Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSite Plan/Conservation (4) TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR SUBMITTED INLAND WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION APPI,, ICA'TI95V South `0,indsor INLAND WEi" S AGENCY/ Application # ��- � Date Received es= 1�' Zone MISSION INSTRUCTIONS 1. One application with map and plans submitted in duplicate, together with the fee set forth in the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations, Town of South Windsor. (see Regulations, Section VII - X) 2. The South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations should be reviewed with respect to the standards and criteria for application Evaluation. (see Regulations, Sections VII - X) 3. The applicant understands that this application is to be considered complete only when all information and documents required by the Agency have been submitted. The applicant shall also complete the state filing form. Applicant's Name: DST Realty, Inc. (c/o Thomas R. McGee Jr. , Vice President) Address: 333 West llth Street, Suite 101 , Kansas City - MO 64105 Phone: (home) (work) ( 816 ) 4 3 5-8 2 6 0 (fax ( 8 l 6 ) 4:3 5-8 210 B. Legal owner's name: HBF Land Associates, Limited Partnershi Address: 300 Pleasant Vallev Road; So t- i Windsor,- CT 06074 Phone (home) (work) ( 860 ) 282--9036 (fax) ( 860 ) 282-7144 (List additional owners, addresses, and phone numbers on back of application) C. If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, a letter by the owner (s) authorizing the proposed regulated activity set forth in the application must accompany this form and will be part of the application. D. Pr -� o�ect Name (if any) DST Realty, Inc. Site Plan 1. Contact Person (if further information is needed). Peter R. DeMallie, Principal (WORK) ( 860 ) 291-8755 (FAX) ( 860 ) 291-8757 Design Prof essionals.Iric:,, .165.S. Satellite Road; South Windsor, CT 0607n 4 E. The geographical location of the property which is to be affected by the proposed regulated activities including a description of the land in sufficient detail to allow identification of the property on the Inland Wetland and Watercourses Map. 6 26 Assessor's map # 5 Parcel 2 5-2 7 F. Names of all abutting property owners. (use separate sheet if necessary) SEE ATTACHED SHEET G. Have you notified all abutting property owners by certified letter than an application is pending before the Agency? YES, SEE ATTACHED CERTIFIED LETTER. ** (You are required to supply a copy of the letter with the list of the names of the abutters).** H. Purpose and description of all proposed regulated activity (s) including amount and types of fill and the time element involved. No wetlands disturbance. Conservation plan approval only. Propose to construct new industrial/office building with associated parking, access , grading, drainage, utilities and erosion/sedimentation control measures . I. A class A-2 map of the property drawn to 1 " = 40', showing the area to be developed, extent of the wetlands and watercourses affected, topography, existing and proposed activities and names and locations of adjacent property owners must be submitted. J. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be altered: 0 K. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be created: 0 L. Lineal feet of proposed stream alteration: 0 M. Total land area of project and percentage which is wetlands: 20±acres/0 . 28 o wetlands or 2 , 412 sq. ft. N. Identify all other permits or approvals that have been issued, applied for, or required with respect to the proposed activity set forth in this application. (These may include but not be limited to, local Planning & Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, D.E.P., F.E.M.A., D.O.T., The Army Corps of Engineers, and any other State, Local or Federal Permits.) PZC, WPCA. Corps of Engineers . DEP.DOT, STC,, as may be required. 0. The applicant (or designated representative) hereby attests that a sign will be posted at the following location (s)_ along Route 30 f-rn„r 3 y Design by Professionals, zncName Peter R. DeMallie on or before the following date: ,as directed by Town Staff Signature: �1 ( / Peter R. DeMallie These signs must be displayed continuously for at least ten (10) days prior to scheduled meeting (See Regulations, Section 7.3a). The undersigned hereby applies for the regulated activities listed in paragraph H above, for a Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation permit for the property described herein and confirms that; 1. She/he is familiar with the currently effective Inland Wetlands, Watercourses"and Conservation regulations of the Town of South Windsor. 2. She/he understands that at any time during the review period, the Agency may require the applicant to provide more information about the wetlands and/or watercourses in question and/or any proposed activity. 3. All information submitted in the application for review shall be considered factual, or in the case of anticipated activity, binding. A knowing failure of the applicant or any of her/his agents to provide correct information, or performance exceeding the levels of activity anticipated, shall be sufficient grounds for revocation of any permit under these regulations. 4. By making this application, the applicant gives permission to the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Commission members and/or its representative to enter the portions of the premises which are subject of the application for the purpose of inspection and investigation and otherwise evaluating the merits of the applicatio oth bef re and after a final decision has been issued. Signer of Owner of Property Date 7/9/98 Signature of Applicant Date 7/9/98 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Statewide Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Activity Reporting Form In accordance with the requirements of Section 22a-39-14 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, this form is to be completed for each action. Completed forms for all reportable actions during a calendar month shall be mailed to the Commissioner by the local agency no later than the 1 Sth day of the month following the month in which the action was taken. (See instructions on back) 1 . TOWN: South Windsor 2. LOCATION:(original scale copy of the USGS QUAD Map with the sitg outlined or pinpointed) USGS QUAD MAP NUMBER: OR NAME: Manchester,Connecticut 3. APPLICANT/VIOLATOR OR PROJECT NAME.: DST Realty, Inc. 4. ACTIVITY TYPE CODE: (see list of codes on back, max. of 4 codes) [ 12 ] Briefly describe the activity: Construction of industrial/office building with associated parking_ &coinage improvements . 5. ACTIVITY PURPOSE CODE: (enter only one code letter) . . . . . . . . . . [ D ) 6. AREA OF WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES ALTERED (or proposed to be altered, temporary or permanent, for ALL agency permits, denials and enforcement actions) A. W l Area Alt-red: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 0 ACRES OR SQ. FT.] (circle one) B. Open Water Body Area Altered: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I O ACRES OR SQ. FT.] (circle one) C. Stream Alteration: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 0 LINEAR FT.] 7. AREA OF WETLANDS OR WATERCOURSES CREATED: . . . . . . . ( p ACRES OR SQ. FT.] (do not include wetlands converted to open water) (circle one) 8. TOTAL AREA OF PROJECT SITE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 20± ACRES] For Local Agency Use Only For State Use Only 9. REPORTING MONTH: 10. PUBLIC HEARING HELD: Y N GIS CODE # 1 1 . ACTION: enter letter A. permit issued B. permit denied C. permit extended/amended D. map amendment E. enforcement action F. jurisdictional ruling 12. AGENT: DATE RECEIVED DEP/rev.1/95 Abutters List DST Realty Lot 27 Jones, Joseph W., 15 Waterslide Lane, West Hartford, CT 06107 Lot 28 State of Connecticut(19 Ellington Road) South Windsor, CT 06074 Lot 2 State of Connecticut(20 Ellington Road) South Windsor, CT 06074 Lot 4 Bradley, Morgan J. Jr., 423 Chapel Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 ' Lot 22 Caron, David A. Sr. &Robert Reid, Jr., 312 Deming Street, South Windsor, CT 06074 Lot 23 Burnham,Alfred B., 347 King Street, East Hartford, CT 06108 Lot 24 Burnham, Alfred B., 347 King Street, East Hartford, CT 06108 Lot 25 Bidwell Acres, Inc., 347 King Street,East Hartford, CT 06108 Lot 31 Glassman,Abraham, 44 Berle Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION DISCLAIMER AND WAIVER AGREEMENT Date Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 With reference to your proposed preliminary discussion on �1I��9� with the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, I/We understand and agree as follows: 1. This is an informal discussion for information purposes only. 2. Any comments made by any Commission members, alternates or Town staff shall not be construed as a commitment, tacit approval, denial, or a binding representation by the individual or the Commission. 3. Materials presented, and discussion at this session, are not part of any formal application procedure. All materials must be presented during the formal procedure to be considered as part of an application. 4. I/We will not rely upon any statements made or any part of this informal discussion, nor will I/We use any statements as evidence in any proceeding before a court or administrative agency, to the extent permitted by law. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this S day of 19 . Signed �� Xt P5T A40,17 > JUL. 9. 