Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutControlling Polluted Stormwater: A Management Plan for the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor 1/1/2001 Controlling Polluted Stormwater: A Management Plan for the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor Prepared By Watershed Advisory Committee 4 January 2001 WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE Andrew J. Spano WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Joyce M. Lannert, AICP, Commissioner Gerard Mulligan, AICP, Deputy Commissioner Gina D'Agrosa, AICP, Director of Environmental Planning/Watermaster PROJECT STAFF Robert Doscher, PWS, CPESC, Associate Environmental Planner, Project Manager Paul Gisondo, Associate Planner Claudia Ng Maxwell, Environmental Planner Mindy Moore, Assistant Environmental Planner Michael Saviola, Environmental Planner Michael Selig, Program Specialist (GIS) COMMITTEE ON NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Warren Ross, Chair WATERSHED ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4 Ronald Bianchi, Harrison Holly Bukofser, Harrison Paula Lebowitz, Harrison Stephen Altieri, Mamaroneck Town Wallace Irwin, Mamaroneck Town Howard McMichael, Mamaroneck Town Phyllis Wittner, Mamaroneck Town Carl Alterman, Mamaroneck Village Michael Blau, Mamaroneck Village Doris Erdman, Mamaroneck Village Barbara Stein, Mamaroneck Village Edward Lynch, AICP, New Rochelle Howard Blitman, Scarsdale Alfred Gatta, Scarsdale Elizabeth Marrinan, Scarsdale Peter Van de Water, Scarsdale Rod Johnson, White Plains Pauline Oliva, White Plains January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 SECTION ONE THE PLAN INTRODUCTION 45 L Stream Assessment and Restoration 52 II. Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands 89 III. Stormivater Management 119 IV. Local Comprehensive Plans and Ordinances 152 V Outreach and Education 198 VI Funding 212 SECTION TWO APPENDIX Page I US EPA Phase H Stormwater Regulations H-3 II. Golf Courses and Stornnvater Management H-11 III. Outreach and Education II-21 IV. Municipal Regulatory and NonRegulatoq Tools U-29 V. Stornnvater Management U-45 VI. Wetland and Stream Buffers H-54 VII. Model Ordinances U-60 • Wetland Protection • Erosion and Sediment Control • Stormwater Management • Wetland and Stream Buffers VIII. Municipal Resolutions Endorsing Principles of WAC 4 Plan • Harrison • Mamaroneck Town • Mamaroneck Village • New Rochelle • Scarsdale • White Plains 3 MAPS, TABLES AND FIGURES MAPS Page 1. LONG ISLAND SOUND WA Cs 50A 2. WAC 4 STUDYAREA 50B 3. WAC 4 STREAM IMPAIRMENTS 88A 4. WAC 4 HYDROLOGY 99A S. WAC 4 STORMWA TER BASINS 150A 6. WAC 4 LAND USE 156A TABLES Section One 1. STREAMASSESSMENT 87 2. STRE4MRECOMMENDA77ONS 88 3. EFFECTS OF NPS POLLUTANTS FROM LAND USES ON WETLANDS 93 4. STORMWA TER BASIN ASSESSMENT 149 5. STORMWATER BASIN RECOMMENDATIONS 150 Section Two 1. PUBLIC EDUCATION TECHNIQUES U-24 2. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT BMPs H-52 FIGURES Section One 1. SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF RETENTION BASIN 124 2. SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN 125 3. SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN W/MARSH 126 4. PUBLICATIONS FOR SITING/SIZING STORMWATER FACILITIES 127 4. FLOATING WETLAND FILTER 151 Section Two 1. RANGE OFBUFFER WIDTHS 11-57 4 WAC 4 "STREAMWALK VOLUNTEERS" The "Streamwalk Volunteers" listed below made an invaluable contribution to this plan. Together, these volunteers assessed more than 30 miles of stream in the WAC 4 study area. Their accomplishments have been well recognized. The United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service presented them with both regional and national "group" awards for their outstanding volunteerism as part of its Earth Team Volunteers Program. Wallace Irwin, who organized the volunteers, also earned regional and national "individual" awards for his efforts. The Westchester County Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution and Soil and Water Conservation District also awarded the "Streamwalk Volunteers" and Mr. Irwin with plaques, recognizing them for their "outstanding" efforts. On October 4, 1998, the Westchester County Board of Legislators further honored the WAC 4 "Streamwalk Volunteers" with a proclamation, thanking them "for all they did to help protect our environment.". Alpert, Linda Martin, Carolee Athey, James McMichael Carole Bonica, Jim McMichael, Howard Bonica, Patricia Mitsch, Sasha Bukofser, Holly Mitsch, Steve D'Annunzio, Diane Model, Alice Eberhardt, Amy Mulhern, Dorothy Genatowski, Roselee Mulhern, William Goldstein, Arthur Ottinger, June Irwin, Wallace, Jr. Robb, Marion Joseph, Cynthia Sandler, Oreon Kaphan, Mitchell Spillo, Angelo Lebowitz, Paula Stein, Barbara Leitner, Pinky Watnick, Carole Mannix, Mary Lou Watnick, David Marrafino, Paul Wharton, Phillippa Marrafino, Sandra Wiener, Geoffrey Martin, Angel Wiener, Margaret Winkelstein, Nancy 5 SPECIAL APPRECIATION This plan has been prepared using a grant under Title 11 of the New York State Environmental Protection Fund, administered by the New York Department of State. Watershed Advisory Committee 4 is thankful for the Department of State's assistance in making this plan a reality. WAC 4 also recognizes the assistance provided by the Town of Mamaroneck, which applied for and received the grant that funded the development of this plan. The town's effort in seeking this funding and bringing the six municipalities and county together to focus their attention on stormwater runoff affecting the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor is much appreciated. WAC 4 especially recognizes the assistance with this effort provided by Mamaroneck Town Council Member Phyllis Wittner. 6 PREFACE This nonpoint source pollution control plan is published in accordance with the "Report and Recommendations" (1993) of the Citizens Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound. Its preparation is made possible by a state grant through the Environmental Protection Fund administered by the New York Department of State. The plan is divided into two sections. The first section contains recommendations specific to the Watershed Advisory Committee 4 (WAC 4) study area, which is comprised of the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor. These tributaries drain into the western end of Long Island Sound. Section I also provides a broad understanding of watershed planning for the Long Island Sound watershed. But, most importantly, it makes specific recommendations for controlling nonpoint source pollution in each municipality in the study area. This section describes characteristics of the study area, such as land use, streams and wetlands, and includes the results of watershed analyses and recommendations to reduce the volume of nonpoint source pollution entering Long Island Sound in Westchester County. Section I is specific to the WAC 4 study area and is "action-oriented." The second section is an appendix containing supplemental information and recommendations supporting the recommendations made in the first section. Section II highlights threats to water resources, identifies pollutants impacting water quality, and discusses management strategies and practices to protect, preserve and restore natural features that are essential to ensuring good water quality in the watersheds that make up the WAC 4 study area. This section is intended to be an educational tool to introduce the public and municipal officials to watershed planning, nonpoint source pollution control, and the various ways to reduce the threat of nonpoint source pollution. Section 11 also explains important federal stormwater regulations that will impact all municipalities in the study area. The two sections complement each other and provide all the necessary components of a comprehensive watershed management plan. The plan is intended to assist the restoration of one of the region's most valuable natural resources - Long Island Sound. The principles of this plan have been endorsed by the municipalities that comprise the WAC 4 study area. Resolutions endorsing the plan were adopted by the Town/Village of Harrison on March 13, 2001, Town of Mamaroneck on March 7, 2001, Village of Mamaroneck on March 26, 2001, City of New Rochelle on February 20, 2001, Village of Scarsdale on March 13, 2001, and City of White Plains on March 20, 2001 (copies of resolutions in Appendix). Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PREFACE The Executive Summary is separated into five parts. Each part pertains to a specific chapter, as follows: (1) Stream Assessment and Restoration; (2) Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands; (3) Stormwater Management; (4) Local Comprehensive Plans and Ordinances; and (5) Outreach and Education. Each part also briefly summarizes many of the recommendations made in this report. For more information and to learn about the findings and full set of recommendations made by WAC 4, please turn to the appropriate chapter. Please also refer to the Funding Chapter and Section Two, both of which have not been included in the Executive Summary. 8 SUMMARY OF STREAM ASSESSMENTAND RESTORATION CHAPTER & RECOMMENDATIONS (FULL TEXT BEGINS ON PAGE 52, SECTION I) • Forty-four impaired sites were identified in the WAC 4 study area. Twelve are in Harrison, five in White Plains, six in Scarsdale, four in New Rochelle, six in Mamaroneck Town, seven in Mamaroneck Village, and four in the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed. The Mamaroneck River watershed has the highest number - 27 - of impaired sites in the study area. It also is the second largest tributary, next to the Bronx River, in the Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County. The Sheldrake River watershed has 12 impaired sites. The remaining five impaired sites are in the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed. WAC 4 Watershed-Wide Recommendations • Bu,ffer/Bank Enhancements Naturally vegetated buffers should be enhanced, restored and/or preserved, where practicable, next to streams, wetlands, and water bodies. The most functionally valuable buffer width is approximately 100 feet. • Stream Bank Stabilization Eroding stream banks should be stabilized with vegetative, or biotechnical, water quality best management practices. Restoration strategies should seek to reestablish vegetation along stream banks. Extremely difficult sites might require structural components to rebuild a stream bank and offer temporary stability while plants become established. • Natural Channel Restoration Stream channel and bank manipulation (e.g., stream channel widening and straightening, stream bank retaining walls, concrete-enclosed channels, etc.) are often the most costly water quality and ecological problems to correct. Given the study area's urbanization and large number of streams whose channels have been manipulated, WAC 4 recommends that municipalities fully explore alternatives to manipulation and investigate the restoration of existing manipulated stream segments to their"natural" condition. • Nutrient Management Management plans should be developed for all 12 golf courses (public and private) in the WAC 4 study area. These plans should emphasize integrated pest management (e.g., managing the rate, timing, and placement of fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides and pesticides to encourage maximum nutrient recycling and uptake by plants); environmentally responsible turf management (e.g., using drought resistant, native seed mixes); and "no mow" zones and/or naturally vegetated filter strips next to watercourses and water bodies. 9 • Erosion and Sediment Control Greater effort should be made to control erosion and sediment from construction sites, especially those next to streams and other watercourses. It also is recommended that administrative control mechanisms, such as erosion and sediment control ordinances, shared enforcement responsibilities, subdivision rules and regulations, site reviews, zoning regulations, and special easements or covenants be used to the fullest extent practicable. • Storm Drain Retrofit Outlets needing repair and maintenance should be retrofitted as water quality inlets with sand filters to capture coarse-grained sediments and provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff. A series of stormwater filtering systems should be installed to "polish" the stormwater runoff generated from impervious surfaces. • Mowing Practices Where practical, landowners should increase mowing heights or reduce mowing frequencies alongside watercourses and water bodies. Where feasible, naturally vegetated filter strips should be established 100 feet from the edge of stream banks. Grass clippings should be allowed to remain on lawns to help recycle nutrients. Clippings should not be blown or raked into streets or storm drains. • Sediment Removal Where sediment creates a stream impairment, the source of the sediment should be determined and adjusted to reduce its deposition. For example, if construction activity is the source of sediment deposition, proper erosion and sediment controls should be implemented and maintained. In addition, existing sediment should be removed to restore watercourses and water bodies to their natural condition. • Housekeeping Practices To reduce or prevent household hazardous substances and miscellaneous debris from entering watercourses and water bodies, municipalities should educate homeowners and small business owners about following proper use and disposal guidelines. Municipalities should publicize household chemical cleanup days and encourage residents to use this method of disposal for hazardous products. Municipalities also should make it a priority to reduce the amount of sediment entering streams, wetlands and water bodies when they maintain and design their roads. TownlVillare of Harrison • Approximately 7.48 square miles of Harrison are located in the Mamaroneck River watershed and 17.13 stream miles of the Mamaroneck River flow through the town. Silver Lake, near the headwaters of the Mamaroneck River, is reported stressed in the 1996 Priority Water Bodies List (PWL) from nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens due to urban/suburban stormwater runoff. In addition, the PWL states that bathing in Silver Lake is stressed by aquatic vegetation. Twelve impaired stream sites were identified in Harrison. • Catch basins draining impervious surfaces to Forest Lake and a series of pipes draining directly into the Mamaroneck River from Lake and Purchase streets could be improved with the installation of underground water quality devices, such as "Stormceptors" or "Vortechnics," to 10 remove suspended solids and oil from runoff. Sediment from erosion and scouring discharges directly to the river and could be partially attenuated by such structures. The devices also can be applied to new residential development occurring in north Harrison, or as a stormwater quality retrofit for existing developments. These "in-line" structures should not replace natural stormwater management systems, such as stormwater wetlands, "biodetention" sites, and extended detention and retention basins, because they are relatively limited in their overall storage capacity. However, enhanced water quality devices may be effective as a part of a "treatment train" approach, whereby several stormwater management techniques can be used together to maximize pollutant removal and flow attenuation. • Where practicable, a series of stormwater filtering systems should be installed to "polish" stormwater runoff generated from impervious surfaces. These filters have typically been designed solely for pollutant removal and small development sites (usually less than five acres). • In addition to water quality and erosion impacts from impervious surfaces, and to mitigate the effects of increased stormwater runoff from extensive residential construction activities, the town should consider requiring cast-in-place or pre-cast modular permeable pavement, where suitable. Town of Mamaroneck • Approximately 0.75 square mile of Mamaroneck Town is located in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Approximately 0.87 mile of the Mamaroneck River flows through Mamaroneck Town. One impaired site was found in this watershed • Approximately 1.48 square miles of Mamaroneck Town are located in the Sheldrake River subwatershed. Approximately 2.13 miles of the Sheldrake River flows through the town. Many discharge pipes were noted draining to the Sheldrake River in Mamaroneck Town. However, most of these ranged between 4 and 10 inches in diameter. Five impaired sites were identified in this watershed. • Permanent structural stormwater controls should be incorporated into existing developments. Stormwater management practices (SMPs) include diversions designed to intercept and convey runoff to stable outlets at non-erosive velocities. The also include subsurface drains designed to replenish local aquifers and biotechniques, like stormwater wetlands, both of which will likely limit pollutant loading and downstream sedimentation. • Stream bank stabilization and vegetative enhancement methods should be encouraged at Bonnie Briar Country Club. Herbaceous vegetation could be re-established along stream banks, and coconut fiber (coir) blankets and logs could be employed for temporary erosion control. A "no- mow" zone along the stream should be permanently established. Because of this "soft engineering" approach, projects of this nature could be used to educate the public about the benefits associated with vegetative stabilization in lieu of"hard engineering" stream stabilization practices (e.g., stone riprap). 