 working days of the screening coordination that their project is not eligible for Category B and will be ldcked out to an Individual Permit Review. The Corps will provide in -formation about submitting the necessary application materials for individual permit review. If the applicant is able to modify the proposal to address agency concerns, that project may be rescreened with the review -team and subsequently authorized under the GP. Comments regarding projects reviewed during monthly screening coordination may be verbal initially and will be accepted within 10 working days of the date the package is received. Each commenting agency shall complete and submit VT GP comment forms for the Mee' and/or provide verbal comments to the appropriate Corps project manager. Comment forms will be accepted by the Corps during the 10 working day verbal comment period following the Agency's receipt of the application. Packages will be mailed out monthly on a regular basis. The specific date will be agreed to by all. page 6 PROCEDURES, (continued) The verbal- comments must be confirmed in writing within 10 working days after the verbal comment period In order for the Corps to require an Individual permit. The Federal Resource Agency's concerns must be clearly identified and reflect a concern related to the aquatic environment within their area of expertise. Comments should state the species or resources that could be impacted by the activity(ies) and describe the impacts that either individually or cumulatively will be more than minimal. The written re ,snonse must be lie'ned by the YedcrpAj a ncy yield su ryisor or Brangh Qhipf. _as aDnropriatc. Work that Is in the INDIVIDUAL PERMIT category as listed in Appendix A, DEFINITION OF CATEGORIES, or that does not meet the terms and conditions of this GP, will require an application for an individual permit from the Corps of Engineers (see 33 CFR Part 325.1). Applications and supporting materials for work that is clearly in the Individual Permit category should be; submitted directly to the Corps of Engineers as early as possible in order to expedite the permit review process. General information and application forms can be obtained by calling the Corps New England Division at 1-800-343-4789 or 1-800- 362-4367 (within Massachusetts), or the Corps Vermont Project Office at 802 655-0334. Individual WQC will be required from the appropriate VT Resource Agency(les). Filing an, Individual Permit application does not relieve the applicant from their obligation to obtain all necessary state approvals from the appropriate VT Resource Agency(ies) or any applicable local approvals. page 7 The fbUowing conditions apply to activities .authorized under this GP, includiugaH Category A (non -reporting J and Category B activities (reporting/ screening): 1. Other Permits. Authorization under this general permit does not obviate' the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. 2. Amnlicabilftv of th1E faj,! sh 21.hf. nth re t Fe de Wi fe=n --ede- iun'sdir, W1, "I boundaries, . - Q=dari,,�fi Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the boundaries used satisfy the federal criteria defined at Title 33 CFR 328-329. 3. Mini=al Effects. Projects authorized by this general permit shall have minimal Individual and cumulative adverse environmental impacts as determined by the Corps. 4. Discretlonaz7 Authority. Notwithstanding compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit, the Corps of Engineers retains discretionary authority to require an application for an individual permit for any regulated project based on concerns for the aquatic environment or for any other factor of public Interest. This authority is invoked on a case -by -case basis whenever the Corps determines that the potential consequences of the proposed activity warrant individual review based on the concerns stated above. This authority may be invoked for projects with cumulative environmental impacts that are more than minimal, or if there is a special resource or concern associated with a particular project that Is not already covered by the remaining conditions of the GP and that warrants greater review. Whenever the Corps notifies an applicant that an individual permit may be required, authorization under this GP is void, and no work may be conducted until the individual Corps permit is obtained, or until the Corps notifies the applicant that further review has demonstrated that the work may proceed under this GP. 5. Single and Complete Projects. This GP shall not be used for piecemeal work and shall be applied to single and complete projects. All components of a single project shall be treated together as constituting one single and complete project. All planned phases of multi -phased projects shall be treated together as constituting one single and complete project. This GP shall not be used for any activity that is part of an overall project for which an individual permit is required. Note that modifications to State permits do not constitute a separate project. Modifications which involve Corps jurisdictions will be screened through interagency coordination in order to ascertain compliance with the GP. 2 obviate means "to make unnecessary' page 8 6. Historic Properties. any activity authorized by this PGP shall comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Information on the location and e;dstence of historic resources can be obtained from the Vermont Division for 1-hstoric Preservation and the National Register of Historic Places. Applicants with projects which will undergo the screening process, shall submit a copy of their application materials to the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (address on page 15 of this document) to be reviewed for the presence of historic /archaeological resources in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed work. The Corps will then be notified by that agency if there are State concerns that the proposed work will have an effect on historic resources. The applicant should include with their application to the Corps, either a copy of their cover letter to the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, of a statement of having done so. If the permittee, during construction of work authorized herein, encounters a previously unidentified archaeological or other cultural resource within the area subject to Corps jurisdiction that might be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, he/she shall stop work and immediately notify the District Engineer and the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. 7. Natlun2l- Lands. Activities authorized by this GP shall not impinge upon the value of any National Wildlife Refuge, National Forest, or any other area administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, or National Park Service. S. Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under this GP -which may erect a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act {ESA); or which is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species; or which would result in a "take" of any threatened or endangered species of fish or vAldfife, or which would result in any other violation of Section 9 of the BSA Protecting threatened or endangered species of plants. Applicants shall notify the Corps if any listed species or critical habitat is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have g been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (addresses attached, page 15). 9. Wild and Scenic Rivers. Any activity that occurs in a component of, or within 0.25 miles up or downstream of the main stem or tributaries of a river segment of, the National Wild and Scenic River System, must be Gage 9 reviewed by the Corps under the procedures of Category B of this GP. This condition applies to both designated Wild and Scenic rivers and rivers designated by Congress as, Study Rivers for possible inclusion Vhfic such rivers are in an official study status. At this time, there are no rivers in Vermont listed as either designated or as study rivers. 10. Federal Navigation Project. Any structure or work that extends closer to the horizontal limits of any Corps navigation project than a distance of three times the prqjecfs authorized depth shall be subject to removal at the owner's expense prior to any future Corps dredging or the performance of periodic hydrographic surveys. 11. Navigation. There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigat-Ion by the ewdstence or use of the activity authorized herein, and no attempt shall be made by the perraittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the activity authorized herein. MINIMIZA TION OF ENVIRONMENT,, IMPACTS.- devices, shall be :Uastalled and properly maintained to reduce erosion and retain sediment on -site during and after construction. They shall be capable of preventing erosion, of collecting sediment, suspended and floating materials, and of filtering fine sediment. These devices shall be removed upon completion of work and the disturbed areas shall be stabilized. The sediment collected by these devices small be removed and placed at an upland location, in a manner that will prevent its later erosion into a waterway or ;wetland. all exposed soil and other fills shall be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. 16. Waterway Crossings. (a) all temporary and permanent crossings of waterbodies shall be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed to withstand and to prevent the restriction of High flows, to maintain existing low flows, and so as not to obstruct the movement of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody beyond the actual duration of construction. (b) No open trench excavation in flowing waters. shall be allowed unless screened and conditioned to protect the aquatic environment. (c)Temporary bridges, culverts, or cofferdams shall be used for equipment access across streams (note: areas of fill and/or cofferdams must be included in total waterway/wetlands impacts to determine applicability of this general permit). (d) For projects that otherwise meet the terms of Category .A, unconfined in - stream construction work (without cofferdams) shall be conducted during the low flow period of duly 15 - October 1 in any year. Projects that are conducted outside of that time period are ineligible for Category a and shall be screened pursuant to Category B, regardless of the waterway and wetland fill and/or impact area. 17. Discharge of Pollutants. All activities involving any discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States authorized under this general permit small be consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent limitations, standards of performance, prohibitions, and pretreatment standards and management practices established pursuant to the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251), and applicable state and local lags. if applicable water quality standards, limitations, etc., are revised or modified during the terra of this permit, the authorized work shall be modified to conform with these standards -within S months of the effective date of such revision or modification, or within a longer period of time deemed reasonable by the District Engineer in consultation with the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Applicants may presume that state water quality standards are suet with issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (applicable only to the Section 404 activity). page 11 18. Spawning Areas. Discharges into known: a) fish and shellfish spawning or nursery areas; or b) amphibian and waterfowl breeding areas, during spawning or breeding seasons shall be avoided. Additionally, impacts resulting from discharges into these areas shall be minimized to the ma,.dmum extent practicable, during all other times of the year. 19. Storage of Seasonal Structures. Seasonal or recreational structures such as pier sections, floats, etc., that are removed from the waterway for a portion of the year shall be stored in an upland location, located above mean high water and not in a wetland. 20. Environmental Values. The permittee shall make every reasonable effort to carry out -the construction or operation of the work authorized herein in a manner so as to maintain as much as is practicable, and to minimize any adverse impacts on, existing fish, and wfldlife, and natural environmental values. 21. Inspections. The perinittee shall allow the District Engineer or his authorized representative(s) to make periodic inspections at any time deemed necessary in order to ensure that the work Is being perfo=ed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The District Engineer may also require post -construction engineering drawings for completed work, and post -dredging survey drawings for any dredging work. 22. Maintenance. The permittee shall maintain the work or structures authorized herein in good condition, including maintenance to ensure public safety. Note that this does not include maintenance of dredgIng projects. Maintenance dredging is subject to the review thresholds described on the attached Appendix A, DEFINITION OF CATEGORIES and/or any conditions included in a written Corps authorization. 23. Property RIghts. This GP does not convey any property rights either in real estate or in aterial, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authZrize any injury to property or invasion of rights or any infringernent of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. 24. Modifacation, Suspension, and Revocation. This GP may be either modifled, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part pursuant to the policies and procedures of 33 CFR 325.7; any such action shall not be the basis for any claim for damages against the United States. 25. Restoration. The permittee, upon .receipt of a notice of revocation of authorization under this GP, shall restore the wetland or waterway to its former conditions without expense to the United States, and as directed by the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative. If the permittee fails to comply with such a directive, the Secretary or his designee may page 12 restore the wetland Or waterway to its former condition, by contract or otherwise, and recover the cost from LI-le permittee. 26. Special Conditions. The Corps may impose Other special conditions on a project authorized pursuant to this GP that are determined necessary to minimize adven-se environmental effects or based on any other factor of the public interest. These may be based on Concerns from a Federal resource agency. Failure to comply with all conditions of the authorization, including special conditions, will constitute a Permit violation and may subject the permittee to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties or restoration. 27. False sir Incomplete Infbrmation. if the Corps makes a determination regarding the eligibility of a project under this GP, and subsequently discovers that it has relied on false, incomplete, or inaccurate information provided by the perniittee, the permit -shall not be valid and the U.S. Government may institute legal proceedings. 28. Abandonment. If the permittee decides to abandon the activity authorized under this GP, unless such abandonment is merely the transfer of property to a third party, he/she may be required to restore the area to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. 29. Enforcement cases. This general permit does not apply to any existing or proposed activity in Corps Jurisdiction associated with a Corps of Engineers or EPA enforcement action, until such time as the enforcement action is resolved or the Corps or EPA as appropriate determines that the activity may proceed independently without compromising the enforcement action. 30. Duration of Authorization. This GP authorization expires Rve years from the effective date. Category A activities authorized under this GP that have commenced (i.e., are under construction, or are under contract to commence) Will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the expiration date. Catego ry B activities authorized under this GP are valid as specified in the GP authorization letter unless: a) the GP is either modified or revoked, or b) discretionary authority has been exercised in accordance with 33 CYR 325.2(e)(2). Activities cow PICLed under this GP will continue to be authorized by the GP after the expiration date. page 13 3 1 . p.,viously Authorized a) projects that have received written authorization frhauthorized om the reCorps under the Nationwide permits prior to issuance ®athis GP sall main as specified in each authorization- which have commento ced, {i.e., b) Non -reporting nationwide permit activities w, are under construction or are under contract to commence) prior the issuance date of this GP, remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of -the date of issuance of this GP. These activities are stiff subject to discretionary authority on a case -by -case basis in accordance with Condition 4. The applicant must be able to documenontract t to the satisfaction of the corps that the project was under construction or c by the appropriate date. c) Activities authorized pursuant to 33 CFR Part 330.3 (activities Occtlr 9 before certain dates) are not affected by this GP. WIM Fory I MWER, MAIN DISTRICT ENGI page 14 MLIMVFW�� Ne,,,v England District, Regulatory Branch Vermont Project Office Camp Johnson, Building 10- 18 Colchester, Vermont 05446 (802) 655-0334 Fax #: 802 655-0818 National Park Service North Atlantic Region 15 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (617) 223-5191 U.S. EnvironmenW Protection Agency New England Region, VT State Program Unit - CVT JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203, (617) 565-1545 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4th Floor, Ralph Pill Marketplace 22 Bridge Street, Unit I Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 225-1411 TT Age=7 of Natural Res-owees Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Non -Game and Natural Heritage Program 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0501 (802) 241-3700 t Division for Mstoxic Preservation 135 State Street, 4th Floor Drawer 33 Montpelier, Vermont 05633-1201 (802) 828-3226 Depart=ent of EnvirammenW Consaivation Dept. of Envh-onmental Conservation Water Quality Division - Wetlands Water Quality Division 103 South Main Street Encroachment Program Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0408 103 South Main Street (802) 241-3770 Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0408 (802) 241-3777 Agency of Natural Resat=ces Stream Alteration Program 184 Portland Street St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (802) 748-8787 Department of Fish and Wildlife Stream Obstruction Program 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vr 05671-0408 Dept. of Environmental Conservation Dam Safety Program 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0407 (802) 241-3737 page 15 Permit No.: GRS Name of Appiicant: Effective Date: 29 September 1998 Expiration Date: 15 October 1998 General Public, State of Vermont AMENDMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY GENERAL PERMIT STATE OF VERMONT The Vermont General Permit (VT GP) has been in use in the New England District since October 15, 1998. Eased on experience and after coordination with the State of Vermont, Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish grad Wildlife Service (F&WS), the VT GP is hereby modified as follows: date ory A New FilllE-ccavation Dischar es in inland waters and lands Stream crossings are now Category E activities. The Corps will determine eligibility for stream crossings with aquatic impacts between 0 to 5,000 s.f. All projects impacting over 5,000 s.f. of water or wetland will 'be screened by the interagency review team to determine eligibility. Repair and Maintenance ilVork in Lake Char —plain Lake ler7aPhr�'�g� Wallace Pond and adjacent wetlands This category of activity no longer allows for any expansion or change in use. .All other aspects of Category ,A remain in full force and effect. New Fill/Excavatiora l�ischar es in Inland waters and wetlands Stream crossings .are now Category E activities. The Corps will determine eligibility for stream crossings with aquatic impacts between 0 to 5,000 s.f. All projects impacting over 5,000 s.f. of water or Wetland will be screened by the interagency review tears to determine eligibility. Miscellaneous Activities in Inland I�a��i abl era er nd ad'acer� ire land This is a new category of activity to encompass work within Section 10 waterways. Additional activities are (1) New and maintenance dredging up to 5000 cubic yards with upland disposal or beach nourishment, provided tyre are no impacts to special aquatic sites; and (2) Aerial transmission lines. Pile -Supported Structures and Floats in Lake Champlain Lake Memo iremWallace Pond and adjacent wetlands We have added non -fill .structures to provide recreational access to the waterbody (e.g., stairways, etc.). All other .aspects of Category B remain in full force and effect. Individual Kermit Miscellaneous ,activities n inland l�Ia �ic�able wat :rs and adiacent wetlands This is a new category of activity to encompass work within Section 10 waterways. Additional activities are (1) Maintenance dredging of any amount affecting a special aquatic site, (2) New and maintenance dredging greater than 5000 cubic yards or in or affecting a special aquatic site; and (3) Dredging with open water disposal. Definition of Categories The Batten kill River to its headwaters has been added to the list of rivers of concern s. All other Conditions of the original V" GP remain in full force and effect. " gDISTiRIVCT ENGINEE — _®__ DATE Categor" P0 les - ,onditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document 0 Activity Category A Category B Individual Permit Inland Waters and Wetlands (Waters Of the U.S.) (1) Excluding Lake Champlain, Lake MeMe muhremanoo.Wallaca Pond & wetlands adiaceritto these water bodles. 1) NEW FILL Less than 3,000 sf Waterwayffletland fill and excavations & secondary 1. 3,000 91 to one acre inland Greater than one acre Inland /EXCAVATION Impacts (e.g. areas drained, flooded or waterway and/or wetland fill & secondary Impacts, (e.g. areas waterway and/or wetland fill & secondary Impacts (e.g. area DISCHARGES mechanically cleared) provided: -no drained, flooded or cleared). drained, flooded or cleared). Impact to special wetlands e6) tithe Includes all temporary (5) & Includes temporary (5) and Impact area Includes all temporary (5) permanent fill & excavation areas. permanent fill and areas affected by & permanent discharges; 2. Time of year restrictions excavation discharges. -in stream work firalted to 7/16-10/1. determined on a case by case Notes: Dams, dikes, stream crossings, basis. water withdrawals or diversion fills & any 3. Any fill up to one acre In a tills In special wetlands are C&W special watland(6) or In the towns activities. (6) of Athens, Brookline, Grafton, No non -reporting fills In the towns of Newfane, Putney, Rockingham or Athens, Brookline, Grafton, Newfane, Townshend. Putney, Rockingham, or Townshand 4. Dams, dikes, stream crossings, water withdrawals or diversion fills any fills in special wetlands. 2) BANK Bank stabilization less than 500 linear Stabilization projects greater than feet (11) & an average of 1 cubic yard 600 Lf. and/or greater than I STABILIZATION (c.y.) per 11 of fill below ordinary high c.y.(averafle) of fill below OHW or PROJECTS water (OH W) or less provided no any amount of watiand fill, or any wetiand fill. Not Including projects on projects on rivers listed In note 7, rivers listed as note 7, App. A. Apia A. 3) REPAIR & Repair or maintenance of existing, Replacement of non -serviceable fills, fills Replacement of serviceable and currently serviceable, authorized fills expansion of serviceable nonserviceable fills with expansion MAINTENANCE OF with no expansion or change In use up to I acre (limit of Impact to over one acre. AUTHORIZED provided no impact to special waters of U.S. for entire project), FILLS wetlands. (6) repair or replacement of fill with a change In use 7-1PPOidix pa5e J REVISED 9/98 onditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages i through 12 of this document Activity Category A Individual hermit Inland Waters and Wetlands(Waters of the U.S.) (1) Excluding Lake Champlain, Lake lillemphremagog , Wallace Pond & wetlands adjacent to these water bodies. 4) MISCELLANEOUS Navigable Watenvays and Adj. Wetlands Only (sea Hipp. A, Dote 2) (See App. A, pages 3-5 for work In or affecting Lake Champlain, Cake Mfernphremagog, Wallace Pond, and(or ad], wetlands) Oil spill clean-up discharges. Fish and wildlife harvesting devices such as duck blinds. `temporary scientific measurement devices and survey activities, i.e., exploratory drilling,. surveying, sampling. Does not include oil -gas exploration & fills for roads or construction pads. Includes monitoring wells and recreational gold mining. Zebra Mussel control projects. Fishery habitat enhancement structures. Utility line crossings, water intakes and outfalis, and sea, lamprey control projects. i, New and maintenance dredging up to 5,000 c.y. with upland disposal or beach nourishment. No impacts to special aquatic sites. 2. Aerial transmission lines. Projects where an EIS Is required by the corps. `I. Maintenance dredging of any amount affecting a special aquatic site. 2. New and maintenance dredging greater than 5,000 c.y. or In or affecting a special aquatuc site. 3. Dredging with open water disposal. dlx A. 2 Appendix A - Definition of Categories Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages i throragh 12 of this document Activity category A Category B individual Permit,; Lake Champlain, Lake Memphremagog , Wallace Pond & wetlands adjacent to these waters bodies. 6) NEW FILLwetland No non -reporting fills Up to 5,000 sq. ft. waterway/ fill & secondary impacts (e.g. areas drained, flooded or cleared). Includes boat ramps & bridge fills. Includes all temporary (5) & permanent waterway/wetland fills. greater than 6,000 sq.ft. waterway/wetland fill & secondary Impacts (e.g. areas drained, flooded, or cleared). Includes all temporary (5) & permanent waterway/wetland fills. `temporary (5) fill and excavation discharges over 5,000 sq. ft. Repair or maintenance of existing, repair of any non -serviceable Replacement of non -serviceable -1) HEPAI n & currently serviceable, previously structures and fills. structures or fills. MAINTENANCE authorized structures & fills with WORK no expansion or change In use. 8) DREDGING Now & Maintenance dredging up Maintenance dredging of any to 5,000 c.y. with upland disposal amount affecting a special aquatic or beach nourishment. site (3). No impacts to special aquatic Now and Maintenance dredging sites (3): greater than 5,000 c.y. or in or affecting a special aquatic site (3). All dredging with open water disposal. iX REVISED 9/99 Appendix - - Definition of Categories Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages i through 12 of this document Activity Category A Category 8 Individual Permh Lake Champlain, Lake Memphremagog, Wallace Pond & wetlands adjacent bodies. 9) MOORINGS Private, non-commercial, non- rental, single boat moorings not associated with any boating facility, provided not located In a Federal Navigation Project & no Interference with navigation. Moorings that do not meet the terms of Cat A. 1 d) PILE 1. Reconfiguration of existing 1. Private non-commercial piers 1. Structures, piers, floats that SUPPORTED authorized does with no and floats for navigational access extend or, with docked or moored additional slips and no expansion to a waterway other than these vessels will extend, within the STRUCTURES and with no encroachment Into a docks as described in Cat A. horizontal limits of a Federal FLOATS Federal project. 2. Piers, docks, decks, floats, Navigation project. 2. Private residential docks and similar structures that 2. Structures, including piers extending no further waterward provide public recreational uses and floats, associated with a now than 50 ft. MHW, not greater than 4 such as fishing, swimming, commercial boating facility or ft. wide, & a dock deck area less access, etc. these associated with a than 500 s.f. 3. Non -fill structures io provide previously unauthorized boating 3. No docks, decks or walkways recreational access to the facility. (4) over special aquatic sites. waterbady (e.g. stairways, etc.). 11) 1. Temporary (5) buoys, markers, 1, Structures/work In or affecting Projects where an EIS is MISCELLANEOUS floats, etc. for recreational use navigable waters, not defined required by the Corps. during specific events, provided under any previous headings. they are removed within 30 days Includes, but is not limited to: after use is discontinued. utility lines, aerial transmission 2. Seasonal swimming floats. lines, pipelines, outfalls, Intakes. REVISED 9198 .a Appendix A - Definition of Categories Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document Activity Category A Category B Individual Permit Lake Champlain, Lake Memphremg , Wallace Pond & wetlands adjacent 3. Boat & float lifts to authorized Z. Zebra Mussel Control Projects Activities within the horizontal residential docks, limits of Corps Federal Navigation MISCELLANEOUS 4. Coast Guard approved aids to 3. Fishery habitat enhancement project or with docked or moored (Continued from App. A, pagr, navigation. structures vessels extending within those 4) S. Structures/fill incidental to oil limits, (does not Include utility spill clean up. 4. Sea Lamprey control projects lines, aerial lines and subsurface 6. Scientific measurement devices crossings In Cat B.) & survey activities such as 5. Nuisance aquatic plant control exploratory drilling, projects. such structures do not restrict movements of aquatic organisms. Not to Include oftas exploration or seismic testing or fills for roads or construction pads. 7. Flsh&Wildllfe harvesting devices, e.g. pound nets, & smalllfish attraction devices,e.g. open water fish concentrators, provided activity is not in wetlands, except Sea Lamprey control projects 74ppettdix A, REVISED 9108 Appendi x A � Definition Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages i through 12 of this document, State permits may be required for specific projects regardless of the General Permit Category. Notes i. `Ul/afer ref the U.S . inland areas: inland rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. (Ref. `title 33 CFA 328.4(c)) z. Navigable Waters: waters that have been designated by Congress as navigable. (Ref. Title 33 CPR 329) In Vermont these' waters are: Lake Champlain, the Connecticut [River, Lake Memphremagog, Wallace Pond, Ompompanoosue diver to mile .6, Waits River to mile 0.9, the Mack Diver from the mouth to mile 25 in Craftsbury, the Battenkill giver to mile 50 in Manchester, the Lamoille River from the mouth to mile 79 in Greensboro, the Missisquoi River from the mouth to mile 88.5 it Lowell, utter Creek from the mouth to mile 63.6 in Procter, the Winooski River from the mouth to Marshfield, the Loose Rive from Passumpsic River to the Victory Town Line, the Nulhegan Diver from its mouth to its source including the Past Branch, the Black Branch and the yellow Branch, Paul Stream from the mouth to the source, the Past Branch of the Passumpsic Diver from the confluence with the Passumpsic River to Past Haven, the Passumpsic Diver from the mouth to confluence with the Bast Branch. 