1998 6:09PM NO.909 P.2/2 n DST REALTY DST. 333 WEST ELEVENTH STREET KANSAS CITY, MIMURi 64105 R E A L T Y July 9, 1998 ' Mr. Peter DeMallie Design Professionals, Inc. 165 S. Satelitte Rd, South Windsor, C 1 06074 Dear Peter: This is to confirm that you are authorized to act as our agent for land use applications for the town of South Windsor. /S' rely, Thomas R. McGee, Jr Vice President HBF LAND ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 300 Pleasant Valley Road South Windsor, CT 06074 9 July 1998 Elizabeth Warren, Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: DST Realty, Inc. Application Route 30 South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Mrs. Warren: Please be advised that as owner of the above referenced site, I hereby authorize DST Realty, Inc. and their agents, Thomas R. McGee, Jr. and Peter R. DeMallie, to make application to your agency for the regulated activities set forth in the above referenced application. Very truly yours, HBF LAND ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP rbert B. Fishman General Partner HBF/mlv cc: Thomas R. McGee, Jr. Peter R. DeMallie DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. planners civil engineers surveyors Transmitted via certified mail July 10, 1998 Dear Property Owner: Re: DST Realty, Inc. Application DPI Project No. 98-1115 Route 30 South Windsor, Connecticut In accordance with Section 7.3b of the "Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses, and Conservation Regulations",we are required to notify you than an application has been filed on the property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing by the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission. We are also applying for site plan approval from the Planning&Zoning Commission. The application and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department. As an abutting property owner,you are invited to the IWA/CC hearing and PZC meeting to ask questions and/or give comments, however,you are not required to attend. You may also submit written comments regarding the application prior to the hearing or meeting, if you so desire. For further information regarding the specific dates this will be heard,please contact Phyllis Mann, Recording Secretary, or Jeff Folger,the Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer, or Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director at the Planning Department, 644-2511, ext. 253, 229 or 252,respectively. Thank you. Sincerely, Design Pro ssionals, Inc. By: Peter R. DeMallie, Principal Agent for DST Realty,Inc. cc: Town of South Windsor Planning Department/J. Folger Phyllis Mann Thomas R. McGee,Jr. Dale Meyer 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 tel. 860 291-8755 fax. 860 291-8757 i ■ cpesign rofessionals, inc. ■ • Civil Engineers • Planners • Surveyors • CIS Hydrologic Study of Output Technologies, Inc. 125 Ellington Road South Windsor, Connecticut Project No. 98-1115 August 7, 1998 i Table of Contents { i I Proposed Drainage Basin Map..........................................................................................1 Proposed Storm Structure Drainage Basin Characteristics...............................................2 Proposed Storm Pipe Characteristics................................................................................8 Drywell Design for Catchbasin#30................................................................................15 Retention Basin Characteristics......................................................................................16 Retention Basin Routing18 . ............................................................................................... Appendices: Chart 2 - Rainfall Intensity Chart Chart 3 -Nomograph for Determining Time of Concentration Chart 6.11 -Values of Hydraulic Elements of Circular Section for Various Depths of Flow i . i� RATIONAL METHOD BASIN or AREA I Description Al Length Description Elevation Slope Tc Intensity Iq STRUCTURE acres change 6n hr7 GR�#- d. 0-7 U.ci b Srrt 0,ob (o toy . ®� 0, 1 0 .3s •vvn .DS S LArtIl DUZ I D' 1-0 Z 0r I F-P. 2 IZo 2 -74 1 0, 12 (IF4- 0, 1 Z D A . I ( 12-0 I . Z O•�71 (o. Z 0.� D ,DZ 0 ,% 0,D1 0- 14 1 A17, C, 0. Db 0.q , D -7 01-7 0,0 ( 1 5 1.0, Z 0.C5;10 tz�n 0I Lg*S 0, 12. 0 , i S 0.012 0•02 b. n of 0. 14 �L , 1 7 G B• Iv 01 AO Q 1 Civil engineers • planners surveyors • gis Pre�sign Project: 1�T" zeal �i�ic.Proj.No.: qb- I H S ofessioneis, inc. Ca1c•by: EL H Date: b Chkd by: ;7A Date: g- 3-q9) i 165 South Satellite Road,South Windsor,CT 06074 (860)291.8755•FAX:291.8757•e•mail:dpicivll®aol.com (J/� RATIONAL METHOD BASIN or AREA I Description Al Length Description Elevation Slope Tc Intensity Q STRUCTURE acres change cfs m 11 90 D,� 0. 01 - t�. CNa I.a wn D,OZ. 2 o Lawn ©, 4 0 -7 G5wib Cl>.OIo 0, DID 5 (g Z 10, �3 0 0 . 0 12�w1 D. 14 D .q 0,1 IZU 1 . 0•DIS !v. Z 0 02 Lawn 1?, Ib 0. 1b D,q 0. 14 ► 20 4 D,0I2. Z p E57 D 1 -7 (71"l�L- , 1 GII 0,I � D . IS OCR rn 1 0,01 (o, Z n,C1 D. IqAsL p. i D,DZ S . 2 D. SO �4- � Lawn D cMI englneers • planners surveyors gis PeSign Project:E._� 1 12 .14-q J:'C' roj,No.: q8 — ►l IS rofessionels, inc. Calc.by:�_Date:g �,�� hkd by: - _Date: i 165 South Satellite Road,South Windsor,CT 06074 (860)291.8755•FAX:291.8757•e.mail:dplclvil®aol.com ZA RATIONAL METHOD BASIN or AREA I Description Al Length Description Elevation Slope Tc Intensity Q STRUCTURE acres change cfs I;5 0. I4 n l� 0. 1 0. DI-3 (o. 2 0, 7 I� U. I I 0 . I O O, u a.OI S w. 2 0•(02 0.01 w n p 0�12L TOTAL- 011n G I D D.D ELI DI 1 n,22 c7. 0. 2D C7 T'm p D. Ito dA I I� 013 S Z p.a7 �' �� 00 14 cMi engineers - planners • surveyors - gis qesign .Project: T, 12P�-.I l Pro�.No.: 90---n(ems' rofessionals, Inc. Calc,by: Date:Z b Cbkd by; l Date; i 165 South Satellite Road,South Windsor,CT 06074 (860)291.8755•FAX:291.8757•e•mail:dpicivlloaol,com /� RATIONAL METHOD BASIN or AREA I Description, Al Length Description Elevation Slope Tc Intensity Q STRUCTURE acres Change cfs 124 14 O 1 TrrlI2D, I Iv. 1 t� 2 . (o. 2- 0. oZ V. 0- TiMAI, 0- 1 G 2D �1 0.9 . 1 I 0 03 � rn q D. 1 0. 14 12 1 . to D.DI I � . 2 v,o 1 0 . I AG 152 CO3 W-22 , 27 0. 24 1-15 -7-> I .'I� 0, 01 e> 0. 0 3 0, r'1 L, 0.�Z* O► D.aZ ,� Ljwo 0 . , n, I Z� S D. DI (b To 1L , i to civil engineers planners surveyors gis Pesign Project: -Ps'T 4)C,Proj.No.: is rofesslonois, inc. . . Calc.by: TDate: Chkd by:_gj�p, Date: i 165 South Satellite Road,South Windsor,CT 06074 (860)291.8755•FAX:291-8757•e•mail:dpicivil®aol.com 4/ RATIONAL METHOD BASIN or AREA I Description Al Length Description Elevation Slope Tc Intensity Q STRUCTURE acres change cfs I1,2 0 ri rI 0,01 ( C5 119OS 0. 7, Ln . ZO L � ► 0, Ito 6-W Z Q. 10 �` 0 mo m ._7 ,aZ� 0`7 OZ C) _LAw �,�s 0.009? 17 0 . 11 1 4. I 0.4S 0. 13 Di25 S &..Z D2 ,? 0.01 G Z . 14 b 3 a Z I 0• o►Z� D. D 1 0 0. 0 i1 .D elvll engineers planners surveyors pis eSign Project:_�T �tJ .Proj.No.: rofessione(s, inc. Calc.by: FaL,4 _Date: !o q hkd by:_F=2A Date: i 165 South Satellite Road,South Windsor,CT 06074 (860)291,8755•FAX:291.8757•e•mail:dpiclvll®aol.com �/� RATIONAL METHOD BASIN or AREA I Description Al Length Description Elevation Slope Tc Intensity Q STRUCTURE acres change cfs •�5 0,� TM12 0.to lb t�I G , 10 ,q TD# 1 O 0•D fo p, loi�:) 0 ,05 0.35 Lct,+nt n 0.0 2 Z. D• i i D•qQ, I O v.'7 o.05 0• 0,n2 elvil engineers planners surveyors gis esign Project: PST- � Proj,No,: qQ)-11 IS rofessionois, inc. Calc.by: EFL4�Date: 9 Chkd by: f2JA _Date: i 165 South Satellite Road,South Windsor,CT 06074 (860)291.8755•FAX:291.8767•e•mall:dplcivll®aol.com I _// 1 �111111111111111 1�11111111111111111 11�1�11111�1�1�1111 �1lI IIIIEI�1�1@IIII ��1 �1111�1�1�191111 � ��1111�1�1�1�1111 PROJECT 01�1�1111�111�1�1111 IIs111111�1�1�1�11111 0�1�11�111�1�1�11111 IN el�ll � 11�111=�111 V431SAS NI 0� �1 loll l�l�l�ll STORM PIPE INFORMATION Qsys/Qfull Vfull I VaveNfull Vave Structure Q in system � Pipe Size Slope n Area � R Q full " jcfsl 1_.. jinn �fP ._. -[sfl_ If�sl J.._^ _.1°°1. __.Ifpsl 6B#1 0.48 15 0.0050 0.01 1.23 0.313 t 2.62 CB#2 1.01 15 0.0050 0.01 1.23 7 0 313 5.95 17 0 4.85 k 72 { 3.49 1 ._ l_ CB#4 1.36 15 0.0050 .0.01 1.23 0 313 5.95 22.8 4.85 79 3.83 CB#5 7.35 + 0.0050 18 _ t 75.9 5.48 1 1 ` 0.01 1.77 _ 0 375 � 9.68 11 6.08 L._ __.._. CB#9 7.96 ' 24 0.0050 ? 0.01 3.14 0.500 20.85 I 38.2 6.64 f 92 I 6.11 CB#10 8.58 24 0.0050 0.01 3.14 0.500 20.85 41.1 i 6.64 94 6.24 CB#11 9.28 24 0.0050 0.01 3.14 0.500 20.85 44.5 6.64 97 6.44 CB#14 10.74 24 0.0050 0.01 3.14 0.500 20.85 51.5 I 6.64 100 6.64 Ret. Basin _ CB#12 0.5 15 0 0050 0.01 1.23 0.313- 5.95 8.4 4.85 56 2.72 _ _ CB#13 1.3 15 0.0050 1 0.01 1.23 0.313 j 5.95 21.8 4.85 78 3.78 _. _ ._ CB#14 _ CB#6 . 0.4 15 ; 0.0050 0.01 ! 1.23 r 0.313 t 5.95 6.7 4.85 52 2.52 CB#7 0.97 t - 15 i 0 0050 i 0 01 ' 1.23 0.313 5.95 16.3 4.85 71 3.44 i. J _ `.._. --- _.. CB#8 4.93 18 0 0050 0 01 1.77 0.375 9.68 50 9 48 100 548 - _ CB#3 5.46 18 i 0 0050 0 01 1 77 0.375 968 1 56.4 5.48 103 6.64 t } I CB#15 0 62 I 1 15 0.0050 0 01 23 0.313- 5.95 10.4 4.85 62 3.01 - _ - - --.. r _._._. .... - _ .- CB#16 1.18 t 15 0.0050 0.01 1 1.23 0.313 ! 5.95 19.8 4.85 75 3.64 -- - CB#18 3.35 { 15 0.0050 0.01 a 1.23 0.313 t 5.95 i 56.3 4.85 1_03 5.00 _ --- t _ CB#19 4.4 1 15 ! 0.0050 0.01 1.23 1 0.313 5.95 73.9 4.85 110 5.34 CB#20 10.23 24 0.0050 0.01 3.14 ! 0.500 20.85 49.1 6.64 99 6.57 CB#21 11.16 24 0.0050 0.01 3.14 0.500 20.85 53.5 6.64 - 101 6.70 CB#22 12.71 24 0.0050 0.01 3.14 0.500 2085. { 61.0 6.64 104 6.90 CB#23 13.95 24 0.0050 0 01 3.14. 0 500 20.85 66.9 j 6.64 107 7.10 Ret. Basin 1115STMPIPE.123 ��Z STORM PIPE INFORMATION r BLDG 4.59 15 0.0050 0.01 1.23 0.313 5.95 77.1 4.85 111 5.39 BLDG 3.81 15 0.0050 0.01 123 0.313 5.95 64.0 4.85 106 5.14 __. _ C B#20 i -- I_ .. BLDG 4.95 + 15 ! 0.0050 ti 0.01 t 1 23 _ 0.313 5.95 83.1 4.85 113 5.48 CB#27 I . _.. .... - I CB#17 1.3 15 0.0050 0.01 123 0.313 5.95 21.8 4.85 78 3.78 TD#1 0.68 1 8 0,0050 0.01 0.35 0.167 1.11 61.1 3.19 104 3.32 CB#20 I CB#24 0 81 15 0.0050 0.01 1 23 0.313 5.95 13.6 4.85 67 3.25 .- _ CB#25 1.86 15 0.0050 0.01 I 1.23 0.313 5.95 31.2 4.85 87 4.22 CB#26 2.85 i 15 0,0050 0.01 1.23 0.313 5.95 47.9 4.85 99 4.80 C B#29 ........... TD#2 0.74 8 0.0050 0.01 0.35 0 167 1.11 66 4 3.19 107 3.41 CB#27 7.56 18 0.0050 0.01 1.77 0.375 9.68 78.1 5.48 112 6.14 CB#28 8.43 18 fi 0 0050 0.01 j 1 77 0.375 9.68 87.1 5.48 113 6.19 CB#29 12.09 24 1 0.0050 0.01 3.14 0.500 20.85 58.0 6.64 103 6.84 Ret. Basin .. _._... .,.... .._...__..._..r.._._.,...____. ... ._...-. 1..........__... ..�_.__. _ _..._._..,_._ ..-.____-___.._-.... _.._.-...._ ..-1.. ...... .... ... ......_.._..... ._.- -. ._._-.._.......,..... .. .... "From Chart 6.B-Values of Hydraulic Elements of Circular Section for Various Depths of Flow 1115STMPIPE.123 z1Z 1115 PST ��E �-t y ' t rtc- D/ZY W e-LL S ; D/AM9�7-7r2, > 5QP,9DQNa W/z' sTO g 4 1 D �T6 RArGE > TI = n C3 .6-7 Z= 4Z, Z4 s. F; _ 42, Z4 C, F, V�'FL�; rT, 3 0°lo 3 Tom1 tr��')2 - T"(.4 = tv 2. 8 3(.3) !8. S S UEF-r-P IOTA. STO(-a&E = 6l 09 c,F. /�/. �A�YW � WeLLS 2-�4. �� c � /VIF. FEP-iME--`8R oU-rrLow APi5A V DUI~ : 13o F /DAy . 00 F7,. /s5-c. 00I S FT/SE-C x 37. - G"F,/V,F- ,oS� C<�. �V�J? DRYwELL C8 # 30 —TIME-ME- of ConjctN Z z-t oN 5 M)N t 0zeros rr\/ /fi /C Vr CONNE-C T/CU T N F OFF W63 l MORGAN BRA DLEY, 80� 40" rt�- W q T�Rc RSF e ?ZgNos �uao V *aq e- ro Eu r.ss.o I \ aU 54.0 PROPOSED RETENTION AR/E/A �(� I s3�4� •�. / 3.3f ac. / .0 to Z50 us52 J 53 1551� / / TO asv.