11 Villaze of Alamaroneck • Approximately 1.38 square miles of the Village of Mamaroneck are located in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Approximately 0.15 miles of the Mamaroneck River flow through Mamaroneck Village. Six impaired sites were identified in this watershed. • Approximately 0.72 square mile of Mamaroneck Village is in the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed. One impaired stream site was identified in this watershed. • Approximately 0.45 square mile of the Town of Rye is located in the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed. Three impaired sites were identified in the area known as Rye Neck. • Of the impaired sites identified on the Mamaroneck River, Columbus Park was found to be the best initial candidate for restoration because it is publicly owned and numerous impaired conditions exist along the Mamaroneck River. Therefore, a Columbus Park restoration project could be used to demonstrate restoration techniques. Coconut fiber (coir) logs and blankets, could be positioned along the stream channel and banks, staked into place and partially submerged in water, and planted with herbaceous plants. In the vicinity of the park's stormwater runoff drain outlets, the velocity of the river is too substantial to warrant the use of vegetation as a stabilizing device. In these areas, stone riprap, manufactured "rock rolls" or gabions, or vegetated crib walls will be required to prevent further stream bank erosion and scouring. • The West Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor would benefit from the "retrofit" of five identified stormwater outfall pipes. Subsurface stormwater detention structures, whose brand names include "Stormceptor" or "Vortechnics," should be incorporated into these existing stormwater conveyance pipes. Surface systems cannot be installed due to unavoidable site constraints. Underground sand filters also could be used. These stormwater detention structures have been shown to effectively eliminate sediment, debris and oily contaminants from entering watercourses and water bodies when long-term maintenance is practiced. • The numerous stormwater outfall pipes identified in the vicinity of Harbor Island Park, including the East Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor, could be "retrofitted" with subsurface stormwater detention structures, whose brand names include "Stormceptor" or "Vortechnics," to remove suspended solids, nutrients and oil from stormwater runoff. Surface systems cannot be installed due to unavoidable site constraints. Underground sand filters also could be used. These stormwater detention structures have been shown to effectively eliminate sediment, debris and oily contaminants from entering watercourses and water bodies when long-term maintenance is practiced. City of New Rochelle • Approximately 1.48 square miles of New Rochelle are located in the Sheldrake River watershed. Approximately 2.13 miles of the Sheldrake River flow through the city. Both the Sheldrake River and Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake) are listed on the PWL. • Due to its listing on the state's PWL, and because it is publicly owned recreation land used by residents from throughout the WAC 4 study area, Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake) should 12 be dredged to remove the substantial volume of sediment that has accumulated in the lake. Urban best management practices (e.g., erosion and sediment control) and land use controls and planning are the best long-term solution to preventing further sedimentation. Hydraulic dredging might be the most feasible, least intrusive method of sediment removal. It is recommended that prior to conducting dredging activities, a feasibility study and engineering report be prepared. [illaze of Scarsdale • Approximately 1.32 square miles of Scarsdale are in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Approximately 0.5 mile of the Mamaroneck River flows through Scarsdale. Three impaired sites were identified in this watershed. • Approximately 2.27 square miles of Scarsdale are located in the Sheldrake River watershed. Approximately 1.58 stream miles of the Sheldrake River flow through Scarsdale. Three impaired sites were identified in this watershed. • Incised headwaters tributaries through Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course are good candidates for restoration. The stream channel along hole No. 8's fairway could be stabilized using vegetative stream bank techniques. Temporary structural elements, such as coconut fiber (coir)blankets and logs may be used to help establish vegetation and prevent additional scour. • A pond next to Fenway Golf Club could be restored to enhance its functional values for water quality protection and flood storage capacity. The excavation of accumulated sediment will help restore the pond's flood storage capacity. Sediment removal methods would depend on site accessibility for heavy equipment, de-watering of dredged materials, and placement of"spoils" stockpiles. Aquatic benches planted with emergent vegetation as well as infrequently mowed strips around the pond edge also could improve water quality. City of White Plains • Part of the Mamaroneck River parallels Westchester Avenue and Interstate 287 in White Plains from Exit 8 southeast to the Hutchinson River Parkway. This segment receives considerable amounts of untreated stormwater from local and state roads. The state's massive road re-construction projects along I-287, as well as development projects along the Mamaroneck River next to I-287, should include provisions for improving stormwater quality before it enters the river. The City and WAC 4 should make the recommendations of WAC 4 known to the New York State Department of Transportation. WAC 4 recommends that a series of stormwater filtering systems, or "treatment train," be incorporated into road and development projects to "polish" stormwater runoff along the I-287 corridor before it enters the Mamaroneck River. Stormwater filtering systems generally use a media, such as sand, to filter out pollutants entrained in urban stormwater. These filters, such as sand filters, are typically designed solely for pollutant removal and have been shown to provide reliable rates of pollutant removal if regular maintenance is performed. Other filters include those bearing trade names such as Vortechnics or Stormceptor. These, like the sand filters, require regular maintenance to work effectively. 13 • Approximately 6.50 square miles of White Plains are in the Mamaroneck River watershed, and 7.3 linear miles of the Mamaroneck River flow through the City. Five impaired sites were identified along the Mamaroneck River. • Maplemoor Golf Course has excellent restoration potential because it is publicly owned and because there are numerous impaired sites along the Mamaroneck River. Therefore, a Maplemoor Golf Course restoration project could be used to demonstrate restoration techniques. Restoration techniques include the installation of coconut fiber (coir) logs and blankets, positioned horizontally along the stream banks, staked into place, partially submerged in water, and planted with herbaceous plants. Shrubs and trees planted along the river banks and tops of banks would stabilize soils and provide much needed shade. Along sharp bends and meanders and in the vicinity of stormwater drain outlets, stone riprap, manufactured "rock rolls" or vegetated crib walls will be needed to prevent further stream bank erosion and scouring. 14 STREAM BANK STABILIZATION Blind Brook - Rye High School, Rye, N.Y. As recommended by WAC 3 s Before Restoration • Steep, erodible stream bank - ` • Erosion has exposed drainage pipe by cutting back stream bank about ten feet • Closely cropped lawn to the top of stream bank During Restoration ` " � - • Stream bank regrading and protection with 6 erosion control matting; newly installed plants �- After Restoration • Meadow grasses and other plants stabilize stream bank Grasses now mowed only once a year STREAM RESTORATION Blind Brook - Rich Manor Park, Rye Brook, N.Y. As recommended by WAC 3 Before Restoration Closely cropped lawn �` "'��T f ��'' h • to the waters'edge; Y unsightly fence i installed in unsuccessful attempt to control geese During Restoration • Placement of stabilizing coconut fiber (coir) ._.. "blankets"and - "biologs"and foot =; path before planting After Restoration __ • Established wet meadow and vernal pool with :: walking path SUMMARY OF FRESHWA TER AND TIDAL WETLANDS CHAPTER & RECOMMENDATIONS (FULL TEXT BEGINS ON PAGE 89, SECTION I) • The WAC 4 study area contains both freshwater and tidal wetlands. Mapping shows that 147 acres of freshwater wetland and seven acres of tidal wetland exist in the WAC 4 study area. However, a considerable amount of freshwater wetland has not been mapped by local, state and federal agencies. It is probable that the actual acreage is at least twice that of the mapped acreage, which brings the total freshwater wetland acreage in the study area to approximately 300 or more. About 60 percent of the freshwater and tidal wetlands that once existed in the study area have been destroyed over the past three centuries. Watershed-Wide Recommendations • Although wetlands are excellent stormwater filters, prolonged discharge of pollutants can overwhelm them. Municipalities should adopt the following policy of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation: Natural wetlands should be used only for final polishing after pretreatment by preliminary practices, such as infiltration, retention or extended detention. • Wetlands have been degraded or eliminated by pollution, filling, draining, hydrologic alterations, and vegetation removal. Degraded sites provide the best opportunities for restoration, whether they be privately or publicly owned. The consent of private property owners will be sought for some restoration projects. Most of the restoration projects recommended by WAC 4 are on publicly owned lands or lands that are easily accessible to the public. • Although Harrison, Scarsdale and White Plains have few wetland restoration opportunities on publicly owned lands in the WAC 4 study area, emphasis should be placed on fully protecting existing wetlands and restoring wetlands and wetland buffers on privately owned lands. Restoration is especially important in the headwaters of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and riparian wetlands adjacent to these rivers and their tributaries. • A three-pronged management strategy is recommended to maintain the water quality benefits provided by wetlands: (1) regulatory protection and preservation, (2) restoration, and (3) construction, or creation, of engineered systems (e.g., constructed wetlands) that pre-treat runoff before it reaches receiving waters and wetlands. • The federal government and several Westchester County municipalities have adopted a hierarchical system of wetland regulation. Under this system, applicants proposing to develop a site containing wetlands must first avoid wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Any impacts that cannot be avoided must then be minimized to the maximum 17 extent practicable. Finally, if there are any impacts associated with a project that cannot be avoided and have been fully minimized, these impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation may be restoring a naturally existing wetland or creating a man-made wetland. Wetland restoration and creation, however, is not foolproof and many such projects have been unsuccessful due to poor planning, design, construction and/or maintenance. Most naturally existing wetlands, on the other hand, have persisted for many years, decades or centuries and have performed a variety of functions effectively and efficiently for as long. Therefore, stronger emphasis should be placed on wetland impact avoidance rather than wetland impact minimization and, especially, mitigation for wetland losses. • A two-pronged approach to avoiding wetland impacts is recommended: (1) through strong wetland protection ordinances emphasizing wetland impact avoidance; and (2) by ensuring the preservation of highly beneficial wetlands through special regulations, conservation easements and land acquisition. • Harrison, Mamaroneck Town, Mamaroneck Village, New Rochelle, Scarsdale and White Plains should adopt the federal guidelines from Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The guidelines' emphasis is laudable - that alternatives should be sought to prevent the degradation or loss of wetlands. Wetland impacts should be avoided, and such avoidance should be emphasized in municipal ordinances. However, the terms "practicable alternative" and "significant degradation" should be better defined by the municipalities of WAC 4. The EPA definitions offer a good foundation, but these definitions should be strengthened to plug loopholes, set clear standards and achieve the overall goal of the "practicable alternative," which is wetland impact avoidance. • WAC 4 has identified the following wetlands and wetland systems which it considers to be of extraordinary functional value to water quality in the subwatersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor: • wetland systems at the headwaters of the Mamaroneck River in Harrison and White Plains; these systems are in the general vicinities of Forest and Silver lakes and Park Lane and Lake Street and include state-designated wetland Nos. G-6 and G-8 • wetland system on the north and south sides of Ridgeway Avenue in White Plains, including state-designated wetland No. G-7 north of Ridgeway Avenue and the wetland at the Club Pointe residential complex south of Ridgeway Avenue • state-designated wetland No. MV-1 at Crossway Field in Scarsdale • wetland at the headwaters of a tributary of a tributary to the Sheldrake River at the Rocky Hollow residential complex on Fenimore Road in Mamaroneck Town • all freshwater riparian wetlands of the Sheldrake River in Mamaroneck Town, New Rochelle, and Scarsdale • all freshwater riparian wetlands of the Mamaroneck River in Harrison, Scarsdale, and White Plains • all freshwater riparian wetlands of the primary tributary (identified above) of the Sheldrake River in Scarsdale 18 • all freshwater riparian and headwaters wetlands of the primary tributaries (identified above) of the Mamaroneck River in Harrison, Scarsdale, and White Plains, including those at Saxon Woods County Park These wetlands and wetland systems warrant extraordinary protection by either stringent regulatory controls, acquisition or other mechanisms, such as conservation easements. They could be acquired through donation, land exchange, fee simple purchase, or less-than-fee- simple acquisition through bargain sales, installment sale, and right of first refusal. • WAC 4 strongly recommends a policy to expand the size of freshwater and tidal wetlands in its study area. This policy goes beyond the federal "no net loss" policy and is more in harmony with the Habitat Restoration Initiative of the state and federal Long Island Sound Study. • In addition to protecting, preserving and restoring wetlands, as described above, municipal and county officials and others should require and promote the use of so-called vegetative best management practices (BMPs). These practices should be required to treat stormwater runoff associated with a variety of land use activities, such as residential and commercial site development and public infrastructure and other projects, including recreational activities (e.g., golf courses). Vegetative BMPs include a variety of "landscaping" techniques that promote the contact of rainfall and stormwater runoff with upland (non-wetland) and wetland vegetation. Vegetative best management practices reduce nonpoint source pollution by reducing the quantity of stormwater runoff, which is achieved by enhancing infiltration and reducing pollutant concentrations through a combination of filtration, sedimentation and biological uptake (see Section II, "Wetlands," of this report). WAC 4 recommends three major types of vegetative BMPs: vegetated filter strips, grassed swales, and constructed "stormwater" wetlands (wetland "creation"). I"llaQe of Mamaroneck • A potential salt marsh restoration sites has been identified at the western end of Harbor Island Park next to the West Basin on Rushmore