beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/

INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

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

Continuation of the Public Hearing= from November 15, 2007

THURSDAY= , DECEMBER 20, 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. Donato Orsini, Vice Chairman=

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Joe Polletta

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Ed Undercuffler

= &nb= sp; =

Memb= ers Absent: = Mr. Glen Dupliese=

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

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Tony DiBona

Alternates Present: = ; Mr. Mic= hael Brown – In for Mr. Tony DiBona

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

Alternates Absent: = ; Ms. Denise Russ

= &nb= sp; =

Others Present: &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Moosa Rafey, Assistant Wetlands Enforcement Officer

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &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 November= 15, 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.

Public Hearing must be closed by D= ecember 20, 2007.

<= /span>

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 2

Disc= ussion:

T= erri Meyers, Engineer and Land Surveyor with Meyers Associates PC

<= o:p>

Mr. = Meyers: Tonight with me I have Mark Mirabito with Tamar= ack Energy as well as David Lord our soil scientist and environmental planner. Since your last meeting we made 3 changes to the plan at the request of Mr. Berger and Chris Allen. One was to extend the access drive to the other four base sediment traps. The second was to eliminate the perforated drain that = was in the wetland area to be filled and the third was to revise the detention = pond outlet detail to raise the sides and we sent Mr. Berger a revised copy of t= hat detail so that it was a little clearer. The other issue was to consider some additional run-off that comes from the Mattatuck State Forest up to the northeast. There was about 3.5 acres so we revised the calculations to refl= ect that as well. It didn’t make much difference in the detention pond because it’s a heavily wooded area and part of the open space up ther= e. So those were the four changes we made. There were some additional documents t= hat were submitted by Tamarack Energy clarifying some items and issues that were discussed at your previous meeting and I’d like to have Mark Mirabito come up and talk about tho= se.

M= ark Mirabito, Project Manager for Watertown Renewable Power

Mr. = Mirabito: I’m a project developer with Tamarack Ene= rgy from Essex, CT.= I understand you have a memo from December 10, 2007 in front of you. Is there also one from December 11, 2007?

Mr. = Rafey: I don’t have that but I have December 10,= 2007.

Mr. = Mirabito: I have about 5 copies I’ll hand out. So in addition to the changes Terri went through on the drawing there were about 4 issues that came up at the last meeting that I’ve tried to address in= the 2 memos that are in front of you. One had to do with dust control, one with lechate from the wood pile, additional wetland mitigation opportunities and= the last with the conservation easement. A lot of the discussion at the last meeting revolved around those four issues and that’s what we tried to address with these two memos. I’ll run through those and give you guy= s a chance to ask some questions on that. First with regard to dust and fine particle control the project will employ a number of best management practi= ces to control dust and we’ve listed 8 or 9 of them here and I can run through them. These best practices will minimize the amount of dust that is generated on site. One has to do with the wood fuel specification. The wood= fuel that will be received at the site will have a fine specification meaning roughly less than 10% of the wood fuel that comes in has to be smaller than= a quarter inch. So no more than 10% of the wood you receive can be less than a quarter inch in size. So we’re basically trying to minimize the fines= . When the truck dumper operates the wood chips are emptied into a hopper and that hopper has some high side walls that will minimize the dusting that will be created as the truck is emptied. There is a picture in that packet that sho= ws the truck dumper. From the hopper it then goes through a series of conveyer= s to the wood processing building into the

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 3

wood storage area and then to the boiler. The conveyers will have a semi-circular shroud covering them. So as they’= re passing from one point to another on the site, the opportunity for wind blo= wn dust is minimized by that shroud. Then as far as the conveyer that actually fills the pile which we’ve described as an open pile, the outlet of t= hat conveyer can have a flexible or a telescoping shoot on it so when you’= ;re first filling the pile you won’t have a free fall of wood chips from = 60 feet high to ground level. You’ll have it being controlled by this shroud = that will rise and fall. So as the pile is filled and that tripper conveyer moves back and forth across the pile you will minimize the opportunity for chips = that are falling from a high height to create a cloud that can then be blown. So that’s just another way we will be minimizing the amount of dust. Ano= ther question that came up was in regard to ash handling. When we do combust the wood chips some ash is generated and caught downstream of the boiler in a b= ag house. Periodically those bags will be pulsed and the ash that’s collected will be conveyed to a container or dumpster. There won’t be= any open piles of ash on site. It’ll be an enclosed operation and periodi= cally that dumpster will be taken offsite. There won’t be an open area where there is an ash pile building up. Then there will be the general housekeepi= ng measures that will be employed. Pay of services will be swept periodically = as well as all these features I’ve just described will be monitored and maintained. The wind direction will also help minimize the dust. The meteorological data for this site shows that the prevailing wind direction = is southeasterly and is opposite to the direction of where the wetlands are relative to the site. So if there was to be a dusting event it’s less likely to be falling towards the wetlands. Finally there are air regulation= s. We filed an air permit with the DEP and part of that are some items relatin= g to dust. All reasonable precautions are taken place to minimize the amount of = dust and fine particle emissions. So that’s our response to that question.= Are there any comments to that?