-x.o -W . xv- s•zS I \ � z ' 3.o _ 52.3 a ce W. a ux. / s / — _ N/F l / BID WELL A CR S, INC. I TELL ACRES, INC. �Q' I avil engineers • planners • surveyors • gis esign Project: Pro;.No. gg-u V5 rofessionals, inc. Description: i VI VIOIJ,Me 165 South Satellite Road,South Windsor,CT 06074 Calc.By:Eta Date: Chkd By: Date: (860)291-8755•FAX:291-8757•e-mailApicivil®aol.com C.er��.r area �►�r. c'}�"q� . T�-a� s+ar&qlp- _ ----- --- - - --- - 14419 -2-0 � I,to-I -,I q � rograph Summary Report Page Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Return Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak period hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (acft) (yrs) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 15.6 1 728 1.54 100 — -- -- cb#14 2 SCS Runoff 19.3 1 724 1.58 100 — --- -- cb#23 3 SCS Runoff 12.2 1 729 1.27 100 — -- --- cb#29 4 Combine 33.3 1 725 3.12 100 1 +2 --- --• 14+23 5 Combine 44.3 1 726 4.39 100 3+4 -- --— 14+23+29 Proj. file: 1115RET.GPW OF file: New.IDF Run date: 08-07-1998 RAINFALL INTENSITY CHART IN INCHES PER HOUR HARTFORD , CT STORM MINUTES (YRS) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 117 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 131 32 2 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2'.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1- 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 10 6.2 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 25 7.1 6.7 6.4 6.1 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 50 7.7 7.4 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7. 3.6 3.6 100 r8.4 8.0 7.6 7A 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.714.6 4.5 4,414.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 MINUTES STORM (YRS) 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 10 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 25 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 50 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 100 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 CHART 2 January 1 55 4000 w z_ 3000 -� 50 1- 0 2000 a 45 40 1000 900 35 800 rn T00 W 600�` z 30 500 cn PAVED w Z 400 0.90-cn z 2-5 w 300 0.80 ; Ate a U. x o: 0.70 wa. ►- Z 200 BARE SOIL 0.60 \\ cwi 20 0.1 w o U. a c� 0 POOR GRASS �45 0 >\ o z SURFACE . \ -.1 W W H !n O 0.35 z AVERAGE GRASS W \ W '�1 0 SURFACE .30 1.0 w — 15 80 ~��` 0.20 U. 2.0 N \ H 70 DENSE GRASS 0.15`p W � � w� 60 ���k� 5 0� v`� \ z env 10.0 - 50 20.0 ° �►\ 40 \ 10� 30 9 8 20 T 6 W z 10 � 5 F EXAMPLE 'A' > EXAMPLE '8' LENGTH: 700 FEET a. LENGTH: 100 FEET PAVED DENSE GRASS SLOPE: 1.0 % SLOPE: 6.0 % TIME: 10 MINUTES TIME : 13 1/2 MINUTES TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINING APPROVED STANDARD DETAIL TIME OF CONCENTRATION JANUAR7, 1991 (CHART 3) REVISED: PUBLIC WORK! DIRECTOR -..._ -..- ti `. .a -« r d. fi%.4 01 a s Cross- ge0iowl _ For pipes full •,� - ^: �. arec of walerway — or halt-full -- — ,c - welled perimc fer — R R - P=Hydraulic radi u s SatCTION OF ANY OPEN CI4AV4t-iSL SECTION OF CIRCULNA P%`P .'=Av-creye or meon ✓e%ci/y in feel per second'. iZ = c V-Dischcr9e of pipe or chonnc/ in cubic Acet per 3eeond Cc. 7 = Coefficientof rouyhr^css ofroipo or chonnc/ st�rfocc , sec Tab/e A-LS./8-68. 5 =S/ape of f/ydrou/ie G�odien/` [i�b1�i-Sui-focc in open cfionnels oi-,V;DCS not urrdir/vressure, sa.-"e cs s/ove of choi7ne/ or pipe inver/` on/y when flow %S 41r7i,&r/77 %n COnsforsf SCefiOrf. 'IG. A- W DRAULI ELEMENT5 OF CHANNEL. 5ECT 11 ION S. too 90 80 r �° •fir° ---- Z 70 - -- 60 50 J t. 40 —'- 30 l�li� _� Ft11a J ,ac 201 - — 3 10 - _ - - -- - -----�- - - --- --- -- - -- O O 10 20 30 40 `✓O 6�-1 701' EEO 90 100 110 14-0 G �r HYDRAULIC EL.EMF_NT5 i P:EA-C E NT' OF VALUE FOR FULL SECTION CAPPROXIMATE) �.�IM.G'!C' Givc;r.• ::piss/,o%S+c /Z C.f.s- t!:c�r�nh o Pipe which hc_s r'opoci fy f/caw%ng fu// /S �'f.s. of o ye/orsty r. f 70/rf./ � scc. �'eyuizo'fo >`:i:a' 1,/Si' Q- /2c.f.s. Oercnnfe�r of fu.� d,:;c.yo.:ye jy = 3^io . En/cr �c�f �-f �90Y. of IV . r•//5ccfion of f/ydrou/ic E/eir:c.�/ fi%d Y-AT.5%x7- ? ;r1, per sew. =LS~V/ALt1ES OF HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS OF CIRCULAR 5ECTION rGf. V1.;'kIOU '-r-' DEPTHS OF rLOW. MEMORANDUM TO: Jeffrey H. Folger, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer DATE: August 10, 1998 RE: DST— Output Technologies Site Plan We have reviewed the drawings dated 8/7/98 for the proposed DST— Output Technologies Site Plan and have the following comments: 1. Retention pond contours are not labeled and pond bottom elevation not shown. 2. Riprap at inlets into pond are not dimensioned. Detail is also required. 3. Have test pits been taken? If so, please have applicant's consultant furnish results. 4. Detail of traphood is shown. Where are these proposed? 5. Detail of sedimentation structures and traprock berms. JCl/sfg P&Z/DST/memo aug10 ,SOW N Sf4 t F a 70W-f-t O-P Soablt ?A� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 ` AREA CODE 860/644-2511 l�dSOR COt, To: Design Professionals 165 So. Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 From: Jeffrey H. Folger- Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer Date: August 10, 1998 Re: App. #98-40P - Review of the proposed Output Technologies facility - Plans dated 8/7/98. I have reviewed the proposed plan with the following comments: 1. CB#14 has an icon for a sedimentation structure. It is not labeled as such. There is no detail for a sediment structure on the plans. 2. There is a detail for"Meadow Mix" on the landscape plan. This area should be shown on the site plan. 3. Sediment and Erosion Control Notes: Items 4,5,6, and 12 contain typographic errors and should be corrected. Item#4 should be amended to read: "All erosion control measures are to be inspected, maintained, or replaced on a weekly basis or within 24 hours of a storm event". 4. The hydrology report shows a page estimating storage capacity of 4 drywells. They do not appear to be shown on the plan. Cc: IWA/CC Town Engineer Dir. of Planning SOW N Sf4 Taiivf-t 0-,P South m 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR-CO AREA CODE 860/644-2511 To: Design Professionals 165 So. Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 From: Jeffrey H. Folger -Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer Date: August 11, 1998 Re: App. #98-40P - Review of the proposed Output Technologies facility - Plans dated 8/7/98. I have reviewed the proposed plan with the following comments: 1. The biofilter swale should have an impervious separation between CB#29 and CB#23 to prevent mixing of the incoming stormwater and insure cycling along the length of the swale. 2. The habitat diversity of the proposed retention basin would be improved with the addition of a raised"island" incorporated within the basin. This area would foster roosting and breeding of wildfowl. To prevent the area being overrun by geese, the recommended vegetative plantings should be primarily woody shrubs. 3. The anticipated water line of the open water should be planted with grass species adapted to protecting the shoreline from erosive wave action. Cc: IWA/CC Town Engineer Dir. of Planning MEMORANDUM To: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission. From: Jeffrey H. Folger- Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer Date: August 13, 1998 Re: Appl. # 98-40P - Review of the proposed Output Technologies Facility— 119 Ellington Road, Plans dated 8/7/98. The project is to construct a 160,000sgft-warehouse/office building,parking and a 3.3- acre retention basin at the current site located at 119 Ellington Road. No proposed disturbance in a regulated area. This is an Erosion& Sedimentation plan review. Site: The site is located in the Burnham Brook watershed. The parcel is comprised of 19 acres. Currently the site is open meadow with transitional forest on the western and northern,boundaries-the proposed plan would involve demolition of the existing house and garage and clearing most of the forest on the western boundary. There is a watercourse and a small wetland area to the north of the proposed retention basin. The watercourse is manmade and acts as a drainage ditch during wet periods of the -year. The small wetland spur is currently under cultivation so there is no wetland ecology associated with this area. Impacts: The site is comprised of deep medium and fine sands. Erosion potential is expected to be low because the site is very level. Planned erosion controls appear to be adequate for the project- Stormwater is planned to be controlled by draining to a large retention basin. This is planned because at the present there is no way to discharge stormwater offsite. Also,the building will require large amounts of fill which will be taken from the basin area. The management plan provides for an 800 foot wet swale to treat stormwater incoming from three discharge pipes prior to the basin. Four Hundred and Eighteen shrubs around the basin and wetland plantings in the swale provide for a significant wildlife food source for the site. F �:a REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, u.0 19 Foster Street Manchester,CT 06040 (860)649-REMA (860)647-8397[fax) remaBaeoi.com August 17, 1998 Mr. Peter DeMallie, Principal Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Water Quality BMPs Proposed Output Technologies, Inc. 125 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut RES Job 9 9841 SWN2 Dear Peter: At your request, I have reviewed the site plans for the above-referenced proposal (dated 8/7/98, revised through 8/12/98) and offer some brief comments and recommendations with regard to the ability of the proposed stormwater management system to renovate urban runoff and to protect adjacent wetland resources. 1.0 STRUCTURAL BMPs The stormwater management system (SMS) is the central BMP proposed for the site to ensure protection of water quality. Water quality control BMPs assist in preventing the release of pollutants into urban runoff, or once they are released reduce the quantities that enter surface or ground waters to levels or concentrations that are not harmful to natural ecosystems, and humans. Completely recapturing released pollutants is impossible, and the expense of the BMPs exponentially increases for higher and higher levels of recapture. Prevention, which should also be one of the goals of the proposed SMS, is always more efficient and cost-effective. Following is a brief description of the SMS's components. 