Avenue. Restoration would involve lowering the embankment occupied by the common reed to the same topographic elevation as the smooth cordgrass. The common reed stems as well as the soil containing the reed's roots and rhizomes would be removed from the site. A flatter embankment behind the common reed would be created through regrading. The area occupied by the common reed would be replanted with smooth cordgrass and/or other grasses and rushes, such as salt marsh hay and spike grass. The new embankment would be planted with coastal shrubs and grasses. A fence should be installed to protect the plantings from predation by geese and other waterfowl. • A potential salt marsh restoration site has been identified next to Nichols Boat Yard at the Indian Cove residential complex off Rushmore Avenue. Restoration would follow the same process as that described above for the site at Harbor Island Park. However, the Indian Cove site is privately owned and opposition from residents is possible. Therefore, before proceeding with any restoration plans, the residents should be educated about the site's restoration potential and the elements and final product of restoration. Restoration would 19 improve the site's appearance, as well as benefit the ecosystem and water quality; all of these benefits should be explained to residents. It is possible that, through education, the residents would fully support a restoration project. • In addition to these two potential restoration sites, other smaller sites are available for the reintroduction of smooth cordgrass in the WAC 4 study area. These exist in the intertidal zone throughout coastal Mamaroneck Village. For example, a small population of smooth cordgrass can easily be established on an unvegetated beach of coarse sand and pebbles at the end of Bleeker Avenue. The site is flanked by boat docks and moorings as well as a boat launching ramp. But seawalls partially shelter it from severe waves and the beach substrate is well suited for smooth cordgrass. Cordgrass can easily be established at the same elevation as naturally existing cordgrass in the area. Bioengineering materials would be used to stabilize the cordgrass planting bed and protect the bed from erosive waves until it becomes well established and stabilized. Bioengineering materials would consist of logs and mats made from coir (coir is made from the fibers of coconut husks and bound together with fibrous twine). The logs would be held in place by long stakes and secured by twine. The mats would be anchored by either long "staples" or stakes driven into the ground. The logs would protect the bed from waves. The mats would act as a mulch, keeping the plant plugs in place until their roots systems anchor them firmly into the sandy soil. The plant "plugs" are grown from the seeds of smooth cordgrass or other plants. These young plants consist of a small stem and root system grown in a container. When they are removed from the container, the plants resemble plugs. • Smooth cordgrass can be established in other areas along the coast, especially the rocky intertidal areas on the southeast shore of Mamaroneck Village. Small patches already exist in various locations from the Beach Point Club to Orienta Point. Smooth cordgrass colonies can be established in other areas at modest cost. Bioengineering materials and smooth cordgrass plugs can be installed in a number of suitable locations next to privately owned properties (no public lands, other than the areas below mean high tide, exist in this section of the coast). These plantings would be small, but cumulatively they would assist in improving water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in the Sound. City of New Rochelle • Dickerman's Pond — The "pond" should be restored to improve water quality in Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake), as well as Long Island Sound. Restoration should include removing the accumulated sediment that has largely filled the pond. When the sediment is being removed, an aquatic "bench" (or "shelf') should be constructed along the pond's perimeter. The bench could be created by backfilling the outside perimeter of the pond with sand and a small amount of the excavated sediment. The bench should be underwater and gently slope downward from the water's edge to a depth of six to twelve inches below the mean water level. It would be six feet to eight feet wide. The bench should be planted with a variety of aquatic and semi-aquatic species to improve water quality. The bench should be held in place by coir (coconut fiber) "logs" and "blankets." The plants could then be installed in coir "pilows." Plant species would include giant burreed, softstem bulrush, arrow arum, soft rush, yellow flag, tussock sedge, sweet flag, 20 rich cutgrass, yellow dock and pond lilly. A sediment basin should be constructed at the pond inlet to trap and store sediment and allow for easier maintenance of the pond. The vegetated buffer around the pond should be enhanced with native vegetation, which also can be used to restore any part of the buffer that is disturbed during sediment removal and bench construction. Villaze of Scarsdale • Crossway Field- The wetland here should be restored by removing or altering the conditions that degraded it. Specific recommendations cannot be made without in-depth analyses, especially of hydrology. However, it is recommended that consideration be made to removing part of the unused dirt road to improve the hydrologic connection between the northern and southern ends of the wetland. The remainder of the road should be incorporated into a public nature trail through the wetland. The trail can connect to nearby Saxon Woods County Park and trails along the Hutchinson River Parkway. The trail should not, of course, adversely impact the wetland. It should avoid all of the wetland's most sensitive areas and be made from gravel and/or wood chips and, where necessary, consist of a raised boardwalk. Common reed and other invasive or exotic species should be removed mechanically or with herbicide. The site also might need to be regraded and elevations changed to allow for conditions that will support a more diverse wetland plant community. If the site is regraded or excavated, extreme care should be taken to avoid spreading the rhizomes and seeds of the common reed and other unwanted plant species. Once suitable wetland conditions have been established, the site should be re-planted with wetland shrubs and trees, such as red-osier dogwood, spicebush, sweet pepperbush, arrowwood, swamp azalea, elm, red maple, and pin oak. This potential restoration project offers an excellent opportunity to incorporate water quality, habitat and public educational benefits into its design. • Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course - As noted above, Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course in Scarsdale is riddled with small wetlands that form the headwaters of a tributary to the Mamaroneck River. Collectively, these small wetlands are critically important for water quality. Additionally, they also provide habitat for a variety of animals and plants, especially reptiles and amphibians, which thrive in several vernal pools within the park. Although much of the park is forested and in relatively pristine condition, part of the park is occupied by a golf course. At least two small wetlands on the park's golf course have been degraded by the deposition of fill and debris, such as rocks and concrete, grass clippings and brush. These wetlands should be restored to their previously existing condition. All fill and debris should be removed from the wetlands. The sites should be fine-graded to previously existing elevations and planted with both herbaceous plants and shrubs. An excellent example of a buttonbush swamp is found in the park's forested portion. Therefore, consideration should be given to establishing a buttonbush swamp in one of the degraded wetlands to be restored. This will require inundation for part of the growing season; if inundation is not practicable, the site can be restored as a native scrub-shrub swamp with highbush blueberries, sweet pepperbush, swamp azalea and, if conditions are 21 suitable, winterberry and red-osier dogwood. In any case, the restoration of these small wetlands will not only benefit water quality and plants and animals, it also will improve their appearance to golfers and the general public. City of White Plains • Maple Moor Golf Course — The Mamaroneck River flows between Maple Moor Golf Course and the Hutchinson River Parkway in White Plains. In this area, a small pond had been created earlier in the century within the river's channel. Over time, the pond fills with sediment and is periodically dredged. As of the date of this report, riparian wetland vegetation is becoming established both within the pond, which is again filling in with sediment, and river segments above and below the pond. Much of the vegetative community is made up of purple loosestrife, an invasive weed that is overwhelming many wetlands in the Northeast. This project will involve stabilizing the stream banks with bioengineering materials and native vegetation, removing the purple loosestrife either manually or with herbicide, and planting other native species of plants in the wetlands and along the stream. These species should include yellow and blue iris; various grasses, sedges and rushes; bulrushes; red-osier dogwood; winterberry; and sweet pepperbush. Bayberry, chokeberry and highbush blueberry can be planted at higher elevations along the river. 22 WETLAND RESTORATION Five Islands Park, Echo Bay — New Rochelle, N.Y. As recommended by WAC 5 k. Former salt marsh - now degraded and lacking vegetation ti _ n i - _ a I iii:��.�:.x. � ` _t �►�;_ Volunteers assist with installation o s _ smooth cordgrass _ (Spartina alteriiiflora) Salt marsh after restoration with vigorous stand of smooth cordgrass SUMMARY OF STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT CHAPTER & RECOMMENDATIONS (FULL TEXT BEGINS ON PAGE 119, SECTION I) • Forty-nine stormwater management basins were identified in the WAC 4 study area. Of these, 10 are in Harrison, 23 in White Plains, five in Scarsdale, five in New Rochelle and six in Mamaroneck (town and village). Twenty-four are retention basins (wet ponds) and 25 are detention basins (dry ponds). WAC 4 Watershed-Wide Recommendations • Existing aquatic systems should be preserved and restored. These systems include naturally vegetated buffers next to streams, wetlands and water bodies. • Improve structural controls through stormwater basin retrofitting. Modifications to enhance water quality protection might include enlarging structures, changing flow patterns, and increasing detention times. Detention basins previously installed for flow control should be converted to extended detention or retention basins. • Basin maintenance responsibilities and enforcement should be specified during the approval process for subdivisions, site plans or other municipal development and recorded in writing. • In selecting the most appropriate best management practice, the following should be considered: • the site's physical condition and development status • runoff control benefits • the pollutant removal capability of each option under several design scenarios • the environmental and human advantages of each option, and • the long-term maintenance costs • a municipality's ability to monitor and enforce compliance • Infiltration devices fall into the following categories: • Infiltration Basins - a natural or excavated depression • Infiltration Trenches and Dry Wells - excavated holes filled with coarse stones and then covered • Sand Filters- placed underneath parking lots, alleys or driveways • Porous Pavement - practical for parking lots and low volume roads and driveways, porous pavement increases infiltration of water into the soil • Oil/Grit Separators - also known as water quality inlets, underground separators remove sediment and hydrocarbons from runoff before it is released to the storm drain network or infiltration system 24 • Vegetative controls enhance the attractiveness and value of sites and are less costly than other control practices, but they should not be a site's only control practice. Several types of vegetative controls include: • Basin Landscaping - Landscaping around a basin reduces the amount of impervious surfaces, provides an attractive buffer along embankments, and protects and enhances existing wetlands • Grassed Swales - Grassed swales are shallow trenches that infiltrate and transport runoff water. They are often used in residential developments and on highway medians as an alternative to curb and gutter drains. • Filter Strips - While similar to grass swales, filter strips are shallower and distribute runoff across a wider area. Their efficiency depends on strip width, length, and slope; soil porosity' normal runoff velocity; and vegetation type. • Riparian Reforestation - Trees and shrubs planted near stream banks can provide shade, filter our nutrients and other pollutants, reduce water temperature and stabilize soil, thereby decreasing the release of sediment from stream banks and benefiting aquatic organisms. • Floating Wetlands — A new treatment device used at Paine Lake in New Rochelle and Town Park in Pound Ridge, these wetlands consist of coconut fiber (coir) logs connected by hi-tech foam that allows the logs to float. The logs are anchored to the pond bottom and planted with wetland vegetation to help remove dissolved nutrients. Routine Maintenance • Mowing —Basins and their embankments should be mowed no more than once or twice a year to discourage excessive woody growth. • Inspections - Basins should be inspected annually to ensure that they operate as designed. • Debris and Litter Removal - Debris and litter should be removed during periodic mowing operations to prevent the control device or riser from being clogged. • Erosion Control - The basin side slopes, emergency spillway and embankment all may periodically suffer from slumping and erosion, although this may be avoided if the soils are properly compacted during construction. • Nuisance Control - Standing water or soggy conditions in a basin's "lower stage" could create nuisance conditions for nearby residents. These problems indicate poor maintenance (i.e., lack of mowing, debris removal, clearing the control device or riser). Non-Routine Maintenance • Structural Repairs and Replacement - Eventually, the various inlet/outlet and riser mechanisms in a basin will deteriorate and must be replaced. Local public works experts estimate that corrugated metal pipe (CMP) has a useful life of about 25 years, whereas reinforced concrete barrels and risers may last from 50 to 75 years. • Sediment Removal — Even when properly designed, stormwater management basins will accumulate significant quantities of sediment over time. Accumulated sediment may need to be removed by those responsible for its maintenance about every five to 10 years for extended detention basins and about every 10 to 20 years for retention basins. More frequent spot removal may be needed at the control device for some designs. TownlVillaze of Harrison 25 • Fourteen stormwater management basins have been identified in the WAC 4 study area of Harrison. Ten of these are retention basins and four are detention basins. Of the 14 basins, three were inaccessible for examination and 11 were investigated. The latter are on privately owned lands associated with residential subdivisions, private development and Manhattanville College. • The assessed basins in Harrison are upstream from the only section of cold water fisheries stream [Classified as C (t)] in the WAC 4 study area, according to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992) suggests a combination of measures incorporating supplemental stormwater management practices to achieve first flush control objectives and protect cold water fisheries. These include grass swales, filter strips and water quality inlets. • (#1 & #2)Ophir Drive and Halliday Court — Ophir Farm Estates: These small detention basins should be regularly dredged to combat accumulated sediment and debris. Enlarging the basins and providing for longer retention time would improve water quality. In addition, mowing practices should be changed to once a year within a ten-foot-wide strip surrounding the basins and stream. For the stormwater wetland (basin #2), recommendations include removal of sediment and accumulated debris to restore water holding capacity. • (#3 & #4) Century Country Golf Club — Anderson Hill Road: Water quality could be improved by installing an aquatic bench around the perimeter of both ponds. This will provide for greater nutrient removal, as well as increase aquatic habitat. A buffer strip also should be maintained around each pond, which can easily be achieved by mowing a 15- to 20-foot-wide swath around the ponds once a year. • (#5) Manhattanville College and Ophir Farm Estates— Anderson Hill Road: Water quality could be improved