20050578 Ver 1_More Info Received_20051019

Subject: [Fwd: Re: Pennybyrn Updates]
From: Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:26:02 -0400
To: daryl lamb <[e-mail]>, Danny Smith <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly
<[e-mail]>, Steve Tedder <[e-mail]>
I asked the consultant a few questions about the info he sent us and my questions and
his responses are below. He's also revised the table he had sent.
Subject: RE: Pennybyrn Updates
From: "Moreschi, Monte" <MMorescl~[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:51:34 -0400
To: Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>, "Moreschi, Monte" <[e-mail]>
Hello Boyd,
I have attached the revised Site Summary Table for your review. The
revision where made to clarify some of the data presented.
In the following paragraph, I will answer the questions raised during your
cursory review:
1. Question: One question is did you give any
credit for nutrient removal for buffer that will be left in place if the
stream were avoided?
Answer: It is my opinion that if the site is developed around the buffer all
development would be collected via the storm drainage system and routed
through the pond. Therefore, the only nutrient removal the buffer provides
is for nutrients that it creates neither benefiting or hurting overall
nutrient removal on-site.
2. Question(s): My quick review did not see that. Also, where did
the Table 1 "First Edition"?? come from? The NURP study?
Answer: Table 1 in the phosphorous removal calculations is from the
"Controlling Urban Runoff: A practical Manual for Planning an Designing
Urban BMPs".
3. Question: Also, some of the removal efficiencies for P and N are greater
than what the Division has recognized, can you give me a little more
justification of
why the numbers you gave should be acceptable?
Answer: The removal efficiencies for P and N are based on Schueler, 1997;
Appendix D and the National Urban Runoff Program Studies. Removal
efficiencies represent averages seen nationwide in different studies. I
will not argue for or against the removal efficiencies since there is a
large amount of differing data of which none has been from a study conducted
at Pennybyrn.
However, the most important part of the study is not the amount removed but
the amount removed from our current proposed plan versus a theoretical
design leaving the buffer in place. The treating of existing developed area
that is grandfathered from stormwater management benefits the overall
quality of water in the basin. Yes, the quality is negatively affected by
develop; nevertheless, Pennybyrn can develop the proposed area or more if
they do not disturb the buffer.
1 of 2 10/19/2005 9:44 AM

W
H
a
W
H
--i
a i
'~
~ c
s
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
^C p ~ ~ ~ ~/] 'C c/~ u
c~ O
F ~ ~ O
' ^. a~
U ,~ cs
Q
0
O \O CJ
r ~ +
+
p [~ N o
~ [,,,i ~ E„r ""~
+
a M ~ ~ c., c.. c
a°'t '-' ~ \ \ ~
~ ~ ~
r
q r

U
it

a

~
~ o ~
~ o
.~

' o
U
t O
O
O
O
n' 00 V _
W °• ~
M i..i
'--~
CJ G
~ ~ Sr y y to ~ ~ it
6~

~
~
~
U
U
~"
~ ~ ,
t
~ '
CS
O + C
+
J
O ~
~
~
~ ~
j
~ ~ _
CS C7 y
~

F U
~ Q ~G
O
~
~
~
~ ~
M
O U y
-+ a.>
O w
~ N ~ N O II M F W E-+ O
II ~i II ~i II W
~ ~ a
r

~ b ° ~
a ~ w
O
V
~t
[~ ~ ~.
~
v
O -1 --~ -f- -~' M Li
rn O . .
o ~
~ ~ `~
~ rr
a
~.
~ ~

0
tit ~
~ o ~ o
. ~ c vi
~ c
W ,~
0

y
~.

~ d F., d O d cs ~
~
d
~
.~ ~
'ti
•ti ~ F"
.o ~
^c~ ~ Q.
~ ~
•
~ .~ L ... L ~ rn a L ~ ~ (=W L ~ L

U
3+r CJ

~ O C>

~ w+ C.2
6> ~+ U
~
~ ~.+ Q ~u U

~ ~
~ c~
4-~
U W tai ~~ / Wd W V] t3~