1.1 Catch basins Twenty-six (26) proposed catch basins will be used for the site. These will be the standard type catch basins with minimum two-foot deep sumps. They will serve to collect stormwater off the parking lots. Six(6)of these catch basins provide additional protection against potential pollution Soil&Wetland Studies ♦ Ecology ♦ Environmental Planning&Management ♦ Permitting ♦ Ecological Restoration&Habitat Mitigation ♦ Expert Testimony Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 �t Page 2 a;> by floatables (i.e. hydrocarbons), by being fitted with hooded outlets. It should be noted that one additional catch basin is being proposed at the beginning of the entrance driveway to the site. This catch basin will discharge to four in-line dry wells. The catch basins will employed as the first step in the water quality renovation process to pre- treat runoff from paved areas. When properly sized and maintained, catch basin traps are effective in reducing the sediment and pollutant load in runoff. Research has shown that practically all particles larger than 246 microns are removed by catch basins (i.e. >0.25 mm; medium sands and coarser) (Sartor and Boyd 1972). However, investigations have shown that trapped catch basin sediments have a much smaller median particle size than street dirt and, therefore, have a greater potential to pollute, if not properly maintained, than do particulates removed by street sweeping. Regular catch basin cleaning and maintenance, therefore, is of paramount importance for the proper functioning of this BMP, and to reduce the potential for sediment re-suspension and export during rare, large volume scouring rains. 1.2 Water Quality Inlets (Oil& Grease Separators) Three (3) water quality inlets (a.k.a. oil & grease traps) will be installed as the last structure before the proposed wet pond retention area (see below). These BMPs will function as the second step in the water quality renovation process. Water quality inlets are designed to remove sediment and hydrocarbon loadings from runoff before they are conveyed to other BMPs and/or receiving waters. Since runoff is only briefly retained in these BMPs, they primarily remove only larger soil particles from water. Using baffles and multiple chambers, water quality inlets can retain floatables (i.e. hydrocarbons) allowing for longer contact time leading to adsorption by coarse particles. Advantages of water quality inlets lie in their unobtrusiveness, compatibility with the stormwater conveyance network, easy access, and capability to pre-treat runoff before it enters other BMPs. Major disadvantages center on the need for clean-outs. This need will be addressed under Procedural BMPs. A fact sheet (Fact Sheet S) on water quality inlets is attached to this communication. 1.3 Wet Pond & Water Quality Swale (Retention Basin) The third and fourth steps in the water quality renovation process for the site will involve and enhanced "wet pond" retention basin fitted with a water quality swale. According to Doenges and others (1993), a CT DEP publication, wet ponds and wet extended detention basins are "an extremely effective water quality BMP, ... which if appropriately sized and maintained. ... can Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 `' Page 3 z ,. achieve a high removal rate of sediment, BOD, organic nutrients, and trace metals. " (emphasis added). The selected BMP is an environmentally effective means of controlling peak discharges, removing particulate pollutants, and controlling increases in downstream flooding and streambank erosion. Other positive features of chosen design include the inclusion of a water quality swale planted with wetland emergents, the diversification of the local wildlife habitat, and the protection of groundwater. The water quality swale will receive and treat water from the parking lot before it is released to the wet pond (open water habitat). The swale will have an ambient water level of about six inches and will be planted with a variety of wetland emergents. The swale bed will be planted with cattail (Typha latifolia), soft-stem bulrush (Scirpus validus), and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) (along the edges). The bottom half of the swale's sideslopes will be planted with three-square- rush (Scirpus americanus), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), and blue flag (Iris versicolor). Thus, a shallow marsh community will be created as part of this BMP. To further enhance the water quality renovation performance of the swale, six (6) traprock berms are being proposed at regular intervals. These berms will slow down water that flow through them, increasing the residence time of stormwater runoff in the swale and, thus, pollutant removal efficiencies. According to Schueler and others (1992) the documented benefits of a "wet pond" detention basin are: (1) high removal of both particulate and soluble urban runoff pollutants, (2) substantial longevity, lasting 25 years or more with modest but regular maintenance, and (3) wetland and/or aquatic vegetation in the normal interior pool and its perimeter increases the removal of soluble nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), trace metals, coliform bacteria and organic matter. The negative aspects of wet ponds are comparatively minor: (1) potential for downstream warming (usually only a concern if a Coldwater fishery exists) (no outlet proposed here), and (2) a slight decrease of pollutant removal performance during ice and snowmelt runoff conditions. A fact sheet (Fact Sheet 2) on wet ponds is attached to this communication. 2.0 PROCEDURAL BMPS Several long-term procedural BMPS, or housekeeping practices, are proposed or recommended for the site. These are paramount for the proper and efficient functioning of the stormwater management system. Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 ` Page 4 The maintenance procedures outlined below are similar to those proposed under the CT DEP "Stormwater Management Plan" (SWMP) for the "General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity," dated October 1, 1997. ♦ Sweeping: All paved sidewalks, driveways and other impervious surfaces (except roofs) should be swept clean of sand, }fitter and any other possible pollutants at least annually, between April 1 and May 1 and at other times as necessary. Frequent sweeping of impervious areas can aid in the removal of runoff solids and contaminant loadings, increase the effectiveness of and reduce the maintenance requirements for the catch basins and water quality inlets and provide aesthetics and visual benefits to the site. Sweeping removal efficiencies are dependent upon sediment particle size and the frequency of sweeping. Sweeping is generally limited to removal of only the coarser sediment particles, such as the sand typically applied during de-icing operations. Very fine-grained particles, which typically contain the greatest amounts of adsorbed contaminants, are generally not removed by sweeping and are left to be washed off during storm events to be treated by other BMPs. As a result, overall sweeping removal efficiencies for pollutants tend to be in the 10% to 50% range, with the higher range associated with the coarser particles (Sartor and Gaboury 1984; Bender and Terstriep 1984). ♦ Maintenance of Catch Basins and Water QualityI : The site's catch basins and water quality inlets (i.e. oil & grease separators) should be inspected on a bi-annual basis, or more frequently if necessary. These structures should be cleaned of sediment no less than annually between April 1 and May 1. However, if it is determined that a significant accumulation of sediment (i.e. more than 20% of the sump capacity) is present, immediate cleaning should follow. Similar to the sweeping of impervious surfaces, the effectiveness of catch basins at removing pollutants from runoff is a function of particle size, hydraulic factors (velocity of flow, frequency of wash-off, and maintenance of catch basin sumps. With proper maintenance the catch basins proposed as part of the site's drainage system will provide appreciable (>60%) reductions in suspended solids (by weight) while concomitantly removing adsorbed contaminants such as heavy metals and adsorbed hydrocarbons from the water column (Aronson et al. 1983). Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 Page S A study has shown (Pitt 1985) that only about 60 percent of the total available sump volume of a typical catch basin is used to detain particulates at a stable volume. The study concluded that cleaning the sumps once or twice a year will reduce lead and total suspended solids (TSS) concentration by 10 to 25 percent and phosphorus, nitrogen and zinc by 5 to 10 percent. 3.0 CONCLUSION In my opinion, the proposed "runoff treatment train" (i.e. catch basins, water quality inlets, water quality swble, wet pond), should provide superior stormwater renovation. A high level of treatment will be provided by the SMS and a high level of protection will be offered against contamination by hydrocarbons. It is estimated that with the proposed and recommended procedural BMPs in place the SMS will exceed the CT DEP and USEPA guideline of removing 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) from stormwater runoff(CT DEP 1997, EPA 1993). The proposed project will, therefore, meet EPANURP and CT DEP standards for treating stormwater runoff by detaining, retaining, or transforming the major portion of urban runoff constituents to levels that will maintain water quality for this particular site. Given these factors, the quality of the water leaving the proposed BMPs and entering the ground water at the site will be treated at a level that will have no discernible negative impacts. Moreover, no discernable impacts are anticipated to the wetland resources within and adjacent to the property due to the proposal. Please contact me at my office if you have anv questions on the above or are in need of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC George T. LoRan, MS Professional Wetland Scientist Registered Soil Scientist VIA FAX&HAND-DELIVERY Attachments: Fact Sheet No. 5&No. 2 projectsl Bonn M41 SWN211ett1.doe FACT SHEET 5 WATER QUALITY INLETS AND OIL AND GREASE TRAP CATCH BASINS ater quality inlets (also known Water quality inlets are usually found on as oil and grit separators) and areas of vehicular traffic or gas and oil oil and grease trap catch storage, such as parking lots, service stations, basins are underground and loading areas. structures that remove Oil and grease trap catch basins are floatable and suspended solids from urban generally incorporated into the traditional runoff. Side View Access Manholes Stormdrain Reinforced Inlet Concrete Construction Inverted Elbow Pipe Regulates Trash Rack Protects Water Two 6 Inch Orifices Levels Overflow Pipe Permanent Pool O 400 Cubic Feet of Storage Per Contributing Acre,4 Feet Deep First Chamber Second Chamber Third Chamber (Sediment Trapping) (Oil Separation) FACT SHEET 5:WATER DUALITY INLETS AND OIL AND GREASE TRAP CATCH BASINS 63 AWatershed Approach to Urban Runoff: Handbook for Decisionmakers storm sewers stem. Oil and grease trap catch designed to accommodate the dryness Y g p g , ❑ basins are