3. ftecial Aquatic Sites: Include inland wetlands, vegetated shallows (permanently inundated areas that support rooted aquatic vegetation), and riffle and pool complexes. (Ref. 40 Ch°R 230) 4. Bgating fiacili fes. Facilities that provide, rent or sell mooring space, i.e. marinas, yacht clubs, boat yards, dockorminiuins 5. T porary I ads: Duration limits for temporary impacts will be determined on a project specific basis at the screening meetings. REVISED 9198 Appendix A Mon o Categories Conditions of the GP apply to all categories, see pages 7 through 12 of this document, State permits may be required for specific projects regardless of the General Permit Category. Note4, cortttnued b. ftecial Wetlands: vernal pools, bogs, fens, and wetlands which provide habitat for threatened or endangered or species as designated by the State of Vermont natural heritage program. The following definitions for vernal pools, bogs, and fens apply for the purposes of this GP- - a peat accumulating wetland with hydrio, organic soils, a complete, or nearly complete, sphagnum cover and a pH value ranging from 3.5 to 5.6 that receives water primarily from precipitation. Typical species Include Sphagnum, leatherleaf, and pitcher plant. - a peat accumulating wetland with hydrio organic soils and a ply value ranging from 4.0 to 8.0. Sphagnum moss may be present, however, not as a complete cover. it generally receives water and minerals from runoff flowing through It. Typical species Include low sedges, Sphagnum, other mosses and heath shrubs. Vernal Pod - an often temporary body of water occurring In a shallow depression that fills during spring rains and snow melt and typically dries up during summer months. Vernal pools support populations of speclaiized species which may include wood frogs, mole salamanders (Ambystoma), fairy shrimp, fingernail clams and other invertebrates. A feature common to vernal pools is the lack of breeding populations of fish. some shallow portions of permanent venter bodies also provide vernal pool function by supporting breeding populations of vernal pool species. old, abandoned, artificial depressions may provide these necessary breeding habitats. r. The following rivers are rivers of concern due to either endangered species or cumulative impacts. 'therefore, there are no non -reporting bank stabilization activities in these rivers. * The West River, from Jamaica to the confluence with the Connecticut River; Otter Creek, from Rutland to the confluence with make Champlain; Lewis Creek, from the Rte 116 crossing to the confluence with Lake Champlain; Y The Missisquol River from the International Boundary in Richford, VT to the Confluence with Lake Champlain; The Larnoile River from, Hardwick to the confluence with Lake Champlain; * The Connecticut diver; The Winooski giver from Montpelier to Labe Champlain; The White Diver to the headwaters; Pikes Falls to the headwaters; m The Ompompanoosuc River to the headwaters-, ® The Poultney River to the headwaters. The Batten Kill River to the headwaiters. PP911d17,' 711 REVISED 9f98 03%31/94 10:45 US EPA R1q DID). BOST01,1 MA 91EIG �fo trr�r� rJAMr; UNITE0 STATES ci`• VfRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' RE=14 1 r B1J;LC4MG, BOST GM, MA$SAC HU5ZTi5 sa22az-Z211 March 31, 13S4 Charles P . O'Leary, Jr _ ccmmiss iorzer New Hampshire Department of Transportation J+Ohn O, MortOn Building P.O. Sax 483 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03302 Dear Commissioner O'Leary. I am writing with regard to the proposed construction of the Nashua- iudson circumferential Highway in the greater Nashua, New Hampshire area and the pending Section 404 permit application of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) . Based on, the infcrmati.on which is currently available to me, I .believe that this project would cause substantial, severe and unacceptable impacts to valuable wetlands and other aquatic resources. I tlierefore have decided, Under EPA's Clean Water Act 404 (e) auzI`]. city, to commence the veto process_ I believe this is the only waft to ensure adequate protection of the wetlands, waters, and natural resources in the area of the proposed project at this time. I ate doing this pursuant to regulations published at 40 C-F.R. Part 231. I am taping this action because z believe that the proposed highway would cause severe adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem, partiicularly to dish and wildlife. The greater Nashua area has experienced some of the most severe cumulative: loss of aquatic habitat in New England during the last several decades. The direct and indirect impa:ct.s from the proposed highway would aggravate the severe cumulative toss of habitat and depletion of bioaiversi.ty that has occur real. In addition to my concern about the .anagnitude of these adverse impacts, there is a reasonable likelihood that less environmentally damaging, practicable alternatives to the project exist. If constructed, the highway would adversely affect the existing wildlife community by reducing both the number of individuals and diversity of species. Regionally uncommon species would suffer the most, esppeci.ally the forest interior and area sensitive animals, those species dependent on wetlanU ecosystems, and smaller animals that are either less mobile or depend on vernal pools. in addition to diminishing productivity and energy flow in the aquatic system, the highway would also disrupt streams and riparian corridors that ara particularly valuable because of their high produCtivity and use by wildlife. 4� - A. SAV E IT' 'w`F1FW-tom" d3. 31: `94 10- 45 US EPA Rq DI U. BOSTON MA 007 ERA is particularly, concerned that one of the last remaining refuges fOr wildlifa in the immediate vicinity ttcsl,ld be greatly altered. The roadway would neat only directly destroy over �40 acres Of wetlands, it 'would degrade additional wetlands and destroy a large portion of the surrounding upland habitat that gx'eatly influences the value of the aquatic systems nested in the Second Brock basin, one of the last Primarily intact ecosystems remaining in the greater Nashua area. Numerous streams and wetlands would be bisected, thereby altering the hydrology, disrupting species Movement and increasing predation of urscommon species. The highwaywould fragment numerous wetlands, streams and uplands, and cause impacts wall beyond the footprint of the fill. The project wouldalso destroy and indirectly impact several vernal pools. vernal pools are especially Valuable to wildliifa, particularly as breeding areas for amphibians. In evaluating the adverse impacts of this project, I am rnindrul that. EPA and the states, having recognized the important environmental resources in the area, have been working to iinplement a multi -million dollar initiative to protect the aquatic resources of the Merrimack River Watershed. Considerable time, money and effort have been expendad during the past three years to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. This project would adversely affect the very resources that ERN has targeted for protaction with this watershed initiative. The .Merrimack River, which flows north to south, dominates the hydre)l09y of the study area and is fed by numerous tributaries flowing east to west, since most of the proposed highway heads north and south, the 13 mike road would inevitably cross and fill a number of tributaries and sub --tributaries to the Merrimack. Moreover, the highway Would destroy wetlands which help purify the � waters of the Merrimack Diver and Pennichuck ponds, the two largest drinking water supplies in the study area. Greater amounts ofw sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants of urban runoff, such as lead, oil, and gas, would enter the tributary streams and flow into the Merrimack River. Sedimentation results in turbidity and often tranzPOrts pesticides, heavy metals and other toxins into the streams, which adversely affacts aquatic life. The highway currently proposed would .impact 15 surface and grou.nd:aater community drinking crater sources and add contaminants tc tbese aquatic aystems. Stormwa.ter runoff from the highway would degrade bath surface and groundwater systems. While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts somewhat, Concerns about constructwan work and long -terns problems suc3. as accidents, spills and lack of maintenance wc}uld remain. secondary development in thY watershed, i;I part spurred by the .highway, would worsen these problems. 03/31:1134 10 - 46 US EFh Fn D I J. 20STCFI trig 0�_t8 COT has pr-cposed a substantial mitigation plan. The poor track record associated with wetland creation projects suggests that the mitigation would likely fall short of providing the intended �jfy benefits. Even if successful, the proposed mitigation would not replace these lost functions and values. It would not compensate for destroying aquatic systems in one of the last .large undeveloped tracts remaining in the study area, wizioh provides an oasis for many species of wildlife. The plan does not replace vernal pools, riparian streams, floodplains or the spectrum of natural Lasourc$ values these areas provide. Also, it would do little to replace the large indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts. The plan would not offset the fragmentation of the riparian corridors. The proposed highway would only provide partial traffic relief for the overall traffic patterns in the greater Nashua area. Other measures of reducing traffic volumes, which do not degrade the environment, may also provide some relief. We continue to be willing to work wit:: your office and the DOT to arrive at other alternatives or combinations of alternatives which 'nay be environmentally acceptable. I believe, based on the record developed to date, that an unacceptable adverse effect would result from this proposed discharge, particularly to wildlife, and possibly to eater supply. This letter is the first step in the 404(c) process and offers the Corps of Engineers and DOT the opportunity to consult with EPA about the project. During this consultation period, which is normally 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter, pursuant to 40 C.F.R_ 231.3(a)(2), the Corps and DOT may provide information in response to EFA's concerns and to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that unacceptable adverse effects will not occur on this site, or to take a corrective action to prevent such impacts. If no such demonstration or corrective action is made, then EPA will proceed to .issue a public notice of a proposed determination to prohibit or restrict the use of the wetlands and other waters at this site for the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with this highway project. in accordance with 33 C.F.R. section 323.5, the New England Division may not issue a permit for this project until finaI7 action is taken by EPA under sesztion 404(C). I believe the Corps has worked very hard to not only produce a sound. Environtental Impact Statement, but to scale back the original proposal so as to realize meaningful environmental improvements for the project. These collaborative, open and 5enuine efforts by the Corps in cooperation with New Hampshire 00T , -my office and others to achieve an environmentally acceptable project deserve recognition and praise. so too do the herculean efforts Congress -man Swett has mounted to balance the transportation needs and environmental impacts of this project. This action is meant neither to diminish those efforts nor to impair the positive working relationship the EPA and the Army Corps have established over the years in jointly administering the Section 404 program in 03.%31%94 10:4 r US EFA R; DIU. BOSTON MA 209 New En land In that same sDirit we stand ready to assist in developing traffic manage�aent plans a.ndI Other 'environmentally acceptable alte--natives to the current prO7ect or' combinations Of alternatives whic.31 Provide traffic benefits for the greatar Nashua area and urhich also protect the valuable wetlands at the proposed project sita. in addition EPA is Fully committed to working closely .4ith the corps and NH DDT to identify alternative highway designs to reduce the environmental impact of this Project as well as to find and secure additional environmental improvements that could mitigate the impact of the project as proposed or revised. Thank you far your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions or if you would like to arrange a meeting, please ca2.1 me at 61,7/565-3400 or have your staff contact Doug Thompson of MY Staff at 6I7/565-4422 Sincerely, A U,_ \ ohn P. DeVillars Regional Administrator cc: Ronorable Judd creg'g Honorable Robert Stith Honorable Richard Swett Honorable William Zelif'f Honorable Stephen Merrill Colonel Brink Millet', Division Engineer, ACDE COMm.-Issioner Robert W. Varney, Nil DES Ronald E. Lambertson, Regional Director, uSFWS John Meagher, Dir_ , wetlands Division, E.PA F-Q 0--3/31: 94 10 = 48 US EPR FA D I U. BOST0h1 1°1A 010 t Ito 3:74 l y ! ► Ur ITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PPQTECTION AG-INCY J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL DUILDING. 3135TON. MASSAC)4USc-TTS 02203.2211 March 31, 1994 Colonel Brink Miller, Division Engineer U.S. Ar=y corps of Engineers New England Division 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, MIA 02254-9149 near Colonel Miller: I am Writing with regard tv the proposed construction of the Nashua -Hudson Circumferential Highway in the greater Nashua, New Ha=pshire area and the pending section 404 permit application of t- e New Rampshi,ze Department of Transportation (DOT) . Based on the information which is currently available to me, I believe that this LnrOJe.ct would cause substantial, severs and unacceptable impacts to v,aluahle wetlands and other aquatic resources. I therefore have decided, under EPA's Clean Water Act 404(c) authority, to commence the veto process_ z believe this is the only way to ensure adequate protection of the wetlands, waters, and natural resources in the area of the propcsed project at this tiMe. I am doing this Pursuant to regulations published at 40 C.F.R_ Part 231_ I am taking this action becau-se i believe that the proposed highway Voul.d cause severe adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem, particularly to fish and wildlife. The greater Nashua area has experienced some of the most, severe cumulative loss of aquatic habitat in New England during the last several decades. The direct and indirect impacts from the proposed highway would aggravate the severe cumulative loss of habitat and depletion of biodiversity that bas occurred. In addition to my concern about tle magnitude of these adverse impacts, t.%ere is a reasonable likelihood that less environmentally damaging, practicable alternatives to the project exist. If constructed, the highway would adversely affect the existing wildlife community by reducing bath trie number of individuals and diversity of species. Regionally uncommon species would suffer the Most, especially the rarest interior and area sensi-tive animals, those species dependent on wetland ecosystams, and smaller animals that are either less mobile or depend on vernal pools_ in addition to diminishing productivity and energy flow in the aquatic system, the highway woula allzo disrupt streams and riparian corridors that are particularly valuable because of their high productivity and use by wildlife. 0:3 3.1/sa !0- 48 UU tt-`H 1-� DI V. =13 t Ura rib L0.11 PA is particularly concarned that one of the last remaining refuges for wildlife in the immediate vicinity would he greatly altered. The roadway would not only directly destroy over 40 acres Of wetlands, it Would degrade additional wetlands and destroy a large portion of the surrounding upland habitat that greatly influences the value of the aquatic syste=z nested in the Second Brook basin, 4n of the last primarily intact ecosystems remaining in thegieater Nashua area. N=erous streams and wetlands would be bisected, thereby 'altering the hydrology, disrupting species movement and increasing predation of uncommon species_ The highway would fragment nuMeraus wetlands, streams and uplands, and cause impacts W911 beyond the footprint of the fill. The project would also destroy and indirectly .impact several vernal pools. Vernal pools are especially valuable to wildlife, Particularly as breeding areas for amphibians. In evaluating the adverse impacts of this project, I am mindful that EPA and the states, laving recognized the important environmental resources in the area, have been working to implement a multi. -million dollar initiative to protect the aquatic resources of the Merrimack River Watershed. Considerable timer money and effort have been expanded during the past three years to protect water quality and wildlife habitat. This project would adversely affect the very resources that EPA has targeted for protection with this watershed initiative. The ;Se=i-mask River, which flows north to soutij, dominates the hydrology of the study area and is fed by numeraus tributaries fl.owingr east to went. since most of the proposed highway heads north and south, the 13 mile road would inevitably cross and gill a number of tributaries and sub --tributaries to the Merrimack. Moreaver, the highway would destroy wetlands which help purify the waters of the Merrimack River and Pennichuck ponds, the two largest drinking water supplies in the study area. Greater amounts of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants of urban runoff, stitch as lead, oil, and gas, would enter the tributary streams and flow into the Merrimack River. Sedimentation results in turbidity and often tranmports pesticides, heavy metals and other toxins into the $traams, which adversely affects aquatic life. The highway currently proposed would impact 1.5 surface and groundwater community drinking water sources and add, contaminants to these aquatic systems. Stormwater runoff from the highway would degrade both surface and groundwater systems, While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts somew:lat, concerns about construction work and long-term problems such as accidents, spills, and Zack of maintenance would remain. Secondary development in the watershed, in part spurrad by the highway, would worsen these problems_ 03/31/94 10:49 US EFP FA DI . SOSTON MA 012 , DOT has proposed a substantial mitigation plan. The poor track record associated with wetland creation projects suggests ti:at the mitigation would likely fall short of providing the intended benefits. Ewen if Successful., the proposed mitigation would not replace these lost functions and values. Zt would not compensate for destroying aquatic systems in one of the last large undeveloped tracts remaining in the study area, which provides an oasis for many species of wildlife. The plan does not replace vernal pools, riparian streams, floodplains or the spectrum of natural resource values these areas provide. Also, it would do little to replace the large indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts. The plans would not offset the fragmentation of the riparian corridors. The proposed highway would only provide partial traffic relief for - the overall traffic patterns in the greater Nashua area. Other measures of reducing traffic volumes, which do not degrade the environment, may also provide some relief. We continue to be willing to work with your office and the DOT to arrive at other alternatives or combinations of alternatives' which may be environmentally acceptable. I believe, based on the record developed to date, that an unacceptable adverse effect would result from this proposed discharge, particularly to wildlife, and possibly to water supply. This.letter is the first step in the 404(c) process and offers the Corps of Engineers and DOT the opportunity to consult with EPA about tile. project. Durinq this consultation period, which is normally 3.5 days from the date of receipt of this letter, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 231.3(a)(2), the Corps and DOT may provide information in response to =AIm concerns and to demonstrate to EPAAIs satisfaction that unacceptable adverse effects will not. occur on this site, or to take a corrective action to prevent such impacts.. If no such demonstration or corrective action is made, then EPA will proceed to issue a public: notice of a proposed determination to prohibit or restrict the use of the wetlands and other waters at this site for the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with this highway project. Ins accordance with, 33 C.F.R. sections 223.6, the New England Division may not issue a permit for this project until final action is taken by EPA under section 444(c). I believe the Corps has worked very hard to not only produce a sound Environmental Impact statement, but to scale back the original proposal so as to realize meaningful environmental im-crovements for the project_ These collaborative, open and genuine efforts by the Corps in cooperation with New Hampshire DOT, my office and others to achieve an environmentally acceptable project deserve recognition and praise. So too do'the herculean efforts congressman Swett has mounted to balance the transportation needs and environmental impacts of this project. This action is meant neither to diminish those efforts nor to impair the positive working relationship the EPA and the Army carps have established over the years in jointly administering the Section 404 program in New Erigland. 03:31.94 10:50 US EPA FA DI1,'. BOSTON MA a13 1n that same spirit We stand ready to assist in developing traffic management plans and other environmentally acceptable alternatives to the current project or combinations of alternatives which , Provide traffic benefits far the greater Nashua area and which also protect t:le valuable wetlands at the proposed project site. additions LF� is F z31y committed Ir to working closer with the Corps g and NH COT to identify alternative highway designs to reduce the additional impact of this project as well as to find and secure additional environmental improvements that could sziitigate t3:s a LZpact of the project as proposed or revised. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. if you ham any questions or if you Wc7uld like to arrange a meeting, please Call me at 617J565--3400 or have your staff contact Voug Thompson of MY staff at 617'/565-4422. Sincerely, r John P_ DeVi,llars Regional Administ--ator oc: Honorable Judd Gregg Honorable Robert smith Honorable RiChard Swett 2onor'abie William Zeli.ff Honorable Stephen Merrill Commissianer Charles P. O*Leary jr.f NU DOT ts� Ccniz!; i0 ner Robert W . 'Varney t NU DES Ronald Z. Lambertson, Regional Director, USF-gS John Meagber, Dir., Wetlands Division, EPA HQ FILE No.S52 04/09 '99 16:07 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-DEP FAX:617 565 4940 ATTACHMENT 13 ��SflO Sr��s A UNITED STATES ENVIRONhIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1 Y JOHN F. KENNED't' FEDERAL BUILDING BOSTON, MASSAC:HUSETTS 02203.0001 March 6, 1998 Frederick Downs, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region P.O. Box 568 Montpelier, Vermont 05601 William F. Lawless, P.E., Chief Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149 PAGE 2 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR • Ui STATE PFiUGRAM UNIT RE: Rutland Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, EPA ERP Number F-FHW-B40082-VT Dear Mr. Downs and Mr. Lawless: The Environmental Protection Agency -New England Region (EPA) has reviewed the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)Nermont Agency of Transportation's (VAOT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the consideration of various alternatives to reduce congestion and delays and improve safety along US Route 4 and US Route 7 in the Rutland, Vermont area. We submit the following comments in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA.), Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According to the DEIS, the current traffic congestion problems are the result of local travel of citizens to work, school, and shopping; and this congestion is expected to worsen over time. The DEIS indicates that only approximately 18 percent of the traffic is through traffic. Based on the information provided, seasonal visitors exacerbate the problem but are not the leading cause of congestion. The DEIS investigates seven alternatives as possible solutions to the traffic congestion including No -Action (No -Build); Transportation Systems Management/ Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TI'DM); Upgrade of the Existing Route 7 Corridor; and four bypass alternatives. As you know, these were identified during the scoping and screening process under NEPA and in conjunction with Phase 1 of the Army Corps of Engineers Highway Methodology. The DEIS concludes that the Upgrade and all of the Bypass alternatives are capable of meeting project goals along the: US Route 4 and US Route 7 travel corridors. Recycled/Recyclable - PtintaQ with Vegetable 011 Based inks on 1000% Raryded PsPer W% Postconsurner) FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:07 ID:U.S./E.P.A.—DEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE G ••2- At the request of the 1~HWA, EPA provided preliminary comments on chapters one through four of a preliminary Draft of the DEIS in July, 199'1. At that time we offered comments with respect to air quality, hazardous waste, and wetland issues. We have reviewed the DEIS from the standpoint of how each alternative would help to remedy the identified traffic problems and how they could affect the natural and built environment, especially with respect to wetland resources, habitat impacts, water supply, and air quality. Our primary concerns focus on the direct and potential secondary impacts of the bypass alternatives under consideration and the apparent problems we believe the bypass alternatives would face in complying with EPA's 404 (b) (1) guidelines. This letter identifies our specific concerns and the issues we believe should be addressed prior to the completion of the NEPA/Section 404 process_ Traffic Analysis Issues As you know, several commentors at the FHWJVVAOT public hearing questioned whether the traffic analysis presented in the DEIS accurately portrays existing traffic conditions. They referenced recent traffic studies for the Rutland region that show reductions in traffic problems in the study area over the past few years. We areconcerned that the DEIS relies on dated studies to define the traffic problem that the project is intended to resolve. We therefore believe the FEIS should consider all current, relevant traffic data generated since completion of the studies referenced in the DEIS and explain how that data affects modeling predictions. Moreover, we share local concerns that the solutions develop-;sd to ameliorate the local traffic congestion be appropriate in scale 'to a realistically identified ;problem. According to the DEIS, viable solutions for thi.:3 project include TSM/TDM measures. We find it encouraging that if the TSM alternative is combined with TDM measures the TDM participation rate needed to achieve LOS C or D at the most: critical intersections in the study area (Appendix E, page 3-29) only requires a doubling of existing participation rates. It is clear that there is local interest in solving the local traffic problems. We encourage FHWA/VAOT to nurture this interest through active support of local and regional policy development conducive to TDM growth in the Rutland area. Wetland Impacts/Section 404 Issues Direct /indirect Impacts According to the DEIS, the No -Build, TSM/TDM and Upgrade Existing alternatives would not result in any impacts to wetlands. On the otheir hand, all of the bypass alternatives would have impacts on aquatic resources and wetlands. T, ie construction of any bypass alternative would result in direct and indirect impacts to forested, scrub shrub, and wet meadow wetlands and the elimination of numerous segments of brooks and streams. FILE No.S52 04/09 '99 16:O8 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 4 -3- The Powerline Alternative would fill 23,55 acres of wetland, The affected wetland types in this corridor vary from wet meadow, forested wethmd and emergent marsh to scrub -shrub wetland. The largest potential impact (approximately 9.21 acres) under this altemative would be to an area dominated by Phragmites with interspersed areas of scrub shrub and forested wetland north of Perkins Road. The 1 l00' Contour Alternative would fill 4.82 acres of wetland. Approximately 2.25 acres of fill is proposed in streams that are tributaries and l ieadwaters of Tenney Brook and the Tenney Brook forested wetland complex to the west. Other wetland impacts are in the same wetland corridor as the Powerline alternative with primary impacts to wet meadow and scrub shrub wetland. The Westerly Alternative would fill 1.81 acres of wetland. The impacted wetlands along this route vary from forested (along the stream edge) to emergent open marsh (at the shallow end of Muddy Pond) and floodplain wetland associated with the East Creek crossing near the existing Route 7 roadway. The Wheelerville Alternative, the longest bypass option (13.4 miles) with the highest construction budget ($183.5 million) would fill .96 acre of wetland. Affected wetlands along this alignment consist of a series of intermittent stream channels and a wetland depression in the mountainous areas above Wheelerville Road. Although the potential wetland impacts of this bypass alternative are less than all other build ,alternatives except for the Upgrade, this alternative has great potential to cause significant direct and indirect impacts to wildlife through habitat fragmentation. Specifically, this alternative would directly affect large areas of existing deer winter range identified by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR). More importantly, this alternative would effectively isolate approximately 6000 acres of remote, wooded, roadless forest habitat utilized by blaj.