Mr. Polletta: Can you explain where= to ashes are going to be disposed?

Mr. = Mirabito: It could be to a land fill or for beneficial re= -use. It’s basically a fly ash and could be used as a fertilizer. Farmers or forest managers could potentially use it. But that’s a separate permi= t we need to get from DEP.

Mr. Polletta: But it will be contai= ned in an area that there is no contact with the ground?

Mr. = Mirabito: Correct, as the boils operates the exhaust stea= m.

Mr. Zawadzki: Could you describe wh= at the bag house is?

Mr. = Mirabito: It’s a large rectangular structure probab= ly 50 feet long by 30 feet tall and there’s a series of compartments in the= re that have vacuum cleaner bags. There might be several hundred bags vertical= ly stacked in this rectangular structure and this exhaust gas from the boiler passes through these bags. Any particles of sufficient size get caught by t= he bag and periodically those bags get pulsed so that the particles drop to the floor of the bag house and then conveyed by a laboratory or mechanical conv= eyer to a container on the ground level. So the bag house will be elevated 5 or = 10 feet off the ground.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 4

Mr. Zawadzki: Will that container b= e a dumpster?

Mr. = Mirabito: Yes exactly but an enclosed dumpster.

Mr. = Rafey: Mr. Chairman you received a memo dated December= 19, 2007 from Chris Allen. Do you want Mr. Allen to just go through this memo?<= o:p>

Mr. = Allen: I don’t think he is finished with his let= ter.

Mr. = Rafey: I’m sorry, continue please.

Mr. = Mirabito: Yes we still have several issued that need to be addressed. Another item that came up last time was the issue of wood pile lechate. We did find research as requested and a biomass power plant up in = Vermont in Burlington did a study about 20 years ago where they were looking at a lot of wood pile issues. They looked at moisture content, temperatures, and monitored lechate. What they found was over a 4 = month period that there was very little decomposition which is one of the things we’ve been telling you. The = wood chips have to be there for a while before they start to decompose and potentially cause a lechate problem. They really didn’t find any lech= ate which it supports our argument that it’s difficult for water to perco= late all the way through a pile. It gets absorbed by the chips and for it to get= all the way down to the bottom of the pile and actually create a flow is unlike= ly. The research also did not find any. There were also a couple other studies = that were referenced that were also looking at the moisture content and the impa= ct to the BTU value of the wood. Those describe again the percolation of rain water through a wood pile really shows no flow. Typically the rain doesn’t make it further than 2 feet into the pile. I’d be happy to share those articles with = you if you want to look at them in more detail. There is some pretty substantial r= esearch that’s been done to support it.

Mr. Zawadzki: Under normal operating conditions what would be the reasonable time period for wood chips to be in that pile before they are used from the time they are dumped to the time to= get consumed?

Mr. = Mirabito: It’s between 17 and 20 days based on the size of this pile and= our wood fuel requirement. We are well within that 4 mon= th limit that the Burlington plant had and as we described last time it’s a first in first out inventory.

Mr. Polletta: The type of chips that could be used could be from anything? Oak, ash, any trees?

Mr. = Mirabito: That’s correct.

Mr. Polletta: I was on a job site t= oday and there was a big pile of wood chips and the land was not perfectly level= ed. The bottom of the pile I experienced some brown water coming out of there a= nd I don’t have any idea if going into the wetland if it will affect it

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 5

or not. We had a little bit of rain last week an= d I experienced this today and I’m concerned about it. Maybe Chris can he= lp with this?

Mr. = Allen: Yes I think they have provided some pretty good studies that show that the lechate may not be a problem as long as the wood= is turned over as rapidly as they say it’s going to be turned over every= 17 to 20 days as they stated. It’s probably not likely that you’ll= get that decomposition of the wood that is going to cause the lechate. I guess there is always a chance that you’ll get a heavy enough rainfall that= not all of the water is going to absorb into the ground where the wood chips are going to be stored. You may have some pond in that area especially since it= ’s enclosed with concrete walls even though the wood chips aren’t soaking all the way through once the rain is hitting it. I can envision a large eno= ugh storm where you won’t have enough. How long was it sitting there?

Mr. = Polletta: About a year.

Mr. = Allen: I think that’s probably the difference I = mean if it’s been sitting there a long period like a year you’ll get some decomposition of the wood. I think with what they’re saying is t= hey will use that wood within a 17 day period.

Mr. Polletta: The guy said one year= ago they put the stuff there but they move it. I guess they make something with= it. I mean I was concerned about the color of this thing. So you feel with a concrete structure and because it’s only 20 days we shouldn’t e= xperience any lechate.