functionally similar to the water as well as rainfalls. quality inlets described in this fact sheet. ■ Operation and maintenance. Proper operation and maintenance of water quality ❑ ❑ Pollutant Removal inlets requires that the system be cleaned at Water quality inlets remove the following least twice a year to remove accumulations of pollutants: pollutants. ♦ Suspended solids ♦ Municipalities can use a vacuum truck or u' carefully siphon out each chamber and ♦ Litter then manually remove the remaining ❑ ❑ ♦ Oil and gasoline matter. ♦ Grease ♦ Wastes must be tested to determine proper disposal methods. ♦ Trace metals ❑ Currently, no universally acceptable disposal methods exist for these wastes. The primary removal mechanisms are settling and separation: ❑ ❑' Design Guidelines ■ Settling. In these inlets, runoff flows through three chambers, which slow its Design criteria for water quality inlets are movement and allow matter to settle. minimal: El ♦ Watershed size ■ Separation. Baffles and elbows within the inlets skim pollutants off the surface of the ♦ Detention time required runoff. ♦ Velocity of the entering runoff (which is Limited information exists on the restricted by the size of the inlet pipe) efficiency of these structures. Results ♦ Access to the inlet (access cover and generally depend on the volume of water metal steps) to facilitate cleaning ❑' detained permanently, the velocity of flow, and the depth of baffles and elbows in the • The volume of the permanent pool per tank, each impervious acre that contributes ❑ ❑' Well maintained water quality inlets runoff and in each chamber of the system have the following removal efficiency: ♦ Suspended solids: up to 25 percent Other factors: Q ♦ Oil and grease: up to 75 percent ♦ Clogging ♦ Trace metals: up to 25 percent ♦ Preventing resuspension ❑ ♦ Hydraulic design ❑ Physical Requirements • Design for the inverted elbow that Water quality inlets are limited by two connects the second and third chambers �,;. ❑ restrictions: ❑ Conclusion ♦ They should not be used in watersheds larger than two acres; and Detention times for water quality inlets are { ❑ ♦ If dry weather flows occur within the usually measured in minutes or hours; drainage system, the inlet must be therefore, these BMPs do not remove pollutants as effectively as facilities that retain 64 l T FACT SHEETS j runoff for days. However, since these inlets are relatively small, they can be placed throughout a drainage system to capture coarse sediments, floating wastes, and accidental or illegal spills of hazardous { wastes. As a result, infiltration systems and Selected References detention basins may require less maintenance than other BM Ps. For more information on the design and use of water quality inlets and oil and grease trap catch basins, refer to the following publications: i American Petroleum Institute, Refining Department. February 1990. Design and Operation of Oil—Water Separators. Ist Ed.API Publication 421.$48 plus shipping and handling and applicable state tax. 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005; (202)682-8375. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Environmental Programs. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff:A Practical Manual for ' Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.$40. 777 N. Capitol Street, NE,Suite 300,Washington, DC 20002-4201; (202)962-3256. l T 4- ea r FACT SHEET 5:WATER QUALITY INLETS AND OIL AND GREASE TRAP CATCH BASINS 65 i FACT SHEET 2 WET POND DETENTION BASINS 4 • O et pond detention basins In a wet pond, stormwater runoff is (also known as wet ponds, directed into an artificially constructed or retention ponds, wet enhanced natural pond, maintained as a detention basins, and permanent pool of water. During a storm detention ponds) are a event, the pool volume increases until it tructural BMP used to treat urban runoff. The exceeds capacity. The runoff is discharged haracteristics, physical requirements, and through an outlet or emergency spillway. esign guidelines for wet ponds determine eir capacity for pollutant removal and their aintenance requirements. uuu� I I' r x 2, � ,� ;� c r Sri��� �` .� i• FACT SHEET 2: WET POND DETENTION BASINS 51 AWatershed Approach to Urban Runoff: Handbook for Decisionmahers n � • Pollutant Removal ■ Nonporous soils. Since wet ponds must 0. maintain a pool of:water, they should not be Wet pond detention basins remove the built in porous soils. Filtration can be Nf following pollutants: prevented by constructing the pond bottom • ♦ Suspended solids below the normal groundwater elevation or by f 0 using synthetic, impermeable materials or clay. ♦ Total phosphorus • ■ Level topography. Wet ponds are not suited ♦ Total nitrogen to areas with extreme slopes; therefore, sites (.-vJ ♦ Trace metals, both particulate and should be relatively flat. dissolved. Pollutant removal mechanisms in wet ponds ■ Operation and maintenance. To operate • and maintain a wet pond properly, perform include settling and vegetative uptake. the following tasks on a regular basis or as O ■ Settling. When the pond detains runoff, necessary: O particulates and associated pollutants ♦ Remove accumulated sediments (usually accumulate within the pond. Additional every five to six years). stormwater entering the pond displaces the • previous runoff, but the settled material ♦ Inspect, clean, and repair inlet and outlet 0 remains. structures. O ♦ Inspect and repair pond bottom. ■ Vegetative uptake. Aquatic plants in wet ponds remove nutrients and other pollutants ♦ Control erosion (regrade, revegetate, and O from the runoff before it is discharged to the replace riprap). receiving water. Vegetation in a wet pond can ♦ Remove debris and litter. 0 be enhanced by additional plantings. •0 Studies in the National Urban Runoff ♦ Control nuisance insects, weeds, odors,and algae. Program indicate that properly designed wet O pond detention basins can be expected to ♦ Harvest deciduous vegetation in late remove pollutants effectively at the following summer/early fall. 0 removal rates: O ♦ Suspended solids: up to 98 percent Design Guidelines 0 ♦ Total phosphorus: up to 70 percent Principles of wet pond design include the ♦ Total nitrogen: up to 48 percent following: O ♦ Lead: up to 95 percent ■ Multiple levels. Wet ponds generally have O• ♦ Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), zinc, multiple levels. O r and copper: up to 45 percent ♦ The first level contains the permanent • pool of water. Physical Requirements ♦ The second level contains the flat, vegetated inundation area to be used To be effective, wet ponds must be properly during storms. • operated and maintained. They also require a large land area that is relatively flat and ♦ The third level should also be vegetated nonporous. but is inundated only during extremely • heavy storms. This level acts as a O ■ Large amounts of land. Wet ponds generally biological filter. are better suited for new development projects J with large amounts of open land. 52 FACT SHEETS ■ Sizing rules. These rules specify the volume of runoff to be detained during a storm (see chapter 2). Different government agencies specify different sizing rules, but none of these rules should be considered a design standard. Selected References ■ Spillways. Wet ponds should contain For more information on the characteristics or emergency spillways to prevent flooding from design of wet ponds, refer to the following g yp g publications: I large storms. Maryland Association of Soil Conservation ■ Sediment forebays. Sediment forebays are Districts. 1987.Stormwater Management Pond areas or structures that trap larger sediment Design and Construction Manual.$15. Howard particles. They can be located upstream or Soil Conservation District, 9025 Chevrolet Drive, Ellicott City, MD 20142: (410) 465-3180, incorporated into the wet pond. Because forebays can be easily cleaned, they improve Maryland Department of the Environment. 1986. the wet pond's efficiency. Feasibility and Design of Wet Ponds to Achieve Water Quality Control. $3. Fiscal Services Division, Cash Receipt Unit, 2500 Broening ■ Separated inlets and outlets. Inlet and Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224; (410)631-3553. outlet structures should be constructed as far away from each other as possible— Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, {I preferably at opposite ends of the pond—to Department of Environmental Programs. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff:A Practical Manual for prevent short circuiting and increase Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. $40. 777 N. detention time. Capitol Street, NE,Suite 300,Washington, DC 20002-4201; (202) 962-3256. ■ Other factors. Vegetation, side slopes, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources depth, shape, and buffers are other factors Conservation Service. Field Office Technical that influence the design of wet pond Guide. Contact your state or county office listed detention basins. in the phone book under U.S.Government, Department of Agriculture. Engineering Field Manual. Contact your state or county office listed in the phone book under U.S.Government, Department of Agriculture. 1986. Revised Urban Hydrology for Small (� Watersheds.Technical Release No. 55.$29. Order#PB87101580. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,Springfield, VA 22 16 1; (703)487-4650. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Methodology for Analysis of Detention Basins for Control of Urban Runoff Quality. EPA 440/5-87-0001. Free. Urban Sources Section (WH-553), 401 M Street,SW,Washington, DC 20460; (202) 260-7085. FACT SHEET 2:WET POND DETENTION BASINS 53 08/17/1999 15: 13 8606478397 RENIA EC_LOGICAL SERJ 01.21 REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC F. x � 19 Foster Street Manchester.Cr 06040 (860)6494;EMA [860)647.8397(fax) romsensoLeom August 17, 1998 Mr. Peter DeMallie, Principal Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Water Quality BMPs Proposed Output Technologies, Inc. 125 Ellington Road, South Windsor; Connecticut RES Job # 9841 SWN2 Dear Peter: At your request, I have reviewed the site plans for the above-referenced proposal (dated 8/7/98, revised through 8/12/98) and offer some brief comments and recommendations with regard to the -urban runoff and to protect ability of the proposed stormwater management system to renovatep adjacent wetland resources. 