-k bear. In light of the severity of the impacts to habitat, we recommend that the Wheelerville Alternative be rejected under the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines due to serious environmental consequences. Also, serious questions remain about the efficacy of mitigation for such significant ].habitat fragmentation. As you know, in our July 1997 comments we :recommended that the DEIS include an analysis of habitats, such as vernal pools, that have the potential for supporting amphibian populations. Our position with respect to this issue has not changed, and we are disappointed that the DEIS did not attempt to address these habitats in a comprehensive fashion. Although often relatively small in size, these areas are critically important breeding habitats for amphibians and are utilized by other wildlife including turtles and waterfowl. The fish -free waters of the vernal pool create preferred breeding habitat for a large number of amphibians; this in turn attracts hawks, owls, snakes, turtles, waterfowl and predatory marninais. Young amphibians dispersing from vernal pools in late summer or autumn distribute muic-h of the productivity of these temporary ponds into upland systems thereby supporting important terrestrial food webs. FILE Pilo.952 04/09 '99 16:06 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 5 4- Amphibian and turtle populations that may reside in the highway corridor are particularly vulnerable to new roadway construction because they are secretive and rely on a variety of habitats, including upland corridors, for long term survival. The preparation of biological surveys in the field to determine breeding habitats and use by these species will help to avoid and minimize impacts, and can be essential to desi,,gning an effective mitigation plan. We recommend that the FEIS include a more detailed analysis of cumulative and secondary aquatic and non -aquatic impacts associated with the Westerly, Powerline, 1100' Contour and Wheelerville alignments, in particular, location. A of the Westerly Alternative, Location I and 3 of the Powerline Alternative, and Location D and L of the 1100' Contour Alternative. The wetland impacts at these locations, though rela dvely small in acreage, appear to be more vulnerable to cumulative and secondary impacts (as discussed later) because of surrounding high value aquatic habitat and their predominantly undisturbed environmental settings. We recommend, for purposes of 404 and NEPA, drat the FEIS include analysis of habitat fragmentation effects as a result of new roadway corridor construction. This information is of value for the identification of potential LEDPA's, avoidance and minimization of impacts, and consideration of compensatory mitigation measures. AIternatives In order for a permit to be issued, a proposed project must, among other things, comply with Section 230.10 of the 404 (b) (1) Guidelines (tlZe Guidelines) of the Clean Water Act. The Guidelines provide the substantive requirements to be used in the protection of wetlands and other special aquatic sites. According to the Guidelines, the following requirements must be satisfied before a Section 404 permit for the placement of fill material in wetlands can be issued for a project: there must be no practicable, les,;a environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed action; the activity must not cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards or jeopardize endangered or threatened species; the activity must not cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United States; and all practicable and appropriate steps must be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Further, the Guidelines establish a presumption, which the applicant has the opportunity to rebut, that for non -water -dependent projects, such as, the proposed highway improvements, a practicable alternative to the filling of wetland exists. The project purpose, as defined by the Corps of Engineers for the Section 404 evaluation, indicates that the goal of the project is to alloN�r for the safe and efficient flow of vehicular traffic east and west along US Route 4, and north and south along Route 7 within and around the greater Rutland. As described earlier, the DEIS explores alternatives that involve direct wetland/aquatic impacts ranging from no impact (No -Build and Upgrade Alternatives) to 23.55 acres (Powerline Alternative). The DEIS, however, does not suggest a preferred alternative. All of the bypass alternatives would result in direct and indirect; impacts to the aquatic environment and adjacent undeveloped upland areas. Based on the information presented in the DEIS, the Upgrade Alternative (and any other non -fill alternative) is practicable because it satisfies the project purpose, and it causes less damage to the aquatic environment than the bypass alternatives. FILE No.352 0449 '99 16:09 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PACE -5- We acknowledge the concerns raised by some Rutland residents and business owners about the impacts of the Upgrade, as defined in the DEIS, on properties adjacent to the road. Unlike the steps the applicant has taken to analyze the impacts associated with the bypass alternatives, and ways to minimize these impacts, comparable impact avoidance and minimization efforts have not apparently been made in the Upgrade in order to address concerns raised by residents and property owners. For example, we suggest that the FHWANAOT study modified Upgrade alternatives that implement all practicable traffic improvement measures (signalization improvements, turning lanes, road widening, eliminations of excessive curb cuts) while simultaneously reducing identified impacts to I:iroperty along the 1.5 mile Rutland City corridor. At least one modified upgrade alternative should evaluate the effectiveness of reconstruction solely within the existing right of way. Additionally, specific information about mitigation measures for impacts associated with the Upgrade would help to clarify the complete impact of this alternative. Based on the information currently available, E,PA supports the Upgrade alternative (or a modified upgrade) on existing alignment under NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the following reasons: The DEIS clearly explains that the majority of the area's traffic and congestion problems result from local travel patterns. According to the DEIS, approximately 80% of the traffic is not through traffic or visitor -related; rather it is predominantly citizens of the region going to work, shopping, school., etc. in Rutland.' Building the more environmentally harmful bypass will not, therefore, solve the local traffic congestion. In contrast, the'less damaging upgrade (designed to minimize local impacts) will address the local congestion problem. We believe that the FHWA/VAOT should implement and monitor all reasonable TSM/TDM measures before committing significant funds towards infrastructure development. The benefits of these measures, in combination with a modified upgrade alternative (described above), may effe,,-tively resolve the majority of the congestion problems in the study area for an extended period of time. TSM measures alone go a long way toward meeting the project purpose. The traffic performance goals for the year 2020 were set at LOS D or better for all approaches at modeled intersections. According to tliie DEIS, the 2020 No -Build Alterriative would have ten signalized intersections with I,OS worse than D while the TSM Alternative would have three signalized intersections with LOS worse than D. The Upgrade Alternative would provide a LOS of D or better in 2020 on all approaches of all modeled signalized intersections. Based on the :modeling, TSM measures singly or in combination with an Upgrade, appear to achieve the project purpose and serve as adequate solutions ' Appendix E, page 2-17 FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:10 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FA\:617 565 4940 PAGE 7 -6- into the foreseeable future. The impacts of the bypass alternatives ,acre worse than the impacts of a modified upgrade. Bypass construction would cause direct and secondary impacts to wetland ecosystems within the undisturbed portions of the bypass corridors that provide important habitat, cover and food for a wide variety of agLiatic species and wildlife such as mammals and songbirds. Undeveloped upland habitat within each bypass corridor and adjacent to wetlands within each corridor provides protective areas for wildlife movement, further increasing the value of protecting these wetlands_ More broadly, virtually all wetland dependent species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians in New England need upland habitat to survive during some portion of their life cycle --feeding, breeding, locating winter habitat, and escaping predation. Moreover, many of these species travel along upland corridors in regular movement patterns. For such species, a wetland's value depends heavily upon its connection to undisturbed adjacent upland habitat. Bypass construction would inevitably lead to secondary impacts through the disturbance of adjacent upland habitat. Mitigation/Compensation of Impacts to Wetlands Aquatic Resources and Wildlife Habitat Should unavoidable wetland impacts remain after completion of the alternatives analysis, a comprehensive compensatory mitigation plan would be required. EPA staff met with the resource agencies in August, 1994 to review potential mitigation sites. The sites reviewed at that time may be suitable to mitigate some functional losses, such as water quality and nutrient retention, but they may not appropriately mitigate for fragmentation of wildlife habitat. We understand that a more thorough analysis of mitigation options may be premature until there is a selection of a preferred alternative. Once a LEDPA has been selected, a compensatory mitigation plan should be developed for any unavoidable adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. (As noted above, a TSM and/or Upgrade alternative would incur little or no such adverse impacts and thus would not require a mitigation plan.) In general, the mitigation plan should aim to replace or offset the unavoidable direct and indirect harm to the aquatic resoucct.! functions and values. The clearest approach for doing so often leads to pursuing opportunities :For wetland restoration or, in some cases, creation. In certain circumstances, preservation of wetland and associated upland habitat may also figure prominently in the final mitigation plan. Should wetland creation become a feature of the plan, we recommend that the'compensatory mitigation plan include a site analysis to include existing conditions (habitat values, etc.), soil testing for appropriate substrate, ground and/or surface water monitoring (supply and water quality), presence of contaminants, site access points (unwanted intrusion), and compatibility with the landscape setting. The mitigation plain should feature preliminary design drawings and specifications with stated goals for the replacea,nent of the unavoidable loss of wetland/aquatic functions and values. Moreover, design of wi.-Iland creation sites should include details about soils (excavation, grading and importation of suitable hydric soils), hydrologic regime FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:10 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAIX:617 565 4940 PAGE -7- (predictions of the range of fluctuating hydrology over typical growing season), and vegetation plans (identify sources, planting densities and species). Plans should include methods for monitoring, reporting, remedial action, and should address long-term ownership and management of the mitigation site. SegondMAndirect Impacts As we stated in our comments after reviewing the Preliminary DEIS, secondary effects stemming from the bypass alternatives under consideration concern us as much as the potential direct and indirect effects discussed above, yet they remain substantially undocumented in the DEIS. With regard to indirect impacts, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require the EIS analysis to include growth -inducing changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate. "Impacts" includes ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative'. The regulations further define cumulative impacts as "....the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but: collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time."' The indirect and cumulative impact analysis is especially important in an EIS evaluating a bypass proposal given that bypasses and other highways on new locations are known to contribute to changes in development patterris and land use. To varying degrees, the construction of the byi:iass alternatives to "solve" the current and projected traffic congestion problems in the City of Rutland has the potential to have a "growth inducing effect" that will potentially "induce changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems" (especially along undeveloped portions of the bypass alignments)'. These changes in turn could lead to more traffic problems such as those the project is intended to solve. Clearly, the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project ultimately depend upon how the traffic problem is to be resolved (i.e. upgrade or bypass alternatives), the proposed bypass route, the location and number of proposed interchanges (nodes) to each limited access bypass under consideration, and environmental conditions encountered along each bypass alignment. It is well known that the siting of the interchanges can catalyze secondary development and significant land use changes. The DEIS acknowledges as much, explaining that the bypass alternatives on new rights -of -way would tend to stimulate development at the various access ' 40 CFR, Sec. 1508.8 3 40 CFR., Sec. 1508.7 4 40 CFR, Sec. 1508.8 (b) FILE No.952 04/09 '99 16:11 ID:U.S./E.P.A.—OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 9 -$- points (nodes) to the bypass. We believe that the EIS analysis should be expanded to more fully describe the impacts of the bypass access interchanges as well as the induced growth impacts or land use changes such as residential and comraercial development that the bypass alternatives may catalyze. Water SUDply The DEIS discloses that water supply wells might be contaminated by roadway deicing salts and suggests mitigating such risks by installing closed roadway runoff drainage systems. Specific information about the design (basic design concepts and possible discharge points) or effectiveness of such a system is lacking in thee: DEIS. A quantitative analysis should be performed to determine the likely effectiveness of such a system, and it should include all zones of the wellhead protection areas, not just zone one. In addition, the FEIS should describe what measures would be necessary should the wells become contaminated by roadway runoff including temporary or permanent replacement of the affected supply with an alternate water source of equal or better quality and reliability. EPA supports the installation of snow berms to prevent groundwater contamination from roadway runoff under all bypass scenarios. The DEIS does not adequately consider the ini:pact of the various alternative bypass alignments on the quantity of groundwater recharge in the Rutland area. Table S.1, Impact Summary Matrix, shows that all of the bypass alternatives would result in the reduction of the groundwater recharge area for a public community water supply well. Even though the indicated reduction percentages are small, they may still create a supply shortage for a well that is operating at maximum yield and thereby requires maximiz: ,d recharge to meet water supply demand. The HIS should describe the full effect of reducing recharge areas to wells along the bypass routes and what measures would be necessary to protect the affected water supply systems from shortages as a result of the construction. The ]=EIS should also fully consider the impacts of roadway construction and operation on non -community water systems. Additionally, it would be easier to analyze impacts to water supplies if the FEIS were to include a map that clearly shows all wager supplies and their associated source protection areas. Conclusions In accordance with our national system, we tame this project as EC-2 ("Environmental Concerns -Insufficient Information"); please si,-e the attached sheet for an explanation of this rating. Until the issues discussed above cono-,:ming the establishment of a LEDPA are resolved, we believe that projects other than the Upgrade alternative (or a modified upgrade) do not comply with the EPA Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and should not receive a permit. We believe that additional interagency coordination prior to the development of a FEIS can help 'Pages 4-3 and 4-4 of the DEIS. FILE NO.S52 04/09 '99 16:11 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FA`'::617 565 4940 PAGE l) -9- the FHWAlVAOT to develop environmentally acceptable and effective solutions to Rutland's traffic problems. Please contact Timothy Timr-.iermann of our Office of Environmental Review at 617/565-3279 with any questions you may have about our comments on the DEIS or if you would like to meet with us to discuss our comments and concerns in greater detail. Sincerely, John P. DeVillars Regional Administrator Attachment cc: Mark Richter U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region 1 P.O. Box 568 Montpelier, Vermont 05601 Mark Ljungvall Special Projects Program Manager State of Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05633-5001 Frank DelGiudice Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Atlantic District 424.Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149 Gina Campoli Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Center Building, 3rd Floor Waterbury, VT 05671 FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:12 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP •-10- FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 11 Pearl Young Office of Federal Activities United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2252 A Washington, DC 20460 Bill Neidermyer United States Fish and Wildlife Service Ralph Pill Marketplace, 41' Floor 22 Bridge Street Concord, NH 03301-4901 FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:12 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-OEP FA%:617 565 4940 PAGE 12 SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTION Environmental Impact of the-8-Zion LO--Lack of Objections The EPA review has not identified any potential impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor change:, to the proposal. EC --Environmental Concerns The EPA review has identified environmental imi:)acts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EO--Environmental Objections The EPA review has Identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EU--Environmentally Unsatisfactory The EPA review has identified adverse environmi;:ntal impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEO. Adequacy of the lmgggt Statement Category 1--Adequate, EPA believes that draft EIS adequately sets Iorth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action_ No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but 'the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. Category 2--Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are' within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. Category 3--inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significantenvironmental Impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analysed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised :draft E.[S. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEO. FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:12 IDcU.S./E.P.A.—DEP FAX: 617 565 4940 PAGE 13 echnical Appendix Air Quality Based on the air quality analyses presented in the Draft EIS, all of the build alternatives can be implemented and operated without creaking new exceedences of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for either:ozone or carbon monoxide. The No -build alternative has the potential to create new exceedences' of the eight -hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide. Therefore, if the No -build is the preferred action we recommend that the FHWA 'VAOT explore mitigation measures to prevent these modeled carbon monoxide exceedences. As we stated in our June, 1997 comments, the ,:Mate of Vermont is attainment for all six of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAA,QSs), hence, conformity does not apply. Language in the DEIS referring to conformity 1_,rocedures of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93 should be corrected. As you may recall, in June, 1997 we requested that a mesoscale analyses be performed for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for the time frame when the project alternatives are predicted to be .implemented, traffic is normalized and full motor vehicle impacts can be evaluated. The DEIS fails to evaluate air quality impacts in this operational time period. Only 1992 baseline and 2020 design year analyses were conducted. Furthermore, our June, 1997 comments requested that the result of the mesoscale analyses be disclosed as actual values for VOC and NOx in tons per summer day, and CO in tons per winter day, not just as a percentage of the 1992 baseline of air quality emissions. Because the DEIS expresses the results of the mesoscale analyses as a percentage change, we are unable to associate specific pollutant burdens with each of the proposed build alternatives, and more importantly, to determine the significance of the emission increases 'or reductions. It should be noted that EPA recently replaced the previous 1-hour ozone standard with a new 8- hour standard. The new standard is set at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) and defines the new standard as a "concentration -based" form, specifically the 3-year average of the annual 4th- highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations. In addition, EPA replaced the previous secondary ozone standard (to protect the environment, including agricultural crops, national parks, and forests) with a standard identical to the new primary ozone standard. The Agency also revised the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) by establishing annual. and 24-hour PM2.5 standards and by changing the form of the existing 24-hour PMI O standard. Ache existing annual PM10 standard is retained; however, for the revised PM NAAQS,i the standard conditions of temperature and pressure adjustment have been removed. These new standards became effective September 16, 1997. At the end of December 1997, EPA released a list of counties where the 1-hour national ambient air quality standard for ground -level ozone (smog) was revoked. The i -hour standard was revoked for counties that have not measured a violation of the 1-hour ozone standard over the "1'A - 1 FILE No.S52 04109 '99 16:13 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAti;:617 565 4940 PAGE 14 most recently available three year perl6d of tinge (generally using air quality data from 1994- 1996). The list included all fourteen counties in Vermont, which at the time were classified as attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. Although the I -hour standard no longer applies after March 17, 1998 in these counties, the ;hi ew, moire protective 8-hour ozone standard does apply. in the year 2000 EPA will formally determine which'areas of the country do not meet its new 8- hour ozone standard and "designate" them as " nonattainment." According to the DEIS, the Woodstock Ave./US Route 7 & Terrill Street -West StreetlUS Route 7 intersection, and the Allen Street/U§ Route 7 & Park StreetlUS Route 7 intersection, are the most congested with the worst LOS rating andhighest traffic volume along the corridor. We note that the CO modeling effort for these two intersections (under the no -build condition) showed violations of the eight -hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide in I992 as well as in 2020. Specifically, Receptor Al associated with the Woodstock Ave./US Route 7 & Terrill Street -West Street/US Route 7 intersection has a modeled/predicted CO level of.8.6 ppm.. Because this value is within ten percent of the eight -hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide (9 ppm) EPA recommends that reasonable and ;feasible mitigation measures be evaluated in the FEIS for the Woodstock Ave./US Route 7 & Terrill Stmet-West Street/US Route 7 intersection. Additionally, the Upgrade, Westerly, and Wheelerville alternatives, also have receptors with modeled/predicted CO levels within ton perceiat of the eight -hour NAAQS. Reasonable and feasible mitigation measures for these iimpacts should be evaluated in the HIS for these locations. Water Quality 1. The stream water quality sampling; results (Table SR6.3 of the Special Report) indicate water quality criteria exceedences under existing connditions for several heavy metals (copper, lead, and zinc) in highway runoff to surface waters including Mendon Brook, East Creek, Muddy Pond, and Tenney Brook. Specific comparisons using these data should be based upon the specific Vermont water quality criteria and not upon existing conditions. In addition, each of the bypass alternatives should not prohibit surface waters from meeting criteria for these metals according to Vermont Water Quality Standards. 2. Concentrations of pollutants in the: storm water were predicted with the 1990 FHWA model and a comparison of existing and proposed conditions given in Tables SR6.8, 6.9, and 6.11. For a few stream sites, such as Mendon and Tenney Brooks, the modeled concentrations are less than the ambient water quality criteria for hopper I.-y a very small magnitude (0.001 or .002 mg/1). We believe that the uncertainty inherent in modeling results, the use of mean concentrations rather than a maximum, and average flow rates in the equation on page 6-15 warrant the collection and analysis of additional water quality data for the proposed build conditions. Additionally, it is unclear why the Chapter 3 table, Groundwater quality of PCWS Well, is included in the explanation of variables QS and CS in the runoff equation on this page. 3. The DEIS indicates on page 4-116that the project alternatives would cross several streams TA-2 FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:14 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 15 :i classified as Class A Waters. Vermont's Wat+::r Quality Standards state that the management objectives for Class A Waters are to achieve and maintain water with a very high level of water quality that have significant ecological value. The HIS should provide additional details on construction activities and measures to avoid impacts, especially those related to storm water runoff, for each of the bypass alternatives that cross Class A waters. 0 'rA - 3 FILE No.952 04/09 '99 16:14 ID:U.S./E.P.A.—OEP J FA :617 565 4940 PAGE 16 114r 11 It ' (': U -�- t ;G M, x 02 July 10, 1997 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY i � �- REGION I JOHN F. KENNEDIY FEDERAL BUILDING BOSTON, MASSAt::HUSET-TS 02203-0001 Frederick H. Downs, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region One P.O. Boa 568 Montpelier, Vermont 05601 OFFICE OF THE ate' REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR iUL 1 3 1997 °1 ES0S'Y::, l i_'hA s rs;i RE: Comments on Rutland Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Preliminary Copy), Project Number FEGC 419-3(44) Dear Mr. Downs: This letter and the attached Technical Appendix summarizes our general comments on preliminary chapters one through four of the preliminary I:Iraft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Rutland Bypass. According to the DEIS; the project is designed to reduce congestion and delays and improve safety along U.S. Route 4 and U.S. Route 7 in the City of Rutland and the Towns of Rutland and Mendo:n, Vermont. The comments offered below and in the attached appendix are intended to help you improve the DEIS by providing a more complete disclosure of impacts on the environment. Ou:r suggestions range from substantive questions on the content of the DEIS to specific suggested text changes. Our technical review of the preliminary information focused on air quality, hazardous waste and wetland issues. Please note that these comments on the preliminary chapters do not substitute for the formal review and comment we are required to do after the DEIS is published. Wetland/Section 404 Issues Alternatives Considered The project alternatives considered in the preliminary DEIS appear consistent with those alternatives identified during Phase I of the Army Corps of Engineers Highway Methodology process. The preliminary DEIS, however, lacks an analysis of partial build alternatives both in relation to TSM/TDM and upgrade options and did not include Appendix E, F and Special Reports 6 and 8 (Traffic Report, Environmental Consequences of Southeast segments, Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology). The DEIS should also describe and compare the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation for both the -two and four lane designs. We look forward to reviewing this information in the published DIE.,IS. n_-..-,-�,o.. �.. ��,. ti,,. _ D.in rn�•f wff/, na =x '4 Mlo — fM-C =o... 1--f P..q , ldAo% 0—f--ilmPrl FILE No.S52 04/09 '99 16:14 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FA)";:61r 565 4940 PAGE 17 2 Impacts to Water bodies and Aquatic Habitats_ The written wetland assessment of acreage, functions and values of the alternatives provided on pages 4-119 through 4-135 is a good start. We recommend, however, that the published DEIS include an analysis regarding habitats that have; the potential for supporting amphibian/reptile populations. Amphibian and turtle populations that may reside in the highway corridor are particularly vulnerable to new roadway constni.ction because they are difficult to spot and they . rely on a variety of habitats. Additional biologiical surveys to determine breeding habitats and use by these species will help minimize and avoid impacts from construction and mitigation efforts. EPA is willing to provide technical assistance and guidance with respect to these surveys as necessary. Additionally, we recommend that the DEIS include a detailed analysis of cumulative and secondary wetland/waterway impacts associated with the Westerly, Powerline, 1100' Contour and Wheelerville alignments. Secondary impacts include those resulting from additional development and other land use changes stimulated by the access provided by the new highway alignment. Particular attention should also be paid to location A of the Westerly Alternative, Iocations I and J of the Powerline Alternative, and locations D a.nd L of the 1100' Contour Alternative. The proposed wetland impacts at these locations, though relatively small in acreage, appear to be more vulnerable to cumulative and secondary impacts because of high value surrounding aquatic habitat and a relatively undisturbed environmental setting. Finally, EPA believes the DEIS should analyze the environmental impacts of habitat fragmentation associated with any new roadway corridors, Wetland Mitigation section (page 4-134) The potential mitigation sites referenced in Chapter 4 are the result of an August 1994 interagency meeting. While these sites may be suitable to mitigate some functional losses, such as water quality and nutrient retention, they may not be appropriate for other functions such as wildlife/aquatic habitat. The DEIS should expl&e the functional capabilities of the mitigation sites to the extent possible prior to the selection of a preferred alternative. Air Quality Our technical comments and requests for additional information are included in the attached Technical Appendix, Hazardous Waste Our comments (primarily editorial in nature) are provided in the attached Technical Appendix. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary Rutland DEIS. We look forward to reviewing the published DEIS pursuant to cur responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Please feel free to contact FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:15 ID:U.S,/E.P.A.-OEP FAX:617 565 4940 PAGE 1G Timothy Timmermann of my staff at 617/565-3279 with any questions concerning our comments on the Preliminary DEIS. Sincerely, Elizabeth A, Higgins Director, Office of Environmental Review Attachment CC! Mark .Richter, Area Engineer US DOT, FHWA Region I P.O. Box 568 Montpelier, VT 05601 Lynne Hamjian, USEPA Beth Alafat, USEPA Betsy Davis, USEPA Donald Cooke, USEPA FILE No.:52 04/09 '99 16:15 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-OEP FA<;:617 565 4940 PAGE 19 4 Technical Appendix Wetland Issues 1. For future reference, we recommend that the compensatory mitigation plan (after all avoidance and minimization has occurred) include a site ,a.nalysis to include existing conditions (habitat values, etc,), soil testing for appropriate substrate, ground and/or surface water monitoring (supply and water quality), presence of contanninants, site access points (unwanted intrusion), and compatibility with the landscape. The mitigation plan should have preliminary design drawings and specifications with stated goals for the replacement of the unavoidable loss of wetland/aquatic functions and values. Design of wetland creation sites should include details about soils (excavation, grading and importation of suitable hydric soils), hydrologic regime (range of fluctuating hydrology over typical growing season predicted), and vegetation plans (identify sources, planting densities and species). The plans should also include methods for monitoring and reporting, remedial action and address lon;Z-term ownership and management. Air Quality 1, Appendix C and Appendix E should be submitted to EPA for review so we can evaluate the methodology and assumptions of the air quality analyses. 2. Technical Support Documentation should b,.- submitted that contains sample input and output files for both the MOBILESa and the CAL3QHC Version 2 modeling runs, This information should be submitted to the EPA and the State Air Agency with additional copies available to the public for review, 3. The State of Vermont is in attainment for all six of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs); therefore transportation conformity requirements do not apply to the project. Page 4-136 should therefore be revised to correct tl,-�e statements about conducting "a conformity type analysis" and "meeting two of three criteria for conformity." 4. The mesoscale and microscale air quality analyses provided in the preliminary DEIS are required under NEPA for full disclosure of environmental impacts. Additional mesoscale analyses should be performed for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO) for the time frame "when the project alternatives are l.,redicted to be implemented, traffic is normalized and full motor vehicle impacts can be evaluated," This time frame for analysis is in addition to the 1992 base year and the 2020 future design years already analyzed, The results of the mesoscale analyses should be disclosed as actual values for VOC and NOx in tons per summer day, and CO in tons per winter day, instead of as a percentage of the 1992 baseline of air quality emissions. 5, The preliminary DEIS describes modeled vii,clations of the eight -hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide in 1992, the base year, as well as foi. the 2020 No -build alternative. NAAQS exceedances in the project area should be thro-ughly addressed in the DEIS, and should include FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:16 ID:U.S.iE.P.A.