beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/

INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

WATERTOWN, <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">CT

Continuation of the Public Hearing= from October 11, 2007

THURSDAY= , NOVEMBER 15, 2007

WATERTOWN HIGHSCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

&nb= sp;

APPLICATION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABL= E POWER

Members Present: &nbs= p; Mr. Jim Zawadzki, Chai= rman

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Glen Dupliese

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Tony DiBona

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Joe Polletta

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Ed Undercuffler

= &nb= sp; =

Memb= ers Absent: = Mr. Donato Orsini, Vice Chairman

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Tom Murphy, Secretary

Alternates Present: = ; Ms. Denise Russ

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp;

Alternates Absent: = ; Mr. Scott Marotta

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Mic= hael Brown

Others Present: &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Chuck Berger, Town Engineer = ;

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Chris Allan from Land Tech Consultants, Inc.

&nb= sp;

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, Called the Public Hearing to Order at about 7:55 p.m. <= o:p>

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.

3. &n= bsp; Hearing of Cases=

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>A. Continuation of the Public Hearing from October = 11, 2007 - Application #608 of Wat= ertown Renewable Power, LLC to conduct regulated activities associated with the construction of a wood burning power plant on Echo Lake Road, Watertown, CT.

The Public Hearing must be closed = by November 15, 2007 unless applicant grants an extension of time.

<= /span>

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 2

Disc= ussion:

S= cott Meyers, Engineer and Land Surveyor with Meyers Associates PC

<= o:p>

Mr. = Meyers: Tonight we have Dave Lord here who is our soil scientist and he will present the wetlands on the site and the area we are proposing to fill. After Dave gives his report I am going to go through some comments we have received over the last couple of weeks from Mr. Berger and= Mr. Allen. We’ve made some changes on the site plans based on those comme= nts. Here is Mr. Lord.

D= avid Lord, Professional Wetlands Scientist and Environmental Consultant

<= o:p>

Mr. = Lord: Good Evening, my company is soil resource consultants. My involvement with this property started in 1996 when I did t= he original delineation of wetlands on the property. This year I went back and established the boun= dary that is shown before you and it’s a pink color on the drawing. The wetland area that was delineated on site has been very accurately described in Mr. Allen’s report so I won’t go into great detail. Description of the wetland system along turkey brook focus primarily on the 4,000 sq. foot area that we are proposi= ng to impact and provide some comments concerning the water quality measures a= nd the proximity of proposed development grading slopes adjacent to the wetlan= ds. But as I said we have one direct wetland impact best described as a side hi= ll seepage type wetland system. The area begins the northeast limit flows thro= ugh a relatively well defined area with grades on either side to the east and w= est. Vegetation is very thick and dense and there is sapling and shrub vegetatio= n in this area. Much of the site both the wetland and the upland area was cleare= d at the time when I did the original work in 1996. I agree with Mr. Allen’= ;s opinion of the wetland character and functioning that we are proposing to impact is of limited of functioning, value based on the small size, and the gradient within the wetland system and the lack of anything like natural st= orm water retention, vegetative filtering, all very limited to the size configu= ration grades within the wetlands system. The water quality measures that are prop= osed for the property consist of a series of catch basins and under ground storm drainage systems which feed through two outlet points here and here. Origin= ally I prepared a storm water wetland planting plan which was modified slightly based on some comments that were generated from your previous sessions the = main to only change in this document that I’m passing out now versus what = you have now is a more detailed depiction of the plantings for what I’m referring to as disturbance activities within the upland review zone. Plant= ing area C I believe is the designation for that area. That area is where we are proposing to disturb within the 50 foot upland review zone. Additional plantings wherever disturbance activities are to occur within the upland re= view area along the entire length of the wetland on this site prepared with a generalized planting plan specifying a number of trees and shrubs per thous= and square foot of disturbance activity. Details of the planting plan shows the proposed planting areas along and to the north side of the proposed Stormwa= ter wetlands system. The plant material was selected specifically for their abi= lity to grow in the different types of soil environments that will be created wi= th the project. Most significantly being the shallow marsh type wetland system that will