1.0 STRUCTURAL BMPS The stormwater management system (SMS) is the central BMP proposed for the site to ensure protection of water quality. Water quality control BMPs assist in preventing the release of pollutants into urban runoff, or once they are released reduce the quantities that enter surface or ground waters to levels or concentrations that are not harmful to natural ecosystems, and humans. Completely recapturing released pollutants is impossible, and the expense of the BMPs exponentially increases for higher and higher levels of recapture. Prevention, which should also be one of the goals of the proposed SMS, is always more efficient and cost-effective. Following is a brief description of the SMS's components. 1.1 Catch basins Twenty-six (26) proposed catch basins will be used for the site. These will be the standard type catch basins with minimum two-foot deep sumps. They will serve to collect stormwater off the parking lots. Six(6) of these catch basins provide additional protection against potential pollution Sail&Wetland Studies • Ecology ♦ Environmental Planning&Management ♦ Permitting ♦ Ecological Restoration&Habitat Mitigation • Expert Testimony kJ9i 1 7.`199,= 15:13 5606478997 , REh�I�; ECIILOGI=,;-;L SOCR'1+ Pr-;uE ��:=, Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 Page 2 by floatables (i.e. hydrocarbons), by being fitted with hooded outlets. It should be noted that one additional catch basin is being proposed at the beginning of the entrance driveway to the site' This catch basin will discharge to four in-line dry webs. The catch basins will employed as the first step in the water quality renovation process to pre- treat runoff from paved areas. When properly sized and maintained, catch basin traps are effective in reducing the sediment and pollutant load in runoff. Research has shown that practically all particles larger than 246 microns are removed by catch basins (i.e. >0.25 mm; medium sands and coarser) (Sartor and Boyd 1972). However, investigations have shown that trapped catch basin sediments have a much smaller median particle size than street dirt and, therefore, have a greater potential to pollute, if not properly maintained, than do particulates removed by street sweeping. Regular catch basin cleaning and maintenance, therefore, is of paramount importance for the proper functioning of this BMP, and to reduce the potential for sediment re-suspension and export during rare, large volume scouring rains. 1.2 Water Quality Inlets (Oil& Grease Separators) Three (3) water quality inlets (a.k.a. oil & grease traps) will be installed as the last structure before the proposed wet pond retention area (see below). These BMPs will function as the second step in the water quality renovation process. Water quality inlets are designed to remove sediment and hydrocarbon loadings from runoff before they are conveyed to other BMPs and/or receiving waters. Since runoff is only briefly retained in these BMPs, they primarily remove only larger soil particles from water. Using baffles and multiple chambers, water quality inlets can retain floatables (i.e. hydrocarbons) allowing for longer contact time leading to adsorption by coarse particles. Advantages of water quality inlets lie in their unobtrusiveness, compatibility with the stormwater conveyance network, easy access, and capability to pre-treat runoff before it enters other BMPs. Major disadvantages center on the need for clean-outs. This need will be addressed under Procedural BMPs. A fact sheet (Fact Sheet S) on water quality inlets is attached to this communication. 1.3 Wet Pond & Water Quality Swale (Retention Basin) The third and fourth steps in the water quality renovation process for the site will involve and enhanced "wet pond" retention basin fitted with a water quality swale. According to Doenges and others (1993), a CT DEP publication, wet ponds and wet extended detention basins are "an extremely effective water quality BMP, ... which if appropriately sized and maintained, ... can 08 17/1998 15: 13 8606478397 REM C—ECOLOGICAL 5ERV --AGE 04 Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Pr000sal ; August 17, 1998 Page 3 _�: achieve a high removal rate of sediment, BOD, organic nutrients, and trace metals. " (emphasis added). The selected BNlP is an environmentally effective means of controlling peak discharges, removing particulate pollutants, and controlling increases in downstream flooding and streambank erosion. Other positive features of chosen design include the inclusion of a water quality swale planted with wetland emergents, the diversification of the local wildlife habitat, and the protection of groundwater. The water quality swale will receive and treat water from the parking lot before it is released to the wet pond (open water habitat). The swale will have an ambient water level of about six inches and will be planted with a variety of wetland emergents. The swale bed will be planted with cattail (Typha latifolia), soft-stern bulrush (Scirpus validus), and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) (along the edges). The bottom half of the swale's sideslopes will be planted with three-square- rush (Scirpus americanus), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), and blue flag (Iris versicolor). Thus,.,a shallow marsh community will be created as part of this BMP. To further enhance the water quality renovation performance of the swale, six (6) traprock berms are being proposed at regular intervals. These berms will slow down water that flow through them. increasing the residence time of stormwater runoff in the swale and, thus, pollutant removal efficiencies. According to Schueler and others (1992) the documented benefits of a "wet pond" detention basin are: (1) high removal of both particulate and soluble urban runoff pollutants, (2) substantial longevity, lasting 25 years or more with modest but regular maintenance, and (3) wetland and/or aquatic vegetation in the normal interior pool and its perimeter increases the removal of soluble nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), trace metals, coliform bacteria and organic matter. The negative aspects of wet ponds are comparatively minor: (1) potential for downstream warming (usually only a concern if a coldwater fishery exists) (no outlet proposed here), and (2) a slight decrease of pollutant removal performance during ice and snowmelt.runoff conditions. A fact sheet (Fact Sheet 2) on wet ponds is attached to this communication. 2.0 PROCEDURAL BMPs Several long-term procedural BNTs, or housekeeping practices, are proposed or recommended for the site. These are paramount for the proper and efficient functioning of the stormwater management system. 0 o _ _ _ 1,. 199-` 15: 1�� '?6k�64?S-�ti, REM.". ���OLQt�I�u�;� �,E=V =':;aG 05 MIM Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 Page 4 The maintenance procedures outlined below are similar to those proposed under the CT DEP "Stormwater Management Plan" (SWMP) for the "General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity," dated October 1, 1997. ♦ Sweeping: All paved sidewalks, driveways and other impervious surfaces (except roofs) should be swept clean of sand, litter and any other possible pollutants at least annually, between April 1 and May l and at other times as necessary. Frequent sweeping of impervious areas can aid in the removal of runoff solids and contaminant loadings, increase the effectiveness of and reduce the maintenance requirements for the catch basins and water quality inlets and provide aesthetics and visual benefits to the site. r dependent upon sediment article size and the frequency of efficiencies are de q Sweeping removal effict p p p sweeping. Sweeping is generally limited to removal of only the coarser sediment particles, such as the sand typically applied during de-icing operations. Very fine-grained particles, which typically contain the greatest amounts of adsorbed contaminants, are generally not removed by sweeping and are Ieft to be washed off during storm events to be treated by other BMPs. As a result, overall sweeping removal efficiencies for pollutants tend to be in the 10% to 50% range, with the higher range associated with the coarser particles (Sartor and Gaboury 1984; Bender and Terstriep 1984). ♦ Maintenance of Catch Basins and Water Oualitv Inlets: The site's catch basins and water quality inlets (i.e. oil & grease separators) should be inspected on a bi-annual basis, or more frequently if necessary. These structures should be cleaned of sediment no less than annually between April 1 and May 1. However, if it is determined that a significant accumulation of sediment (i.e. more than 20% of the sump capacity) is present, immediate cleaning should follow. Similar to the sweeping of impervious surfaces, the effectiveness of catch basins at removing pollutants from runoff is a function of particle size, hydraulic factors (velocity of flow, frequency of wash-off, and maintenance of catch basin sumps. With proper maintenance the catch basins proposed as part of the site's drainage system will provide appreciable (>60%) reductions in suspended solids (by weight) while concomitantly removing adsorbed contaminants such as heavy metals and adsorbed hydrocarbons from the water column (Aronson et al. 1983). Clal '17/1999 15: 13 86064 7 8397 REt+Ma ECO i_UuIUDAL 'DER+. :; E 06 Mr. Peter DeMallie �� OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 \WA *:, f Page 5 4; A study has shown (Pitt 1985) that only about 60 percent of the total available sump volume of a typical catch basin is used to detain particulates at a stable volume. The study concluded that cleaning the sumps once or twice a year will reduce lead and total suspended solids (TSS) concentration by 10 to 25 percent and phosphorus, nitrogen and zinc by 5 to 10 percent. 3.0 CONCLUSION In my opinion, the proposed "runoff treatment train" (i.e. catch basins, water quality inlets, water quality swble, wet pond), should provide superior stormwater renovation. A high level of treatment will be provided by the SMS and a high level of protection will be offered against contamination by hydrocarbons. It is estimated that with the proposed and recommended procedural BMPs in place the SMS will exceed the CT DEP and USEPA guideline of removing 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) from stormwater runoff(CT DEP 1997, EPA 1993). The proposed project will, therefore, meet EPANURP and CT DEP standards for treating stormwater runoff by detaining, retaining, or transforming the major portion of urban runoff constituents to levels that will maintain water quality for this particular site. Given these factors, the quality of the water leaving the proposed BMPs and entering the ground water at the site will be treated at a level that will have no discernible negative impacts. Moreover, no discernable impacts are anticipated to the wetland resources within and adjacent to the property due to the proposal. Please contact me at my office if you have any questions on the above or are in need of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC George T. Logan. MS Professional fes ional Wetland Scientist Registered Soil Scientist VIA FAX& HAND-DELIVERY Attachments: Fact Sheet No. 5 & No. 2 projects)conn 19841 SWN211ett 1.doe EJl_lr 1r 1 I'i L : 1CI ;=ibUbar'Clj' �i REMA ECOLOGIM SEIMCES, LLC REPORT DATE: Au uat 17 1998 19 Faster Street PAGE 1 OF 3 Manchester,CT 86048 PHONE: (860)649-REMA FAx: (860)6474399 ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT PRfl3Et'T NAmE& SITE LOCATION'. RES Job No.: 53$415�N2 41 i .3echnUL04its,Inc Field 1nv"tigation Datt(s): .Juiy 8'" 34S$ o5 ain kaad Reid Inv oftation methowsj: 5p+th W41&6�.CT Spade and AuM Q Rackhoe Vest fits 0 Othu! REPORT PREPARED FOR: Field Conditions: Desion t'rofasslonala.Itic. Wea'tW:hot.