to include the following: removing accumulated sediment and common reed at the inlets; regrading eroded banks; establishing a grassed waterway; installing an aquatic bench around the basin perimeter; installing an oil/grit separator (such as "Stormceptor" or "Vortechnics"); and adding an aerator. • (#6) Manhattanville College: This basin could be improved by better landscaping practices and vegetation. An aquatic bench should be installed which includes submergent and emergent vegetation. A 15- to 20-foot-wide strip around the pond should be mowed only once or twice a year. A high-tech aquatic biofilter, which resembles a floating wetland, should placed close to the pond inlet to help filter out nutrients entering the pond. • (0, #8) College Road and Westchester Avenue: Detention (dry) basins include one at the offices of MasterCard International on College Road, (#7) and another located between the westbound side of Westchester Avenue and Interstate 684 (4). These basins should be transformed into extended detention basins. • (#9) Kenilworth Road — Texaco Corporate Park: Water quality can be improved by reducing erosion and increasing aquatic vegetation. Reducing the mowing frequency to once a year within a 15- to 20-foot-wide swath around the pond can lessen bank erosion. Shrubs also should be planted on the steep, south slope to further deter waterfowl and stabilize the soil. Coir (coconut fiber) products, such as logs, blankets and pillows, could be used to stabilize the soil and establish long-term vegetation. An aquatic bench should also be installed and then planted 26 with aquatic vegetation. In the northern vegetated portion of the retention system, sediment removal and additional wetland plantings could increase water quality improvement. • (#11) Corporate Park Drive: Higher elevation of the outlet pipe would partially slow water and allow pollutants to settle out of solution. However, the most feasible improvement to this basin would be the installation of a treatment/filtration device (i.e., "Stormceptor," sand filter, etc.). Town of Mamaroneck • Four detention basins and one retention basin exist in the WAC 4 study area of Mamaroneck Town. Three of the detention basins are inaccessible on private residential property. • (946) Lakeside Drive, adjacent to NYS Thruwa. The basin should be dredged to its original design capacity, a submerged aquatic bench should be installed around the pond edge and contain appropriate vegetation for pollutant removal, and a permanent sediment settling basin should be installed at the inlet allowing it to be regularly maintained and cleaned out. A floating aquatic biofilter installed at the pond's inlet also would help filter out nutrients from the pond. • (948) Marbourne Drive: The basin should be converted to an extended detention or retention basin and discharges from a nearby outfall pipe should be diverted to the basin. The existing detention basin might be retrofitted by changing the elevation of its outlet or constructing an earthen berm to retain water and allow for extended detention or retention time. Village of Mamaroneck • One detention basin is located in the WAC 4 study area of Mamaroneck Village. . 047 Top of the Ridge Drive: This detention basin is in a mature stand of trees, but the density of surrounding single family residences will make it difficult to retrofit. Access to the basin is difficult. Detention basins do not perform a high level of pollutant removal. In this case, conversion to a retention basin may not be practical due to access limitations, which also may discourage adequate maintenance if the basin is retrofitted. City of New Rochelle • Five stormwater management basins were evaluated in the WAC 4 study area of New Rochelle: one detention (dry) and four retention (wet). Of the stormwater basins investigated, dredging and long-term maintenance are the most common water quality recommendations. • (#37) Baraud Road: The water quality benefits of this basin would be increased by the removal of sediment to increase storage capacity, as well as the addition of aquatic plants along the pond edge. A buffer strip of grasses and shrubs, approximately 15 to 20 feet wide, should be established around the basin to filter overland runoff from nearby road surfaces. The strip should be mowed once a year. 27 established around the basin to filter overland runoff from nearby road surfaces. The strip should be mowed once a year. • (#42) Quaker Ridge Road: Many options are available to increase the water quality enhancement capabilities of this basin. Removal of sediment, common reed and knotweed would be the first step in increasing storage capacity (to accommodate its original design storm). This will allow water to spread throughout the entire basin, instead of forming distinct channels. The basin should have non-invasive, native aquatic plants installed around the perimeter, as well as within the basin itself tllaze of Scarsdale • Four stormwater management basins are in the WAC 4 study area of Scarsdale. Of these, only one detention basin was examined due to the inaccessibility of the remaining three retention ponds, which were located on private residential property. • (#39 and #40) Gate House Road: The water quality improvement function of this basin will be greatly enhanced by changing it into a retention pond. This could be done by increasing the height of the outlet structures, allowing for longer water retention time. Other structural modifications also might be needed due to the erosion and bank slumping occurring behind the outlet structure in basin #39. Sediment and debris also should be removed to increase holding capacity and pollutant removal capabilities. Common reed should be removed and replaced with non-invasive, native aquatic vegetation. City of White Plains • Twenty-three surface stormwater management basins were identified in the WAC 4 study area of White Plains. Eight of these are detention basins — the remaining 15 are for retention. Most of the basins are on privately owned lands, with the exception of a basin on Ridgeway and one on Barton Road, both of which are municipally owned. Only 15 (three detention and 12 retention) out of the 23 basins could be observed. The others were not examined because they are either surrounded by residential properties or are inaccessible for other reasons. • Inaccessibility of basins due to their placement far from roads, on private residential property or in areas surrounded by woodlands should be avoided. Basins should be next to open areas or access roads where they can be easily accessed by vehicles. Many basins in White Plains have limited accessibility, and many are surrounded by single-family residences. • (#12) Westchester Avenue Eastbound: Water quality improvements for this detention basin include: dredging and removal of sediment; retrofitting the outlet structure by increasing its elevation to extend detention time; installing and planting an aquatic bench; and installing an oil/grease filter (sand trap, Stormceptor, etc.). Others include removing the pavement at the bottom of the basin, installing an aquatic bench with submergent and emergent vegetation, and mowing a 15-to 20-foot-wide strip around the basin only once or twice a year. • (#13) Wyndham Close off of Bryant Avenue: A lack of aquatic benches planted with emergent vegetation and/or established vegetation along the embankments of basins is evident at 28 • (#16) Maple Moor Lane: Retrofitting this basin will rely largely on the cooperation of surrounding homeowners. Access will need to be granted through private property. Accumulated sediment should be removed by dredging to restore the basin to its original design capacity and storage volume. An aeration system should be installed to help improve aquatic habitat and decrease algae production. An aquatic bench, planted with emergent vegetation, also should be installed around the pond edge to further assist with pollutant removal through plant uptake. Water quality also might be improved by installing a floating aquatic biofilter at the pond's outlet (see section on vegetative controls in this chapter for description). • (#18) Barton Road, Westchester Hills Golf Club: This retention basin, not unlike most other retention basins of White Plains, could benefit by the addition of an aquatic bench and embankment vegetation. A reduction in mowing frequency within a 15- to 20-foot-wide strip surrounding the basin also could improve water quality. • (#19) Barton Road: Some removal of accumulated sediment will increase storage time and pollutant removal capabilities. The dredged site should be stabilized with vegetation to keep sediment from clogging the outlet. • (#20 and #28) Rosedale Avenue and Brookhills Drive: Purple loosestrife should be removed to ensure species diversity in the basin and optimize wildlife habitat. Removal of accumulated sediment and debris, particularly in one of the culverts passing under Brookhills Drive, would greatly increase retention time and water quality treatment in the basin. An aquatic bench also should be added around the basin perimeter to maximize pollutant removal before the water discharges back into the stream. • (#29)Rosedale Avenue, between Cobblefield and Willowbrook Roads: This retention basin was largely inaccessible due to the density of the surrounding trees and shrubs. A rock wall, preventing embankment vegetation, surrounds the basin. Basic maintenance, such as dredging and aquatic plantings, could improve its water quality function. • (#35) Purdy Avenue, Parker Corporate Center: This basin needs to be dredged. The basin may have been designed for retention, but it currently contains water only for a short (extended detention) period of time due to its diminished water holding capacity from sediment infill and lack of maintenance. • (949 and #50) North Street, St. Agnes Hospital: The water quality benefits of these two basins could be enhanced by modifying the outlet structures. Design modifications [in accordance with the design guidelines of the NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992)] could include increasing the height of the basin outlets, allowing these two basins to be transformed to extended detention or retention basins. 29 SUMMARY OF LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER & RECOMMENDATIONS (FULL TEXT BEGINS ON PAGE 152, SECTION I) WAC 4 Watershed-Wide Recommendations Share Services Among Municipalities in WAC 4 Study Area - One example where shared services are especially appropriate, if not necessary, is in the generation of a build-out analysis. Another is revising or drafting new municipal ordinances that protect water quality to generate uniform standards. Shared services would be especially useful for the enforcement of environmental codes (e.g., hiring an enforcement officer to enforce codes in two or more jurisdictions). Other possibilities for shared services include a Geographic Information System (GIS) data base of watershed-wide natural resources and a database of watershed education programs. Much of this data base already has been developed by the Westchester County Department of Planning. Conduct Study of Total Impervious Surfaces in WAC 4 Study Area and Set Goals for Reduction — Existing and anticipated impervious cover (as circumscribed by local zoning and land use regulations) should be mapped and potential impacts from imperviousness should be analyzed. Strategies for limiting impervious surfaces include: • lot coverage limits • reducing the required number of parking spaces in zoning regulations • encouraging shared and/or multiple-use parking facilities for compatible land uses and development projects • shared driveways for residential developments • conservation developments • pervious pavement Improve Enforcement of Environmental Regulations — Pass the burden of environmental code enforcement to the developer. Municipalities should enlist the services of a properly trained environmental inspector or other professional consultant, with applicants of development projects paying for those services. Municipalities should insist that the inspector be certified under the Soil and Water Conservation Society's CPESC Program -certified professional in erosion and sediment control - for enforcement of erosion and sediment control requirements and/or afford existing staff the necessary training to become CPESCs. To educate the public about key elements of erosion control or other environmental controls, training classes should be conducted for local boards, commissions and general public. Encourage Conservation Development and Preservation of Open Space - Municipalities should ensure that conservation development provisions have been incorporated into their local regulations. Planning boards should be encouraged to use them. Municipalities also should have 30 a strong policy of open space preservation next to stream corridors for possible acquisition and restoration. Preserve Naturally Vegetated Buffers along all Streams and Water Bodies— In concert with open space preservation, there should be a policy of preserving and/or restoring to its natural condition the land area located alongside all watercourses and water bodies. Create a Stormwater Utility District — Municipalities should consider creation of a "stormwater utility district." Residential customers would typically pay a minimal fee or may be granted some exemption based on local zoning criteria. Commercial customers would incur a charge based on the amount of their sites' impervious surface or based on the amount of water that leaves the property. The advantages of a stormwater utility district are many. First, funding for stormwater management can be permanently established. There are no concerns about appropriation of money from one year to the next. Second, the system is equitable. Customers pay based on their degree of use of the system. Third, credits are given for implementation of stormwater best management practices, thereby providing an incentive for customers to install effective volume control and water quality enhancements. Fourth, with rates based on amount of impervious surface, stormwater utilities may provide some incentive to create less impervious surface to incur lower usage fees. Practice Good Housekeeping —Municipalities, themselves, can implement a wide variety of water quality protection techniques. Those with municipally-owned stormwater basins must properly maintain such facilities. Integrated pest management methods should be utilized on municipal properties. Other good housekeeping practices include: street sweeping and cleaning out of catch basins on a regular basis; a multi-faceted approach to deicing, which minimizes the use of salts and other contaminants, and proper storage of materials or wastes at public works yards and waste transfer sites. WAC 4 Plan Implementation and Monitoring — Each municipality should designate a municipal staff member and/or a group or organization to further the recommendations of this plan. A corresponding tracking of initiatives adopted or implemented by municipalities in the WAC 4 study area will help to identify the most effective strategies and may assist WAC 4 members with developing or implementing other water quality improvement techniques in the future. This information should be combined in an annual progress report that could be prepared by a shared consultant or Westchester County Department of Planning. Town/Villaze of Harrison Upgrade Master Plan Update of 1988 to a Comprehensive Plan — Harrison should upgrade its 1988 Master Plan Update (MPU) to a Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should include the development of Conservation Overlay Districts or Open Space/Recreation Districts that had been recommended in the MPU. An open space preservation, maintenance and acquisition plan also should be created, and conservation easements over streams, wetlands and the upland buffers thereto should be required to protect water quality. Amend the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance — The Excavation and Regrading of Land ordinance (Chapter 133) and the Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance (Chapter 130) should be combined to more efficiently address the issues of excavation, regrading and soil erosion. 