Mr. = Allen: Yes, I think they put in some pretty good safeg= uards for the lechate question I’m still not really comfortable with some o= ther things like the wood chips themselves getting into the wetlands and that so= rt of thing and the overall general housekeeping of keeping the wood chips on = the site. Again because there is such a lack of a wetland buffer there that the= re is really no secondary safeguard if those wood chips do leave the premises after a rainfall event in runoff or get blown off the site into the wetlands you don’t have that buffer there. It’s in the wetlands and has = the chance to impact the brook as well.

Mr. Polletta: So how can we protect= that?

Mr. = Mirabito: A lot of the same measures I described for dust= and fine particle control are also going to support the migration of the chips themselves. They will be heavier and less likely to migrate. We also have a screen in the swale that goes from the four base sediment trap to the pond.= So anything that does get collected in the paved areas would go to the four ba= se sediment trap and would get caught up in that rip rap or in the screen that= we put up. We also got an interesting data point after talking with the manufacturer of the wood handling equipment that we are describing about a = week and a half ago. We asked him = this question because we knew this was concern and of the 125 installations they’ve done of a wood pile system like similar to what we are descri= bing he said only 1 had been on something other than an earthen base. The reason that was on a paved area was because it was a parking lot of an existing facility and it was just the available space they

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 6

had. It’s an interesting data point. The o= ther two issues that were brought up last month had to do with both wetland mitigation and a conservation easement and they= are addressed briefly in the December 10, 2007 memo but in more detail in the December 11, 2007. So I’ll have you guys jump to the December 11, 2007 memo. With regards to the easement the project is willing to grant an easem= ent on the wetland area, the entire wetland area as shown on the existing drawi= ng. The eastern boundary had been delineated recently and the easement is actually shown on these updated drawings. The western boundary is older and since we weren’t going to be doing any development on this site we didn’t re-flag that area but before we pu= t an easement on the entire area we’d like to finish that flagging. I believe the flags are in place we just need to sur= vey them. So we would submit as part of our easement agreement an updated drawi= ng that would show an easement es= sentially going from the eastern boundary and an updated western boundary.

Mr. = Rafey: You’ll include the upland review area on = both sides, the 50 feet?

Mr. = Mirabito: Well some of these areas are actually going to = be impacted by the project.

Mr. = Rafey: How about the other side?

Mr. = Mirabito: On the other side yes if that’s the inter= est of the commission to have the 50 foot buffer. The other condition that we will have to put on this is because we’re not yet the property owners the easement will have to be conditional upon our execution of our purchase opt= ion with Industrial Development Group. We expect that will be probably sometime this summer once the project is ready for construction.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yes it says it’s estimated for the 3^rd quarter of 2008.

Mr. = Mirabito: That’s roughly when the project will be b= reaking ground if all our permits are in place. I have seen a copy of a typical easement from Franklin Pilicy so that’s our starting point and we have already been reviewing that. Finally as far as the wetlands mitigation we did at the commissions request take another look at some additional mitigation opportunities and we really feel strongly that the ideas of the commission during their site wal= k in September as well as Mr. Rafey’s idea at the follow up meeting on November 7, 2007 to clean up = the upland review area and the wetland area which does have some municipal type trash in it, would be the best mitigation option to offset the 4,000 sq. fe= et that we are impacting. The creation of a new wetland would have significant impacts. So it seems to make most sense to do a cleanup of that area. We propose to go with that solution if the commission likes. We did provide so= me additional conceptual drawings that show the cross section of the wood pile that Mr. Berger had asked for as well as a conceptual drawing of the North = and South ends of the wood pile structure to give you a sense of what the concr= ete will look like. That’s attachment 6. You can basically see running do= wn the long sides of the areas will be some tunnels that house the motor and d= rive for the screws that collect the wood chips. On either end there will be a concrete tie beam that completes the enclosure. To get in and out of the wo= od storage

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 7

area we will simply pile wood chips to make a temporary ramp to get in and out of the area.

Mr. Zawadzki: Is this for man power access?

Mr. = Mirabito: Yes and the reason we have to get in there is i= n the event that a screw that collects the wood chips from underneath the pile wa= s to break d= own and we needed to clear the wood chips off of it to repair it we would need to g= et in there with a loader and a bull dozer. We’ve tried to give you an i= dea conceptually of how it would look.

Mr. Polletta: So the conservation easement that you’re proposing can you point it out on the map?<= /o:p>

Mr. = Meyers: We established a conservation easement all alon= g here on the side that’s been delineated and gave it meets and bounds all t= he way down to the road. Then on this side I believe we’re talking about doing something like this but we need to get the actual wetland area and ea= ch flag depicted.

Mr. Polletta: Ok but we were talking about the area below your hand.

Mr. = Meyers: That’s still industrial land. We certainly don̵= 7;t want to designate that as a conservation easement.

Mr. Polletta: Does that still belon= g with the property?

Mr. Mirabito: Yes that’s part= of the property and currently there are no development plans but the projects = not ready to concede that to an easement just yet.

Mr. Zawadzki: We will let Chris com= ment now.