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 3

be created within the bottom area of the storm w= ater wetland. Some of the planting material has the ability to remove some const= ituent’s contaminants from the storm water column during their residency time within= the water quality. The letter from the third party reviewer dated November 1, 2= 007 begins with a description of the existing wetland water course resources. On the bottom of page 2 there are a number of wetland impacts and specific comments which I believe you have the response letter from me. It’s t= he document dated November 13, 2007. The first item in Mr. Allen’s report concerns the possibility of providing on site wetland mitigation or compensation for the 4,000 square foot area that we are proposing to impact= . We did discuss this on the site walk and it was my impression form discussion = at that point that the commission was not going to be looking at or for a spec= ific wetland creation measure for this proposed wetland impact. We can certainly provide that but at this point I was under the impression that we were not going to be preparing a specific wetland creation plan. The second comment concerns the amount of development that is to take place immediately adjace= nt to or encroaching into the upland review zone. That upland review zone limi= t is shown in green on this map. We are proposing a slight encroachment into the upland review area. We do have the preservation of upland review area zones through this portion of the site, the southern portion of the property, and also a significant amount of the northwestern quadrant of the site that wou= ld not be altered with the proposed development. Review comments form Land Tech addresses the concerns of the proposed bottom area of the storm water wetla= nd system. The bottom of this basin is designed at an elevation that is consis= tent with the elevations within the adjacent wetland area approximately 600 elevation and that brings that into contact with the or in close proximity = to the underlying ground water table on the site. It is also designed to be dr= iven by surface water run-off from the impervious surfaces. The drainage systems feeds into the hydrology within the storm water wetlands system and you have localized run-off into the basin from areas that directly grade to the water quality basin. Those are the bases for the selection of the elevation for t= he storm water wetland system. I have done an extensive amount of boarings in = this area in the process of delineating the wetlands. That covers everything that I have to present at this time.

Mr. = Polletta: When you talk about storage you’re talking about the area for the wood chips?

Mr. = Lord: I’m really not the one to answer that but it’s listed and described as a proposed fuel storage area.

M= ark Marabito, Project Manager for Wa= tertown Renewable Power

<= o:p>

Mr. Marabito: Yes, it’s wood = chips. It’s an earthen gravel bottom roughly 400 by 200 foot rectangle surrounded by a concrete wall with an automated fuel, filling, and withdraw= al system.

Mr. Polletta: So there is no bottom concrete?

Mr. Marabito: No it’s earthen= .

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 4

Mr. Polletta: Will anything that co= mes out of the wood chips end up in the wetlands and affect any of it?

Mr. Marabito: Our view of that is a= ny rain water that falls in the pile, a majority of the rain water will be absorbed by the chips. Then are then carried to the boiler where they are combusted and water will be released as water vapor. We don’t believe that there will be much lechate. For that reason as well as the fact that t= he pile will have a lot of turnover, only about 20 days of storage, where firs= t in is first out. The pile is filled from the top and emptied from the bottom so you don’t have a lot of residence time for the wood chips to decay and produce a lechate.

Mr. Dupliese: What do you mean by automated?

Mr. Marabito: Coming off Echo Lake Road we’ll have trucks filled with wood chips and they will come in along = the eastern boundary of the wood storage area. These 2 rectangles here are truck dumpers. They are automated dumpers where the entire truck is lifted in the= air and the wood chips get dumped out and dropped onto a conveyer. There are mo= ved over to this wood processing building where any over sized material is scre= ened out and chipped. From the wood processing building it’s brought with a conveyer to an elevation of 60 to 70 feet above grade and there is a convey= er that runs along the top of the pile. As the wood chips pass along this conv= eyer they are emptied and the tripper just goes back and forth and creates this pyramid of wood chips that fills the entire area. Underneath there is a tun= nel with a couple of screw conveyers going off in each direction and as the scr= ews turn they withdraw the wood chips from the bottom of the pile that were the= re first and brought to the center. Then another conveyer brings then back this way and then over to the boiler building. So it’s truly a fully autom= ated system.

Mr. Zawadzki: You mentioned that it= was surrounded by a concrete wall but it’s an earthen bottom. My main con= cern was a lechate also but you don’t think it’s going to be there. = Even though you turn the chips over every 20 days isn’t the fact that you = have a constant pile of chips there going to create lechate?

Mr. Marabito: We don’t believ= e so because it’s a constant turn over of chips. You always have freshly chipped wood that’s being delivered to the pile. Again they absorb some of the rain water that falls. A lot of = the rain water won’t even go through the pile. It’s a 60 foot tall = pile of wood chips. If it did, we don’t believe they are going to be decomposed to the point where they would….