31 This combined ordinance would require the issuance of permits for all land disturbing activities, regardless of the requirement of other municipal permits. In addition, this ordinance could stipulate that building inspectors have the authority to grant permits for regrading activities involving less than one (1) acre. Regrading projects of larger scope would require the review of the Planning Board or other approval authority. To further ensure that the new erosion and sediment ordinance is properly implemented, Harrison should review its enforcement procedures, identify any problems that may exist, and develop a plan to ensure that erosion and control policies, guidelines and regulations are being enforced throughout the Town. Adopt a Stormwater Management Ordinance — A Stormwater Management ordinance should be adopted to address both the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff produced in the town. This ordinance should require treatment of the "first flush" as well as the most effective stormwater management basins and conveyances to ensure water quality improvement. A Stormwater Management ordinance should also include provisions for stream corridor management, including preservation of vegetation along those corridors. Preference should be given to natural drainage systems, with justification required for the use of closed conveyances. Adopt a New Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance — The Freshwater Wetlands ordinance should be rewritten in accordance with the County Soil and Water conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection (January 1998). Rewriting the ordinance would allow for a more functional definition of wetlands, a more defined set of standards, and incorporate wetland mitigation and enforcement provisions. In addition, it should allow for the inclusion of watercourse protection and should increase existing penalties. The Town should bolster its enforcement actions to truly succeed in protecting wetlands. Adopt a Steep Slopes Ordinance — A steep slopes ordinance should be adopted to avoid disturbance on steep slopes and require mitigation where avoidance of steep slopes is not practicable. Enforcement should be vigilant and penalties for violation should be significant. Amend Zoning Ordinance — Lot coverage limits should be imposed to restrict the amount of impervious surfaces in all zoning districts. This is particularly important in special business districts because of the amount of existing impervious surfaces in these districts and the recent interest in redeveloping sites. Reevaluate Parking Requirements in Zoning Regulations - Parking requirements should be re- evaluated throughout all zoning districts to ensure that parking requirements address actual needs. The ordinance also should require that overflow parking and emergency driveways and roads be constructed of pervious paving material. Increase Setback from Streams and Water Bodies — The stream, wetland and water body regulated setbacks should be expanded to one hundred (100) feet, where possible. In addition to the town engineer, the town wetlands consultant also should recommend appropriate accommodations regarding stream, wetland and water body protection before the issuance of a building permit in zoning districts where the 100-foot setback would not be practicable. Create Conservation/Open Space Overlay Districts — Overlay districts for conservation and open space/recreation should be created to adequately protect sensitive environmental features and open space in specific areas of the town (e.g., existing or proposed golf courses). 32 Amend Subdivision Regulations - A provision should be added to the Zoning ordinance stating that "if any significant trees (eight (8) inches or greater) have been removed within one year prior to submission of an application for subdivision, the Planning Board shall have the right to deny the application." The Village of Scarsdale has a comparable provision in its Zoning ordinance and it has proven to be successful in deterring disturbance of land prior to Subdivision application submission. Subtract Areas of Wetlands, Watercourses, Steep Slopes and other Natural Features from Lot Density Calculation - Wetlands, steep slopes, and other natural features should be excluded from lot density calculations in the Subdivision Regulations, as outlined in the Master Plan Update of 1988. In addition, WAC 4 recommends that streams, wetlands and water bodies also be subtracted from the calculation of lot density for new subdivisions. Amend Animal Waste Provisions — The Animal Waste ordinance should be amended to protect water resources from equestrian facilities, and include a minimum one hundred (100)-foot-wide buffer between manure stockpiles, riding rings and paddocks, and streams and wetlands. Town of Mamaroneck Adopt a Comprehensive Plan and Periodically pdate LWRP — A comprehensive plan should be adopted that essentially assembles the various plans and studies into an overall unified plan for the Town. The comprehensive plan should emphasize and address the importance of controlling both point and nonpoint source pollutants and encourage the protection of existing natural resources on both public and private lands. The comprehensive plan can incorporate the recommendations proposed in by WACs 4 and 5. In addition, the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont LWRP should be periodically updated to keep abreast of changes in techniques to protect the environment. Replace Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance — The Freshwater Wetlands ordinance (Chapter 114) should be revised to include local oversight of tidal wetlands, as well as provide for a scientifically based definition of wetlands, buffer protection, standards for decisions, and mitigation requirements. Amend Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance — The Town's Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance (Chapter 95) should be strengthened by minor amendments. The regulations affecting surface water should include provisions requiring treatment of the "first flush" of stormwater runoff and establishing a preferred order with respect to the types of water quality management systems that should be implemented. The ordinance also should require the following provisions: an erosion and sediment control plan designed for a 10-year storm; the diversion of clean surface water around construction sites; and the removal of sediment that has been carried onto paved roads at the end of each day. Additionally, the Town should consider lowering the threshold for steep slopes from 25 percent to 15 percent. Amend Zoning Ordinance — Several amendments should be made to the Zoning ordinance to provide for additional water quality protection. These include. adding lot coverage limits to every district covered by the ordinance; excluding sensitive areas in allowable coverage 3, calculations; re-evaluating parking requirements and requiring pervious pavement alternatives; and providing for cluster development. Amend Tree Ordinance — The Town should consider amending Chapter 207, which regulates tree removals, to dedicate the funds received through the existing law and allow for payment in lieu of tree replacements, which would enable tree to be planted elsewhere in town. 1411aZe of Mamaroneck Update Master Plan. LWRP and Harbor Management Plan — The Master Plan of Development, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and Harbor Management Plan need to be revised to include more specific recommendations and policies for improving the quality of the tributaries and embayments of Long Island Sound. Revision of the Master Plan should take into account nonpoint source pollution reduction goals. It should consider redevelopment potential and provide a vision towards decreasing impervious surfaces and recapturing buffer areas along streams and the waterfront. The LWRP should incorporate additional nonpoint source pollution control strategies and projects that enhance water quality. The Village's LWRP should recommend adherence to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992) in addition to the County's best management practices guidelines for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. Amend Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance — The Freshwater Wetlands ordinance should be amended to include: a wetlands definition based on the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands; mitigation sequencing requirements; and more specific standards in accordance with the Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection. The ordinance also should be amended to include local regulation of tidal wetlands. Amend Flood Damage Prevention; Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance — Article II of Chapter 186 should be amended to require that erosion and sediment control plans be designed in to handle 10-year storms. It also should require the diversion of clean surface water around construction areas, stabilization of all pipe outlets, and that controls be functional before any land is disturbed. Adopt a Stormwater Management Ordinance — A comprehensive stormwater management ordinance should be adopted to provide for both water quality and quantity control, in accordance with NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992) and Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8), and in accordance with Westchester County's Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Management(1984). Amend Zoning Ordinance — The Zoning ordinance should be amended to provide lot coverage limits in all districts. Sensitive areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes, should be excluded in whole or in part from the floor-area ratio (FAR) and allowable coverage calculations. Parking ratios should be re-evaluated to determine where ratios are above real needs and to allow for parking alternatives, such as pervious pavement, to accommodate overflow parking needs. The 34 Village should implement buffer provisions or additional setbacks to protect areas next to streams, wetlands and the waterfront. Amend Tree Ordinance - Chapter 318 should be revised to regulate tree removal on private property and to provide for tree replacement, whenever possible. City of New Rochelle Periodically Update Comprehensive Plan LWRP & Harbor Management Plan — The Comprehensive Plan, Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) and Harbor Management Plan (HMP) should be regularly assessed and updated. The City's LWRP and HMP should suggest further measures that need to be implemented to protect water quality, in addition to recognizing past accomplishments. Replace Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance — Local wetland regulations should be strengthened to include jurisdiction over development other than subdivisions. To ensure that no wetland is overlooked and all are properly protected, the City should consider replacing its brief Freshwater Wetlands ordinance with a comprehensive local ordinance, patterned after the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection. Consider Adoption of a Stormwater Management Ordinance — A comprehensive stormwater management ordinance should be adopted in accordance with the NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development, the NYSDEC's Division of Water Technical and Operation Guidance Series 5.1.8, and Westchester County's Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management. Consider Adoption of an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance — The adoption of a comprehensive erosion and sediment control ordinance should be considered. The ordinance would apply to all types of development and land disturbance, all of which can contribute to erosion and sedimentation in watercourses, wetlands and water bodies. Amend Zoning Ordinance — Lot coverage limits should be provided in all districts. Those with lot coverage limits should be lowered, particularly in the CM-I and R-IAD zones near the Sound shore. Exclusions for additional sensitive natural features should be considered in lot coverage calculations. In addition, the City should evaluate the required number of parking spaces for various land uses to determine if a lower number is practicable. The City also should allow for porous pavement alternatives to reduce impervious surfaces. Amend Tree Ordinance — Article III of the City's Tree ordinance (Chapter 301) should be amended to extend permit requirements to trees on any portion of private, unimproved lots and to include standards for tree replacement. Consideration also should be given to regulating trees on private property of less than 1.5 acres. Villaze of Scarsdale Update Comprehensive Plan —Future updates of Scarsdale's Comprehensive Plan should include encouragement of water quality improvement initiatives, such as the preservation or restoration 35 of vegetated buffers adjacent to all streams, wetlands and water bodies, both on public and private lands within the Village. Adopt a Stormwater Management Ordinance — A Stormwater Management ordinance should be adopted. The ordinance should be based on established guidelines, such as the DEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992) and Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8), and Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems (1996) by the Center for Watershed Protection, as well as the County's Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Management (1984). Such an ordinance would require certain methods, such as treatment of the "first flush" of stormwater runoff, and establish a hierarchy of stormwater management techniques that should be selected based water quality treatment capability and feasibility. The ordinance also should include inspection schedules, maintenance plans, performance bonds and penalties to ensure compliance. Adopt an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance — An Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance, patterned in whole or in part in accordance with the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's Model Ordinance for Erosion and Sediment Control, should be adopted. It would mandate the preparation and submission of erosion and sediment control plans, establish guiding standards, provide for maintenance inspections, and require the posting of performance bonds and penalties to ensure compliance. Amend the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Ordinance— Several amendments should be made to Chapter 171, which regulates freshwater wetlands in Scarsdale, to achieve more thorough protection of wetlands in the Village. Its definition of wetlands should include the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. The ordinance should require on-site delineation of wetlands by a certified wetland scientist, as well as more detailed submissions with regard to the identification of proposed disturbances, as suggested in the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection. The Village also should consider prohibiting the planting of exotic, invasive species and clarify the term"controlled areas." Amend the Diversion of Watercourses Ordinance — The Diversion of Watercourse ordinance (Chapter 302) should be amended to require that proposals to divert watercourses be referred to the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District for review and comment. Amend Zoning Ordinance — A Conservation Overlay District should be adopted for areas containing environmentally sensitive features, most notably existing golf courses, to require appropriate development techniques and adequate review to protect these precious resources. The Village also should consider provisions to protect steep slopes and to provide lot coverage limits for non-residential uses in the Residence A District. Amend Trees, Brush, Grass and Weeds Ordinance — The protection of trees smaller than twelve (12) inches in diameter should be considered. The Village also should consider regulating the removal of trees on developed private land, not just unimproved land, since the majority of Scarsdale is already developed. 