Mr. = Allen: We did submit a letter on December 19, 2007 to = the commission after we had a chance to look at this additional material that w= as submitted and we made some additional comments. First Comment on the bottom= of page one states that we had suggested that a wetlands creation mitigation p= lan be submitted to compensate for the filling of the 4,000 square feet of wetlands. As you heard the applicant proposes instead to remove the debris = from the wetland and the upland review area and we just made the comment that we don’t think that removing debris is going to replace the lost wetland functions of the wetland that’s being filled. We feel it would be bet= ter to do a wetland creation to replace the wetlands and its functions that have been lost and recommend a 1 to 1 replace size wise. Based on our inspection there are areas out there that have been previously disturbed adjacent to the wetland= s where they did some clear cutting and are growing back now. I don’t think it would be a significant impact to the wetlands to create those wetlands at t= his point. There are some areas where it’s relatively flat and you don’t have to do a = whole lot of regarding to get a wetlands compensation area created.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 8

Mr. Zawadzki: Now 1 to 1 would be approximately 4,000 Sq. Ft. of new wetland?

Mr. = Allen: Correct. Again number 2 we just re-state our co= ncerns about the lack of buffers. We’ve been over that and I think it’s still a concern. If you look at the overall sight plan there are some areas where the development is up close to the edge of the wetland. Comment numbe= r 3 we stated that the applicant has provided some details and evidence that the fuel storage area will be completely enclosed with concrete walls so it kin= d of alleviates some of our concerns with sediment transport out of that area as long as it is totally enclosed. If there are ever any changes to that where they have to cut an opening in the wall for drainage or for access they are= to come back to the wetlands agency to evaluate that so it’s not creating any potential for run off and sedimentation from the wood storage area gett= ing into the wetlands. Number 4 is in regards to the wood lechate and they have provided some pretty good information showing that as long as that wood pil= e is turned over and the wood is used as rapidly as they say that you’ll probably not get the formation of lechate. Being that it’s enclosed i= n a concrete wall you won’t have run off getting out of that area and run= ning directly down to the wetlands. The also removed an under drain that was wit= hin that proposed area for wetland fill just to alleviate the chance that the lechate could get into that drain and be discharged directly into the wetla= nd. The 5^th comment we were just stating that we’re still concerned with the introduction of the chipped and ground wood particles getting into= Turkey brook and into the wetlands either through storm water run off or wind blow= ing debris. We do recognize that they are providing some best management practi= ces to prevent that but it really comes down to housekeeping. Any large industrial site = like this it really comes down to how clean you will keep the area. When the tru= cks are dumping it you are going to get some spillage where its being dumped ma= ybe some wood chips on the ground in that area. You will get some falling of the wood chips and I think if they can keep up with it on a daily basis and kee= p it off the paved areas and keep it enclosed where it’s supposed to be ma= ybe that’s not so big of a problem but I’m not sure as far as contr= olling it. Maybe it would be a good idea for you guys to go see one of these in operation. I haven’t seen one myself I just have familiarity with industrial sites= and keeping the place clean isn’t always the first priority, it’s to keep the process going. Again that’s just a real concern of ours. If = you get a lot of the wood product in the brook it’s going to raise the biological oxygen demand and reduce the oxygen levels in the stream and will have impacts on the fish and local wildlife so I think that’s our maj= or concern with that. The 6^th comment in response to one of our previous comments they put in a hydrodynamic separator at the storm water discharge point at the south end of the access drive. They also added one at the forbay before the detention basin but I couldn’t find the label on that and it should be at least labeled. We’re further recommending that calculations = be submitted to verify that they do have the capability to treat the amount of= run off that’s going through them. We also recommend that those devices h= ave a bypass so that all of the flows aren’t going through them so that t= hey are only capturing the first inch or so of run off and any access flows bey= ond that get by passed those hydrodynamic separators so that during a heavy sto= rm you don’t have all the water going through and flushing out the mater= ials that are being trapped in those separators. The 7^th item on page= 3 the applicant provided some data and went back out and did some soil (inaudible) in the area of the detention basin

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 9

and found that there was evidence of seasonal groundwater at 24 inches below the soil surface. We made the comment that it appears that this area will be able to support wetland plants but we’= re still not convinced that it will stay permanently inundated enough to suppo= rt the type of plants that they’ve got in there. So what we’re recommending is the applicant did make the statement that they’re not going to be closing on the property until the third quarter of 2008. I don’t think it’s problematic to go out there and put a test hol= e in the ground and a pipe in it and monitor the groundwater through the spring = and the summer to see what happens with the ground water levels. It will just g= ive you a clearer picture of what you can expect and in any case just make the statement as the applicant has said that they actually have the report that says they will monitor the area for three years and the plants will be repl= aced as needed. So we just want to make sure that is part of the approval if the= re is one. The 8^th item concerns the conservation easement and we’re recommending that the conservation easement be extended at a minimum to the 50 foot wetland buffer and where there is no 50 foot wetland buffer that it at least extend to the limit of development to move it furth= er away from the wetland to provide some additional protection to those wetlan= ds. We also don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for that western hillside to be included in a conservation easement. They are pretty much constricted. The eastern part of the property you’re really constrict= ing the brook in a narrow area. You can pretty much envision if there is going = to be a development on the west side that if you look at that it’s a pre= tty steeply sloping hillside there. My concern is that if you develop that wetl= and that the western hillside you’ll be further constricting Turkey<= /st1:country-region> Brook just because of the nature of how you’ll be grading that site. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable trade off for development on t= he eastern side to provide that protection to the wetlands and Turkey Brook by putting if no= t all that area at least some of that area in a conservation easement to prevent future impacts to the wetland from that upland development.