&h Imij 16 8oxrth 5ateilite Road foil N10 e: rMade 6oat;h Yftd5or, CT 06074 snow Depth- itla Frost Depth: nta Purpose of investigation: Wetland I3elineation/.Flaggmg in Field �] Wetland Mapping on Sketch Flan or Topographic Plan [� High Intensity Sail Mapping by Soil Scientist Medium Intensity Soil Mapping from SCS Soil Survey Maps Other: Base Map Source: Hmtfpnd Gmmlu i�2r l Simn v 1-962) Wetland Boundary Marker Series:RE5-1 In R 5-35 n la=)ar tI RE5-'M to KP-�-IQ9f:inard 10012) General Site Deseription/Comments: The anil5 ao5oriated with the cite are identified and ela661fied nr►iniar�ii c a6 ijndi4turbed typiag, that are derivad from atarial fl„viai (i.e. oiitwayh, 4and And aravisl) di The ei&o anife, are iWenttheJ Aa the ' fin and-Zg2e" Windrcor (Wv) as fine 5and_a�inigret 01) fine oandu loam aoiLserie Th "wetland-type 2oily Were fdentifiad a tht Lt11+eAqunntr, (,612) ii ami1jr and the t".:a dPD loam onil r&des, The mare tworr4ula d arpati a5tinrlafPd with the "I ,_ first if, an cast-wee, oricnt&d wet d'ttc,'h that draine a - rt hnAst nf tU,r site- The,hitrit ff*nyzya sur#a P watPr and ceasart rl 4 m►mWartzr flows from th afa trMPrrtinneA Cff-aitp weti-md to a ornafl r 107r,at itb Tian-ecomd is gm i5oiatezi WJ!1 r2 ark vmc k t that occum%ithm an andcultaral fb!M at the 31te`� corm Ids area Post iiktgy awvb d to Mad t to the of--bite w&A&M 12 t it,&fz� y'-. 1 ounia-time 16-thn nor .." hi_16W a ZaVa nri'OfthA Ara1fi&@&A .h W&Ua d {IX7liCA[,L Xi NM�V Cw�vr �� �aa.+='�'.y E381'17.'1995 15:13 86F6478397 ?, CCi ; RE IA E U3G3IC-I � DER � ;�� A8 PAGE 2 OF 3 DATE: 811719f� ON-SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT (CONTINUED) PlkOJECT NAME& SITE LOCATION: Output lechnologicr2. lmr,. - 1 .;-5 llin4t an Road Sa Windsr)r- CT SOIL MAP UNITS Wtthm .S.o16 Aquents (Aq). This roil map unit consists of poorly drained and very poorly drained, disturbed land areas. They are b r► sub`ect to prior fillip and/or excavation activities. In general, this n { n s es that have ee fo found o a d ea 9 most often u p J p Soil neap unit occurs where two or emore feet of the original coil durfaee had been filled over, graded or exeavattd. The Aquerrte are characterized by a 5ea5onal to prolonged nigh ground water table and either support or are capable of Supporting wetland vegetation. A juents are recently formed soils that have an aquic moisture regime. An aquic moisture regime i5 associated with a reducing soil environment that i5 virtually free of dlssolved oxygen because the Soil is saturated by groundwater or by water of the capillary fringe. The key feature is the presence of a ground water table at or very near to the soil surface for a period of fourteen days or longer during the growing season. Walpole sandy loam (Wd). This series consists of deep, poorly drained soils formed in sandy water deposited glacial outwaoh materials. They are nearly level to gently sloping soils on glaciofluvial landforms,typically in shallow drainage ways and low-lying positions on stream terraces and outwash plains. The soH5 formed in loamy over stratified sandy and gravelly outwash derived from a variety of acid rocks. Typically, these soils have a very dark brown sandy loam surface layer 6 inches thick. The subsoil from 6 to 23 inches is mottled, grayish brown sandy loam. The substratum from 23 to 60 inches is mottled, light brownish gray,gravelly loamy sand and gravelly sand. Upland Soils Windsor loAmy fine sand (Wv). This serle5 consists of very deep, excesslvely drained coils formed in sandy water deposited glacial outwash materials. They are nearly level to strongly sloping 5oii5 on elaciofluvial terraces, deltas. and outwaah plains. The soils formed in thick deposits of sand derived mainly from granite, gneiss and quartzite, but in places containing materials from schlot and sandstone. The nand !a poorly graded; medium Sand io generally dominant and typically contains little or no gravel. Typically, these soils have a dark brown loamy sand surface layer 7 inches thick: The subsoil from 7 to 2& inches is yellowish brown loamy sand. The substratum from 28 to 60 inches is light yellowish brown sand. Ninigmt; fine Bandy loam (Nn). This serer consists of very deep moderately well drained soils formed in a coarse- loamy mantle underlain by sandy water deposited glacial outwash materials. They are nearly lave! to gently sloping soils on glaclofluvial landforme,typically In slight depressions and broad drainage ways. The lolls formed in loamy over stratified sandy and gravelly outwash derived from a variety of acid racks. Typically, there soils have a very dark grayish brown fine sandy loam surface layer 8 inches thick. The subsoil from 3 to 26 inches is yellowish brown fine Sandy loam with mottles below 16 incher. The substratum from 26. to 60 inches jo mottled, pale brown, loose, 5tratiled loamy sand. { MEMORANDUM TO: Jeffrey H. Folger, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer DATE: �? l , 1998 RE: DST—Output Technologies Site Plan /two S-/Z-9 9- We have reviewed thetdrawings dated96 for the proposed DST—Output Technologies Site Plan and have the flowing comments: 1. tention pond contou a not labeled and pond bottom elevation not shown. 2. Rip at inlets into nd are not dimensioned. Detail is also required. 3. Have to its b taken? If so, please have applicant's consultant furnish results. 4. Detail of phoo shown. Where are these proposed? 5. Detail sedimentation ctures-and traprock berms. JCl/sfg PUIDST/memo aug10 REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, ut j. ,, 19 Foster Street Manchester,CT 06040 (860)649-REMA (860)647-8397(fax) remaBftol.com August 17 1998 Mr. Peter DeMallie, Principal Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Water Quality BMPs Proposed Output Technologies, Inc. 125 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut RES Job # 9841SWN2 Dear Peter: At your request, I have reviewed the site plans for the above-referenced proposal (dated 8/7/98, revised through 8/12/98) and offer some brief comments and recommendations with regard to the ability of the proposed stormwater management system to renovate urban runoff and to protect adjacent wetland resources. 1.0 STRUCTURAL BMPs The stormwater management system (SMS) is the central BMP proposed for the site to ensure protection of water quality. Water quality control BMPs assist in preventing the release of pollutants into urban runoff, or once they are released reduce the quantities that enter surface or ground waters to levels or concentrations that are not harmful to natural ecosystems, and humans. Completely recapturing released pollutants is impossible, and the expense of the BMPs exponentially increases for higher and higher levels of recapture. Prevention, which should also be one of the goals of the proposed SMS, is always more efficient and cost-effective. Following is a brief description of the SMS's components. 1.1 Catch basins Twenty-six (26) proposed catch basins will be used for the site. These will be the standard type catch basins with minimum two-foot deep sumps. They will serve to collect stormwater off the parking lots. Six(6)of these catch basins provide additional protection against potential pollution Soil&Wetland Studies ♦ Ecology ♦ Environmental Planning&Management ♦ Permitting ♦ Ecological Restoration&Habitat Mitigation ♦ Expert Testimony Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 Page 2 by floatables (i.e. hydrocarbons), by being fitted with hooded outlets. It should be noted that one additional catch basin is being proposed at the beginning of the entrance driveway to the site. This catch basin will discharge to four in-line dry wells. The catch basins will employed as the first step in the water quality renovation process to pre- treat runoff from paved areas. When properly sized and maintained, catch basin traps are effective in reducing the sediment and pollutant load in runoff. Research has shown that practically all particles larger than 246 microns are removed by catch basins (i.e. >0.25 nun; medium sands and coarser) (Sartor and Boyd 1972). However, investigations have shown that trapped catch basin sediments have a much smaller median particle size than street dirt and, therefore, have a greater potential to pollute, if not properly maintained, than do particulates removed by street sweeping. Regular catch basin cleaning and maintenance, therefore, is of paramount importance for the proper functioning of this BMP, and to reduce the potential for sediment re-suspension and export during rare, large volume scouring rains. 1.2 Water Quality Inlets (Oil& Grease Separators) Three (3) water quality inlets (a.k.a. oil & grease traps) will be installed as the last structure before the proposed wet pond retention area (see below). These BMPs will function as the second step in the water quality renovation process. Water quality inlets are designed to remove sediment and hydrocarbon loadings from runoff before they are conveyed to other BMPs and/or receiving waters. Since runoff is only briefly retained in these BMPs, they primarily remove only larger soil particles from water. Using baffles and multiple chambers, water quality inlets can retain floatables (i.e. hydrocarbons) allowing for longer contact time leading to adsorption by coarse particles. Advantages of water quality inlets lie in their unobtrusiveness, compatibility with the stormwater conveyance network, easy access, and capability to pre-treat runoff before it enters other BMPs. Major disadvantages center on the need for clean-outs. This need will be addressed under Procedural BMPs. A fact sheet (Fact Sheet S) on water quality inlets is attached to this communication. 