36 City of White Plains Implement Comprehensive Plan Recommendations — White Plains should implement the following recommendations from its current Comprehensive Plan: create an open space trailway; conduct an open space inventory; develop an open space maintenance and acquisition plan; explore funding sources for open space acquisition; reduce zoning density on golf courses; apply cluster zoning provisions to golf courses; renew right of first refusal agreements with golf courses; revise existing zoning, subdivision, cluster and environmental regulations to better preserve environmental and open space features; and address nonpoint source pollution in future planning and environmental reviews. Adopt Erosion and Sediment Ordinance— An Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance should be adopted. The ordinance should address all types of land disturbing activity. For those activities that require local development approvals, erosion and sediment control provisions could be treated as guidelines to be incorporated during the development review process. Adopt Stormwater Management Guidelines — "Stormwater Management Guidelines" should be adopted that set standards for stormwater quality as well as quantity in the design of stormwater management systems. To construct the stormwater management guidelines, city staff or others charged with drafting the guidelines should consult the NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runofffrom New Development (1992) and "Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development" (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8), Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems (1996) by the Center for Watershed Protection, and the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Management (1984). Amend the Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance — Chapter 3-5 should be amended as follows: (a) substantially increase the penalties for violations and require performance bonds; (b) remove "the planting of decorative shrubs or trees" from the list of unregulated activities and include mitigation criteria for wetlands disturbance; and (c) reduce the threshold for steep slopes from 20 percent to 15 percent. Amend Zoning Ordinance — The Zoning ordinance should be amended to: (a) include "gross land coverage" limits for all zoning districts in the Close-In and Outer Areas of the City; (b) modify parking requirements where possible to reduce impervious surfaces and allow for pervious pavement options to handle overflow parking, emergency and other lesser used driveways and roads, etc.; (c) increase wetland and watercourse buffers to one hundred (100) feet; (d) provide steep slopes criteria for development on slopes when unavoidable; (e) exclude watercourses, wetlands, water bodies and steep slopes in lot area calculations; (f) revise cluster zoning provisions to extend them to existing golf courses and adopt "gross land coverage" limits for clustered lots, and (g) designate conservation overlay districts to identify and protect environmentally sensitive sites. Amend Tree Ordinance — The Tree ordinance (Chapter 7-5) should be amended to also regulate tree removal on private properties that are not the subject of development proposals. 37 SUMMARY OF OUTREACHAND EDUCATION CHAPTER & RECOMMENDA TIONS (FULL TEXT BEGINS ON PAGE 198, SECTION I) Watershed-Wide Recommendations • The first step in furthering the education and outreach goals of WAC 4: target audiences should be identified. The second step: specific activities matching their interests should be designed. • WAC 4 is organizing a group of volunteers, called the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Volunteers, to implement many of the outreach and education strategies suggested in this chapter. The group will coordinate its activities with the outreach and education efforts of municipalities and the Westchester County Department of Planning. • Regularly scheduled informational and planning meetings should be held between members of WAC 4, or other appropriate intermunicipal committee(s), and the Westchester County Department of Planning and Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution. • Instill a sense of proprietorship for the watershed in the people who live, work and recreate in it, such as by involving the community in natural resources restoration projects, storm drain stenciling programs, trash cleanup projects along streams, wetlands, woodlands and coastal Long Island Sound. Media • Ask local newspapers (weekly and daily) to run a regular column (weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly) on nonpoint source pollution control activities (municipal and county activities). • Ask local radio stations to run short, regular features (public service announcements) and/or have guest speakers on regular talk shows. • Ask local cable stations to further the ideas described in this chapter, such as by airing educational videos on water quality, posting events related to the quality of Long Island Sound, and displaying educational materials related to water quality prepared by the Westchester County Department of Planning, Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Volunteers, and other entities. • Submit articles to newsletters or initiate a new newsletter to be included with municipal mailings that focus on nonpoint source pollution and ways residents can help control it. • Develop public educational fliers and posters, such as the series of four posters developed by the Westchester County Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound, for display at kiosks in malls, train and bus stations, public facilities, and other locations. �x • In conjunction with municipal and county parks and recreation departments, initiate a campaign to minimize chemical use and other potentially adverse landscaping practices, such as using integrated pest management and creating naturally vegetated buffers next to streams and wetlands. • Use public gatherings, club meetings, special conferences and workshops to explain the nonpoint source pollution control program for the Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County, customizing the message to the audience. Corporations/Businesses • Identify corporations/businesses in the WAC 4 study area and approach them about co- sponsoring nonpoint source pollution educational activities (e.g., helping to print publications or implementing best management practices on their properties (minimizing chemical use, establishing buffers, installing stormwater management basins, etc.). • Draft sample inserts for bills (water, electric, tax, etc.) that describe the nonpoint source pollution control program and various components (fertilizer and pesticide use minimization, soil erosion and sedimentation control, buffer corridor protection, septic maintenance, etc.). • Ask private golf course superintendents and managers to integrate nonpoint source pollution control practices into their maintenance and landscaping activities. • Approach and meet with golf course and landscape/lawn care industry leaders and organizations about nonpoint source pollution control issues, landscaping practices, and implementing best management practices. • Approach small businesses, possibly through the Chamber of Commerce, about their role in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Targeted Education • Educating young people about nonpoint source pollution and its influence on water quality and fresh and salt water ecosystems can best be achieved by coordinating educational efforts with grade schools. • Involve grade school students in preparing and giving presentations on student environmental activities before appropriate municipal boards and commissions. • Host workshops targeting members of municipal planning, zoning, conservation and other boards as well as staff involved in land use planning and decision-making. • Develop a handbook for municipal boards and commissions describing how to incorporate nonpoint source pollution control strategies into local land use guidelines, policies and laws. • Ask garden clubs and the land scap 1 ng/lawn care industry about developing a public education program on topics such as landscaping and lawn care practices. In addition, ask >9 Cornell Cooperative Extension Service to use "Sound Gardening" as a pilot program in a few subwatersheds of the Long Island Sound watershed. • Initiate an annual certificate award program for corporations, schools, municipalities, etc., that implement a nonpoint source pollution control project. • Develop a circular to foster public awareness about the need for and importance of natural buffers and stormwater management basins, emphasizing scientific support. Environmental Organizations and Citizen Groups • Encourage municipal staff and volunteers to attend educational conferences and seminars on water quality related topics. • Request that the Westchester County Environmental Management Council and Soil and Water Conservation District focus future programs or workshops on nonpoint source pollution control. • Encourage the SWCD and EMC to coordinate with the Westchester Municipal Planning Federation (WMPF) so that the issues of nonpoint source pollution control and land use planning become part of the agenda for the next series of the WMPF-sponsored "short courses." • Coordination with the Long Island Sound Study's public education and outreach efforts should be an integral part of the WAC 4 program. • Any WAC 4 municipalities, such as New Rochelle, which do not have Conservation Advisory Councils (CACs) or a similar municipal board or commission that can be a vehicle for environmental education, should form such a board or commission. • Work with citizen groups in the community. Citizen groups can collect valuable information on basic parameters - they can monitor and identify problems, collect surface water samples, and measure turbidity. Outreach and Volunteerism • It is important to identify, collect, and, if necessary, generate materials which can be used for a"traveling road show" or exhibit. • Outdoor billboards and other signs advertising the importance of citizen participation in watershed management and nonpoint source pollution control have been successfully used in some communities. • The importance of volunteers in watershed education should emphasized. Activities that can be carried out by volunteers include the Earth Team's Streamwalk (see stream restoration chapter), storm drain stenciling, certain components of wetland restoration and stream bank stabilization projects, distribution of informational literature, water sampling and quality monitoring, and ecological assessments. 40 Existing_Programs • Efforts have already been made to educate the public about nonpoint source pollution in the WAC 4 study area. For example, The Friends of Larchmont Reservoir have organized a number of water quality and ecological events, projects and programs, some jointly with other local organizations, such as the Life Center. The Westchester County Department of Planning has prepared and distributed a number of educational materials, such as a series of four posters on nonpoint source pollution, Sound Adt ice: A Resident's Guide to Reducing Pollution at Home, a highway deicing brochure, and a series of six fact sheets on nonpoint source pollution. Municipalities also have participated in several storm drain stenciling projects. • Members of WAC 4 have begun forming a watershed-wide volunteer group, the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Volunteers (MSV). MSV will help lead and coordinate education and outreach efforts in the WAC 4 study area. • Many of the specific education and outreach strategies described in this chapter will require some degree of participation by Westchester County agencies, specifically the Department of Planning. For this purpose, the County Department of Planning should designate a staff member to communicate with MSV, which also should appoint a volunteer to work with the Department. It will be their responsibility to: (1) coordinate the development and dissemination of educational materials and projects produced by the County; and (2) contact people, agencies or organizations outside the study area who might be able to assist MSV. Proposed Activities/Projects • To maximize public consciousness of the watershed, its problems and solutions, publicity about all these projects should be synchronized at an early point in the implementation of the WAC 4 plan to achieve a concentrated impact on the public mind and hence maximum participation. • A major resource in watershed education is the Long Island Sound Watershed Improvement Network (WIN), coordinated in Westchester by the County Department of Planning. It works closely with Hudson Basin River Watch (HBRW), which assists science teachers and others in water quality monitoring, an activity with both educational and publicity value. HBRW provides teachers with instruction, test kits and other equipment. • Save the Sound Inc. organizes water quality monitoring in the Sound's rivers and harbors, among them Mamaroneck Harbor. MSV, in consultation with the County Department of Planning, will explore whether this water quality monitoring program, which includes the nationwide "Adopt-a-Watershed" program, can be extended to schools in the Westchester's Long Island Sound watershed, including the WAC 4 study area. • Mamaroneck High School is a potential recruiting ground for the summer work crew which is deployed in Mamaroneck Town conservation areas by the Town's environmental coordinator. The school and work crew can be used for water quality monitoring and/or stream bank stabilization projects, which can be incorporated into the work of the summer 41 crew. If such a project is acceptable to the environmental coordinator, MSV will make the necessary contact with sources of relevant technology and instruction. • Instruction for students in freshwater ecology, chiefly in the Mamaroneck school district, has recently been initiated under the auspices of the L.I.F.E. Center, which uses a "living machine" to display the interaction of organisms over time in a tank filled with pond water. Other schools may benefit by this teaching technique. MSV will help spread the word. • The Watershed Education Program Guide, published by the Westchester Land Trust, is being used in several middle schools in the county. MSV will see that copies are made available to science departments in all school districts in the WAC 4 study area, as well as to the L.I.F.E. Center and other local organizations with an interest in the environment. • Adult education programs, conducted annually by school districts and by BOCES/Southern Westchester, offer a wide range of courses for modest fees, many of them teaching technical skills. MSV will encourage the inclusion of courses in watershed management. Qualified instructors may be culled from a variety of sources, including the L.I.F.E. Center, Westchester County Department of Planning and Friends of the Reservoir. • MSV will contact relevant science faculty at colleges and universities in and near the WAC 4 study area, such as Pace University (White Plains), Iona College (New Rochelle), the College of New Rochelle, Mercy College (White Plains), and State University of New York at Purchase, to promote the study of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor watersheds. • A number of major companies and medical institutions have large lawns surrounding their facilities. In the interest of public and community relations, directors of maintenance and others should be asked to set a good example by adopting best management practices in lawn and landscaping care (e.g., minimal use of chemicals, proper mowing methods, use of naturally vegetated buffers along streams and wetlands). The same best management practices also should be applied to golf courses. MSV will consult with the County Department of Planning to further this objective. • Major utilities that do business in the WAC 4 study area, such as Con Edison and Bell Atlantic, should be asked to include educational inserts in their bills addressed to customers in the Long Island Sound watershed. The inserts would urge residents to follow best management practices, such as those pertaining to lawn care and household hazardous waste disposal. MSV will contact these utilities to implement this recommendation. • Certain kinds of small businesses, by the nature of their work, are potential sources of pollution. These especially include auto service stations/repair shops, dry cleaning establishments, landscapers, and building contractors. Through trade associations or chambers of commerce, MSV, in consultation with the County Department of Planning, will develop educational materials on best management practices for each of these trades. • MSV will strive to educate homeowners about the environmental problems associated with improper lawn and landscaping practices and improper disposal of household hazardous waste. In consultation with the County Department of Planning, MSV will further existing 42 educational strategies developed by the Department of Planning, EPA-Long Island Sound Office, New York Sea Grant, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and other agencies and organizations. • MSV will work with local media to further its goals and objectives. • A traveling exhibit on nonpoint source pollution, for use at festivals, seminars and other important environmental gatherings in the county, will be used by MSV, which will work with the County Department of Planning Department to develop themes and graphic materials for the exhibit. • MSV will form a speakers' bureau and seek engagements with clubs (Rotary, Lions, etc.) whose interest is not solely environmental. Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) has given presentations to several communities in the watershed and offers a good model for this work. • Working with the County Department of Planning and NEMO, MSV will host and organize workshops in each of the WAC 4 municipalities for municipal officials and members of boards and commissions who deal with planning, zoning, environmental and other land use issues. MSV also will encourage attendance through publicity. Among the subjects explored will be balancing economic growth with a healthy environment; the importance of best management practices in erosion and sediment control; control of stormwater runoff, water quality principles and measurement; stream management; and vegetation buffers. A handbook covering these subjects will be prepared and distributed in connection with the workshops. • Assisted by the County Department of Planning, MSV will initiate a program to award annual certificates of merit for contributions to reducing nonpoint source pollution in the Long Island Sound watershed. The program will come under the auspices of the Westchester County Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound, which will request nominations from each of the six Watershed Advisory Committees (WACs), including WAC 4. The awards will be open to corporations, schools and colleges, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and news media, as well as to individuals. 