Mr. = Meyers: State statutes say that this area is to be regu= lated outside the wetland area. It’s not that there are no activities permitted, it’s to be regulated is what the statute says. We’ve done everything we could to protect this wetland area, to provide walls to minimize the grading, the site is restricted because of the state forest on= one side and the requirements of zoning we’ve tried to maintain and keep = our activities to a minimum. This is the smallest storage area that they could possibly build for this type of use. That’s why it was put where it w= as put and at that size. That’s the smallest one they could. Other facilities are much larger. So we’ve tried to do everything we could = to possibly maintain this wetland area in Turkey Brook and minimize the impacts by have two forbay sediment traps, the detention pond and the hydrodynamic separators. We’ve tried to do everything we’ve possibly could and I know people from Tamarack Energy don’t want to give away a ten acre industrial piece of land.

Mr. Polletta: There were some commi= ssion members the last time we discussed it and to the best of my knowledge they would check and then get back to us. That’s how it was left last time= .

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 10

Mr. Mirabito: Right and I guess our response is that we are willing grant the easement on the roughly 7 to 8 ac= res of wetlands and will include the buffer zone on the western boundary but we= are not prepared to give up this additional 10 acres of property to an easement= .

D= avid Lord, Professional Wetlands Scientist and Environmental Consultant

<= o:p>

Mr. = Lord: I have established the wetland boundary on the western side and while the contour lines on this drawing do not indicate it outside of the 50 foot upland review zo= ne, on this western side there is an area that is relatively flat. The steeper areas are further to the west. The site comes dow= n at a steep angle but then it flattens out before it goes into the wetland. With the proposed conservation easement extending to the limits of the upland review zone you’ll have the opportunity to see any development that takes place here. It will not const= rict the upland review zone like it is on the eastern side. So you’ll have some safeguards. You won’t see an application in the future on this s= ite that’s going to encroach into the upland review zone or into the wetl= and because it’s already going to be protected by conservation easement. Physically the site does have some limitations. You’re not going to be able = to move that far to the west because of the slope. But there is an area in here that the slopes are relatively gentle compared to the remaining portions of= the site where I think it is possible to put a small development in there. Ther= e is no way you are going to develop the entire parcel. The point I am trying to make to the commission though is that you have some safeguards that youR= 17;re already going to have in place before an applicant can come back to you wit= h a development activity. You’re not going to be seeing an application that’s going to be crowding the western side of the wetlands system t= hat you’re going to be talking about tonight. You’ll have that protection with the conservation easement that’s going to be in place= .

Mr. Polletta: If the land slopes do= wn the only spot you can put a building up is close to the wetlands.

Mr. = Lord: It will be close to the conservation easement b= ut it’s not going to be in it because you’re going to have that in place. The main point I wanted to make was that the site isn’t a stra= ight slope from the western limit down to the wetlands on the site. There is an = area that is fairly sizable that you could put a small development in here and s= till stay out of the upland review zone on the western side. In regards to point= 7 in Mr. Allen’s memo the only point that I would make there is that on= e of the things we can do is modify the planting plan so that if during the first annual inspection we do see a die off of plantings that the replanting woul= d be with species that are more tolerant of frequent inundation. The issue that I have is that the plants that are growing in the 1 to 2 feet of water are the ones that are recognized for their water quality improvement benefits. They= are the ones that remove the heavy metals and contaminants within the storm wat= er column. So I really don’t want to take those out of the planting plan= but I think we have the ability during those 3 year period to see the affects of hydrologic conditions within the storm water wetland and we can modify replanting as they are necessary because there is a threshold in the planti= ng plan. Eighty perfect has to survive on an annual basis. If we go

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 11

below that 80% threshold we will have to replant= . We can modify the planting plan to say that any replanting that’s done f= or the specific reaction that we’ve had die off because of suppressed hydrology will be done with species that require less hydrology. That can be done readily with the planting plan. Even monitoring between now and August= of next year we’re still subject to seasonal fluctuation. The soil colors that I had in my test boaring that I did out there with the shovel and auger are long term color manifestations of groundwater table conditions. There a= re grey models in there which are the low croma modeling indicative of very regular annual satu= ration of groundwater. It’s within the limits of the proposed bottom area and we’re actually going below that elevation. To me I think we have sufficient hydrologic data and sufficient design parameters in place now th= at I think if we add that flexibility with the replanting schedule, I think we c= an address any potential limitations that may occur.