Mr. Zawadzki: Well I don’t re= ally know how long it takes for lechate to come out of a wood chip. Does that ha= ppen instantly when rain hits it? Does it have to sit there and soak?=

Mr. Marabito: Our understanding is = that it takes a while and the chip needs to be decomposing and needs to be stagn= ant for a period of time.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 5

Mr. Dupliese: I don’t mean to= help him but it’s kind of like the leaves on your lawn. If you let them pi= le up and decompose they’ll start to rot and kill your grass. But if you= go out there every week and rake them and they’re gone, they don’t= affect the lawn at all. That’s basically what he’s doing he’s go= ing to remove them as he goes. So if you take a pile of wood chips and put them= on your lawn for 20 days they won’t do much. They’re basically the same if you pick them up after 20 days.

Mr. = DiBona: What kind of pollution is the boiler going to m= ake? Chimney smoke?

Mr. Marabito: The emissions from a bio-mass power plant are significantly less than they are from a coal or oil plant. There are going to be some emissions we’re subject to (inaudib= le) permanent process with DEP. We have a whole series of pollution control dev= ices in mind. So after the chips are burn, the hot flute gas is used to generate= steam that turns the turbine to create power. That flute gas then goes on and pas= ses through a series of pollution control devices that minimize the actual emissions coming out of the stack. The stack is right here, relative to the building. This equipment train is what is used to clean up the flute gas.

Mr. Dupliese: Do you have scrubbers= on the stack?

Mr. Marabito: There is a bag house = for particulate a series of filter bags. There is something called a selective = catalytic reactor which is used to control the nitrogen oxide emissions. The third ma= in pollutant of concern is sulfur dioxide that is controlled through the addition of lim= e.

Mr. Zawadzki: Worst case scenario i= f you do get lechate from the wood chip pile what’s the plan to keep up? I = mean Turkey brook is a pretty sensitive stream and body of water in this town so it wou= ld be pretty serious if we got pollution or contamination of that brook?<= /o:p>

Mr. Marabito: So you’re sayin= g if we were operational and got to the point to where we identified lechate actually reaching the brook. At that point we would have to create some typ= e of a collection mechanism under the pile to then where we are then testing the water before discharge. Right now the proposal is to have it be earthen.

C= hris Kolmer, Tamarack Energy

<= o:p>

Mr. = Kolmer: If we had an event where we had decaying wood c= hips on site we would bring in a front end loader and get as many of them out as= we possibly could to even avoid lechate problems. What happens with wood is th= at it starts to decay and it’ll start to smolder and there have been instances of piles that have been left around for an access of 60 days that have caught fire.

Mr. Zawadzki: Spontaneous combustio= n?

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 6

Mr. = Kolmer: Exactly so we would at all costs avoid that dec= aying.

Mr. Zawadzki: So you’ll be se= lling your power to CL&P?

Mr. = Kolmer: That’s correct a portion of it.

Mr. Zawadzki: Ok so basically they’ll accept as much as you can provide so there would be no time w= here you would be shut down.

Mr. = Kolmer: Other than scheduled maintenance no and its one= week in the fall and one week in the spring. What we do in that event is reduce = the deliveries such = that we start to cut back on fuel coming into the site and we use what’s left= in the pile such that there is a minimal amount left.

Mr. = Meyers: We received two memos one form Mr. Berger the t= own engineer and one from Mr. Allen from Land Tech Consultants.

Mr. = Berger: My memo was handed out in the package of inform= ation that you received.

Mr. = Meyers: We prepared a response to each memo. Some of the issues in Mr. Berger’s memos really relate to Planning and Zoning type issues where we just gave responses in the memo. I’ll go down number = by number if you’d like to follow along. The first is talking about the = need for additional drainage on the cut slope on the northeast area of the prope= rty. We have provided bench slopes on that cut slope if in fact that is earth. We would install an under drain in that area to collect run-off from the rock = cut. If it is earth we have provided yard inlets and those benches and tied them into our storm system which ultimately goes into the detention basin. The s= econd says details of the retaining wall on the property line adjacent to the Mattatuck state forest will have to have a geo-technical study anticipated = for the first quarter of 2008 if in fact it isn’t rock we need to provide= a wall that will be done by the geo-technical engineer. Number 3 talks about = the details of walls for the storage area. That’s also going to be design= ed by a structional engineer during the detail design phase this part of the building permit process. Number 4 is just an answer to whether we need acce= ss from the south into the field storage area and yes to back up the loader to remove the wood chips from the storage area in the event of a screw repair. Number 5 states details of a wire fence that we show in this area between t= he forbay and the detention basin. We have added the details to our details sh= eet on the plans. That’s basically just so the screen can catch any wood chips that could go into the detention basin and affect the water quality b= asin with the plantings in there. Number 6 states top of the berm width should b= e 15 feet in the detention basin. We have re-configured the detention basin slig= htly on both the southerly and northerly sides to provide a 15 foot wide berm on= the wetland side as well as a maintenance access road which is another comment = in Mr. Allen’s report. Number 7 discusses the maintenance access way whi= ch I just illustrated. Number 8, that a bench should be considered in the slope = in the southwest of the boiler building. That’s the area right in here t= hat Mr. Lord discussed. Number 9 is about the guide rails. We’ve provided them in the areas where we