43 Section 1: The Plan INTRODUCTION The Importance of Long Island Sound Long Island Sound is an estuary where salt water from the ocean mixes with fresh water from inland streams and rivers. Bounded by Connecticut and Westchester County to the north and Long Island to the south, it is approximately 110 miles long and up to 21 miles wide. Like other estuaries, Long Island Sound had been blessed with an abundance of fish, shellfish and waterfowl. It provides feeding, breeding, nesting and nursery areas for a variety of fish and wildlife. Unlike other estuaries, though, Long Island Sound does not have only one connection to the sea. It has two. Many other estuaries have a major source of freshwater at their heads and a wide mouth that empties into the ocean. Long Island Sound, however, is open at both ends: through"The Race" at the eastern tip of Long Island and at the confluence of the East River and New York Harbor. Most of its freshwater comes from streams and rivers flowing into it from the north, such as the Connecticut and Housatonic rivers in Connecticut, and a series of much smaller streams and rivers that, cumulatively, contribute substantial amounts of freshwater to the Sound. These smaller watercourses include Stephenson, Pine, Blind and Beaver Swamp brooks, and Mamaroneck, Hutchinson, Mianus and Mill rivers in Westchester County. The Bronx River is a tributary of the Sound but first flows into the East River, which drains into the Sound. The Sound is unique in the degree to which it provides recreational and commercial value to the region. It is in the midst of one of the most densely populated regions of the United States. More than eight million people live in the Long Island Sound watershed and millions more flock yearly to the Sound for recreation. Research commissioned by the joint state and federal Long Island Sound Study estimated that about $5 billion is generated annually in the regional economy from boating, commercial and sport fishing, swimming and beach-going. The ability of the Sound to support these uses is dependent on its quality, living resources and habitats. Westchester's economy also benefits from the Sound's many other valuable uses, such as cargo shipping and boat excursions. With the uses it serves and the recreational opportunities it provides, Long Island Sound is among the most important estuaries in the nation. While Long Island Sound is a demonstrable economic resource, there are other values that are less quantifiable. Natural habitats and good water quality contribute to residential property values. On another level, the Sound's many attributes, aesthetic and otherwise, can inspire a special bond between people and the water. The current value and quality of the Sound are partly the result of investments in water pollution control programs over the past 25 years since the passage of the Clean Water Act. These programs have led to measurable improvements in pollution control and water quality, despite ever-increasing numbers of people and activities on the Sound and within its watershed. The Problem Large areas of Long Island Sound are or have been impaired as habitat for fish, shellfish and other animals partly because of low dissolved oxygen levels called hypoxia. This condition is 45 largely the result of excessive amounts of nitrogen in the water, which produces excessive amounts of algae. The decay of this algae consumes oxygen. The productivity of many freshwater and tidal wetlands, intertidal areas, and other habitats has been diminished by development and pollution. Streams that empty into the Sound often carry high amounts of nutrients and pollutants because of inland and coastal development. The degradation of habitat has had direct and indirect impacts on the regional economy and quality of life. Health advisories warn against eating too much Long Island Sound fish and shellfish, and the size of commercial and recreational fish catches has diminished over the past several years due to the need for better fisheries management, pollution, and loss of habitat. Beaches suffer periodic closures due to pathogen contamination and other pollutants. Since 1985, New York and Connecticut governmental agencies, in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several non-profit organizations, have been cooperating to restore the Sound's health. Other agencies, such as the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service and a partnership called Coastal America, have since become involved in restoring the Sound. The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) is a result of this cooperative effort and identified numerous threats to the Sound's future productivity and recreational viability. The study noted that a primary inhibitor to the Sound's health is excessive nitrogen and resulting low oxygen conditions. The LISS is implementing a phased approach to reducing nitrogen loadings to the Sound. Phase I, announced in December 1990, called for a freeze on point and nonpoint sources of nitrogen loadings in critical areas of the Sound at 1990 levels. Phase II, approved in 1994, committed to low cost actions to begin to reduce the load of nitrogen below the 1990 freeze levels. Phases I and II were based on LIS 2.0, a two-dimensional water quality model, while work was completed on LIS 3.0, a more advanced model. LIS 3.0, a three-dimensional water quality model that better defines the area and duration of low dissolved oxygen conditions, has been used to guide the next phase of hypoxia management. Phase III, established in 1997, calls for nitrogen reduction targets to be set for each of 11 watershed management zones established around the Sound. Westchester County is in management zone 7. As new regulations call for improved treatment of sewage effluent to curb point sources of nitrogen pollution, many communities, including Westchester County, are finding that treatment improvements can be difficult and costly. Due to these difficulties, alternative ways of reducing nitrogen levels must be sought. A more cost effective means of protecting water quality may be achieved through a combined pollution control strategy. Such a strategy addresses both "point" and "nonpoint" sources of nitrogen and other contaminants that threaten water quality. This type of approach addresses as many pollution sources as possible and will help protect the long-term health and recreational value of Long Island Sound. 46 Westchester County's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program In response to the significant concerns raised by the Long Island Sound Study, in 1992 Westchester County formed the Citizen's Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound. The Citizen's Committee consisted of elected officials and staff members of municipalities, representatives of the construction industry and building trades, members of the environmental community, and Westchester County staff. The Citizen's Committee was charged with making recommendations and proposing a combined pollution control strategy to reduce Westchester County's contribution of nonpoint source pollutants to the 16,000 square mile Long Island Sound watershed. The Citizen's Committee produced detailed findings and a plan in its "Report and Recommendations" in 1993 to reduce pollution and improve water quality in Long Island Sound. This report addresses point source pollution controls, biological and structural nonpoint source pollution controls, institutional and land use controls, education, and financing. Overall, the Citizen's Committee made 33 recommendations to address point and nonpoint source pollution, which were accepted and approved by the County Executive and Board of Legislators with the understanding that, if implemented, these recommendations would result in improved water quality in Westchester's streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, groundwater, wetlands, and ultimately, Long Island Sound. To implement the recommendations made by the Citizen's Committee, a Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound was formed. In 1993, the Westchester County Department of Planning, in conjunction with this committee, began implementing the 33 Citizen's Committee recommendations for Long Island Sound. In 2000, the committee became the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution, and began examining nonpoint source pollution issues throughout Westchester County. Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano also formally pledged his support to improving water quality in the county. He formed a Water Quality Council administered by the county Department of Planning, which will coordinate and continue the county's water quality protection efforts. The Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution and county Department of Planning, and participating municipalities, have embraced the ongoing cooperative municipal-county venture to develop and implement cost-effective local programs that emphasize the following categories: natural resources protection and restoration, stormwater management, land use planning and regulations, and education and outreach. As a result of this venture, efforts are being planned and executed to improve water quality in the Sound. For example, management plans have been completed for the joint municipal-county Watershed Advisory Committees (WACs) 3 and 5. A host of recommendations made by these plans have been implemented; others are being strongly considered. Stream and wetland restoration projects aimed at improving water quality and habitat have been completed, and others are being designed or planned. Several municipalities have changed or added ordinances to better protect water quality. The county is upgrading its sewage treatment plants in the Long Island Sound watershed, and education and outreach programs, such as volunteer monitoring and the publication of informational products, are helping to educate the public about water quality issues. 47 Watershed Planning Westchester County and many municipalities have recognized the need to identify threats to Long Island Sound and address these threats by implementing strategies to reduce nonpoint source pollution. An intermunicipal watershed planning approach was identified by the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution as the best method to address these threats. Watershed planning is a comprehensive planning process that, in part, assesses the balance between resource protection and economic development based on natural drainage patterns rather than municipal boundaries. This requires an examination of development patterns or other land use changes having a direct influence over water quality and other natural features. In Westchester County, individual municipalities govern land use changes and development patterns. However, the nature of water is such that water quality problems do not follow municipal boundaries. Pollutants enter streams and rivers and then travel along these systems to their final destinations, most likely a water body such as Long Island Sound. Along the way, the pollutants may flow through several villages, towns and cities. Therefore, it is important to establish geographic boundaries based on hydrology rather than traditional municipal bounds. A hydrologic boundary requires cooperation and coordination among local governments, especially since municipalities may have different land use goals and strategies, to govern land use changes and development patterns within the entire watershed area. The Watershed Management Approach The watershed management process includes a series of steps: planning, assessment, evaluation, and implementation. The planning phase focuses on managing objectives and deciding what needs to be accomplished. This phase is largely dedicated to selecting actions that will tackle the most critical and feasible objectives. When the planning phase is complete, a general list of critical resources and possible management techniques will result. Each of these resources and techniques will be assessed to quantify and document a watershed's current conditions. Watershed assessment also involves careful analysis of water and other natural resources and potential stresses, such as land development. The evaluation phase identifies which management strategies will be effective in protecting and/or restoring a watershed's health. The implementation of these management techniques provides an opportunity to change land use and development patterns, as well as environmental protection efforts, and to determine whether or not the implemented strategies are working. Specific management practices can be implemented to correct pollution problems and specific regulatory controls can be introduced or revised to ensure pollution reduction. Watershed planning provides a solid framework to reduce both point and nonpoint sources of pollution and ensure the long-term health and recreational viability of the Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County. The Nature of Westchester's Long Island Sound Watershed The Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County covers nearly 70,000 acres and supports about half of the county's population. This area and population does not include the Bronx River watershed, which indirectly flows into the Sound. Between the northern and southern portions of the Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County, there are drastic demographic and land use differences. The northern portion is less developed and less populated than the urbanized southern portion. The table below provides a comparative analysis of the land use differences between the northern and southern portions of the watershed. The largest 48 difference between the two is in the amount of undeveloped land (approximately 6,889 acres in the north and 847 acres in the south) and in the total amount of commercial, retail, office and mixed use land coverage (approximately 412 acres in the north and 3,002 acres in the south). LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERSHED LAND USE SUMMARY (SELECT CATEGORIES) LAND USE TYPE NORHTERN SOUTHERN TOTAL WATERSHED WATERSHED WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) AREA (ACRES) AREA (ACRES) Undeveloped Land 6,889 847 7,736 Open Space (Public and 2,893 7,502 10,395 Private) Commercial/Retail/Office/ 412 3,002 3,414 Mixed Use Residential 14,890 23,628 38,518 Nineteen Westchester County municipalities in 10 subwatersheds of the county's larger Long Island Sound watershed contribute drainage to the Sound. To effectively plan for and manage this watershed, the Long Island Sound drainage basin in Westchester County was divided into six subwatershed study areas as noted in the table below. A nonpoint source pollution control plan will be developed for each of these study areas to: 1) prevent an increase in nitrogen and related nonpoint source pollution to the Sound; and 2) implement strategies to reduce existing pollution within the Sound's watershed. SUBWATERSHEDS OF LONG ISLAND SOUND WAC SUBWATERSHEDS MUNICIPALITIES I Silvermine, Mill and Mianus Rivers Bedford, Zewisboro, North Castle, Pound Ridge 2 Byram River Bedford, New Castle, North Castle, Port Chester 3 Blind, Beaver Swamp, and Brentwood Harrison, Mamaroneck (Village), Port Chester, Brooks, and Milton and Port Chester Rye Brook, Rye City Harbors 4 Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers, and Harrison, Mamaroneck (Town and Village), Mamaroneck Harbor New Rochelle, Scarsdale, White Plains 5 Pine, Stephenson, and Burlin`; Brooks, Mamaroneck (Town and Village), Larchmont, and Larchmont Harbor New Rochelle, Pelham, Pelham Manor 6 Hutchinson River Eastchester, Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Scarsdale 49 Watershed Advisory Committees Six intermunicipal Watershed Advisory Committees (WACs) have been formed in the county's Long Island Sound watershed; each representing a specific study area of the watershed in Westchester County. Municipalities in these study areas were asked to designate a qualified representative or representatives to their respective WAC(s). These representatives, with administrative and technical support from the County Department of Planning, are working together to develop local implementation programs that will reduce nonpoint source of pollution. Watershed Advisory Committees are essential to Westchester County's watershed planning approach. The WACs were created to foster a