Mr. = Mirabito: Even though construction is scheduled to begin = until the third quarter of 2008 there will be a significant amount of engineering that’s done in the next two quarters of 2008. So we would need to hav= e this site plan fully wrapped up well before we started construction. I prefer the modification of the planting plan as a solution as opposed to a program tha= t would last up until construction began.

Mr. Polletta: Are you proposing to = put in an oil separator for the trucks?

Mr. = Meyers: Yes we have two one on either end. <= /span>

Mr. Zawadzki: Ok anything else?

Mr. = Orsini: You’re eliminating 4,000 Sq. Ft of wetlan= ds and what are you doing for mitigation? The conservation easement was what you proposed as the mitigation?

Mr. Mirabito: Right and in addition= we had proposed to do a clean out of the upland area along eastern boundaries = as well as the wetland themselves. There is some trash in those areas. There i= s a path that goes from the road right now and people over the years have used = it for some dumping. So we’re proposing that would be an alternate mitigation to clean out that debris. That was first suggested by some commission members on the sight walk in September as well as Mr. Rafey at t= he November 27, 2007 meeting as a potential alternative to creating 4,000 Sq. = Ft.

Mr. = Orsini: So if I understand, we feel that’s not sufficient?

Mr. = Allen: Yes that’s generally my comment.

Mr. = Orsini: That we are basically eliminating 4,000 Sq. Ft = of wetlands and we’re not really doing anything to mitigate that.

Mr. Mirabito: Well we are creating = a pond that’s 4,000 Sq. Ft as well and will be planted with wetland species = as well as the wetland itself ha= s been deemed relatively low

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 12

value. It’s basically seepage. You almost don’t notice it when you walk across it as you go along the trail.

Mr. = Rafey: Mr. Allen which area are you suggesting that th= ey should create wetlands?

Mr. = Allen: I think one option is that area to the west of = the area that they are filling where you see the wetland that comes down to the edge of the brook. I think that’s a pretty flat area there that you can re-grade = pretty easily.

Mr. Mirabito: What do you think abo= ut 1,000 cubic yards?

Mr. = Rafey: Can we do a combination of creating some wetlan= ds and cleaning the debris? I want that garbage to be removed from that area.=

Mr. = Lord: Yes that makes the most sense to me also.<= /o:p>

Mr. Zawadzki: So your contention is= that going in there with back hoes or whatever would create more disturbance than the value of the wetlands created would off set but we’ll have to loo= k at long term. Yes, you would have disturbance when you go in there but I don’t know to what extent and some years down the road it would have = an opportunity to heal itself and re-grow. The excavation, whatever you do with equipment, would be a very short term thing.

Mr. = Lord: What you would be doing is taking the existing = upland vegetation within an area and taking out what’s there while lowering = the surface elevation to the water table. In this area you’d probably be taking out between 2 to 4 feet maximum of soil bringing the groundwater tab= le at the surface and then re-planting with wetland vegetation. In this partic= ular situation the balance or evaluation that the commission needs to make is the creation of this wetland area versus leaving this upland area that’s surrounded on 3 sides by existing wetland. It has value and function presen= tly in its existing character. So we would be going in and taking out this area this area of upland review and changing it into a wetland. That’s the question that we are presenting to the commission. We felt there were other opportunities to do the clean up and there is a substantial amount of mater= ial that has been dumped right into the upland review area within 25 to 30 feet= of the wetland boundary right in this area. There is a stone wall that runs ea= st west approximately here that has a lot of debris in it. These are all facto= rs that we’re presenting tot the commission to get some directions form = you. As I said last time, the direction that we got during the site walk was that the commission members at least on the site walk were in favor of some re-planting of the disturbance areas within the upland review areas that we were proposing and the clean out of the debris. So that’s why we presented it in that manner originally.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yes I think the comme= nts on the site were of course a typical reaction of seeing all this crap in there= and so yes, that would certainly be desirable to get that out of there. At that point we also hadn’t a good look at this proposal.<= /p>

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 13

Mr. = Lord: I understand that fully I’m just stating = why we’re at the point that we are.

Mr. Zawadzki: The removal of the de= bris is certain. We definitely would like to do that. So then anything else is in addition to that and that’s where we are now. The question is that we don’t want to do more harm than good. We don’t want to create damage that’s irreparable or long term to the overall area.

Mr. = Lord: That’s not the point I was trying to make. I’m not saying that this will be irreparable damage to the area. It’s a change from what it’s functioning as today which is in s= ome respects part of your upland review area. It has vegetation on it. It has function for wildlife habitat as one example today in its existing characte= r. What we are proposing to do with wetland creation is take out that existing vegetation, remove soil, lower the ground surface, bring the water table in contact, and then replant with wetland vegetation. So we’re trading o= ff one type of habitat for another. Yes, it’s upland versus wetland whic= h is a significant difference but that’s the change that we are talking ab= out. I just want the commission to understand that this area has value and fortu= ne in its existing character.