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 7

feel that the slope constraints need them. Numbe= r 10 discusses site line distances at the intersection which is a Planning and Zoning issue. We did have a traffic study done and a 3-way stop was recommended. Number 11 states that an intersection grading plan shall be provided. We did do enlargements and those are in your packets. In number 1= 2 we have added the drainage on the west side. We have added a catch basin on the west side but the east side has a high spot right along the curb line and it only pitches a half a foot each way. In Number 13 is to be addressed during detail and design, number 14 the depth of the under drain has been changed = on our site. Number 15, same thing the planting detail has been revised in accordance with the town details, the same as number 16. Number 17 the sequ= ence of construction schedule is on the detail sheet. We basically modified that= to include the comments by Mr. Berger. One is that we need to get a DEP storm water permit and the other is we need to provide weekly in house control reports to the land use office and then the note of how we are going to con= vert the detention basin to act as a temporary sediment, we also have that on the plan. Number 18 and 19 both have been added to the plan, being a soil stock pile area and we proposed two. We’ve also added the equipment staging area in this area here. We’ve provided a storm water management plan = for the facility showing the routing for the pond as well as the zero increase = in run-off and we’re not affecting the upper part of the water shed so w= e did not analyze the offsite water shed up above. We have submitted revised calculations using the elevation of 603. Our calculations always showed the= 6 foot wide inside dimension on the inlet box. We had the TR-20 analysis of t= he Turkey Brook that Lenard Engineering had d= one and we did look at the culvert under Echo Lake Road. Mr. Allen had 6 comments about existing wetlands and water resources. We ha= d a the main branch of T= urkey Brook shown on here originally and we did go out and field verify the secon= d branch and here we have shown that on the plan as well as number 6 there is an intermittent water course adjacent to wetlands flags one through 8 which we= now show on the plan. But the original wetland boundary is outside both of those areas and delineated previously. As far as the next section under wetland impacts Mr. Lord took = care of items 1, 2, and 5. Tamarac<= /st1:City>k Energy submitted a report about the lechate for number 3. It was sent strai= ght to Moosa. As far as number 4 goes we did add a hydrodynamic separator on the area prior to the level spreader for primary means of treatment before it g= ets to the level spreader in here and Number 6 we have added an oil separator p= rior to the easterly forbay because this is the area where the trucks are going = to be traveling. Number 7 is back on one of the same comments that Mr. Berger = had about the drainage which we added to the benches. Number 8 was a need for additional erosion control. I prepared it separate. That would be sheet 2 o= f 5 in your packet. We’ve added hay bails along the entire length of the = silt fence adjacent to the regulated and or wetland area. Basically the hay bails back up the silt fence for extra means of erosion protection as well as an earth diversion berm. We are also showing a silt fence around the top soil stock piles. The detention basin also is going to be used as temporary sedi= ment basin during the construction phase of the project. Once the construction p= hase is done, the detention basin will be cleaned out along with the forbays. Nu= mber 9 talks about a conservation easement on this hillside in here. Our comment= to that is Watertown Renewable Power has made= every effort to squeeze the facility layout in less than 1/3 of the total property area between the Turkey Brook wetland area and the Naugatuck= state forest boundaries to the north and east to the project

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 8

site. The small amount of impacted wetland which= has been described as having limited wetland dependent wildlife value by Land T= ech consultants will be off set by a planted and maintained detention basin of equivalent area. Future use of the western hill side portion of the propert= y if any in this industrial zoned area will be considered with the same level of effort to minimize wet= land impacts. It’s basically our comment on number 9 for that side of the property there are no plans at this point to use that at all. Number 10 tal= ks about a maintenance plan schedule for the detention basin which we have submitted as well.

Mr. Zawadzki: In light of all the s= tuff you just submitted, we’d like to get an extension on the public heari= ng because we have to look at this and see if there are any other responses th= at need to be made. In the meantime are there any questions?=

Mr. Dupliese: I do appreciate all t= he work you’ve put into this. I know it’s a big site and it’= s a big project. But there is a comment form Land Tech that I know I want to st= and on and I’m hoping that my board will stand with me. Its item 9, the existing wetlands and the property to the west of it, that we would like it= to go into a conservation easement. The reason being is that you’re inva= ding the wetlands from your side and our concern is that if the western side gets developed they’re going to invade from their side also or if you deci= de to sub-divide this property. So I think the invasion into the wetlands, onc= e is enough. So we’d like to put the wetlands and the westerly property in= to a conservation easement.