-OEP FA;:617 565 494C PAGE 20 5 VT DEC's view on whether each CO modeled exceedance actually occurred or is likely to occur. The DEIS should also present information to allow EPA to determine if the second or third highest CO concentrations modeled for the No -build alternative also exceed the NAAQS. 6. The DEIS should describe the criteria used to select the roadway intersections for analysis; which intersections were analyzed for CO; and the criteria for selecting modeling receptors, (Page 4-136 states that a detailed description c,f the methodologies used can be found in Appendix C which we did not receive for review). 7, EPA recommends that the DEIS include tables to depict a comparison of the one -hour and eight -hour CO concentration at specific receptor locations as modeled for each alternative including the no -build. For example: No -Build Upgrade TSM/TQM . Westerly POWerllne 1100' Contour Wheelerville One -hour CO Concentration Receptor 3 15.2 Receptor 7 17,4 15.4 13.6 13.7 15.1 Receptor 9 Receptor 13 15.6 13.6 Eight -hour CO concentration Receptor 3 8.3 Receptor 7 9.6 8,4 7.5 7.5 8.3 A completed table would clearly summarize the CO microscale analysis and allow for efficient comparison of each alternative at a specific receptor location/intersection, The current strategy of reporting the highest CO concentration for each alternative at two intersections does not allow for an adequate comparison amongst alternatives. At this point in time we cannot determine whether Appendix C contains sufficient air quality modeling data to allow for the comparison of air quality impacts of the various alternatives. 8. The DEIS should analyze the air quality impact of the alternatives on affected roadway intersections within the project area. The best: way to analyze these intersections is through a screening procedure where the top ranked intersections (change/highest traffic volumes, as well as worst Level -Of -Service) are modeled in accordance with EPA's "Guidelines for Modeling Carbon Monoxide From Roadway Intersections." Chapter 4 of the Preliminary DEIS discusses the modeled air quality results with respect to higlaest predicted CO concentrations on US Route 7. As stated previously, a review of Appendix C will allow us to determine which intersections were actually modeled, the criteria for selecting intcirsections and receptor/modeled locations, and the methodology, parameters and assumptions that went into the modeling effort. FILE No.352 04/09 '99 16:16 ID:U.S./E.P.A.-DEP F4";:617 565 4940 PAGE 21 i 6 9. Intersections which have modeled/predicted CO levels within ten percent of the eight -hour NAAQS should be evaluated for reasonable and feasible mitigation measures in the DEIS. The DEIS should identify the mitigation measures that will be required at those locations. 10, We recommend that figure 3,29 be modified to reflect locations modeled for CO as opposed to the current indication by the figure title and figure legend that the sites Al through A16 are "air quality monitor sites." The narrative on page 3-74 states that "Figure 3.29 illustrates the location of the proposed air quality modeling (and nois,c receptor) sites for the assessment of impacts related to the proposed roadway." Similar corrections should also be made to Figure 4.64, which, in addition to Air Quality Monitoring Sites Al through A16, includes Air Quality Monitoring Sites A601, A610, A619 and A63 4. 1 I. We recommend that the phrase "does not include background", associated with National Ambient Air Quality Standard, be removed from the notes associated with Table 4.18 and Table 4.19. Hazardous Waste 1. On'page 3-78, the last sentence should read, "The identification and characterization study can help identify areas where there is and/or there was possible threat to human health and the environment," 2. On page 3-79, paragraph 1, sentence 3 shouId read, "As such, this type of inspection cannot be expected to reveal all hazardous material, hazardous waste generated or conditions that might be present in the project area." 3. The DEIS should incorporate current data from the listings (National Priorities List, RCRIS and CERCLA databases) researched for the preliminary DEIS. 4, Clarify documented environmental concerns on page 3-7, 9 paragraph 5, sentence 3, 5. On page 3-83, paragraph 4, sentence 1, strike out RCRA listing and replace with Resource Conservation and Recovery Information Systems (RCRIS) and delete sentence two. RCRIS is a database for identifying facilities in the RCRA universe, the database is not an indicator of whether or not a facility is in compliance with the RCRA regulations. In sentence 2, delete, "it indicates the facility is complying with federal environmental regulations and might be a potential source of contamination," 6. Chapter 4 refers only to State -listed hazardous waste sites; therefore, the DEIS should include a sentence explaining that the state hazardous waste sites are listed on the RCRIS report. ATTACHMENT 5..� LQ What is your name and occupation? PRE -FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF BERNARD X. CHF,N TTF; 4P r MBL Associates # 4C0948-EB November 21, 1994 O rL@ N 0 V 2 2 1994 LA My name is Bernard X. Chenette and I am President of Chenette E 1r erin Inc of Montpelier, Vermont. 2.Q What services are offered by Chenette Engineering, Inc.? 2.A Our services include a wide range of Civil and Environmental Engineering including land planning and development, water supply, wastewater disposal and solid waste. We are involved in all phases of permitting, planning, design and constriction supervision. 3.A Please describe your education and professional experience. 3.A My education includes an Associates Degree from Vermont Technical College in 1969 and a Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering from Northeastern University in 1973. I have been a Registered Professional Engineer in Vermont since 1977. Over the past 21 years I have assisted with the planning, permitting and design of a number of residential and commercial/industrial subdivisions in Vermont, New Hampshire and New York. 4.Q Have you testified previously under Criterion 8 for Act 250? 4.A Yes, I assisted with the Act 250 application and testified regarding Criterion 8 for the Materials Processing Facility and lined landfill at Palisades landfill in Moretown, Vermont (#5W1064) and for the Welch Park Commercial Subdivision in Middlesex, Vermont (#5W1030-5). Most recently I testified on Criterion 8 on behalf of the neighbors opposed to expansion of the Bickford Quarry in Marshfield, Vermont (#5W1186). My testimony in the Bickford case included a discussion of important points related to the Quechee Lakes analysis to assist the Commission with its decision regarding undue adverse effects of the proposed project. 5.Q What is the purpose of your testimony in this Case? 5.A I am representing the Downing -Calkins Trust. The Trust owns 222 acres and shares a common boundary with MBL Associates along the northwest portion of their property as shown on Exhibit D-CI. The Trust is concerned that the proposed density of the MBL Associates project will have an undue adverse impact on the 0 developable portion of the Trust property that overlooks the MBL associates property. 6.Q Are you familiar with the applicants proposal? 6.A Yes, I have reviewed the proposed layout and location of the single and multi- family homes planned by MBL Associates. I have visited the applicants site and viewed the proposed project from the Trust property. 7.Q What is proposed by the Downing -Calkins Trust? 7.A For several months now, I have been working on a preliminary development plan to subdivide the Trust property. Our services have included meetings and discussions with regulators from the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont to address issues including development densities, zoning and planning requirements, restricted areas, access, water, wastewater, wildlife habitat, wetlands, recreational opportunities and prime agricultural soils. We have prepared a preliminary subdivision Master Plan which is shown on Exhibit D-C2. 8.Q Please describe the allowable versus the proposed development density planned for the Trust property. &A On August 24, 1994 I met with City of South Burlington Planner, Joe Weith. One of the issues we discussed was allowable development densities within the Southeast Quadrant which includes both the Trust and the MBL Associates properties. I was astounded to learn that the maximum allowable density for the total parcel was 1.1 units per acre and 4 units per acre within designated development areas. In the case of the Trust property, the total Parcel is 222 acres and the City has determined that less than half or 101 acres can be developed. The maximum allowable density is therefore 244 units with the only restriction being not more that 4 units per acre in each development area. 9.Q Why were you surprised or "astounded", by the allowable density on the Trust property? 9.A The zoning regulations for the City of South Burlington indicate that the purpose of the Southeast Quadrant District is to encourage open space preservation, scenic views, natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, and the open character of the area. It was immediately obvious to me that the high allowable density was in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of formation of the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. When I questioned Mr. Weith on the point 1) he indicated that the Village at Dorset Park was used as a model for the 4 unit per acre allowable density. He went on to explain that the Dorset Park development was a Planned Unit: Development that involved clustering of homes to maximize open space and was well screened from major highways and neighboring properties. Upon further inquiry, I learned that Dorset Park involved a total of 108 acres. The project was approved for 177 units clustered on only 40 acres (4.4 units/acre) with the remaining 68 acres to be used for the Park. 10.0 How does the Trust property compare to the Dorset Park development? 10.A The Trust property is much larger in area (222 acres) than Dorset Park (108 acres). The Trust property is significantly similar in terms of visibility from major public views. Much of the interior portion of the property cannot be seen from public roads or neighboring properties. Therefore, development densities could easily be increased in the interior of the property without off -site visual impact. If the Calkins family decides to increase the number of lots in the interior portion of the property above what is currently shown on Exhibit D-C2, this higher density would seem to fit the Dorset Park model and the intent of the Southeast Quadrant District. Some, increase in density may be required as we consider the economics of development costs for the infrastructure improvements. However, based on our preliminary estimates, we do not anticipate more than 100 lots for the entire project with no more than 1 unit per acre in the designated development areas that are visible from public roads including Allen Road, Spear Street and Dorset Street. 11.Q How does the MBL Associates property compare to the Dorset Park development? 1LA The MBL Associates property is entirely visible from Dorset Street and entirely visible from a portion of the Trust property. Therefore, the proposed MBL Associates project clearly does not fit the Dorset Park model. 12.Q With respect to Criterion 8, have you formed an opinion regarding the MBL Associates application? 12.A On the basis of my understanding of the Quechee analysis, the first step is to ask whether the project is in harmony with its surroundings. The MBL Associates project is clearly not in harmony with its surroundings based on the highly visible, high density development that is planned in a scenic rural neighborhood that is characterized by large lots and open land. The entire 221 unit development will be visible from approximately 6 acres of prime development area of the Trust property. This 6 acres represents approximately 6% of the total developable acreage. Since the project is not in harmony with its surroundings its impact should be considered to be adverse. 3 The second step in the review process is to determine whether the adverse impacts of the project are undue. In my opinion, the impacts of the MBL Associates proposal are undue for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density will be highly visible from public views and therefore violates the clearly written community standard which is the stated purpose of establishment of the Southeast Quadrant District as found on Page 92 of the city of South Burlington Zoning Regulations. In addition, the proposed project does not fit the Village at Dorset Park model which was used to establish the allowable densities in the Southeast Quadrant District. 2. The projects impacts will be shocking and offensive to the average person. As related to the proposed Downing -Calkins Trust development, the average person who approaches the MBL Associates project from the west on the Trust property will undoubtedly be shocked and offended to be standing on a partially wooded, rural landscape and be viewing 60 multi -family units and 161 single family units - the closest of which are less than 200 feet from the Trust property line. 3. The applicant in this case has failed to take any generally available mitigating steps to improve the compatibility of the project with its surroundings. The obvious mitigating step would be to decrease the density of the project. 13.Q Do you have any concluding thoughts? 13.A Yes, my conclusion is that MBL Associates appear to have taken full advantage of the allowable density as per the Zoning Regulations without regard to the scenic impacts to the public, to the Southeast Quadrant or to neighboring properties including the property of the Downing -Calkins Trust. Therefore, unless significant mitigating measures are agreed to by the Applicant, I would urge the Board to deny this appeal under Criterion 8 on the basis of the undue adverse effect of the project on the scenic and natural beauty of the area and the future of the Southeast Quadrant. c\b\calktest.sob rd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Bernard X. Chenette sent a copy of the foregoing Direct Prefiled Testimony, regarding MBL Associates, Application #4C0948-EB, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on November 21, 1994, to the following: MBL Associates by Stephen R. Crampton, Esq. Gravel and Shea P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 City of South Burlington Selectboard and Planning Commission c/o City Clerk 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Town of Shelburne Selectboard and Planning Commission c/o Town Clerk P.O. Box 88 Shelburne, VT 05482 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission c/o Arthur R. Hogan, Jr., Exec. Dir. P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Agency of Natural Resources c/o Kurt Janson, Esq. Rep., State Agencies 103 S. Main, 3 Center Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 Jeff and Elizabeth Goldberg 1760 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Vincent Bolduc 1780 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 John and Susan Jewett 1720 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Alex and Sandie Blair 1825 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 FOR INFORMATION ONLY District. #4 Environmental Comm. c/o Louis Borie, Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Department of Public Service c/o Stuart Slote, Energy Engineer Energy Efficiency Division 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Bernard X. 6enette, P.E. certserv.clk cc �/ V. ef \` '- — zoo✓�•' n (- 1 p DETR/1 ® p� I J/ T ? s oct, c It aeoweslu % a J WT I\ 'ram `J lNl!(1tIK5 N( I>r 0 Ir1 Ioli O'\cl �I SdLLJ Al It A •c If Ah > > V� w% I 1 J 1• I L/j4J "'"Srr-'iii"' CNITi[f1Oa cm NO 1 CIOEN Y, L 61. " FRO flow ((( `,. 4_0l � � O 5U % FHON zoo 4:7 10 LEGEND � •-, ` \ '�•�!,,.. �, �l— SEO DISTRICT DGUNDARY UEYELUPt1ENT AREAS RESTRICTED AREAS i 17 a^RSYgIV Nn 11 , UELNO - WETLAND FP - F1.0"LAIN EI "a - WGGOLANn/WILDLIFE IU31TAT D E 05 - OPEN SPACE PP - PLANNED PARK SOUTH EAST QUADRANT OFFICIAL ZONING MAP .AINE, 1992 Prepared by; T.J. tope and Associalaa, Landscape ArcNeas and Planring Consullants, Buringlon, Vennortl ANU SOU(N BURLINGIUN PLAUNINU DEPARIMENI SOUTH VILLAGE A CONSERVANCY COMMUNITY ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SOUTH BURLINGTON9 VERMONT Elf ■ ■ ■■■ �r SOUTH VILLAGE A CONSERVANCY COMMUNITY ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Prepared by: Steven A. Apfelbaum Applied Ecological Services ,Inc. 17921 Smith Road Brodhead, WI 53520 608-897-8641 steve@appliedeco.com Submitted to: Mr. David Scheuer Retrovest Companies, Inc. Burlington, Vermont December 17, 2004 Applied Ecological Services, Inc." SOUTH VILLAGE A CONSERVANCY COMMUNITY ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0INTRODUCTION. ...........................................................................................................I 1.1 Benefits and Characteristics of Restoration...................................................................1 1.2 Restoration and Management Philosophy......................................................................2 1.3 Adaptive Restoration and Management.........................................................................2 2.0 EXISTING ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS........................................................................4 2.1 Site Overview .. ...........................................................................................................4 2.2 Ecological Setting......................................................................................................4 2.3 Existing Natural Resources..............................................................................................4 2.4 Site -Specific Opportunities..............................................................................................9 3.0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES..................................................11 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................11 3.2 Scheduling.....................................................................................................................12 3.3 Monitoring & Reporting................................................................................................12 3.4 Specialized Training.......................................................................................................13 3.5 Restoration Stage Activities...........................................................................................13 3.6 Management Stage Activities.........................................................................................16 4.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................18 FIGURES: Figure 1. 'Existing Land Cover TABLES: Table 1. Long -Term Management Activities APPENDICES: Appendix A. Figure 1. Existing Conditions, and Figure 2.Preliminary Site Restoration Plans Appendix B. Five -Year Restoration Stage Schedule Appendix C. Specifications for Ecological Restoration and Management 03609:090104 i South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SOUTH VILLAGE A CONSERVANCY NEIGHBORHOOD ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SC)UTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Ecological Restoration and Management Program has been designed for the South Village residential development project i n South Burlington, Vermont. This program is based on the following design objectives: 1. Restore the ecology, divcrsity, and beauty of native plant communities in conservation preserves. 2. Improve the ecological functioning and beauty of the communal open space and other areas by integrating ecological restoration with native landscaping. 3: Provide for the enjoyment of the conservation preserves. �Dcvelop a long-term ecological stewardship program for the open space. I.1 Benefits and Characteristics of Restoration Restoration of native plant communities improves the health of ecosystems, including wildlife habitat and ecological function (e.g., stormwater management). The restoration of a complex native vegetation structure and rich biodiversity in South Village's woodlands, wetlands, grasslands and forests will provide opportunities for populations of breeding birds, invertebrates, mammals, and other wildlife. g OF The ecological benefits of restoration are many. The deep and fibrous root systems of native plant TIT communities stabilize and improve soil, capture and slow runoff from developed and landscaped areas, and speed the absorption of water into the soil and groundwater. Hidden from view, but just as important, ' -..the leaching of nitrogen and phosphorus —major contributors to water pollution and algae blooms —is slowed and water quality downstream improved. Many other functions, from seed bank replenishment to the provision of food for wildlife, are enhanced by restoration. The first two to three years of the restoration process are the most difficult and costly. To firmly take hold in restorations, the native plants we favor must be helped to compete against established weeds, such as European buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, garlic mustard, reed canary grass, and other introduced non-native species. Tasks will be carefully laid out and budgeted so that after the native plants are established, routine maintenance of the restored plant communities can begin. This routine maintenance is much less costly than the beginning stages of restoration. 1.2 Restoration and Management Philosophy 1 oialIv of rests 1p uses on creating ecologically valuable biological communities within the t; ed landscape. This document provides information that serves as a bas'elhif+r asses" 'veness of future restoration and management efforts. The goal of if restoration - creating a vironment - is represented by the plant life in the form of native plant communities. The assumption zs that if the plant communities are restored, wildlife populations, ecological functioning, and human enjoyment will be enhanced. 1 is ro'ect wit) focus on creating and restoring diverse ecological systems adjacent to developed areas. Presettleinent vegetation was use(] as a reference to guide the restoration work, and it is our intent to create plant communities that are native to the area, and if possible native to the site. However, changes in the landscape and existing conditions often preclude the possibility of re-creating the original andscapes'present 150 years ago. Where plant communities are adjacent to developed or traditionally 'sIcap,ed areas, we will into ate the restorations with the adjacent lands. logical restoration does not rule out opportunities for ornamental gardens and plantings that employ )rful, attractive native species. Properly designed and maintained, native plantings of shrubs, iflowers, and grasses will result in an intriguing, often stunning display of color and form that blends the more natural conservation areas or forms a transition from restored plant communities to ,loped areas. At South Village, landscaping concepts will be blended with carefully selected mixes of ve plants to create interesting and beautiful displays for residents and visitors. Limited trails and Bring spots wil l be designed to invite walkers through the restored plant communities and plantings. as will be enhanced by plantings designed to draw the eye from one colorful feature to another. 1.3 Adaptive Restoration and Management Restoration and management programs need to be flexible because of the variability exhibited by the temporal and spatial resources addressed by a plan. Programs need at times to be changed in response to new data and derived insights resulting from regular monitoring. For these reasons, this program should be viewed as being neither conclusive nor absolute. This program is a starting point in an ongoing process of restoring the site's biodiversity and natural processes. Regular monitoring during the restoration process will provide feedback on the program's effectiveness, and generate information to evaluate and justify the need for changes. This process of evaluation, adjustment, refinement, and change is called "adaptive management." Adaptive management is a tool that is fundamental to the restoration, management, maintenance, work described in this program. 2.0 ;1XISTING ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Site Overview The South Village site is a former farm site located in South Burlington, Vermont. The site has been used for agricultural purposes siee perhaps the middle 1800's. Under the agricultural -use hydrological changes including ditching of the large central wetland and drainage of the surrounding small wetlands was undertaken by the farmer to; illow for crop plantings, marsh hay production, livestock production and grazing of these areas. The fornicr agricultural ditches still are present and act to dewater most wetlands and continue to alter their hydrology. All uplands are now fallowed from these former agricultural land - uses. Some old farm fields have been planted to pine plantations, and others have reverted to young z r.. i 2.2 Ecological Setting Wetlands, forests and vet grasslands and native upland grasslands, historically dominated the project site. The l�rke _C',hkurrplain valley has a historic fire history and has been largely shaped by indigenous American - use of prescribed burning which bias contributed to the unique flora and character of the forests, wetlands and grasslands still present to this day in the valley and on this property. The restoration and management plans primary goal is to emillate the historic conditions that shaped the native plant communities in the Ecologists from AES and other firms have surveyed and inventoried natural resources in the property during 2003-2004. Aerial photographs were used along with field reconnaissance to confirm and map the existing natural resources in the property. Boundaries and existing plant communities were identified, mapped on the aerial photograph, and these areas were checked in the field. Existing plant communities were visited and described, and their ecological condition noted. The majority of plant communities in the site represent culturally -created land cover types; however, native plant communities (e.g., oak forest and wetlands) are also present on the site. The health of the ecological systems present at the site is in a state of decline. Without human intervention and conscientious ecological stewardship, it is expected that the overall trend of these ecological systems will continue to decline. Specifically, the diversity of native plant communities and the site's general ecological health will decline. Plant Communit" and Land Coycr Type Discussion Land cover types mapped for the property by AES are shown on Figure 1, and these land cover types are listed and described below. • Deciduous Forest/Woodland (oak forest/woodland, lowland hardwood forest, and second -growth forest/woodland) " Oak Forest - Old field' « Weiland (disturbed types, sedge meadow and wet prairie) • Planted Trees/Shrubs (piuc stand and other plantings) • Agricultural Land • Developed band Deciduous Forest/Woodland Deciduous'' forest/woodland wasfobserved in the property. The forest/woodland is a mix of oak forest/woodland, lowland hardwood forest, and second -growth forest/woodland. The conditions of these fore tl-. oodl�d- .-_- described below. Oak forest/woodland was observed along the extreme eastern edge of the property. This oak forest/woodland contained some mature oaks with many aggressive native tree species and an understory of non-native common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and other problematic species. Oaks observed included northern red oak (Quercus borealis).. Oak regeneration was not observed within this area. In general, the groundstory within this area was low in diversity and contained native and non-native oak forest transitioned eas contained green as.' aver diversity declined by buckthorn and othe ;reen ash, American .ions of the site. Alt Dance (intensive grad .aativetrees. iese a :s ve> grasses Wetland and invasion, this plant community was ranked as fair condition. lowland hardwood forest were observed on the site, often where the ito muck substratealong the central wetland and uplandson the site. (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and dogwood shrubs (Cornus sp.). these areas and, because the plant community is in a state of flux, non-native species is occurring and will continue. Due to past int community was ranked as poor condition. dominated by aggressive native tree species including boxelder (Ater lm (Ulmus americana), and red elm (Ulmus rubra) was observed in )ugh these trees are native, these areas are representative of previous ig or previous cattle grazing) that have since been revegetated by ;as also contained invasion by common buckthorn and other problematic and was dominated by smooth brome, birds foot trefoil (Lotus areas of Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis). Historically, this pasture. Few native species were observed within this area; the southern portion of this area appeared to have been planted with observed at this location. Wetlands were delineated by others and are described briefly here. A wetland was observed within a topographic low area adjacent to the remnant grassland areas and oak forest. The wetlands were shallow and highly disturbed by former agricultural activities. Most small wetlands were dominated by river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis) with some water plantain (Alisma subcordatum) and smartweed (Polygonum sp.), with occasional rushes (Juncus spp) and a few other plant species present. A fringe of non-native reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) exists along most edges of the wetlands, including the large central wetland and appears to be a result of sediment loading from former agricultural operations in the surrounding upland now fallowed fields.. Some drainage ditching is found and still alters the hydrological performance of the wetlands. The large central wetland retains high and moderate quality sedge meadow and wet prairie ecological settings. These are dominated by tussock sedge (Carex sticta, C. emoryii, C. lacustris, C. aquatilis, etc) with occasional bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) also present. Green ash saplings (Fraxinus pensyl),anicum), canary grass, occasional patches of giant reed grass (Phragmites communis), and other weedy species include stinging nettles (Urtica procera), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) are invading the margins of this weltand. The wetland also has suffered from years of marsh hay production and livestock grazing which have reduced the diversity of flowering plants and favored the vegetative spreading weedy plants. Planted Trees/Shrubs Planted white and red pine trees are present in several locations on the ridge and across the central wetland to'the east. These culturally -created areas are low in native plant diversity and have limited usefulness for wildlife using the+site, due to poor forage, food, and shelter values. On the ridge the pine planting are plantation like with depleted ground story vegetation from the dense fallen pine needle litter and cast shade from the densly growing pines. Teloped Land e old farmstead and extant homesite comprise the developed areas in the property. These areas ;hided existing gravel drivewaysand remnant farm roads. In addition, ornamental landscape plant terials found growing around, the home site were present. 