Mr. Zawadzki: Right, but keeping it= in perspective you are talking about 2,000 to 4,000 Sq. Ft versus all the rest= of that acreage which is 6 or 7 acres. To that it sounds minimal.

Mr. Undercuffler: What about the detention pond?

Mr. = Lord: We consider that more for storm water mitigatio= n then actual wetlands creation. The Army Core wouldn’t consider a storm wat= er basin mitigation for a wetlands filling. The detention basin is there to provide a function you’re putting dirty water in it to clean out the water basically. With a wetland creation you want to create a natural wetla= nd.

Mr. = Meyers: Right now you have a little over 300,000 Sq. Ft= of wetland on the property. You’re talking about a disturbance of 4,000 which is this finger.

Mr. Zawadzki: If we do the mitigati= on we’re discussing right now, if we compromised and said 2,000, you’re talking about something every small.

Mr. = Rafey: Mr. Lord is that area wooded?=

Mr. = Lord: Yes, it has a light sapling to whip size trees = about an inch in diameter maximum. There’s Birch, White Paper Birch, and Grey Birch. Again the site back when we did the original work ab= out 10 or more years ago was open and you could see all the way across the site. It’s what’s grown up by natural succession in that area. There = are no substantial trees other than there is one large C= anadian Hemlock that’s located right down.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 14

Mr. = Rafey: Can we extend the conservation easement to the = limit of disturbance in that area that includes all that area? =

Mr. = Meyers: Certainly, that would not be an issue. I said t= hat earlier in the hearing but what happened in 1997 when this was approved was there was going to be almost an acre of filling here. That was one of the alternatives that we showed you as part of our original presentation. When = Industrial Devel= opment Group got their permit they went in and cleared this entire thing. This was clear cut all the way to the property lines and all the way back. They he couldn’t find anyone who wanted to go here for whatever reason and he chose not to develop the site at that time.

Mr. = Mirabito: I would hate to pinch too close along the limit= s of disturbance with an easement. It’s pretty tight as it is.<= /span>

Mr. = Meyers: I mean if they need an expansion they would go = in this direction so even though they would have to take rock out, that’s which way they would go.

Mr. = Rafey: What about this corner on the bottom? Can you b= ring that to the 50 foot buffer? Can you bring the limit of disturbance there?

Mr. = Meyers: Yes, that’s not an issue. You want to bri= ng it back here? To the limit of disturbance?

Mr. = Rafey: Yes.

Mr. = Meyers: That’s not a problem we can do that.=

Mr. = Rafey: I agree with Mr. Allen but because that area is vegetated it’s not like an exposed area. It’s functioning, so j= ust create as much conservation easement area around the wetland area as possib= le.

Mr. = Meyers: so you’re talking about maybe bringing th= is conservation easement like this?

Mr. = Rafey: Yes.

Mr. = Meyers: That would give you more and then 50 feet on the other side. I don’t see that being an issue at all.=

Mr. Mirabito: I’m a little concerned because you’re basically calling our limits of disturbance = the easement.

Mr. = Meyers: well you’re putting a wall in here so you’re not going to have any additional disturbance over there.<= /o:p>

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 15

Mr. Mirabito: Yes I guess I’m= just thinking about the order of the easement being in place versus the construction.

Mr. = Zawadzki: Well the order has to be determined.=

Mr. Mirabito: Right but I guess I w= ould be more comfortable is that was after construction was complete.=

Mr. = Meyers: Well we will be putting silt fences.=

Mr. = Rafey: We can just put the limit of disturbance after = you complete construction. So wherever you stop the disturbance or grading from that point it’s a conservation easement.

Mr. Zawadzki: You’ve already defined it as a limited disturbance. At this point we will see if anyone fr= om the public has any comment to application #608.

Mr. = Rafey: We also received a memo from Mr. Berger and we = may want to ask him if he has any comment.

Mr. = Berger: As the commission members may recall I drafted = a memo dated November 9, 2007 and the applicant responded to that memo November 12, 2007. We met with the applicant after that last meeting to review some of t= he responses to my November 9, 2007 letter and they have substantially respond= ed to all of the items. There are 3 items I would like to bring to your attent= ion tonight. I’d like to use Tamaracks December 10, 2007 response that was handed out tonight as a point to start with. If you go to the very last page of that I want to talk briefly about = the access to the southern end of the fuel storage area. They’ve indicated on a n= umber of occasions that there will have to be equipment access for a bulldozer or pay loader. Over in the right hand corner, elevation A, is the temporary chip r= amp for access. That is proposed at the southern end of the fuel storage area. I don’t recall how often, but it was fairly often that you anticipate getting in there to do maintenance.

Mr. Mirabito: No it’s not oft= en.