Mr. = Meyers: We’ll consider that request in some great= er detail and talk amongst ourselves and get back at the next meeting.

Mr. Dupliese: Thank you.=

Mr. Zawadzki: Anyone else?

Mr. Undercuffler: Going back to the detention pond and no test holes have been excavated, I gather from your comments that you had = done enough exploration there that you felt the drainage would be no problem?

Mr. = Lord: Yes that’s right. As an expansion on that= if we were looking to create a wetland in that area that was not going to have anything but ground water contact to create the new wetlands system, I̵= 7;d be much more concerned about the hydrology and getting the contact to the ground water table. Based on my exploration and boarings in the area immediately adjacent to it the existing contours and the fact that we have additional hydrologic components that are going to be adding water to the system, I feel very confident that we’re going to be able to provide = the type of shallow marsh wetland system in the bottom of the storm water wetla= nd that we are proposing.

Mr. Zawadzki: Ok at this time if an= yone from the public would like to comment on this application #608?<= /span>

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 9

C= ole Frano, 472 Nova Scotia Hil= l Road, Watertown, CT

Mr. = Frano: I’m all for the power plant. We need a po= wer plant and it would be good for our tax bases and progress.

Mr. Zawadzki: Thank you. Any other = questions? Chris at this point do you have any comments? We will get an extension and you’ll have a chance to review their comments in writing.<= /span>

Mr. = Allen: The fuel storage area itself, are the concrete = walls around the entire perimeter, all four sides?

Mr. = Marabito: That’s correct.

Mr. = Allen: Is the conveyer open or is it enclosed?

Mr. = Marabito: We’re still looking at that whether it wo= uld be and open or closed conveyer.

Mr. = Allen: One of my concerns besides the lechate is the a= ctual wood chips themselves and the fine particles of wood if they get into the s= torm drainage system and are constantly being discharged into Turkey = Brook. If you have a constant load of wood chips or fine organic matter getting in= to the brook you’ll impact the BOD up the brook and you can reduce oxygen levels in the brook. That’s why the spillage of wood chips is importa= nt. Some could be washed off site into the storm drainage system and I think if= you can address that issue somehow in a report and maybe in a little more techn= ical detail about the lechate. There should be studies out there it has been used before.

Mr. = Lord: We’ll dig deeper for reports. A lot of our response is based on the experience of our management as well as some discussion we had with operators of bio-mass plants in New England. It’s really a site specific issue but a lot of times this is how the piles are managed.

Mr. = Berger: I think that in Chris Allen’s review lett= er he mentioned mitigation and he recommended it and I listened to David Lord and I’m not sure we’re on the same page with that.

Mr. = Lord: We can certainly provide it if the commission w= ould like to see us provide some alternatives for the compensation of the 4,000 square feet. We haven’t talked about this Chris but is that what you = were referring to in that? You were looking for new wetland to replace the wetla= nd we were proposing to impact?

Mr. = Allen: Yes.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

NOVEMBER= 15, 2007

Page 10

Mr. = Lord: Is that something the commission would like to = see explored further? I’ll certainly work with Chris on looking at the si= te and determining where the best place is to provide that if that is what the commission would like.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yes as a feasible alternative I think it would be interesting to take a look at that.

Mr. = Lord: Then I will work with Chris on preparing some alternatives to present at the next session.

Mr. Zawadzki: Ok if nothing else th= en I’ll take a motion to recess the public hearing on application #608.<= o:p>

Mr. Dupliese: So move.

Mr. = DiBona: Second.

Mr. Zawadzki: All in favor?

Ever= yone: Aye.

Mr. Zawadzki: Opposed?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; NONE

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY – NO FURTHER DISCUSSION

MOTION: &nbs= p; (Mr. Dupliese, sec. Ms. DiBona) to conti= nue the public hearing for application #608 of Watertown Renewable Power, LLC to conduct regulated activities associated with the construction of a wood bur= ning power plant on Echo Lake R= oad, Watertown, CT.

Public Hearing Clos= ed at about 9:10PM (No time given).

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Zawadzki, Chairman=

Conservation Commission

Inland/Wetland Agency Chairman=

&= nbsp; __________________________________

&= nbsp; Jennifer Guerrera, Minutes Secretary