1.3 Wet Pond & Water Quality Swale (Retention Basin) The third and fourth steps in the water quality renovation process for the site will involve and enhanced "wet pond" retention basin fitted with a water quality swale. According to Doenges and others (1993), a CT DEP publication, wet ponds and wet extended detention basins are "an extremely effective water quality BMP, ... which if appropriately sized and maintained. ... can Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 Page 3 ..4_ achieve a high removal rate of sediment, BOD, organic nutrients, and trace metals. " (emphasis added). The selected BMP is an environmentally effective means of controlling peak discharges, removing particulate pollutants, and controlling increases in downstream flooding and streambank erosion. Other positive features of chosen design include the inclusion of a water quality swale planted with wetland emergents, the diversification of the local wildlife habitat, and the protection of groundwater. The water quality Swale will receive and treat water from the parking lot before it is released to the wet pond (open water habitat). The swale will have an ambient water level of about six inches and will be planted with a variety of wetland emergents. The swale bed will be planted with cattail (Typha latifolia), soft-stem bulrush (Scirpus validus), and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) (along the edges). The bottom half of the swale's sideslopes will be planted with three-square- rush (Scirpus americanus), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), and blue flag (Iris versicolor). Thus, a shallow marsh community will be created as part of this BMP. To further enhance the water quality renovation performance of the swale, six (6) traprock berms are being proposed at regular intervals. These berms will slow down water that flow through them, increasing the residence time of stormwater runoff in the swale and, thus, pollutant removal efficiencies. According to Schueler and others (1992) the documented benefits_of a "wet pond" detention basin are: (1) high removal of both particulate and soluble urban runoff pollutants, (2) substantial longevity, lasting 25 years or more with modest but regular maintenance, and (3) wetland and/or aquatic vegetation in the normal interior pool and its perimeter increases the removal of soluble nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), trace metals, coliform bacteria and organic matter. The negative aspects of wet ponds are comparatively minor: (1) potential for downstream warming (usually only a concern if a Coldwater fishery exists) (no outlet proposed here), and (2) a slight decrease of pollutant removal performance during ice and snowmelt runoff conditions. A fact sheet (Fact Sheet 2) on wet ponds is attached to this communication. 2.0 PROCEDURAL BMPS Several long-term procedural BMPs, or housekeeping practices, are proposed or recommended for the site. These are paramount for the proper and efficient functioning of the stormwater management system. Mr. Peter DeMallie • OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 ' Page 4 .. The maintenance procedures outlined below are similar to those proposed under the CT DEP "Stormwater Management Plan" (SWMP) for the "General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity," dated October 1, 1997. ♦ Sweeping: All paved sidewalks, driveways and other impervious surfaces (except roofs) should be swept clean of sand, litter and any other possible pollutants at least annually, between April 1 and May 1 and at other times as necessary. Frequent sweeping of impervious areas can aid in the removal of runoff solids and contaminant loadings, increase the effectiveness of and reduce the maintenance requirements for the catch basins and water quality inlets and provide aesthetics and visual benefits to the site. Sweeping removal efficiencies are dependent upon sediment particle size and the frequency of sweeping. Sweeping is generally limited to removal of only the coarser sediment particles, such as the sand typically applied during de-icing operations. Very fine-grained particles, which typically contain the greatest amounts of adsorbed contaminants, are generally not removed by sweeping and are left to be washed off during storm events to be treated by other BMPs. As a result, overall sweeping removal efficiencies for pollutants tend to be in the 10% to 50% range, with the higher range associated with the coarser particles (Sartor and Gaboury 1984; Bender and Terstriep 1984). ♦ Maintenance of Catch Basins and Water Quality Inlets: The site's catch basins and water quality inlets (i.e. oil & grease separators) should be inspected on a bi-annual basis, or more frequently if necessary. These structures should be cleaned of sediment no less than annually between April 1 and May 1. However, if it is determined that a significant accumulation of sediment (i.e. more than 20% of the sump capacity) is present, immediate cleaning should follow. Similar to the sweeping of impervious surfaces, the effectiveness of catch basins at removing pollutants from runoff is a function of particle size, hydraulic factors (velocity of flow, frequency of wash-off, and maintenance of catch basin sumps. With proper maintenance the catch basins proposed as part of the site's drainage system will provide appreciable (>60%) reductions in suspended solids (by weight) while concomitantly removing adsorbed contaminants such as heavy metals and adsorbed hydrocarbons from the water column (Aronson et al. 1983). Mr. Peter DeMallie OTI Proposal August 17, 1998 1 Page S Fr; A study has shown (Pitt 1985) that only about 60 percent of the total available sump volume of a typical catch basin is used to detain particulates at a stable volume. The study concluded that cleaning the sumps once or twice a year will reduce lead and total suspended solids (TSS) concentration by 10 to 25 percent and phosphorus, nitrogen and zinc by 5 to 10 percent. 3.0 CONCLUSION In my opinion, the proposed "runoff treatment train" (i.e. catch basins, water quality inlets, water quality swale, wet pond), should provide superior stormwater renovation. A high level of treatment will be provided by the SMS and a high level of protection will be offered against contamination by hydrocarbons. It is estimated that with the proposed and recommended procedural BMPs in place the SMS will exceed the CT DEP and USEPA guideline of removing 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) from stormwater runoff(CT DEP 1997, EPA 1993). The proposed project will, therefore, meet EPA/NURP and CT DEP standards for treating stormwater runoff by detaining, retaining, or transforming the major portion of urban runoff constituents to levels that will maintain water quality for this particular site. Given these factors, the quality of the water leaving the proposed BMPs and entering the ground water at the site will be treated at a level that will have no discernible negative impacts. Moreover, no discernable impacts are anticipated to the wetland resources within and adjacent to the property due to the proposal. Please contact me at my office if you have any questions on the above or are in need of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, REMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, LLC George T. Logan. MS Professional Wetland Scientist Registered Soil Scientist VIA FAX& HAND-DELIVERY Attachments: Fact Sheet No. S&No. 2 projects I conn 19841 SWN211ett1.doe Memorandum To: Frank Castro, Chair- South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission CC: IWA/CC From: Elizabeth A. Warren - Chair, South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission Date: August 18, 1998 Re: Appl. 98-41 P, Maneeley's Banquet Facility Project. At the August 17th meeting of the IWA/CC, the Commission approved the wetland permit 98-41 P for Maneeley's Banquet Facility project at lot#42 of the Commerce Way Subdivision. The Commission would recommend that any approval contain a condition that all sediment structures be inspected and maintained bi-annually or twice a year. This would give the Town the means necessary to properly enforce this measure should the need arise. Y; F 1 SSW N Sr" G U a m ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 soR•co AREA CODE 860/644-2511 August 24, 1998 Certified Mail Thomas R. McGee, Jr., Vice President DST Realty, Inc. 333 West 11th Street, Suite 101 Kansas City, MO 64105 Dear Mr. McGee: Re: Appl #98-40P, DST Realty, Inc. Site Plan/119 Ellington Road, South Windsor At the August 17, 1998 special meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved appl #98-40P, DST Realty, Inc. - IWA/CC permit for the construction of a 160,000 sq. ft. building and associated improvements on property located at 119 Ellington Road, I-291 CD zone (Assessor's map #5 8s 6, parcels 25, 26, 27) as shown on plans prepared by Design Professionals, Inc., Job. No. #98-1115 and revised through August 12, 1998. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. One blueprint copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning & Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement. 2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use. 3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on August 17, 2003. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. 4. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. S. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. 6. We recommend a bond in the amount of $10,000 be submitted to the Planning 8s Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures. JJ 1-4679 I (860) 397-3600 FAX (860) 397-3642 I i-.x: (860) 674-2693 1 3 23 2 AEMMe 0 24 28 22 ST.MARC 5 CIRCLE (P,t) •\''\ 27 C Q 6 0 20 17 22 Z �v ; / 291 / 37 36 o c STREET 35 F ® R ® 28 25 4 .• 23 34 21 33 31 30 29 28 87 :SOU / :r �F• �' Eh ram. /I l 19 XJnl�n�!yr- dsor \ ----� •� Q',� �• o o o o I .�u Il 1 1 I 0 0 � ,l�v� v �.E.(�,''•may,�"t � ;! t�la1• f �11 �G"`- _ �� ��-'� •��� �,�;A�i;l �r � 1, J.'� � .r .��! ��:'�`•� 1 .I.•k��\� - � ' \ �\ I�� 1 ))) o 0 i o �., i �/ � � --,,, �\\ ill �.\ i ,.• v (•• F- // .)I ./ ...::;r:._..::-.. �•`_ o` ,,1ff'�' .`i i .� t X laypit � ` ,�%,�. n � 1 v �` � i�1 �;!%� ,•Plus ;Al� � I�I�\ �e � ��., �" �� 1, iio O � 37 o00 > `v!Theater,' �\ .< + \\ i i,t .r ` r `''•;I;' ,�� '�i� !` /r o zet � � :\, � / I;�� c., I� � \ •\ `°�� o mil, � /\ G�°� Il .' :`I )��✓ tier ) %/P�`j/� f o30 An Od SITE x ham _ -�= —.—I �'STREET. c �, � ---�- lop � ♦u � '�` ail"' V ���I ��(�v �) �I m - E La Oki a Stt{a � BIJR � �. r - Library t s ) Q y� ! .r AN'�E1 �`>•, y St. eh , r •��y ,. �.� YP,NGE; ) .,.��i- i Laurel�.ake,_ _,�! -� �\\\,Ili Dis Sewn �u k \