2.4 Site -Specific Opportunities Connecting Native Plant Communities The site also presents opportunities for connecting native plant communities, using greenways and other natural open space corridors. Employing natural ecological systems for stormwater management, such as the Stormwater Treatment TrainTM (STT), will help achieve this objective. The proposed site design creates a substantial greenway that connects the site's central wetland with forested areas, reforested areas under the plan, mesic grasslands to be planted, and also with restored wetlands created as a part of the stormwater management system (STT) in the property. This greenway will provide valuable wildlife habitat, travel corridors, and opportunities for ecological stormwater management, habitat restoration, and many other ecological improvements. TION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Program for South Village is comprised of two stages: .'he restoration stage is the period when major efforts are undertaken to d biological diversity and begin the process of restoring ecological •ation stage includes enhancement of existing degraded native plant as restoration of native plant communities that once occupied the site. during this ph�ise include reducing undesirable species and planting native species. :riod of time required to conduct the restoration stage depends on the condition of the access, weather, level of effort needed, and the opportunities and constraints (e.g., Jcal response). Typically a restoration stage of three years for a given , followed by the management stage for that area. After achieving initial restoration goals, the restoration process shifts to 1, lower -cost management stage. Tasks during this stage include spot remedial planting, and prescribed burning. stages, ecological concepts and prescriptions are written and for each of several management units that are developed for a site. significant groupings of plant communities that are performed on a regular schedule, guided by annual ecological monitoring. Management strategies are usually completed on a rotational basis. For example, areas that may be managed with prescribed burning are often split into management units demarcated by existing and convenient fire breaks, such as hiking trails or surface water features. In a given year, perhaps two management units on the site will be burned, and the following year another two units will be burned, and so on. While certain management tasks will occur only in particular management units in a given year, annual monitoring and other management tasks will occur throughout the entire conservation area. Management units for South Village will be developed during finalization of the project. 3.2 Scheduling A difficult part of the restoration and management program is to organize the tasks in a clear and easily understood format. It is important that the program and schedule be flexible. Flexibility is necessary if activities that are planned require suitable weather conditions. Flexibility is also necessary because feedback front the monitoring program may result in changes of strategy, techniques, and timing in order to satisfy the restoration goals.` The restoration and management schedule developed for the site is designed to produce healthy and sustainable ecological systems ifl the site's conservation areas. This program outlines an initial five-year restoration and management program (Appendix B) with the option of making adjustments as necessary. The attached specifications (Appendix Q include monitoring methods, management methods, and performance standards that should result from restoration and management. In this way the plan helps to ensure that the site will support healthy ecological systems over a long period of time. Y A proposed schedule for the first five years of ecological restoration and management activities at the site IS included in Appendix B_ This schedule provides a summary of ecological tasks to be accomplished at the site and when they typically should be conducted. While prescribed burning is an ecologically - effective and cost-effective technique, it may be desirable that portions of the conservation area be restored and managed using alternative methods (e.g., more intensive mowing or herbicide regimes). A more detailed description of specific restoration and management tasks to occur in particular restored or enhanced native plant communities is provided in Sections 3.6 and 3.7 below. Ecological monitoring provides important data about the effectiveness of the restoration and management the response of the native plant communities be checked regularly by measuring ecological indicators of plant community recovery. Effectiveness is judged against the goals and objectives of the project design. Goals can be modified over time as a result of this feedback. The results of annual monitoring are used to direct the restoration and management activities for the upcoming year. Photography is often used to document a chronosequence of ecological change during restoration and management. Reports detailing locations and dates of all restoration and management efforts undertaken and the ecological monitoring that occurred should be completed annually. This report is useful for noting the restoration progress, as well as assessing the need for modifications to the restoration and management program (i.e., adaptive management). 3.4 Specialized Training For nnanyof the restoration tas (e.g., prescribed burning, herbicide use, monitoring) specialized training (often involving licensinwor c ification), oversight, and guidance are required of personnel before the restoration program begins. Peonnel and volunteers involved in prescribed burning, brush control, monitoring, seed collection, etc♦ should receive training commensurate with the activity in which they would be involved. "Training is especially important for those activities that may have risk and safety implications (c.g., prescribed burning), but also for monitoring, where an accurate assessment of the a response of the ecological system to the restoration treatments is required. Ir%aur iestorationvv irk, A]-,S air is to restore conservation areas to native plant communities specific to the project location, and xhet e that is not possible or practical, we aim to restore areas to a community native to the site vicinity or regions. Plant communities that will be enhanced and/or restored on the site include: • Mesic`Forest Brushlands • Oak Fore -it Grasslands 0 Wetlands In addition to the above listed Omit communities, colorful native plant enhancement areas will be designed into the site's open space and features, and a no mow roadside mix will be installed along roadways to facilitate maintenance and firebreaks. The tasks for enhancing and restoring the various plant communities proposed for the site are outlined below, and 'a more detailed description including native plant species lists for each zone is to be included in future specifications. Mesic Forest, Brushlands Remove invasive woody vegetation from the deciduous forest/woodland, including common buckthorn, black locust, and Tartarian honeysuckle. Selectively cut aggressive native woody species such as boxelder, prickly ash, elm, and green ash. This work may entail cutting and stump treating with an appropriate herbicide, basal bark application with herbicide then allowing dead saplings to fall and be consumed over time by prescribed burning and/or decomposition, or foliar spray with herbicide. • Enhance forest/woodland areas using appropriate local ecotype saplings and seedlings including native oaks, chokecherry, juneberry, gray dogwood, and American plum, as well as appropriate forest/woodland forbs and graminoids. • Control invasive non-native herbaceous vegetation with prescribed burning and/or appropriate herbicides, and encourage growth of native forest/woodland species. Oak -Pine Forest " '"+► " Remove invasive woody vegetation as described in 1 above. Selectively thin existing pines to allow s1111light to penetrate the canopy and reach the forest floor in areas. F;nhanre the o,* pine forest area using appropriate local ecotype saplings and seedlings including white and red oaks, chokecherry, juneberry, gray dogwood, and American plum, as well as appropriate forbs and gra iinoids. • C;,ontrol invasive non -naive herbaceous vegetation as described in 1 above, and encourage growth of native species. Oak Forest • Removeinvasive woody'' rgetation from the existing oak forest and selectively cut aggressive native woody species as descri} cd in 1 above. • Imliance and restore dry,,ak forest patches within a grassland matrix, creating a mosaic of these two habitats. Use appropriate local ecotype saplings and seedlings of species currently occupying the area,, including bur amd Northern pin oak, as well as appropriate forest forbs and graminoids. 0 Control invasive non-n tive herbaceous vegetation as described in 1 above, and encourage growth of nativeSpecies. Grasslan( s • } nhancc;reninant and restored grassland areas on the site. Restore mesic native grasslands appropriate witliin the site's conservation areas. This work will require appropriate site preparation and control of invasive species (e.g., brome grass and reed canary grass) using prescribed burning and appropriate herbicides. Following site preparation, soil preparation and seeding/planting with appropriate, local ec:otypc, native grassland species will occur. Many portions of the site can be converted, to native grassland systems with moderate effort. Owle nd and its surrounding agronomic weed dominated buffer area to unities. Prior to enhancement, the wetland will require control of throw h a lication of a g pp ppropriate herbicides and possibly prescribed ing and permits for use of selective herbicides for use in the wetland and wet an oined from the State Department of p Agriculture to allow these activities to occur. Herbicides are not broadcast sprayed during a restoration process. Instead they are wick - applied directly to the target individual plants, which uses 1/25 the quantity of herbicide and also reduced exposure risk to other biota. The species of most concern in the site wetland are the invader from Southeast Asian, Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinancea) and a hybrid grass introduced from Europe, called Giant reed grass (Phragmites communis). Reduction of these aggressive exotic species will allow the sedge meadow, wet grassland and emergent wetlands in the property to be enhanced and restored. Introduction of locally harvested native genetic seed stocks for wetland species, and management that stimulates the native seed bank response for the appropriate for the anticipated water regime, and the surrounding buffer areas should be restored with native mesic grassland, wet grassland, and appropriate woody vegetation. • Numerous new wetlands will be created as a result of the site's Stormwater Treatment TrainTM (STT) elements. Stormwater will flow into native vegetated swales and into infiltration areas (typically wet grasslands and native upland grasslands) as well as deeper mixed emergent marshes. These wetland areas will be designed, graded, and planted to provide diverse native wildlife habitat that provides stormwater management functions as well as aesthetic and wildlife benefits. 3.6 ManagementStage Activities Following the first three to five years of the restoration stage, the project will transition into the management stage. The managcment stage is critical for maintaining the value of the investment, perpetuating the plant community, and maximizing the ecological and aesthetic benefits of the native plant comm(inities. Management activities will occur within designated management units. Appropriate management task.,, for the entire conservation area and within particular management units will be guided byrhe annual monitoring. Monitoring provides feedback on the success of the restorations and enhancements, identifies developing problems, and is used to modify management techniciues in order to achieve a higher success rate. Both long-term management throtigh prescribed burr ing'w�l) Ylowever, during restoration all reducing non-witive plant sped Wethtids, forest and wet grassl; regularscliedule of prescrihed 1: be conducted in perpetuity at South Village. )f the site's conservation areas will include restoring the fire regime e appropriate. Lowland hardwood forest rarely burned historically. the early phases of ongoing management, surface fires are a great help in cover and encouraging the growth of native groundlayer species. ds and native upland grasslands, however, would benefit greatly from a The Lake Champlain valley has a historic fire history and has been largely shapes( by indioenous Atnerican-use of prescribed burning which has contributed to the unique flora and character of the forests, wvtlands and grasslands still present to this day. The goal of burn management . , is to emulate the histuric conditions that shaped the native plant communities in the valley. ti f 'ttse`' of appropri,,arc physical (e.g., cutting) and chemical (e.g., herbicide) treatments may be necessary to control invasive plant species at the site. Species of particular concern observed at the site include common buckthorn, black locust, and Tartarian honeysuckle, reed canary grass, and smooth brome. An example of the management tasks described in Table 1 and more detail is provided in Appendix B. Each management task is repeated at certain intervals for different plant communities. Repetition is necessary to ensure that the restored condition of the plant communities is maintained over the long term. Table 2. Long -Term Management Activities PLANT PRESCRIBED SPOT HERBICIDE REMEDIAL SEEDING & ANNUAL 'COMMUNITY BURNING TREATMENT PLANTING MONITORING Mes c forest _._._ .....2_3 2 33 3-5 1 )3rtjs1-& ,_Is 2-3 2 3 1 Oak Pine forest - -- 5-7 1-2 2-3 1 Oak "crest 2-3 1-2 2-3 1 1V1c51c G isslgnd ---2.3 2-3 3-5 1 Wet grassland/Sedge 3-4 1-2 3-5 1 Meadow therRent Wetland 3`4 1-2 3.5 1 Notes: Ntimbers represent tregttenry of tasks (in years). atinent a 11d Remedial Seeding & Planting schedules assume that prescribed burning will Spot Herbrctde 'l're be employed as a restor»tion :tnd management technique. If prescribed burning is not employed as a restoration and iiianar!etnew technique, mowing would likely be required. 3.6 Mana . ement Stage Activities Following the first three to five years of the restoration stage, the project will transition into the nnanagetnent stage. The management stage is critical for maintaining the value of the investment, perpetuating the plant community, and maximizing the ecological and aesthetic benefits of the native plant communities. Management activities will occur within designated management units. Appropriate management tasks for the entire conservation area and within particular management units will be guided by the annual monitoring. Monitoring provides feedback on the success of the restorations and cerrients, identities developing problems, and is used to modify management techniques in order to aehievea higher success rate Both long-term management and monitoring are intended to be conducted in perpetuity at South Village. 4 In brief, long-term management of the site's conservation areas will include restoring the fire regime through prescribed burning where appropriate. Lowland hardwood forest rarely burned historically. However, during restoration and the early phases of ongoing management, surface fires are a great help in reducing non-native plant species cover and encouraging the growth of native groundlayer species. Wetlands, forest and grasslands, however, would benefit greatly from a regular schedule of prescribed burning. Limited use of appropriate physical (e.g., cutting) and chemical (e.g., herbicide) treatments may be necessary to control invasive plant species at the site. Species of particular concern observed at the site include common buckthorn, black locust, and Tartarian honeysuckle, reed canary grass, and smooth brome. The management tasks described in Table 1 below are repeated at certain intervals for different plant ssary to ensure that the restored condition of the plant communities is 4.0 REFERENCES Ahlgren, I.F. and C.E. Ahlgren 1960 Ecological effects of Forest Fire. Botanical Rev. 26: 483-533 Apfelbaum, S.I. 1985. Cattail (Typha spp.) management. Natural Areas Journ. 5(3):947. Apfelbaum, S. I. and A. Haney). 1985 Changes in bird populations during succession following fire in the northern Great Lakes Wilderness; pp 10-16. In. Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conferenwe. Current Research. General Technical Report INT-212 U.S. Department oi'Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 553 pp. Apfelbaum, S. and C. Sams 1987 Ecology and management of reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea L.). Natural Areas Jourmil 7(2):69-74. #C" aum, S. I. 1993 The Kole of Landscapes in Stormwater Management. National Conference on �.. -Urban [�Zunoff Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, ' tnd Stare Levels, Chicago, Illinois, March 1993, USEPA conference. Pp: 165.169 Apfelbaum; J. D. Eppic•h, T. 11. Price, and M. Sands 1995 The Prairie Crossing Project: Attaining Water Quality and Stormwater Management Goals in a Conservation Development. Using Ecological ,hestoration to meet Clean Water Act Goals. National Symposium on Using Ecological Restoration to Meet Clean Water Act Goals. Chicago, Illinois. March 14-16, 1995. USEPA Conference. Pp: 33-3 8.Y Apfelbatm, S.1. and K. C haprww 1997 Ecological Restoration: A Practical Approach. Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources, Yale University. Pp: 301-322 Apfelbaurn, S. I., M. S:ittds, T. H. Price, J. D. Eppich, P. M. Hoffman, and D. Hoffman 1997. On conservation developme its and their cumulative benefits. In: Assessing the cumulative impacts of watershed development on aquatic ecosystems and water quality: A National Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. March 19-21, 1996, Pp, 18 1- 18 7 Apfelbaum, S.I., J. J-arsorx, R. Cockrell 1998 Life cycle analysis of Steel Studies vs. Wood Stud production. Steel Recycling Institute, Pittsburgh, PA and Scientific Certification Systems, Oakland, (,,,A. Capen, D. E; 2004. South Villa e wildlife assessment. Unpublished report submitted to Retrovest Companies. 9pp. CTOMMI, W. 198� Clmnges in the Land, Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. Hill and ..ue Want,; New York, NY. 235 pps. Crow, T. T., A. Haney and D. M. Waller 1994 Report on the Scientific Roundtable on Biological diversity Convened by the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests. USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-166 Haney, A. and S.I. Apfelbaum. 1990. Structure and dynamics of Midwest oak forests. In, J.M. Seeney (ed.), Management of Dynamic Ecosystems. North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, West Lafayette, Indiana. Haney, A. and S.I Apfelbaum. 1994. Measuring changes in oak forests: a review and recommendations for a monitoring protocol. In, J.S. Fralish, R.C. Anderson, J.E. Ebinger, and R. Szafoni (eds.), Proceedings of the North American Conference on Barrens and Forests. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois. Pp. 253-257. Ludwig, J.P. and S. I. Apfelbaum Unpublished data 1978-1992: Vegetation, Small Mammal, and Bird Response o Min ed Land Reclamation at the Jackson County Iron Company, Black River Falk, Wl. AmILOI Technical reports to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wl. Miller, J. In press C'onsc r\,%itic� i Developments and Conservation. Journal of Conservation Biolog},, Wilcox, S.A. `3.1.`Apfclb: itun, and R.D. Hiebert. 1985 Cattail invasion of sedge meadows following hydrologic disturl ince in the Cowles Bog Wetland Complex, Indiana Dunes Natural Lakeshore. Wetlands APPENDIX A Figure 1. Existing Land Cover Figure 2. Preliminary Site Restoration Plans APPENDIX B Five -Year Restoration and Management Schedule and Management Schedule for South Village FOREST YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 123141 1234 1234 1234 1234 vegetation and thin aggressive native woody species. me 1 [21 3 4 1 121 3 4 1 [21 3 4 1 [21 3 4 1 [21 3 4 ility of conducting prescribed burn. Identify need for aggressive species management mmend brushing, herbiciding and/or enhancement planting where necessary. 1 2 [31 4 1 2 [31 4 1 2 [31 4 1 2 [31 4 1 2 [31 4 local authorities, finalize burn plan. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 of undesirable woody vegetation. 1234 123 [41 123141 1234 123[41 1 2 3 4 1 [21 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 on activities and recommendations. be conducted. neement and Restoration Area YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 123[4] 1234 1234 1234 1234 y vegetation and thin aggressive native woody species. ture 1 [2] 3 4 1 [21 3 4 1 [21 3 4 1 [21 3 4 1 [21 3 4 'bility of conducting prescribed burn. Identify need for aggressive species management ommend brushing, herbiciding and/or enhancement planting where necessary. 1 2[ 31 4 1 2[ 31 4 1 2 131 4 1 2[ 31 4 1 2[ 31 4 ct local authorities, finalize burn plan. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 n of undesirable woody vegetation. 5 Conduct Burn: 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 [41 6 Seed/Plant: 1 2 3 4 1 [21 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 7 Summary Report: 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 [41 1 2 3 141 Annual report to client to provide specifics on activities and recommendations. [Bracket] indicates quarter when work will be conducted. WET GRASSLAND and EMERGENT WETLAND (Enhancement and Restoration Areas YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 1 Seedbed Preparation: 1 2 [3] 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Prepare soil for seeding/planting. Depending on existing conditions, this may entail herbiciding. 2 Dormant Seed: 1 2 3 [4] 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 3 Site Inspection; Recommend Future 1 2 3 4 1 [2] 3 4 1 [2] 3 4 1 [2] 3 4 1 [2] 3 4 Management: ssesssirtcrttditi#�ns t determine feasibility of conducting prescribed burn. Identify need for aggressive species management and enhancement seeding/planting. R&ommend herbiciding and/or enhancement planting where necessary. 4 Mow. 1 2 3 4 1121 [3] 4 1 [2] [3] 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Spot Herbicide. 1 2 3 4 1 [2] [3] 4 1 [2] [3] 4 1 [2] 3 4 1 2 3 4 6 Plant Plugs:- --- -- 1 2 3 4 1121 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 7 Burn Preparation: 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 [3] 4 1 2 [3] 4 1 2 3 4 Apply for permits, Schedule burn, contact local authorities, finalize burn plan. _. S Conduct Burn: 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 [4] 1 2 [3] 4 1 2 3 4 Protect young oaks from fire 9 'mmSummary Report: y - 1 2 3 [4] 1 2 3 [4] 1 2 3 [4] 1 2 3 [4] 1 2 3141 Annual report to client to }provide specifics on activities and recommendations. [Bracket] indicates quarter when work, vy=ill be conducted. e 6 APPENDIX C ,Specifications for Ecological Restoration and Management Specifications for Ecological Restoration and Management South Village South Burlington, Vermont Applied Ecological Services, Inc:" Applied Ecological Services, Inc. 17921 Smith Rd Brodhead, WI 53520 608-897-8641 December 2004 Specifications for Ecological Restoration and Management South Village South Burlington, Vermont TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERALPROVISIONS ...............................................................................................1 Section- Definitions...........................................................................................................I SectionGeneral................................................................................................................1 Section - Legal Responsibilities........................................................................................2 Section - Familiarity with Job Site...................................................................................2 SITE WORK. Section - Selective Woody Brush and Tree Removal.....................................................3 Section - VegetationSalvage and Replanting 11 Section - herbaceous Species Removal..........................................................................15 Section- Soil Preparation...............................................................................................18 Section- Cover Crop Seeding.........................................................................................20 Section -Native Plant Seeding........................................................................................23 Section -Erosion Control Blanket..................................................................................30 -.Herbaceous Perennial Planting......................................................................32 - Tree and Shrub Planting.................................................................................39 ................................................................................................ 44 ENT nManagement ......................................... CT .......................................................... 46 ing........................................................................................................51 Ecological Restoration and Management South Village South Burlington, Vermont GENERAL PROVISIONS PART 1 DEFINITIONS Wherever in these specification and plans the following terms are used, the intent and meaning shall be interpreted as follows: Contractor. The individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, or corporation contracting with the Owner for performance of the work described in these specifications and plans. In this project the Owner intends to Contract with Applied Ecological Services Contracting division to implement the restoration program. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Ecologist_ The individual person qualified to oversee as the owner's representative that the restoration contractor is performing to specifications, and the work is successful. In this project the Owner intends to retain Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Consulting division to provide the project ecologist services. Should there be any concern about conflict of interest a third party opinion by another qualified ecologist may be sought by the Owner. Owner. The individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, or corporation employing Applied Ecological Services, Inc. for performance of the work described in these specifications and plans. The term may also refer to the Owner's authorized representative. Plans. The approved plans titled "Conceptual Restoration Plan" and specifications titled "Specifications for Ecological Restoration and Management — South Village," which show the location, character, dimensions, and details of the work to be done. Work.; Work shall mean the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, and other incidentals necessary or convenient to the successful completion of the project. PART2 GENERAL The work described herein consists of furnishing, transporting, and installing all seeds, plant materials, and other materials as required for the restoration and establishment of native plant communities; constructing stormwater management appurtenances; construction of erosion control improvements; management and monitoring of planting areas after final acceptance; and such additional, extra and incidental work as may be necessary to complete the work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall furnish all required materials, equipment, tools, labor, and incidentals, unless otherwise provided in the specifications or plans. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall provide proof to the Owner that Applied Ecological Services, Inc.'s on -site field supervisor(s) overseeing project implementation have a minimum of 5 years experience conducting ecological restoration services as defined in this specification package. This specifications package deals only with the work associated with installation, management, and monitoring of ecological restoration areas. Erosion and sediment control plans, prepared under separate cover, shall be followed at all times. Specifications for native landscaping around homes and other locations in the development are also to be included under separate cover in landscaping plans. In the event of any inconsistencies between the plans and these specifications, Applied Ecological Services, Inc (the Restoration and Native Landscape Contractor) shall notify the Owner immediately before continuing work so that the inconsistencies may be resolved. 03609:090104 2 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall have an English-speaking representative on -site at all times during performance of construction activities. PART 3 LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall at all times observe and comply with all federal and state laws, local laws, ordinances, and regulations which in any manner affect the conduct of the work, and all such orders or enactments as exist at the present and which may be enacted later, of legislative bodies or tribunals having legal jurisdiction or which may have affect over the work. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits for construction. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be responsible for site safety. PART 4 FAMILIARITY WITH JOB SITE Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall become familiar with conditions at the job site prior to the commencement of work. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall notify the Owner immediately if site conditions are such that inhibit progress of the work. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be responsible for having all underground utilities located by servicing agency. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall take all necessary precautions for the protection of utilityfacilities. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be responsible for any damage or destruction of utility facilities resulting from negligence or misconduct in Applied Ecological Services, Inc.'s manner or method of execution of the work, or caused by defective work or the use of unsatisfactory materials. Whenever any damage or destruction of a utility facility occurs as a result of work performed by Applied Ecological' Services, Inc., the Utility company and Owner will be immediately notified. END OF GENERAL PROVISIONS 03609:090104 3 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — SELECTIVE WOODY BRUSH REMOVAL PARTI. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes the selective cutting and disposal of existing undesirable woody brush including trees and shrubs. This work will occur in the areas to be restored to native plant communities, including the pine plantations and forested areas and wetlands where tree and brush invasion has occurred.. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A. Vegetation salvage and replanting; Herbaceous species removal. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with this type of work and the type of materials being used. Said person shall be competent at identification of plant materials to be cut and to be preserved during the season (e.g., summer, winter) work is to be completed. Said person shall also direct all work performed under this section. If buckthorn is to be removed from the site, said person shall be thoroughly familiar with "Buckthorn Removal Methods" (PART 3.2 of this Section). B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. The use of any herbicide shall follow directions given on the herbicide label. In the case of a discrepancy between these specifications and the herbicide label, the label shall prevail. 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all materials to be used during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, amount and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Licenses: Prior to any herbicide use Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall submit to the Owner a current copy of the State of Vermont commercial pesticide applicator's license for each person who will be applying herbicide at the project site. A copy of each commercial pesticide applicator's license must be maintained on site at all times during completion of the work. C. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. D. After the work is complete submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a delineation of areas where selective woody brush was removed; a listing of all species and quantities removed; and herbicide type, dilution rate, and quantity used. 03609:090104 4 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS A. Herbicide to be used for basal bark or cut stump applications shall be triclopyr: 3,5,6- trichloro-2-pyridinyloxyacetic acid, butoxyethyl ester, trade name Garlon 4 or equivalent as approved in writing by the Owner. B. Herbicide to be used for foliar applications shall be triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro-2- pyridinyloxyacetic acid, triethylamine salt, trade name Garlon 3A or equivalent as approved in writing by Owner. C. Woody species to be removed in areas with standing water or saturated soils shall be treated with Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine in a form approved for aquatic applications, such as Rodeo or equivalent, as approved in writing by Owner. PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1'' METHOD A. Protection of desirable existing vegetation shall be the responsibility of Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during woody brush removal. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be liable for remedying damage to existing desirable vegetation. B. Species designated for removal are: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DISPOSITION Acer negundo * Boxelder Remove all <8 in. dbh Acer plalanoides Norway maple Remove all Eleagnus angustifolia Russian Olive Remove all Fraxinus pennsylvanica * Green ash Remove all <8 in. dbh Lonicera x bella Showy fly honeysuckle Remove all Lonicera morrowii Morrow's honeysuckle Remove all Lonicera latarica * Tartarian honeysuckle Remove all Lonicera xylosteuni European fly honeysuckle Remove all Pinus Strobus, sylvestris and resinosa White, Scotch and red pine Thinning of 50% of canopy and all understory in plantations Populus alba White poplar, European poplar Remove all Rhamnus cathartica * Common buckthorn Remove all Rhamnus frangula Glossy buckthorn Remove all Robinia pseudoacacia * Black locust Remove all Ulmus americana * American elm Remove all <8 in. dbh Ulmus pumila * Siberian elm Remove all Ulmus rubra * Red elm Remove all <8 in. dbh Xanthoxylum americanum 1 Prickly ash Reduce by 50% = Known to exist on or aajacent to site C. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall cut all woody species designated for removal using hand tools including, but not necessarily limited to, gas -powered chainsaws, gas - powered clearing saws, bow saws, and loppers. D. All stumps shall be cut flat with no sharp points, and to within two inches of surrounding grade. If snow cover is present and cutting to within two inches of surrounding grade is 03609:090104 5 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program not possible, then stumps shall be cut to within 35% of snow cover depth, up to 16 inches of snow (5.6" stumps). If snow depth is greater than 16 inches, stump cutting methods must be approved in writing by Owner. E. Removal of undesirable woody species shall occur preferentially when the ground is frozen. F. Stumps shall be left in the ground and not removed. All stumps shall be treated with an approved herbicide mixed with a marking dye. G. Stack cut brush in piles not to exceed eight (8) feet in height by twelve (12) foot in diameter. Piles shall be spaced as necessary to minimize dragging of cut material over long distances. Piles shall either be: 1) burned on site, 2) chipped and removed from the site, or 3) chipped and used for site landscaping if approved by Owner. If burning, piles shall be located in open areas without canopy branches of preserved trees overhanging the piles. Ensure no debris (rubble, plastic, etc.) other than the cut brush is placed in the burn piles. 11. A supply of chemical absorbent shall be maintained at the project site. Any chemical spills shall be properly cleaned up and reported to the Owner within 24 hours. I. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall maintain copies at the project site of all current pesticide applicator's licenses, herbicide labels, and MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets) for all chemicals utilized during completion of the work. 3.2 BUCKTHORN .REMOVAL METHODS This is a decision -making guide to treating buckthorn (common, Rhamnus cathartica, and glossy, Rhamnus frangula) in various settings. The decision to use a particular treatment depends chiefly on the size of the area, the size and density of the buckthorn stems to be treated, and the rate of recovery of the native plants in the area being treated. Depending on the type of removal, buckthorn will resprout up to three years in a row and germinate from seeds in the soil for up to six years. The first decision about buckthorn removal leads inevitably down a path of treatment steps lasting several years. A person can alter the buckthorn treatment along the way depending on the response of the buckthorn and native plants. Therefore, a critical part of treatment is annual monitoring of the response of both buckthorn and native species for up to seven years. Using this Decision -Making Guide The numbering of decisions is in outline form. Items 1 and 2 are different paths at the same decision point. Likewise items 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are different paths at the same decision point. Follow the outline until you reach a description of your situation with regard to area size, buckthorn stem size and density, and the level of recovery by the native plants. Most sites will be a blend of two or more situations. You may have dense buckthorn with many large stems in some areas, and lightly infested areas with few large stems in others. It is best to map broad management units that will require different kinds of buckthorn treatments. 03609:090104 6 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 1. Small Tracts (< r/ acre) and Areas Where Fire and/or Herbicide Use are Undesirable Schedule of Treatment Treatment Year 1-3 4+ Action Remove all Monitor and remove as needed 1.1. Small stems (< %2" diameter) —'see Hand Pull Method 1.2. Medium stems ('/2" - 2'/z" diameter) see Tool Pull Method 1.3. Large stems (> 2 '/2" diameter) 1.3.1.Cut & Cover - see Can/Foil Method 1.3.2.Cut & Herbicide - see Herbicide Method 2. Large Tracts (> 1/ acre) and Areas Where Fire and/or Herbicide Can Be Used Treating large tracts is a chap enge because there is a risk that program resources will be used up before less costly routine maintenance can begin (i.e., before the buckthorn is controlled and native plants have sufficiently recovered to allow the use of fire). Therefore a removal program should set forth tasks on a several year schedule depending on the level of buckthorn infestation. The Buckthorn Strategy Organizer provides general guidance for diagnosing the level of effort required to remove buckthorn at a site. All levels of infestation may be present at a site. Buckthorn Strategy Organizer Buckthorn Level Action Strategy AES Cover Class* % Buckthorn Cover Large Stem Density I fight Light Hand I & 2 <25 Low Medium Combination 3 25-75 Moderate Heavy Maximum Effort 4 >75 High *AES Cover Ciass Scale' 1 rare (<1 °/o cover, or few individuals, scattered) 2 uncommon (1-24% cover, or locally common but not widespread) 3 common subdominant (25-74% cover and widespread) 4_ dominant (75-100%, cover) 03609:090104 7 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 2. 1. Heavy Buckthorn The following schedule is recommended for heavy buckthorn levels. Schedule 1 is used if treatment must begin during the growing season, or if growing season treatment is preferred. Schedule 2 is used if treatment must take place in the winter. Advantages to winter treatment are that the ground is frozen and soil disturbance can be minimized, brush piles can be burned, and workers can avoid the insects and heat. The advantages to growing season treatment are that workers can avoid the cold and that buckthorn is easier to identify. Schedule of Treatment for Heavy Buckthorn Scheduled Treatment Year 1 1 1-2 2-3 hirstcut Moutb/Season July - October October 15 — Spring or Summer during 15 December 1 Fall growing _ Dormant Action Cut & Foliar Burn Evaluate T Herbicide Herbicide Efficacy Treatment Year 1 1-2 3 3-4 Schedule 2 Month/Season December 1 — March 1 October 15-- December 1 Spring or Fall Dormant Summer First cut when ground frozen Action Cut & Herbicide Foliar Herbicide Burn Evaluate Efficacy 2.1.1.Stem Removal 2.1.1.1. Oak Canopy 2.1.1.1.1. Kill efficacy as anticipated (<25% buckthorn cover, >25% native plant cover) Wick application (see Herbicide Method) and annual burn (see Burn Method) until buckthorn is <5% cover, then burn every 2-3 years ' M 2.1.1.1.2. Anticipated kill not achieved (>25% buckthorn cover, <25% native plant cover) r t Foliar application (see Herbicide Method) during October 15-December 1 and annual burn (see Burn Method) until achieve <25% buckthorn cover and >25% native plant cover 2.1.1.2. Non -Oak Canopy — follow schedule for oak canopy but in year 2 evaluate level of fuel loading 2.1.12.1. Low fuel loading —will not burn, use foliar herbicide during October 15 — December 1 until recovery is on schedule 2.1.1.2.2. Sufficient fuel load — follow schedule for oak canopy 2.1.2.No Stein Removal — follow stem removal schedule but in year 1 use basal bark application (see Herbicide Method) of uncut buckthorn leaving dead stems standing 2.2. Light Buckthorn 2.2.1.Oak canopy and/or >25% native forb cover — wick application of herbicide to small stems and foliar or bark herbicide larger stems, then burn annually as fuel load permits until <5% buckthorn cover is achieved, then burn every 2-3 years as fuel load permits 2.2.2.Non-oak canopy and/or <25% native form cover — evaluate need for seeding native plants and cover crop 2.3. Medium Buckthorn — use combination of 2.1 and 2.2, evaluate and customize for local situation 03609:090104 8 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program Treatment Methods Hand Pull Method When soil is moist after rainfall or snowmelt, buckthorn stems up to %2-inch diameter may be removed by hand -pulling. In lighter soil (e.g., loams) it may be possible to hand -pull slightly larger diameter stems. Buckthorn plants can be left on the ground to decompose as they will typically not re -root. When hand - pulling, first jerk the plant to loosen the soil. As the plant roots become loosened from the soil, pull more gradually while`shaking 'the plant to minimize soil disturbance. Tamp the loosened soil down with the foot or a tamper. Removal can take place any time of the year except when the ground is frozen. This method is not recommended for areas greater than % acre, steep slopes, or slopes with highly erodible soils. Tool Pull Method Similar to the hand pull method but using a tool specially designed for woody plant removal. With this tool a person can remove stems of/z to 2-'/2 inch diameter. Stems up to 3-inch diameter may be pulled by a strong individual using the largest tools. The tools most widely available are trade named WeedWrench m and Root TalonTm. Follow all other directions per the hand pull method. Can/Foil Method Steins larger than 2-'h inch diameter usually must be cut and the cut stump treated to prevent the buckthorn from resprouting. The can/foil method is employed when the use of herbicides is not desirable. Cut the buckthorn stem 3-%2 to 4 inches above ground level. Place a 14 or 16 oz. can (height 4 inches) over the cut buckthorn stem and gently press it into the ground. Weight the top of the can with a stone or other heavy object. Alternately, wrap two layers of aluminum foil over and around the cut stump, leaving excess foil at the base of the stump in order to place stones or soil on a skirt of foil at ground level. Monitor the can/foil cover during the growing season. If the cover is dislodged, it must immediately be placed on the stem or the buckthorn will resprout. Buckthorn may resprout in the spring following cutting, so a second year of monitoring the cover may be necessary. Buckthorn may be cut throughout the year except during the spring flush (ca. April — June) when roots provide maximum nourishment to the buckthorn stem. Stems larger than 2-%z inches diameter often produce flowers; therefore it may be desirable to remove the stems that have berries to prevent a new seed crop from developing. However, in heavily infested areas a dense seed bank is already present, and seeds are capable of germinating up to 6 years after they drop from the parent. Consequently it may not be worth the effort to remove one year's worth of seed. The largest stems may be chipped or removed and burned. When chipping or burning buckthorn, be aware that the residue from the plant may be allelopathic to other plants and prevent their gennination or growth. In addition, spreading wood chips may bury the vestiges of native plants growing in the area, and chipped buckthorn may contain seeds that can resprout. It is not recommended that this method be used in areas greater than % acre. Herbicide Method Cut & Herbicide Stems should be cut within 3 inches of the ground surface. Herbicide should be applied to the surface of cut stems immediately after cutting. Herbicide can be applied using a paintbrush, a wick applicator, or a low-pressure hand sprayer or spray bottle. Herbicide should be applied to the top of the cut stem, the bark on the sides of the cut stem and any exposed root flares. Recommended herbicides and concentrations to use include: 03609:090104 9 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program • Triclopyr - 10-33% active ingredient solution, trade name GarlonTm 4 mix with diluent or Kerosene; trade name GarlonTm 3A mix with water • Glyphosate —25% active ingredient solution, trade names Roundup® (for upland/dry soil applications) and Rodeo® (for applications in wetlands or in areas with saturated soils) Foliar Application Herbicide is applied to the foliage of the tree/shrub. Herbicide can be applied using a wick applicator, low-pressure hand sprayer or spray bottle. Recommended herbicides and concentrations to use include: • Triclopyr - l 0-33% active ingredient solution, trade name Garlon- 3A mix with water Basal Bark Application Herbicide is applied to the bark at the base of the tree/shrub. Dead trees can be left standing or cut at a later time. Herbicide should be applied along the bottom 24" of the tree around the entire circumference of the tree. Recommended herbicides and concentrations to use include: • Triclopyr - 10-33% active ingredient solution, trade name Garlon— 4 mix with diluent or Kerosene Burn Method Prescribed burning should be conducted by qualified contractors approved by the City of South Burlington. Standard prescribed burning procedures should be used including the development of a prescribed burn plan and procurement of a bum permit. 3.3 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. At no time shall empty herbicide containers, trash, or other material be allowed to accumulate at the project site. All tools shall be kept in appropriate carrying cases, toolboxes, etc. Parking areas, roads, sidewalks, paths and paved areas shall be kept free of mud and dirt. B. Removal: after work has been completed, remove tools, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: Repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this Section. Said damages may include, but are not limited to, tire ruts in the ground, damage to lawn areas, damage to trails, etc. In the event any vegetation designated to be preserved is damaged, notify the Owner within 24 hours. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be liable for remedying said damages to plant materials. 3.4 INSPECTION A. After completion of selective woody brush removal, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with the Owner a provisional acceptance inspection of the work. B. After provisional acceptance of selective woody brush removal, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall conduct a year-end inspection of work areas. Within five business 03609:090104 10 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 3.5 days of the inspection, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall notify the Owner by telephone of the results of the inspection, and noting any stumps that have re -sprouted. ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Provisional acceptance: the work shall be provisionally accepted by the Owner after initial selective woody brush removal is completed per the given plans and specifications, and Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.3 of this section. Selective woody brush removal shall be considered 75% complete at the time of provisional acceptance. B. Final acceptance: selective woody brush removal shall be considered 100% complete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has complied with all provisions of the Guarantee described in 3.4C. of this section. C. Guarantee: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. guarantees not more than 10% of the cut stumps shall be re -sprouting at any time. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall one full year after initial brushing. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 1 1 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION —VEGETATION SALVAGE AND REPLANTING PARTI. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes salvaging of trees, shrubs, or other plant materials and propagules from on -site soils for the purpose of replanting or relocating on the site in areas being restored to native plant communities. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A. Selective woody brush removal. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: Provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type and, operation of equipment being used, and with the planting techniques for salvaged vegetation. Said person shall be competent at identification of plant materials to be salvaged and to be preserved during the season (e.g., summer, winter) work is to be completed. Said person shall direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: All materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. All plant materials shall be free from insects and disease. Species shall be true to their scientific name as specified. SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to installation of salvaged plant materials on the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all trees and shrubs to be installed during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, quantity and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the C work. After the work is complete, submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a listing of all species installed, and quantities installed. Mark in red ink on the original approved planting plan any field changes or deviations from the original plans, or provide a map of the "as -built" planting plan together with a copy of the original approved planting plan at the salve scale. 03609:090104 12 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.2 MATERIALS A. Seedling protection tubes shall be 4" diameter, 24" tall, photodegradable plastic, with a 2- year life span, such as Pro/Gro tubes manufactured by Protex, or equivalent with written approval by the Owner. Seedling protection tubes shall be secured to the ground with a 3/8"x36" bamboo stake and plastic cable tie. B. Mulching material shall be obtained from a source certified to be free of weed seeds and disease. Mulch can consist of straw, bark, or shredded wood. Mulch obtained by chipping of woody vegetation cut during execution of the Selective Woody Brush Removal section of these specifications is acceptable. C. Salvaged trees and shrubs shall be obtained from non -forested or semi -forested (canopy cover <50%) areas of the site and be healthy and of good form. 2.3 QUANTITIES OF SALVAGED TREES AND SHRUBS A. This plan proposes to salvage as many tree saplings and shrubs as practical to partially fill overstory openings in the deciduous woodland/forest and to establish vegetation screens where specified on the property. Salvaged trees and shrubs will augment purchased stock. PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1 METHOD FOR TREE AND SHRUB SALVAGE AND PLANTING A. Plant species listed below and any other desirable native vegetation shall be salvaged to the extent practical. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Cornus serieea Red -osier dogwood Quercus alba White oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern pin oak Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Quercus borealis Red oak Tilia americana Basswood B. Tree saplings shall be obtained from as near to the intended re -planting area as possible. C. Tree saplings that are movable with a tree spade will be field flagged and moved to the above -mentioned areas. This technique will focus on trees of less than 4-inches diameter at breast height (dbh). D. Planting of trees shall be completed as soon as the soil is free of frost and in a workable condition but no later than June 1. E. All trees shall be approved by the Owner prior to installation. F. Provide healthy, vigorous, freshly dug plant materials. Do not use materials that have been dug more than 30 days in advance. G. If planting is delayed more than four hours after salvage, keep salvaged plant material in shade protected from weather and mechanical damage, and keep moist and cool. H. Tree saplings shall be planted in groups that are separated and distinct from each other. A minimum 15-foot spacing shall exist between tree saplings except in screening areas which shall be planted as shown on the Landscaping Plan or as approved by Owner. 03609:090104 13 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program I. Tree saplings and shrubs shall be planted in holes that are deep and wide enough to contain the entire root mass. The root crown of planted trees shall be at or slightly below the soil surface. No air shall remain around the root mass after the hole is filled. J. A seedling protection tube shall be installed around every tree sapling within seven days of planting. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall not remove seedling protection tubes unless directed by the Owner. K. If planting into an area treated with herbicide, plant materials shall be installed not less than 14 days after herbicide treatment. 3.2METHOD FOR SOIL SALVAGE (CONTAINING NATIVE PROPAGULES) AND SPREADING A. This section describes the method for removing topsoil containing live plants and seeds of dative grassland species and spreading the topsoil in restoration areas in order to facilitate the rapid establishment of desirable, local genotype species. B. Prepare site as, specified in the section Soil Preparation. C. Preparation of salvage site: 1. The area from which soil will be salvaged shall be cleared of trees prior to soil removal. The preferred clearing time is winter. 2. The cleared area shall receive a prescribed burn prior to salvage. 3 Noxious weeds and invasive non-native plants shall be sprayed with an herbicide prior to salvage. See Herbaceous Species Removal section for approved materials and methods, and the Management section for a list of noxious weeds and invasive non-native plants. D. ; Removal and transport of soil 1. The top 12 inches of soil shall be removed from the salvage area by a large scraper. Soil shall be immediately transported to the intended spreading area and spread to a depth of 4 inches. This is the preferred technique. 2. An alternative technique is to remove the top 12 inches of soil using a front-end loader and transporting the soil to the intended spreading area where it can be dumped and spread to a depth of 4 inches by the front-end loader. 3. A cover crop should be planted on the spreading areas to prevent wind erosion and the establishment of noxious weeds and invasive non-native plants. See Cover Crop section of these specifications for cover crop species and seeding rates. 3.3 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Cleanup: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. After the work is complete, clean up any remaining materials, plant containers, debris, trash, etc. Avoid driving or walking over planted areas to minimize disturbance. B. Removal: After work has been completed remove any tools, equipment, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: Repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this Section. Said damages may include, but are not limited to, tire ruts in the ground, damage to lawn areas, damage to trails, etc. In the event any vegetation designated to be preserved is damaged, notify the Owner within 24 hours. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be liable for remedying said damages to plant materials. 03609:090104 14 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 3.4 INSPECTION A. Salvage and planting locations shall be field marked and rough mapped on a scaled site plan for inspection as to appropriateness of location for the species intended, and a written approval of the layout and plan shall be obtained from the project ecologist prior to commencing the tree, shrub, and propagule salvage, planting, and spreading operations. B. After completion of the work, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with the Owner a provisional acceptance inspection of the work. 3.5 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Provisional acceptance: The work shall be considered 90% complete after initial planting and installation of seedling protection tubes, soil spreading, and after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.3 of this section. V; ,^' *''� work shall be considered 100 o complete after Applied Ecological A or exceeded the performance standards given in 3.5C. of this pleted all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.3 -antee oak woodland will meet or exceed the following performance er provisional acceptance: 10-70% tree crown coverage by canopy rantee is implied or suggested for the salvaged vegetation. It is tities of salvaged vegetation will survive, but a survival percentage Iuired. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 15 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — HERBACEOUS SPECIES REMOVAL PART 1. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes the eradication of herbaceous species, including undesirable grasses and fortis. This work will occur in the areas to be restored to native plant communities. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A. Selective woody brush removal, Tree, shrub, and soil salvage and replanting, Soil preparation. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with this type of work and the type of materials being used. Said person shall be competent at identification of plant materials to be removed and to be preserved during the season (e.g., summer, winter) work is to be completed. Said person shall also direct all work performedunder this section. B. Standards:' all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. The use of any herbicide shall follow directions given on the herbicide label. In the case of a discrepancy between these specifications and the herbicide label, the label shall prevail. 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all materials to be used during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, amount and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Licenses: Prior to any herbicide use Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall submit to the Owner a current copy of the State of Vermont commercial pesticide applicator's license, with certification in the appropriate categories, for each person who will be applying herbicide at the project site. A copy of each commercial pesticide applicator's license must be maintained on site at all times during completion of the work. C. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. D. After the work is complete submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a delineation of areas where herbaceous species were removed and a listing of all species removed. PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS A. Herbaceous species to be removed in areas without standing water or saturated soils shall be treated with Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, trade name Roundup or equivalent, as approved in writing by Owner. 03609:090104 16 South Village -- Ecological Restoration & Management Program B. Herbaceous species to be removed in areas with standing water or saturated soils shall be treated with Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine in a form approved for aquatic applications, such as Rodeo or equivalent, as approved in writing by Owner. C. Selective grass herbicides and other specialty herbicides may also be used in appropriate locations with approval by Owner. PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1 METHOD A. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. will treat all undesirable vegetation within targeted areas with an approved herbicide. Herbicide application instructions given on the label shall be followed at all times. B. Targeted areas may be shown on plans or located in the field by the Owner. C. Species designated for removal are: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DISPOSITION Alliaria petiolata * Garlic mustard Remove all Bromus inermis * Smooth brome grass Remove all Centaurea maculosa* Spotted knapweed Remove all Cirsium arvense * Canada thistle Remove all Cirsiumvulgare * Bull thistle Remove all Coronilla varia Crown vetch Remove all Euphorbia esula * Leafy spurge Remove all Gleehoma hederacea Creeping Charlie Remove all Lotus corniculatus Birds foot trefoil Remove all Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Remove all Melilotus alba * White sweet clover Remove all Melilotus of cinalis* Yellow sweet clover Remove all Phalaris arundinacea* Reed canary grass Remove all Phragmites australis Giant reed grass Remove all Poa pratense * Kentucky bluegrass Remove all Verbascum thapsis * Mullein Remove all * = known to exist on or adjacent to site D. Care shall be taken not to affect vegetation outside of target areas. Protection of desirable existing vegetation shall be the responsibility of Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during herbaceous species removal. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be liable for remedying damage to existing desirable vegetation. E. A supply of chemical absorbent shall be maintained at the project site. Any chemical spills shall be properly cleaned up and reported to the Owner within 24 hours. F. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall maintain copies at the project site of all current pesticide applicator's licenses, herbicide labels, and MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets) for all chemicals utilized during completion of the work. G. Herbicide may be applied using a backpack sprayer, a hand-held wick applicator, or a vehicle mounted low-pressure spray unit. 3.2 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. At no time shall empty herbicide containers, trash, or other material be allowed to 03609:090104 17 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program accumulate at the project site. All tools shall be kept in appropriate carrying cases, toolboxes, etc. Parking areas, roads, sidewalks, paths and paved areas shall be kept free of mud and dirt. B. Removal: after work has been completed remove tools, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: Repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this Section. Said damages may include, but are not limited to, tire ruts in the ground, damage to lawn areas, damage to trails, etc. In the event any vegetation outside of targeted areas is damaged, notify the Owner within 24 hours. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be liable for remedying said damages to plant materials. 3.3 INSPECTION A. After completion of herbaceous species removal, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with the Owner a provisional acceptance inspection of the work during the growing season. 3.4 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Provisional acceptance: the work shall be provisionally accepted by the Owner after initial herbaceous species removal is completed per the given plans and specifications, and Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. Herbaceous species removal shall be considered 90% complete at the time of provisional acceptance. B. Final acceptance: Herbaceous species removal shall be considered 100% complete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has complied with all provisions of the Guarantee described in 3.4C. of this section. C. Guarantee: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. guarantees not more than 10% vegetative cover of species designated for removal will exist within the treated area at any time. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall guarantee the work until provisional acceptance of Cover crop seeding, Native plant seeding, Herbaceous perennial planting, and/or Tree and shrub planting in the targeted area. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 18 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — SOIL PREPARATION PART 1. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes preparation of soil prior to seeding and/or planting for areas to be restored to native plant communities by planting seeds and live plants. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A. Selective woody brush removal, Tree, shrub, and soil salvage and replanting, Herbaceous species removal, Cover crop seeding, Native plant seeding, Herbaceous perennial planting, Tree and shrub planting. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type and operation of equipment being used. Said person shall direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS A. None specified. PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1 METHOD A. Prior to seeding' and planting upland areas, rotovate soils to produce a fine seedbed. B. Upland soils shall not have a measured compaction greater five pounds per square inch, based on Lang or Cone penetrometer measurements, at the time of seeding or planting unless otherwise stated on the plans or in the specifications. If ten percent or more of penetrometer readings are greater than five pounds per square inch, disc, rotovate, and/or chisel plow said areas as necessary to reduce compaction. C. Re -check upland soil compaction as described above after tillage. Repeat treatment until ninety percent or more of penetrometer readings are less than five pounds per square inch. D. Wetland soils shall not be compacted prior to seeding, based on observation and manual inspection. In the event wetland soils are compacted, Contractor shall conduct limited scarification and/or rotovate wetland soil seedbed. 03609:090104 19 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 3.2 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: after soil preparation is complete, clean up any remaining materials, debris, trash, etc. Avoid driving over the area to minimize additional compaction. B. Repair: Repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this Section. 3.3 INSPECTION A. After completion of soil preparation, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with the Owner a final acceptance inspection of soil preparation. 3.4 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Final acceptance: this portion of the work shall be considered 100% complete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed soil preparation, and completed all rp nilirefl elPnn im no Aa onril%.A ;_ Z 7 _f41, cos: 03609:090104 20 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — COVER CROP SEEDING PARTI. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes installation of cover crop seed in any area of disturbed or bare soil that may or may not be restored to native plant communities. Cover crop seed must be installed overall disturbed soil within the conservation area. Cover crop seeding may be conducted prior to, or concurrent with, the execution of the Native Plant Seeding section of these specifications. Topsoil stockpiles, if created, shall also be cover cropped. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A. Soil preparation, Native plant seeding, Herbaceous perennial planting, Tree and shrub planting. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type and operation of equipment being used. Said person shall direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. All seed shall be free from insects and disease. Species shall be true to their scientific name as specified. 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all seed to be used during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, quantity and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. C. After the work is complete submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a listing of all species installed and quantities installed. Mark in red ink on the original approved planting plan any field changes or deviations from the original plans, or provide a map of the "as -built" planting plan together with a copy of the original approved planting plan at the same scale. 03609:090104 21 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 UPLAND COVER CROP SPECIES LIST FOR CONSERVATION AREAS (Mesic oak forest, Oak woodland-brushland, Oak -pine forest, Dry oak forest and grassland mosaic, Dry -arassland, Mesic trassland) g 2.2 WETLAND COVER CROP SPECIES LIST FOR CONSERVATION AREAS (Wet grassland and Emergentwetland) SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME POUNDS/ACRE Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyard grass 0.50 Lolium multiflorutn Annual rye 20.00 2.3 COVER CROP FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME POUNDS/ACRE Avena sativa Oats 30.00 Chamaecrista fascieulata Partridge pea 0.50 Dalea purpurea Purple grassland clover 0.10 Elymus canadensis Canada wild rye 2.00 Oenothera'biennir Evening primrose 0.10 Ranicum virgatum Switchgrass 2.00 Ratibida pnnata _ Grey -headed coneflower 0.25 Rudbeckia hi rta Black-eyed Susan 0.50 Triticum aestivum Winter wheat 30.00 MATERIALS A. Cover crop grass species to be supplied as pure live seed include: Elymus canadensis (Canada wild rye), and Panicunz virgatum (Switchgrass). Submit to the Owner lab germination test results. B. ' Straw or hay for erosion control shall be clean, seed -free hay or threshed straw of wheat, rye, oats, or barley. 3. EXECUTION METHOD A. Cover crop seeding shall occur after Soil preparation (previous Section). B. Seeding shall be conducted preferentially within two weeks following soil preparation. C. Thoroughly mix all seed by hand or machine before sowing. D. Grass seed shall be preferentially installed with a rangeland type grain drill or no -till planter, such as by Truax, or equivalent as approved in writing by the Owner. Forb seed can be installed by a rangeland type grain drill or no -till planter; however, if this equipment is used it shall be modified to drop small, flowable seed on the ground surface. E. If soil is too wet to install by a rangeland type grain drill or no -till planter, a mechanical broadcast seeder, such as by Cyclone, shall be used. Hand broadcasting of seed may also be employed. 03609:090104 22 South Village— Ecological Restoration & Management Program F. Seed that is to be hand -sown shall be divided into two equal parts. The entire area shall be sown with first half before sowing second half. All seed shall be broadcast evenly throughout seeding zones after seedbed has been prepared. G. Within 24 hours, or as soon as site conditions permit, broadcast seeded areas shall be rolled with a cultipacker perpendicular to the slope. H. Within seven days of seeding, crimp 2,000 pounds per acre of straw or hay for erosion control onto flat areas and slopes up to three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). Slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blanket (see corresponding section of this specification). I. If area to be seeded was treated with herbicide, seeding shall occur no less than 14 days after herbicide application. 3.2 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL, AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. After seed installation is complete, clean up any remaining materials, debris, trash, etc. Avoid driving over seeded areas to minimize disturbance B. Removal: after work has been completed remove any tools, equipment, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this section. 3.3 INSPECTION A. After completion of seeding, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with Owner a provisional acceptance inspection of the work. 3.4 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Provisional acceptance: the work shall be considered 90% complete after all seed has been installed and Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. B. Final acceptance: the work shall be considered 100% complete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has met or exceeded the performance standards given in 3.4C. of this section, and completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. C. Guarantee: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall guarantee seeded areas will meet or exceed the following performance criteria one full growing season after provisional acceptance: 70% plant cover of seeded cover crop species. END OF SECTION 03609:090 t 04 23 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — NATIVE PLANT SEEDING PARTI. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes installation of native plant seed in areas to be restored to native plant communities. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS B. Soil preparation, Cover crop seeding, Erosion control blanket, Herbaceous perennial planting, Tree and shrub planting. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type and operation of equipment being used. Said person shall direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. All seed shall be free from insects and disease. Species shall be true to their scientific name as specified. 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all seed to be used during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, quantity and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. C. After the work is complete submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a listing of all species installed, and quantities installed. Mark in red ink on the original approved planting plan any field changes or deviations from the original plans, or provide a map of the "as -built" planting plan together with a copy of the original approved planting plan at the same scale. 03609:090104 24 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 2. PRODUCTS The following seed lists represent species that are appropriate for the target native plant communities. Some of these species may not be available at the time of seeding, and other appropriate native species may be added and/or substituted with approval in writing from the Owner. 21 MESIC OAK FOREST SEED LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OUNCES/ACRE FORBS Allium tricoceum Wild leek 4.00 Asclepias exaltata Poke milkweed 4.00 Aster oolentangiensis Sky-blue aster _ 8.00 FORB TOTAL: 16.00 GRAMINOIDS Bromus pubeseens (B. purgans) Woodland brome 10.00 Elymus hystrix Bottle brush grass 10.00 Festucasubverticilla (F obtuse) Nodding fescue 10.00 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 30.00 2.2 OAK WOODLAND-BRUSHLAND SEED LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OUNCES/ACRE FORBS Agastache foeniculum Fragrant giant hyssop 1.00 Anemone cylindrica Long-headed thimbleweed 1.00 Antennaria neglecta Field pussytoes 0.25 Aquilegia canadensis Canada columbine 1.00 Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla 0.50 Aster macrophyllus Large -leaved aster 1.00 Aster oolentangiensis Sky-blue aster 1.50 Euphorbia corolluta Flowering spurge 2.00 Fragaria virginiana Thick -leaved wild strawberry 2.00 Helianthus`hirsutus ' Woodland sunflower 2.00 Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower 1.00 Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot 2.00 Smilacina stellata Starry false Solomon's seal 2.00 FORB TOTAL: 17.75 GRAMINOIDS Bouteloua curtipendula Side -oats grama 10.00 Elymus canadensis Canada wild rye 8.00 Muhlenbergia mexicana Wirestem muhly grass 8.00 Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 10.00 03609:090104 25 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program GRAMINOID TOTAL: 1 36.00 03609:090104 26 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 2.3 OAK -PINE FOREST SEED LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OUNCES/ACRE FORBS Anemone cylindrica Long-headed thimbleweed 1.00 Aquilegia canadensis Canada columbine 1.00 Aster macrophyllus Large -leaved aster 1.00 Fragaria virginiana Thick -leaved wild strawberry 2.00 Maianthe num cc nadcuVe ---------------- --- Canada mayflower 1.00 Smilacina stcllata Starry false Solomon's seal 2.00 8.00 _ GRAMINOIDS Br-vmus pubeseens Woodland brome 5.00 Elyrn is hvstrix Bottlebrush grass 5.00 Festuca� obtrtsa nodding fescue 5.00 Elymus virgtmcus Virginia wild rye 5.00 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 20.00 2A MES1C GRASSLAND 'MOSAIC LIST { SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OUNCES/ACRE FORBS Alligtm stellcrtum Grassland wild onion 4 Anemone cylindrica Thimbleweed 4 Aster laevis Smooth aster 4 Aster oolentccngi.ensis Sky blue aster 4 Baptisia alba Wild false indigo 4 ista fa5cac.zrlata Partridge Pea 4 Desrnoditim canadense Canada tick trefoil 4 Eelzznac ea angusiifolux Pale purple coneflower 6 Ratiada ' ' p�natcr Yellow coneflower Black-eyed Susan 4 4 Rudbeckia hirta Solidago nemoralis Old field goldenrod 4 Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod 4 Tradescantia bracteata Sticky spiderwort 4 Verbena stricta Hoary vervain 4 FORB TOTAL: 92 GRAMINOIDS 03609:090104 27 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program Elymus canadensis Canada wild rye 10 Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 10 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 60.00 2.5 " SIC GRASSLAND SEED LIST A .CTENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OUNCES/ACRE FORKS Aselepias syriaca Common milkweed 1.00 Aster laevis Smooth aster 1.00 Astc-r novae-angliac New England aster 2.00 Hehopsis hchanthoides False sunflower 2.00 _I Lcspedeza capitata Round -headed bush clover 2.00 - � Monarda fi.5tnlosu Wild bergamot 0.50 Oenothera biennis Evening primrose 1.00 Ratibida pinnata Yellow coneflower 8.00 Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 8.00 Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod 1.00 Tradescantia bracteata Sticky spiderwort 1.00 Verbena stricta Hoary vervain 2.00 FORB TOTAL: 40.00 --� GRAMINOM, Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem 10.00 Elymus canadensis_ _ Canada wild rye 10.00 Panicum virgalwii ,scopai-ium Switchgrass 10.00 ,Schizach},riuin Little bluestem 5.00 Sorghastmin nutans Indian grass 5.00 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 40.00 03609:090104 28 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 2.6 WET GRASSLAND SEED LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OUNCES/ACRE FORKS Alisma subcordatum Southern water plantain 1.00 Anemone canadensis Canada anemone 1.00 Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed 1.50 Aster lanceolatus (A. simplex) Panicled aster 0.50 Aster novae-angliae New England aster 0.50 Aster puniceus Red -stemmed aster 0.25 Bidens spp. Beggar -ticks 2.00 Cicuta maculata Water hemlock 0.50 Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe-pye weed 0.75 Eupatorium perfoliatum Common boneset 0.50 Heleniumautumnale Sneezeweed 1.00 Helianthus grosseserratus Sawtooth sunflower 1.00 Heliopsis helianthoides False sunflower 2.00 Hypericum pyramidatum Great St. John's wort 1.00 Iris versicolor Blue flag 1.00 Lobelia siphilitica Great blue lobelia 0.50 Lyeopus anzericanus Cut -leaved bugleweed 0.50 Lysimacha quadriflora Grassland loosestrife 2.00 Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkey -flower 0.75 Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp betony 1.00 Penthorum sedoides Ditch stonecrop 0.50 Physotegia virginianum Obedient plant 0.50 Pyenanthemum virginianuzn '' Mountain mint 0.50 Rudbeekia laciniata Wild golden glow 0.50 Rumex'verticillatus Swamp dock 1.00 Solidago riddellii Riddell's goldenrod 1.00 Teucrium canadense Germander 0.50 Thalictrum dasycarpum Tall meadow -rue 1.50 Verbena hastata Blue vervain 2.00 Vernonia fasciculata Ironweed 0.50 FORB TOTAL: 30.25 GRAMINOIDS COMMON NAME OUNCES PER ACRE Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem 4.00 Calamagrostis canadensis Blue joint grass 2.00 Carex bebbii Bebb's sedge 2.00 Carex comosa Bristly sedge 2.00 Carex hystericina Bottle brush sedge 2.00 Carex stipata A species of sedge 2.00 Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge 4.00 Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 3.00 Glyceria striata Fowl manna grass 3.00 Juncus dudleyi Common rush 0.50 03609:090104 29 South Village - Ecological Restoration & Management Program Juncus effusus Rush 1.00 Leersia oryzoides Rice cut -grass 1.50 Muhlenbergia mexicana Wirestem muhly grass 2.00 Panicum virgatum Switch grass 2.00 Poa palustris Fowl meadow -grass 1.00 Scirpus atrovirens Black bulrush 1.00 Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 1.00 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 38.00 2.7 EMERGENT WETLAND SEED LIST Seeding will not be conducted in emergent zones due to the likelihood of inundation. Live herbaceous planting will be conducted in this zone (see corresponding section of this specification). 2.8 MATERIALS A. Grass species to be supplied as pure live seed include: Andropogon gerardii (Big bluestem), Bouteloua curtipendula (Side -oats grama), Elymus canadensis (Canada wild rye), Panicum virgatum (Switchgrass), Schizachyrium scoparium (Little bluestem), and Sorghastrum nutans (Indian grass). Submit to the Owner lab germination test results. B. Origin of all seed shall be from within a 300-mile radius of the project site. C. Straw or hay for erosion control shall be clean, seed -free hay or threshed straw of wheat, rye, oats, or barley. PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1METHOD A. Native plant seeding shall occur in restoration zones designated on plans after soil preparation (previous section). B. All legumes shall be inoculated with proper rhizobia at the appropriate time prior to planting. C. Seeding shall be preferentially conducted as a late fall dormant seeding (after November I) or in early spring (as soon as the soil is free of frost and in a workable condition but no later than June30). D. Seeds shall have proper stratification and/or scarification to break seed dormancy if planting in spring. E. Thoroughly mix all seed by hand or machine before sowing. F. Grass seed shall be preferentially installed with a rangeland type grain drill or no -till planter, such as by Truax, or equivalent as approved in writing by the Owner. Forb seed can be installed by a rangeland type grain drill or no -till planter; however, if this equipment is used it shall be modified to drop small, flowable seed on the ground surface. G. If soil is too wet to install by a rangeland type grain drill or no -till planter, a mechanical broadcast seeder, such as by Cyclone, shall be used. Hand broadcasting of seed may also be employed. H. Seed that is to be sown by hand shall be divided into two equal parts. The entire area shall be sown with first half before spreading second half. All seed shall be broadcast evenly throughout seeding zones after seedbed has been prepared. I. Seeding shall be conducted on exposed soil or water <3" deep. J. Within 24 hours, or as soon as site conditions permit, broadcast seeded areas shall be rolled with a cultipacker perpendicular to the slope. 03609:090104 30 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program J. Hydroseeding and mulching onto a lightly disced soil surface is also an acceptable method. Contractor shall provide specifications on the nature of the equipment, mulching system, and tackifier that would be used if hydroseeding/mulching is the chosen methodology. K. Within seven days of seeding, crimp 2,000 pounds per acre of straw or hay control onto flat areas and slopes up to three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). Slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blanket (see corresponding section of this specification). L. If area to be seeded was treated with herbicide, seeding shall occur no less than 14 days after herbicide application. 3.2 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. After seed installation is complete, clean up any remaining materials, debris, trash, etc. Avoid driving over seeded areas to minimize disturbance B. Removal: after work has been completed remove any tools, equipment, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this section. INSPECTION A. After completion of seeding, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with Owner a provisional acceptance inspection of the work. ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Provisional acceptance: the work shall be considered 90% complete after all seed has been installed and Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. B. Final acceptance: the work shall be considered 100% complete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has met or exceeded the performance standards given in 3.4C. and 3.41) of this section, and completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. C. Guarantee: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall guarantee seeded areas will meet or exceed the following performance criteria one full growing season after provisional acceptance: 70% total cover, seedlings of 2 planted grass/sedge species found, and seedlings of 4 planted forb species found. D. Guarantee: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall guarantee seeded areas will meet or exceed the following performance criteria two full growing seasons after provisional acceptance: 80% plant cover, 10% cover by planted native grass/sedge species, 20% cover by planted forb species, and 25% of planted species are found. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 31 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — EROSION CONTROL BLANKET PARTI. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes installation of a straw/coconut fiber erosion control blanket over seeded areas. 1.2 BELATED SECTIONS A. Soil preparation., Cover crop seeding, Native plant seeding. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type and operation of equipment being used. Said person shall direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal state county and local laws and regulations. SUBMITTALS Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all materials to be used during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source; quantity and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. C. After the work is complete submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a listing of all quantities installed. Mark in red ink on the original approved planting plan any field changes or deviations from the original plans, or provide a map of the "as -built" planting plan together with a copy of the original approved planting plan at the same scale. PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS A. Iwrosion control blanket shall be made from 70% weed -free straw, 0.35 lb./sy and 30% coconut fiber, 0.15 lb./sy, with lightweight (1.65 lb./1,000 sf) photo -degradable polypropylene netting on bottom, heavyweight (3 lb./1,000 sf) UVI-treated polypropylene netting on top, sewn on two inch centers with 750 denier photo -degradable polypropylene thread, such as Bon Terra CS2 or equivalent if approved in writing by the Owner. B. Metal pins, staples, or stakes as recommended by manufacturer. 03609:090104 32 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1 METHOD A. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on prepared and seeded soil (see previous Sections of this specification) where slope is steeper than or equal to three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). B. Within 4 hours after areas are seeded, install erosion control blanket following manufacturer's specifications. 3.2 CLEAN-UP REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Contractor shall keep the work area free of debris. After the work is complete, clean up any remaining materials, debris, trash, etc. Avoid driving or walking over area to minimize disturbance. B. Removal: after work has been completed remove any tools, equipment, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this section. 3.3, INSPECTION A. After installation of erosion control blanket, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with the Owner a provisional acceptance inspection of the work. 3.4 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Provisional acceptance: the work shall be considered 100% complete after installation of erosion controlblanket, and after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. B. Guarantee: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. guarantees all of the erosion control blanket installation work shall remain free of defects resulting from workmanship or materials for one year after final acceptance. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 33 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — HERBACEOUS PERENNIAL PLANTING PARTI. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes installation of live herbaceous perennial plants, tubers, bulbs, and dormant rootstocks of herbaceous perennial plants in areas to be restored to native plant communities. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A. Soil preparation, Cover crop seeding, Native plant seeding, Erosion control blanket, Tree and shrub planting. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type and operation of equipment being used. Said person shall direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. All live herbaceous perennial plants, tubers, bulbs, and dormant rootstocks of herbaceous perennial plants shall be free from insects and disease. 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all live herbaceous perennial plants, tubers, bulbs, and dormant rootstocks of herbaceous perennial plants to be used during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, quantity and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. C. After the work is complete submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a listing of all species installed, and quantities installed. Mark in red ink on the original approved planting plananyfield changes or deviations from the original plans, or provide a map of the "as -built" planting plan together with a copy of the original approved planting plan at the same scale. 03609:090104 34 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 MESIC OAK FOREST PLANT LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE FORBS Anemonella thalictroides Rue -anemone 20 Antennaria neglecta Field pussytoes 10 Aquilegia''canadensis Canada columbine 20 Arisaema'triphyll um Jack-in-the-pulpit 20 Aster macrophyllus Large -leaved aster 20 Fragaria virginiana Thick -leaved wild strawberry 20 Geranium maculatum Wild geranium 20 Helianthus hirsutus/strumosus Woodland sunflower 20 Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower 20 Podophyllum peltatum Mayapple 20 Polemonium reptans Jacob's ladder 20 Sanguinaria eanadensis Bloodroot 20 Smilacina racemosa False Solomon's seal 20 Solidago f/exicaulis Zig-zag goldenrod 20 Thalictrurn dioicum Early meadow -rue 20 Trillium grandiflorum Large -flowered trillium 20 Uvulariagrandiflora Large -flowered bellwort 20 Viola pubeseens Yellow violet 20 TOTAL: 370 GRAMINOIDS Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge 200 Carex rosea Stellate sedge 50 Carex'sprengelii Long -beaked sedge 50 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 300 2.2 OAK WOODLAND-BRUSHLAND PLANT LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE Aquilegia canadensis Canada columbine 20 Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla 10 Aster oolentangiensis Sky-blue aster 20 Fragaria virginiana Thick -leaved wild strawberry 10 Helianthus strumosus Woodland sunflower 20 Phlox divaricata Woodland phlox 50 Smilacina stellata Starry false Solomon's seal 20 TOTAL: 150 GRAMINOIDS Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge 200 Carex rosea Stellate sedge 100 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 300 03609:090104 35 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 2.3 OAK -PINE FOREST PLANT LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE Aquilegia canadensis Canada columbine 20 Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla 10 Aster oolentangiensis Sky-blue aster 20 Desmodium glutinosum Pointed -leaved tick -trefoil 10 Fragaria virginiana Thick -leaved wild strawberry 10 Smilacinastellata Starry false Solomon's seal 20 TOTAL: 90 GRAMINOIDS Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge 100 Carex rosea Stellate sedge 50 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 150 2.4 MESIC GRASSLAND MOSAIC PLANT LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE FORBS Aster oolentangiensis Sky blue aster 40 Fragaria virginiana Common strawberry 20 Lespedeza capitata Round -headed bush clover 20 Solidago speciosa Showy goldenrod 40 Tradeseantia bracteata Sticky spiderwort 40 FORB TOTAL: 640 GRAMINOIDS Carex bicknellii A species of sedge 50 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 150 03609:090104 36 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 2.5 GRASSLAND ENHANCEMENT AREA PLANT LIST (to be planted 2' on center) SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE FORBS Amorpha canescens Leadplant 465 Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly milkweed 465 Aster laevis Smooth aster 465 Aster'oolentangiensis Sky blue aster 465 Desmodium eanadense Canada tick trefoil 465 Echinacea angustifolia Pale purple coneflower 465 Lespedeza capitata Round -headed bush clover 465 Liatris aspera Rough blazing star 465 Monarda fistulosa Bergamot 465 Ratibida pinnata Yellow coneflower 465 Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 465 Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod 465 Solidago speciosa Showy goldenrod 465 Tradescantia=.bracteala' Sticky spiderwort 465 Verbena stricta Hoary vervain 465 FORB TOTAL: 9300 GRAMINOIDS Sorghastrum'nutans Indian grass 400 Andropogon''gerardii Big Bluestem grass 400 Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 400 Sporobolus heterolepis Grassland dropseed 400 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 1600 2.6 WET GRASSLAND PLANT LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE FORKS Anemone canadensis Canada anemone 10 Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed 20 Aster novae-angliae New England aster 20 Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe-pye weed 10 Eupatorium perfoliatum Common boneset 20 Euthamia graminifolia Grass -leaved goldenrod 20 Gentiana andrewsii Bottle gentian 20 Helenium autumnale Sneezeweed 20 Hypericum pyramidatum Great St. John's wort 10 Hypoxis hirsuta Yellow star -grass 10 Iris versicolor Blue flag 30 03609:090104 37 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE Krigia biflora Two -flowered cynthia 10 Liatris pycnostachya Gayfeather 30 Lobelia siphilitica Great blue lobelia 20 Lysimachia quadriflora Grassland loosestrife 20 Lythrum alatum Wing -angled loosestrife 20 Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern 30 Pycnanthemum virginianum Mountain mint 20 Solidago riddellii Riddell's goldenrod 20 Veronicastrum viginicum Culver's root 20 TOTAL: 410 GRAMINOIDS Carex bebbii Bebb's sedge 20 Carex hystericina Bottle brush sedge 30 Juneus balticus Stiff rush 20 Juncus,effusus Common rush 30 Juncus dudleyi Dudley's rush 20 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 160 2.7 EMERGENT WETLAND PLANT LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE FORBS, Alisma subcordatum Water plantain 20 Iris versicolor Blue flag 20 Sagittaria latifvlia Broad-leaved arrowhead 20 FORB TOTAL: 70 GRAMINOIDS Carex lacustris Lake sedge 20 Carex strieta Tussock sedge 20 Eleocharis palustris A species of spike-rush 10 Glyceria striata Fowl mannagrass 10 Scirpus'acutus Hard -stem bulrush 20 GRAMINOID TOTAL: 80 2.8 MATERIALS A. All plants must be ASTM standards for specified size and condition. B. Live herbaceous perennial plants, tubers, bulbs, and dormant rootstocks of herbaceous perennial plants shall be from within a 300-mile radius of the project site and native to Vermont. Species shall be true to their scientific name as specified. PART 3. EXECUTION 03609:090104 38 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 3.1 METHOD A. Planting of all live herbaceous perennial plants, tubers, bulbs, and dormant rootstocks of herbaceous perennial plants (herein referred to as live herbaceous plants) shall occur in restoration zones designated on plans after soil preparation, cover crop seeding, native plant seeding, and installation of erosion control blanket. B. Planting of all live herbaceous plants shall be completed after May 15 but no later than July 15 without written approval by the Owner. C. All live herbaceous plants shall be potted, two year old nursery grown stock unless approved in writing by the Owner. D. All live herbaceous perennial plants shall be approved by the Owner prior to installation. E. Provide healthy, vigorous live herbaceous perennial plants; provide freshly dug tubers, bulbs, and dormant rootstocks of herbaceous perennial plants. Do not use materials that have been in cold storage for longer than 45 days. F. Deliver live herbaceous perennial plants, tubers, bulbs, and dormant rootstocks of herbaceous perennial plants to project site after preparations for planting have been completed. G. Live herbaceous plants shall be transported and stored in such a manner as to insure adequate protection against wind damage, desiccation, and other physical damage. H. If planting is delayed more than four hours after delivery, keep plants in refrigerated container or set plants in shade protected from weather and mechanical damage, and keep moist and cool. ; 1. Plant layout and locations of all live herbaceous plants shall be conducted by Contractor and approved by the Owner before excavation of plant pits. The Owner reserves the right to make minor adjustments to plant material locations without additional cost to the Owner. J. When conditions detrimental to plant growth are encountered during excavation such as rubble, fill or other obstructions, notify the Owner immediately before planting. K. Before planting, biodegradable pots shall be split, and non -biodegradable pots shall be removed. Root systems of all potted plants shall be split at base of plug with 1" cuts in a crisscross pattern with a sharp blade. L. Oak woodland and Upland woods live herbaceous plants shall be clustered into groups of 10-20 individuals of the same species selected from the associated species list provided in PART 2 of this section. M. Upland grassland, wet grassland, wet meadow, and wooded wet meadow live herbaceous plants shall be clustered into groups of 75-125 individuals of randomly mixed species selected from the associated species lists provided in PART 2 of this section. N. Marsh live herbaceous plants shall be installed in 0"-4" depth of water. O. Marsh live herbaceous plants shall be clustered into groups of 30 to 60 individuals of the same species. P. All live herbaceous plants shall be adequately healed in to prevent desiccation. Q. The soil around the roots shall be lightly compacted and free of air pockets to prevent desiccation. R. Thoroughly water all plants within 12 hours of planting if plants are not submerged or not in saturated soil. S. In order to achieve the performance standards listed in 3.4C below, if Applied Ecological Services, Inc. deems it necessary, all groupings of live herbaceous marsh plants shall be protected from wildlife herbivory on all four sides by wildlife exclusion cages. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall submit shop drawings, including a materials list, to the Owner for approval prior to installation. Said cages shall be removed by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. one full growing season after installation or as otherwise directed by the Owner. 03609:090104 39 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program T. If planting into an area treated with herbicide, plant materials shall be installed no less than 14 days after herbicide treatment. 3.2 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. After the work is complete, clean up any remaining materials, plant containers, debris, trash, etc. Avoid driving or walking over planted areas to minimize disturbance. B. Removal: after work has been completed remove any tools, equipment, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc.. C. Repair: repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this section. 3.3 INSPECTION A. After completion of planting and wildlife exclusion cages, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with the Owner a provisional acceptance inspection of the work. 3.4 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Provisional acceptance: the work shall be considered 90% complete after initial planting, and after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. B. Final acceptance: the work shall be considered 100% complete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has met or exceeded the performance standards given in 3.4C. of this section, completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section, and removed cages as described in 3.1 S. of this section. C. Guarantee: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall guarantee planted areas will meet or exceed the following performance criteria one full growing season after provisional acceptance: 50% survivorship of all installed plants. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 40 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING PARTI. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes planting of native trees and shrubs (i.e., woody species) in areas to be restored to native plant communities. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A Selective woody brush removal, Herbaceous species removal, Soil preparation, Cover crop seeding, Native plant seeding, Erosion control blanket, Herbaceous perennial planting. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type and operation of equipment being used. Said person shall direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. All plant materials shall be free from insects and disease. Species shall be true to their scientific name as specified. 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all trees and shrubs to be installed during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, quantity and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of al mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. C. After the work is complete submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a listing of all species installed, and quantities installed. Mark in red ink on the original approved planting plan any field changes or deviations from the original plans, or provide a map of the "as -built" planting plan together with a copy of the original approved planting plan at the same scale. 03609:090104 41 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 MESIC OAK FOREST WOODY LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE* Amelanchier laevis Smooth juneberry 10 Corylus americana American hazelnut 10 Prunus virginiana Choke -cherry 10 Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern -pin oak 5 Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak 5 Quercus borealis Red oak 5 TOTAL: 45 V laI t„anta w iut,iuuU «cc, Qilu 5iuuos iuenunea on site restoration and Landscape Plan 2.2 OAK WOODLAND-BRUSHLAND WOODY LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE* Amelanchier laevis Smooth juneberry 10 Coglus americana American hazelnut 10 Prunus americana Wild plum 10 Pru my virginiana Choke -cherry 10 Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern -pin oak 5 Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak 5 Quercus borealis Red oak 5 Viburnum rafinesquianum Downy arrow -wood 5 TOTAL: 60 Total plants/acre to include trees and shrubs identified on site Restoration and Landscape Plan 2.3 OAK -PINE FOREST WOODY LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE* Amelancher laevis Smooth juneberry 5 Prunus americana Wild plum 5 Prunes virginiana Choke -cherry 5 Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern -pin oak 5 Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak 5 Quercus borealis Red oak 5 Viburnum rafinesquiaraan Downy arrow -wood 5 TOTAL: 35 Lal plaILL3ia, i%, w uikiuuL; «ccS auu 5nruos tuenttrlea on site Kestoratlon and Landscape Plan 2.4 GRASSLAND MOSAIC WOODY LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE* Corylus americana American hazelnut 10 Prunus virginiana Choke -cherry 10 Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak 20 Rosa setigera Meadow rose 10 03609:090104 42 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE* TOTAL: 80 *Total plants/acre to include trees and shrubs identified on site Restoration and Landscape Plan 2.6 MESIC GRASSLAND WOODY T.TST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE* none 0 TOTAL: 0 L V LM yiauL�,i dLJ c LU ink, uuc Ll ccs anu snruos iaentinea on site Kestoration anct Landscape Plan 2.7 WET GRASSLAND WOODY LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACRE* Corms sericea Red -osier dogwood 10 Salix petiolaris (S. graeilis) Slender willow 10 TOTAL: 20 Total plants/acre to include trees and shrubs identified on site Restoration and Landscape Plan 2'.8 EMERGENT WETLAND WOODY LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANTS/ACR E Salix interior Sand Bar Willow 50 TOTAL: 0 i uta, Y,ainwak, c tu iiiuiuuc uccs atlu snruos iaenunea on site tcestoratlon anCt Landscape Plan 2.9 MATERIALS A. All plants must be ASTM standards for specified size and condition. 13, The original parent generation of trees and shrubs shall be from within a 300-mile radius of the project site. Species shall be true to their scientific name as specified. C. All trees shall be 3/4" to 2" caliper bare root, ball and burlap, or live stake/post and shall be nursery grown or wild stock salvaged from on site areas to be disturbed unless approved in writing by the Owner. All shrubs shall be size 2 container and shall be nursery grown unless otherwise stated in plan or approved in writing by the Owner. PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1 METHOD A. Trees and shrubs shall occur in restoration zones designated on plans after soil preparation, cover crop seeding, native plant seeding, and installation of erosion control blanket. B. All trees and shrubs shall be approved by the Owner prior to installation. C. Planting of bare root trees and shrubs shall be completed as soon as the soil is free of frost and in a workable condition but no later than May 31. D. Where saturated soil is within one foot of the ground surface, willow shrubs (not trees) and dogwood shrubs may be established by installation of live stakes harvested on site. E. Provide healthy, vigorous, freshly dug plant materials. Do not use materials that have been dug more than 30 days in advance. F. Deliver trees and shrubs to project site after preparations for planting have been completed. 03609:090104 43 South Village - Ecological Restoration & Management Program 3.2 3.3 3.4 G. Trees and shrubs shall be transported and stored in such a manner as to insure adequate protection against wind damage, desiccation, and other physical damage. H. If planting is delayed more than four hours after delivery, set trees and shrubs in shade protected from weather and mechanical damage, mulch and water root balls, and keep trees and shrubs moist and cool. 1. Locations of all trees and shrubs shall be staked or marked on the project site by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. before excavation of plant pits. The Owner reserves the right to make minor adjustments to plant material locations without additional cost to the Owner. J. When conditions detrimental to plant growth are encountered during excavation such as rubble, fill or other obstructions, notify the Owner immediately, before planting. K. Handle trees in accordance with best horticultural practices. Keep bare root stock roots submerged in water until installed. Lift B&B materials from the bottom of root ball only. L. Water all trees within 12 hours of planting unless soil is already saturated. Apply water until soil is thoroughly saturated, then pack soil around roots to remove trapped air. M. If planting into an area treated with herbicide, plant materials shall be installed no less than 14 days after herbicide treatment. CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. After the work is complete, clean up any remaining materials, plant containers, debris, trash, etc. Avoid driving or walking over planted areas to minimize disturbance. B. Removal: after work has been completed remove any tools, equipment, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this Section. INSPECTION A. After completion of the work, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with the Owner a provisional acceptance inspection of the work. ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Provisional acceptance: the work shall be considered 90% complete after initial planting and after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. B. Final acceptance: the work shall be considered 100% complete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has met or exceeded the performance standards given in 3.4C. of this section, and has completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. C. Guarantee: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall guarantee planted areas will meet or exceed the following performance criteria one full growing season after provisional acceptance: 50% survivorship of all installed plants. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 44 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program SITE WORK SECTION — HYDROMULCHING PARTI. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section includes hydromulching seeded areas. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS' A. Soil preparation, Cover crop seeding, Native plant seeding, Erosion control blanket, Herbaceous perennial planting. 1.3QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type and operation of equipment being used. Said person shall direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. 1•4 SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all materials to be used during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, quantity and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. C. After the work is complete submit to the Owner "as -built" plans including a listing of all quantities installed. Mark in red ink on the original approved planting plan any field changes or deviations from the original plans, or provide a map of the "as -built' planting plan together with a copy of the original approved planting plan at the same scale. PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS A. Wood fiber mulch shall be 100% recycled wood fiber, minimum 99% organic content, such as Re -Fiber Wood manufactured by Wood Recycling, Inc. (800-982-8732) or equivalent if approved in writing by the Owner. B. Tackifier shall be a polyacrylamide-based product (PAM), with more than 100,000 monomer units per molecule, moderately anionic (18% active sites), such as cfm 2000 by Construction Fabrics and Materials (608-839-8031) or equivalent if approved in writing by the Owner. 03609:090104 45 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1 METHOD A. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall use 25 pounds of tackifier and 1,000 pounds of wood fiber mulch per acre to be treated. A minimum of 1,000 gallons of slurry, mixed in a tank with a mechanical agitator, shall be applied per acre. B. Hydromulch designated areas with a uniform, even coat of slurry after seeding. Take care not to spray adjacent areas, existing vegetation, pavement, and open water. 3.2 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Contractor shall keep the work area free of debris. After the work is complete, clean up any remaining materials, debris, trash, etc. Avoid driving or walking over area to minimize disturbance. B. Removal: afterwork has been completed remove any tools, equipment, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this section. 3.3 INSPECTION A. After completion of hydromulching, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule with the Owner a final acceptance inspection of the work. 3.4 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Final acceptance: the work shall be considered 100% complete after hydromulching, and Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has completed all required clean up, removal, and repair as described in 3.2 of this section. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 46 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program MANAGEMENT SECTION — MANAGEMENT PART L GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION A. This section describes the management techniques that will be employed to ensure successful establishment of restoration areas (i.e., newly planted native plant communities), and enhancement areas (i.e., existing native plant communities). Remedial management will be conducted for less than or equal to five years. Maintenance management will commence upon acceptance of the restorations and other remedial work and shall continue in perpetuity. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A. All Site Work listed above. 1.3 `' QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with this type of work and the type of materials being used. Said person shall be competent at identification of plant materials to be removed and to be preserved during the season (summer, winter) work is to be completed. Said person shall also direct all work performed under this section. B. Standards: all materials used during this portion of the work shall meet or exceed applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. The use of any herbicide shall follow directions given on the herbicide label. In the case of a discrepancy between these specifications and the herbicide label, the label shall prevail. 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Materials: Prior to delivery of any materials to the site, submit to the Owner a complete list of all materials to be used during this portion of the work. Include complete data on source, amount and quality. This submittal shall in no way be construed as permitting substitution for specific items described on the plans or in these specifications unless approved in writing by the Owner. B. Licenses: Prior to any herbicide use Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall submit to the Owner a current copy of the State of Vermont commercial pesticide applicator's license, with certification in the appropriate categories, for each person who will be applying herbicide at the project site. A copy of each commercial pesticide applicator's license must be maintained on site at all times during completion of the work. C. Equipment: Prior to commencement of any work, submit to the Owner a written description of all mechanical equipment and its intended use during the execution of the work. D. After the work is complete submit to the Owner an annual report summarizing management activities completed during the past calendar year by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. E. Permits: Prior to the commencement of any prescribed burning, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall submit copies of all required open burn permits to the Owner. 03609:090104 47 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program PART 2. PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS A. Herbaceous species to be removed in areas without standing water or saturated soils shall be treated with Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, trade name Roundup or equivalent as approved in writing by Owner. B. Herbaceous species to be removed in areas with standing water or saturated soils shall be treated with Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine in a form approved for aquatic applications such as Rodeo or equivalent as approved in writing by Owner. C. Herbicide to be used for woody basal applications shall be triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro-2- pyridinyloxyacetic acid, butoxyethyl ester, trade name Garlon 4 or equivalent as approved in writing by the Owner. D. Herbicide to be used for woody foliar applications shall be triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro-2- pyridinyloxyacetic acid, triethylamine salt, trade name Garlon 3A or equivalent as approved in writing by Owner. E. Selective grass herbicides and other specialty herbicides may also be used in appropriate locations with approval by Owner. F. Appropriate burning equipment and tools. PART 3. EXECUTION 3.1 METHOD - HERBICIDE APPLICATION A. Protection of desirable existing vegetation shall be the responsibility of Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during removal of undesirable species. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be liable for remedying damage to existing desirable vegetation. B. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. will treat all undesirable species with an approved herbicide. Herbicide application instructions given on the label shall be followed at all times. C. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall maintain copies at the project site of all current pesticide applicator's licenses, herbicide labels, and MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets) for all chemicals utilized during completion of the work. D. A supply of chemical absorbent shall be maintained at the project site. Any chemical spills shall be properly cleaned up and reported to the Owner within 24 hours. E. Herbicide may be applied using a backpack sprayer, a hand-held wick applicator, or a vehicle mounted high-pressure spray unit. F. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall cut all woody species designated for removal using hand tools including, but not necessarily limited to, gas powered chain saws, gas powered clearing saws, bow saws, and loppers. G. All stumps shall be cut flat with no sharp points and to within 2" of surrounding grade. H. Removal of undesirable woody species shall occur preferentially when the ground is frozen. I. Stumps shall be left in the ground and not removed. All stumps shall be treated with an approved herbicide mixed with a marking dye. J. Stack cut brush in piles not to exceed eight (8) feet in height by twelve (12) foot in diameter. Piles shall be spaced as necessary to minimize dragging of cut material over long distances. Piles shall either be: 1) burned on site, 2) chipped and removed from the site, or 3) chipped and used for site landscaping if approved by Owner. If burning, piles shall be located in open areas without canopy branches of preserved trees overhanging the piles. Ensure no debris (rubble, plastic, etc.) other than the cut brush is placed in the burn piles. 03609:090104 48 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program K. Species designated for removal are: HERBACEOUS SPECIES: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DISPOSITION Alliaria petiolate * Garlic mustard Remove all Bromus inermis* Smooth brome grass Remove all Centaurea maculosa * Spotted knapweed Remove all Cirsiumarvense * Canada thistle Remove all Cirsium,vulgare* Bull thistle Remove all C'oronilla varia Crown vetch Remove all Euphorbia esula * Leafy spurge Remove all Glechoma hederacea Creeping Charlie Remove all Lotus crrniculatus Birds foot trefoil Remove all Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Remove all 1VYelilotus Alba * White sweet clover Remove all Melilotus o, ffic nalis * Yellow sweet clover Remove all Phalaris arundinacea* Reed canary grass Remove all Phragmites australis Giant reed grass Remove all Poa pratense* Kentucky bluegrass Remove all Verbascum thapsis* Mullein Remove all adjacent to site SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DISPOSITION Acer negundo *' " Boxelder Remove all <8 in. dbh Acer platanoidcs Norway maple Remove all Eleagnus angustifolia '' Russian Olive Remove all Fraxinus pennsylvanica * Green ash Remove all <8 in. dbh** Lonicera x bella Showy fly honeysuckle Remove all Lonicera morrowii Morrow's honeysuckle Remove all Lonicera tatarica * Tartarian honeysuckle Remove all Lonicera', xylosteum European fly honeysuckle Remove all Populus alba White poplar, European poplar Remove all Rhamnus cathartica * Common buckthorn Remove all Rhamnus frangula Glossy buckthorn Remove all Robinia pseudoacacia * Black locust Remove all Ulmus aericana * American elm Remove all <8 in. dbh tRmus pumila* Siberian elm Remove all Wmus rubra * Red elm Remove all <8 in. dbh Xanthoxylum americanum * Prickly ash Reduce by 50% Known to exist on or adjacent to site 3.2 METHOD - MOWING A. During the first two growing seasons after planting, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall mow all native seeded areas to a height of 8-12" after vegetation in said areas reaches a height of approximately 30" but before non-native, invasive species go to seed. B. Mowing shall occur two times during the first year and one time during the second year, or as approved by the Owner. 03609:090104 49 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program 3.3 METHOD — PRESCRIBED BURNING A. Prior to the commencement of prescribed burning, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall compile a burn plan that outlines a plan of action, identifies contingencies, and lists the names and phone numbers of emergency agencies (fire department, police department, etc.). Proper notice of intent to burn shall be given. B. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall apply for and receive all required permits prior to the commencement of prescribed burning. C. Generally, burning shall be conducted after the second and third full growing season in most restoration areas, and then once every three years or as approved by the Owner. Burning may be done in the dormant season in the spring or fall. Preferred timing for oak woodland, upland woods, wet meadows, and wooded wet meadows is the fall dormant season_ No preference is given for upland grassland, wet grassland, and marsh. 3.4 METHOD— REMEDIAL, SEEDING AND PLANTING A. " In order to achieve the performance standards defined in the preceding sections and this section, additional seeding and/or planting of native vegetation may be required. The type of plant material to be installed (e.g., seed, plug, bare root stock), species, method of installation, and location of remedial planting shall be approved by the Owner prior to installation. 3.5 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. At no time shall empty herbicide containers, trash, or other material be allowed to accumulate at the project site. All tools shall be kept in appropriate carrying cases, toolboxes, etc. Parking areas, roads, sidewalks, paths and paved areas shall be kept free of mud and dirt. B. Removal: after work has been completed remove tools, empty containers, and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: Repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this Section. Said damages may include, but are not 1 imited: to, tire ruts in the ground, damage to lawn areas, damage to trails, etc. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be liable for remedying damages to plant materials and property at no cost to the Owner caused by Contractor negligence during completion of the work_ 3.6 INSPECTION A. At the request of the Owner, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule an inspection with the Owner to review the work completed by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. pursuant to this section. 3.7 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. ' Final acceptance: Management shall be considered 10004comp1ete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has complied with all parts of this section. B. Guarantee for management of oak woodland, upland woods, and upland grassland areas: non-native, invasive shrubs (e.g., common buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle) shall not exceed 10% cover at any time during the management period, and undesirable herbaceous vegetation (e.g., noxious weeds, reed canary grass, common brome) cover shall not exceed 10% cover at any time during the management period. By the end of the third year of management and then on, total vegetation cover shall be no less than 90%. Five years after establishment and thereafter, oak woodland and upland woods areas shall contain 10-70% tree crown coverage by canopy and subcanopy trees. Native seeded 03609:090104 50 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program C. areas shall contain seedlings of 3 planted grass/sedge species, and seedlings of 8 planted forb species. Live herbaceous perennial planted areas shall contain 5 planted plant species. Guarantee for management of wet grassland, wet meadow, wooded wet meadow, and marsh plantings within stormwater management areas and enhanced wet meadow area: reed canary grass cover shall not exceed 10% cover at any time during the management period, and cattail cover shall not exceed 30% cover at any time during the management period. By the end of the third year of management and then on, total vegetation cover shall be no less than 90%, not including open water areas. Native seeded areas shall contain seedlings of 3 planted grass/sedge species, and seedlings of 8 planted forb species. Live herbaceous perennial planted areas shall contain 5 planted plant species. No guarantee is provided for management of enhanced marsh areas. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 51 South Village— Ecological Restoration & Management Program C. D. MONITORING SECTION — MONITORING PART 1. GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION ` A ems„ action describes the annual monitoring techniques that will be employed for all of K the conservation areas within the site in perpetuity. For bidding purposes, initial q monitoring shall be conducted annually for each of the first five years. After the initial five monitoring years, shall continue on an annual basis in perpetuity. 1.2 RELATED SECTIONS A. All Site Work listed above. 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of workers: provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, and who shall be thoroughly familiar with the ecological restoration Site Work listed above (a restoration ecologist). This restoration ecologist: 1) shall be competent at plant identification, 2) shall be experienced with ecological restoration and management techniques, and 3) shall direct all work performed under this section. METHOD A. All conservation areas shall be inspected annually by a qualified restoration ecologist. Attention shall be focused on areas with recent past or current invasive species problems and areas that have recently received prescriptive management treatments (e.g., herbiciding, prescribed burning). Color photographs shall be taken in the different restoration and enhancement areas. The restoration ecologist shall summarize in a written report their observations and recommendations regarding different restoration and enhancement areas on site to guide management activities and document performance criteria. 3.2 CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL AND REPAIR A. Clean up: Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall keep the work area free of debris. At no time shall trash or other material be allowed to accumulate at the project site. All tools shall be kept in appropriate carrying cases, toolboxes, etc. Parking areas, roads, sidewalks, paths and paved areas shall be kept free of mud and dirt. 03609:090104 52 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program B. Removal: after work has been completed remove tools and all other debris generated by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. C. Repair: Repair any damages caused by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. during completion of the work described in this Section. Said damages may include, but are not limited to, tire ruts in the ground, damage to lawn areas, damage to trails, etc. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall be liable for remedying damages to plant materials and property at no cost to the Owner caused by Contractor negligence during completion of the work. 3.3 INSPECTION A. At the request of the Owner, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. shall schedule an inspection with the Owner to review the work completed by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. pursuant to this section. 3.4 ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE A. Final acceptance: Initial monitoring shall be considered 40% complete after Applied Ecological Services, Inc. has complied with all parts of this section and submitted the first annual monitoring report. The remaining 60% of the initial monitoring budget shall be paid incrementally (15% each year) following submittal of each year's annual monitoring report. END OF SECTION 03609:090104 53 South Village — Ecological Restoration & Management Program