Mr. = Berger: Maybe I can finish and then you can respond. Wh= at they are proposing is that when they do have to get in there whatever that frequency is they’re going to be construction a wood ship ramp outsid= e of the containment area. No I believe and you can correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that wood chip ramp is going to be about 5 feet deep at its maximum height. The wall is elevation 625 and I believe we have a 618 ̵= 1; 620 contour right outside the wall. So we’re going to have a 5 foot h= igh wood chip ramp outside of the containment area to get a bulldozer and pay loader in. We’ve talked a lot about housekeeping and about woods chip= s, but that 5 foot high wood chip ramp has to be part of the housekeeping. It has to be removed every time th= ey are done accessing there.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 16

Mr. = Meyers: The wall is 625 but it goes down. The pile star= ts at 620 and the screws at 615.

Mr. Mirabito: The wall on the south= and north end is not as high as the east and west sides. You can see that both = from the end view on the bottom left of that drawing. The concrete tie beam is s= hown at a different height relative to the two walls. So we’re only talking about 6 to 12 inches.

Mr. = Berger: I pictured the containment walls higher than th= e wood chip pile.

Mr. Mirabito: No they’re just forming a boundary around the area. You can see its more structural and par= t of the tunnel in which the screw mechanism rides back and forth north to south along the long edge of the pile.

Mr. = Rafey: I think the concern is if there are any wood ch= ips outside of the wall.

Mr. Mirabito: On a temporary basis = yes when they build this ramp but it’s going to be more like 6 to 12 inch= es.

Mr. = Rafey: Can you put a permanent ramp other than wood ch= ips?

Mr. Zawadzki: The thing about wood = chips is that you have to remember to take them away. It says temporary but they might be left there and then distributed all around. The next thing you kno= w, you have a big mess. Would it be more practical to put a macadam ramp there= ?

Mr. = Berger: if it’s just 6 to 12 inches why not a gra= vel ramp?

Mr. = Meyers: Yes we can do that.

Mr. Mirabito: We can do that, this = is just what’s typically done.

Mr. = Rafey: Is the plant in Massachusetts similar to this?

Mr. Mirabito: Similar but the pile = is smaller and they don’t have as much space. The only have about 3 days worth of storage. The have an offsite location where they have an additional pile much bigger about a mile down the road.

Mr. = Rafey: I discussed with the chairman today if there wa= s any possibility that the commission members can go there and see that.

Mr. Mirabito: We could probably mak= e a request to have a tour.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 17

Mr. = Rafey: But maybe just seeing it may answer a lot of questions that we have because we don’t have one in Connecticut. So if it’s possible and the commission members have time they can just make a trip there.

Mr. Polletta: That would be the bes= t bet because we’re in the dark. We’ve never seen anything like this before. = If you can get an appointment with them I’m willing to go.=

Mr. Mirabito: I’ll look into = that.

Mr. = Rafey: In any case, there are issues that are outstand= ing and we can’t close the hearing tonight.

Mr. = Berger: I have two more quick ones. Using that same doc= ument lets go back towards the front a couple more pages to the cross section. I = just want to point out tot h commission that this is a cross section taken in an east west direction through the fuel storage area down to the wetlands. If = you look to the left of this chart we start at an elevation of 603 down near the wetlands. We immediately come to a 7 foot high wall going up and that wall = is a good thing in that we’re not filling into the wetlands but we have a concrete wall almost right up against the wetlands. So just to reinforce Chris’s comment about how there really is no buffer because we have a= 7 foot high wall right up against the wetlands on that site. Then we go to a driveway or road at 610 and then up to the containment walls which go up to 625. So in that short distance to the wetlands to the top of the containment walls we go from elevation 603 to 625 with a lot of concrete and pavement. = So I think as we move forward with it a detailed sequence of construction in that area is something that we would look for to make sure the limit of disturba= nce stayed to what is shown on the plan. The last item that is a minor technical detail and I’ve been going back and forth with Mr. Meyers on the outl= et structure. I’m still not quite seeing what he’s seeing on that = but that’s a minor technical detail that we can resolve.

Mr. Zawadzki: I guess we need an extension, are you prepared to give us an extension?

Mr. Mirabito: Yes. We will address = Mr. Allen’s comments in writing and I’ll review them with Mr. Berge= r.

Mr. = Rafey: Mr. Berger’s comments should be in writin= g for the file.

Mr. Zawadzki: If you can check into= the possibility of a field trip up to a nearby facility that would be appreciat= ed. So we need a motion to continue the public hearing on application #608 to our = next regular scheduled meeting.

Mr. = Orsini: So move.

Mr. = Undercuffler: Second.

Mr. Zawadzki: All in favor?

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #608 – WATERTOWN RENEWABLE POWER

DECEMBER= 20, 2007

Page 18

Ever= yone: Aye.

Mr. Zawadzki: Opposed?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; NONE

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY – NO FURTHER DISCUSSION

MOTION: &nbs= p; (Mr. Orsini, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to c= ontinue 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 9:15PM (No time given).

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Zawadzki, Chairman=

Conservation Commission

Inland/Wetland Agency Chairman=

&= nbsp; __________________________________

&= nbsp; Jennifer Guerrera, Minutes Secretary