cooperative relationship between all municipalities in each of their study areas and to recognize the importance of developing locally acceptable nonpoint source pollution control plans. Targeted land use measures, local ordinances, structural and vegetative best management practices, and education are most effective when implemented at the local level. Elements of the Long Island Sound Watershed Process The first phase in the development of plans to control nonpoint source pollution, or polluted stormwater, in Long Island Sound, consists of a natural resource and land use inventory of the study area. An objective of this inventory is to map and identify: (1) zoning and land uses; (2) open space; (3) wetlands and hydrography; (4) flood plain, wetland and watercourse buffers; (5) existing stormwater facilities; and (6) golf courses. Another goal is to identify potential resource protection and restoration measures and potential best management practices. These inventories will be the base line for developing each nonpoint source pollution plan. The second phase consists of assessing the natural features and existing water pollution control measures in the study area and assessing existing local ordinances related to water quality protection. The natural features assessment primarily focuses on streams and wetlands and identifies protection and restoration opportunities. Stormwater management practices, such as stormwater wetlands, are assessed and prioritized for potential water quality retrofit activities. A survey of local ordinances provides a comparison of water quality protection measures with minimum standards to ensure consistency throughout the watershed study area. Particular attention is paid to wetland, stormwater, and erosion and sediment control ordinances. Recommendations pertaining to new and/or amended regulations for each municipality are then drafted. The final phase of the watershed planning process is to prioritize and make recommendations to protect and restore natural features and, where needed, to change and/or strengthen local comprehensive plans and ordinances. Also included are potential outreach and education strategies, as well as a list of potential funding opportunities to assist municipalities in implementing projects and programs to benefit water quality. It is important to recognize that continuous outreach and education plays a large part in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Public outreach and education should happen throughout the various stages of any watershed plan and long after its recommendations have been set forth and implemented. Planning and assessing a watershed can only be effective if the people who live, work and play in the watershed understand water quality issues, problems and their related causes. 50 YORKTOWN SOMERS r/// \ LEWISBORO o 2 CORTLANDT ' < \ \ n G „ BEDFORD \ \� Croton``��,, on r \ POUND HudsonOL NT RIDGE ' y �KISCOj } NEW CASTLE��� \ OS NTNG\ O�sining,'L_ _ \ a ` � ,' ', NORTH ASTL O Briarcliff ' z Manorleasarille 2, G 2 moww,, vw1 i G MOUNT PLEASANT ' Sleepy: C 1 Hollow ; Numbers denote Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC) L Study Areas. Tarrytown I _ .Elmsford M Irvington GREENBURG!-I H A R SON i Rye � ' � \ 33 ' -- '7 \ WHITE \ (8roo 1 r � 1 Dobbs Ardsley PLAINS Port I Ferry �_ y / Chester y on +r SCA DALE~ 31 �udso ' RYE { Tucka\e, 4 MAMARO fa \ YONKERS CO ~ Mara{one - r n 6r nxviUe NEW �. OEHELLAI, 0C� ( tt 0 (� P Ira La�rchmont CO MOUNT N E\ VERNON �' Y 1 \G\ Q nor Y j.S MAP 1 Long Island Sound Ucpartmcnt otYlannin� .Ltipane t un LNeartivr Watershed Advisory Committees JoYec.M.Lannerl ,uw\ Commissioner ? MOUNT PLO ANT i d Ac rsrru t Rlif CASTLEN oil �` S��� t t rkr• r,L.-- J ' 1 r xN'hite r l �, '`��; 1 Pins t i< ` 684 J17 1L6MBt. 1 ` / _-. Q•�3' \\�' �HAR ISi ) i Brk z ; U 1 do �. «H1� E PLAINS ze` / N -. GREENB7H/ J 2? a T RtE /T Q� / ._ rWN Y Mamaroneck.' � -/ � � Port Chester / River !l"► v / Basing i r' )?s/� i•/ / k ' T oo „SC� SDAL Por,('kes,rr Sh !drake : 1 r Piver Q -t { �. )I $asin r -� s5�. _,:+� l "'�� R}FE ITY 4/t Ryj� �0 T N �..� tS'!u•ldrake L.cr.c, �. • ..- F AP lit nonce TOWN—I _(C ary lurmnt .) �. t i MA IARc),Nx \' +,Mainawneck ff lot uI i ROCHEL E Harb _ 1 Basin �, p t Scale in Feet MAP 2 Study Area Watershed Advisory Committee 4 Sheldrake River, Mamaroneck Harbor & Mamaroneck River Watersheds Department of Planning, Andre\i J.Spann .lu\ce 11.Lannert CUt1111\ FXCCUtiVC Commissioner As part of Westchester County's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, the County and Manhattan College have completed a water quality monitoring study, funded by a federal grant administered through the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The monitoring determined nutrient loads (nitrogen and suspended solids) delivered to Long Island Sound from two watersheds in Westchester County via the Mamaroneck River and Blind Brook. Using the LISS's LIS 3.0 Model, this monitoring data can be extrapolated to the entire Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County to determine base line conditions for nonpoint sources of pollution entering the Sound from the county. 51 STREAM ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION STREAM ASSESSMENT & RESTORATION WATERSHED DESCRIPTION The watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor cover 24.7 square miles of Westchester County. This area, from just south of the Kensico Reservoir to Mamaroneck Harbor, is nearly 10 miles long. It stretches nearly four miles at its widest point from eastern New Rochelle to central Harrison. A total of 34.8 linear miles of streams wend their way through these watersheds, which make up the WAC 4 study area. They all eventually work their way south to Long Island Sound. The Mamaroneck River originates in north White Plains and Harrison and flows south to Mamaroneck Town and Village, where it empties into Mamaroneck Harbor. The Sheldrake River originates in north Scarsdale and New Rochelle and empties into the Mamaroneck River in Mamaroneck Village. The watersheds' terrain is gently rolling in the north and flatter near the mouth of the Mamaroneck River. The ridges generally extend in a north-to-south direction. Ground elevations range from sea level at the mouth of the Mamaroneck River to approximately 500 feet above sea level in the watershed's northwest corner. Mamaroneck Harbor consists of inner and outer harbors, the two being connected by a channel having a width of approximately 350 feet. This inner harbor is made up of two basins, the East Basin and West Basin. The two basins are separated by a peninsula occupied by Harbor Island Park. The outer channel faces Long Island Sound. The soil is of glacial origin. A substantial amount of surface soils consist of fill resulting from human activities in the most developed sections of the study area, and sandy loam with a relatively high absorptive capacity in the most lightly developed areas. Land uses in the northern WAC 4 study area are generally low to medium density residential with some public parkland and commercial (retail) areas. Several golf courses also occupy a substantial portion of the northern study area. The City of White Plains, occupying the northern and central portions of the study area, consists of a mix of more densely developed residential and commercial land uses largely dominated by office, retail and institutional uses. The City of New Rochelle occupies the study area's west side, where low to medium density residential uses are dominant. Aside from publicly and privately owned recreational uses (mostly golf courses), the southern portion of the study area is more densely developed and contains the bulk of the area's retail and light industrial areas. 53 WATER RESOURCE INVENTOR Y To effectively inventory the streams, ponds and lakes in the drainage basins of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and portions of coastal Long Island Sound, WAC 4, with the invaluable assistance of the "streamwalk volunteers," inventoried and assessed these watercourses and water bodies as part of its watershed planning process. The primary objectives of the inventory and assessment were: 1. to obtain background information about the existing condition of streams, ponds and lakes throughout the study area; and 2. to identify areas in or near streams, ponds and lakes that display signs of stress or impairment and may be suitable for restoration or enhancement through the use of best management practices (BMPs). To meet these objectives, WAC 4 examined existing information and collected additional data on the condition of streams, ponds and lakes throughout its study area. STREAM CHARACTERISTICS The WAC 4 study area consists of the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake river, Mamaroneck Harbor, and coastal Long Island Sound in Mamaroneck Town and Village. All of these are part of the larger Long Island Sound watershed. The study area covers portions of the Town/Village of Harrison, Mamaroneck Town and Village, City of New Rochelle, Village of Scarsdale, and City of White Plains. Mamaroneck River Originating in small wetlands and ponds north of Forest Lake in Harrison, at an elevation approximately 430 feet above sea level, the river flows south along the eastern boundary of the City of White Plains. It joins the East Branch near the junction of Anderson Hill Road and Westchester Avenue. The Mamaroneck River flows another 2.5 miles to its confluence with the West Branch, where it forms the river's main stem below Spring Lake near Interstate 287. Human encroachment into the stream corridor and manipulation of the stream channel are byproducts of intense residential construction in and around the river's headwaters. River width in the headwaters range from two to 10 feet. Stream depths there were reported to average from a few inches to about a foot. The main stem, or middle reach of the Mamaroneck River, then flows southeasterly, paralleling Westchester Avenue to the Hutchinson River Parkway, then southeasterly, paralleling the parkway to its intersection with Mamaroneck Avenue. Below the parkway, the river flows south to its confluence with the West Branch of the Mamaroneck River at the Mamaroneck Reservoir. South of the Mamaroneck Reservoir, the river forms the municipal boundary between Mamaroneck Village and Harrison. At Interstate 95 (New England Thruway), the Mamaroneck River flows southward through Mamaroneck Village, where it joins the Sheldrake River and finally empties into Mamaroneck Harbor on Long Island Sound. 54 The drainage area, or watershed, of the Mamaroneck River is 17.4 square miles. It is dominated by suburban residential neighborhoods as well as tracts of urban commercial (retail and light industry). High density residential development also has occurred throughout the middle and lower portions of the watershed. County-owned parks and privately owned golf courses make up the largest blocks of open space. Two principal tributaries enter the Mamaroneck River, one from the east and one from the west. The East Branch of the Mamaroneck River is the furthest upstream tributary along the Mamaroneck River. It originates immediately south of Rye Lake in north Harrison near the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Anderson Hill Road. The West Branch originates immediately south of the Hutchinson River Parkway near Mamaroneck Avenue. The surrounding area's land use is medium density residential. East Branch The East Branch of the Mamaroneck River is 3.3 miles long. The main stem is 1.9 miles long north of its confluence with the east branch. The east branch originates from a small pond in north Harrison at about 400 feet above sea level and then flows southeast 0.7 miles into Forest Lake. South of Forest Lake, it flows westerly to its confluence with the main stem. Spring Lake, also known as Croker Pond, is approximately 900 feet above the confluence of the east branch and main stem. West Branch The West Branch of the Mamaroneck River is the smallest of the Mamaroneck River's two primary tributaries, draining an area of 2.3 square miles just south and southeast of downtown White Plains. The west branch originates from a wetland and pond adjacent to Archbishop Stepinac High School on Mamaroneck Avenue. The river here is 200 feet above sea level and flows about 2.75 miles south and southwest through several stormwater management basins to its confluence with the main stem near the intersection of Mamaroneck Avenue and Hutchinson River Parkway. The west branch's average slope is approximately 56 feet per mile, making for a relatively gentle descent southward. Flooding along the Mamaroneck River is most predominant downstream of the Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW) Dam next to Mamaroneck Avenue. The flooding is suspected to be largely caused by inadequate channel capacity, restrictions by low bridges, and expansion of impervious surfaces in the watershed. Property most often affected downstream of the WJWW dam include both residential and commercial structures, bridges and roads. Transportation disruptions have also occurred from street flooding. Sheldrake River The Sheldrake River is the largest tributary of the Mamaroneck River. The Sheldrake River watershed drains approximately 6.1 square miles and comprises the upper Sheldrake River (above and including the Larchmont Reservoir) and lower Sheldrake River (below the Larchmont Reservoir), the east branch, the main tributary to the east branch, and various smaller tributary streams. The Sheldrake River drainage system encompasses part of Mamaroneck Town, New Rochelle, Scarsdale, and White Plains. 55 The upper portion of the Sheldrake River is longer than the lower portion and has an average width of about two feet and depth of a few inches. It originates in a residential area of White Plains near Cushman Road and flows south through Scarsdale, New Rochelle, and Mamaroneck Town before entering Sheldrake Lake (Larchmont Reservoir). From its origin, the river flows south under Cushman Road, along Willow Lane and under Sheldrake Road through a medium-density residential neighborhood. The river then enters a culvert running partly under Fenway Golf Course, where it re-surfaces and drains into Fenway Pond. The pond is approximately 150 feet wide and 350 feet in length. From the pond, the river flows south/southwest through a residential neighborhood in the vicinity of Mamaroneck Road. The river then flows past the Heathcote Five Corners intersection from Scarsdale to New Rochelle, eventually ending up in Carpenter Pond. The river flows over the dam at Carpenter Pond, where it widens to an average width of 15 feet and reaches depths of up to 1 foot. The river then flows south under the Hutchinson River Parkway and along Pine Brook Boulevard for approximately 1.5 miles where it enters the Larchmont Reservoir (also known as Sheldrake Lake). The river is fed from the "upper" reservoir over a spillway into the "lower" reservoir (also known as Goodliffe Pond). A dam and spillway at the south end of the "lower" reservoir drains into a seven-foot-wide channel that flows east through the Bonnie Briar Golf Course and next to Brookside Drive. From Goodliffe Pond, the Sheldrake River flows through Mamaroneck Town nearly parallel to Weaver Street and south to Valley Stream Road. At this point, the Sheldrake River is joined by the east branch. The Sheldrake River flows through a series of small waterfalls to Gardens Lake (also known as the Duck Pond). Gardens Lake is circular in shape and approximately 200 feet in width. Downstream from Gardens Lake, the river turns northeast through an industrial section of Mamaroneck Village and carried in culverts underneath the Interstate 95, joining the Mamaroneck River just south of the interstate at Columbus Park in Mamaroneck Village business district. The East Branch of the Sheldrake River originates in Scarsdale and flows south through the Bonnie Briar Country Club to meet the east tributary at Fenimore Road. Below Fenimore Road, the east branch flows through Rockland Avenue to meet the Sheldrake River below Valley Stream Road. The Sheldrake River and east branch have been classified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as Class C. According to this state water quality classification, Class C watercourses should be suitable for fishing and fish propagation and discharges to these watercourses must meet standards that enable those uses. Class C watercourses also are suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation even though other factors may limit the use for that purpose. Water quality standards for Class C watercourses include limitations on fecal coliform, pH, total dissolved solids, and dissolved oxygen. MAJOR SURFACE WATER BODIES Forest Lake Forest Lake is the most northerly major water body. It is just south of the headwaters of the Mamaroneck River in Harrison. The lake covers approximately 11 acres. State-designated 56 wetland No. G-8 is next to the lake's northernmost inlet. A concrete dam regulates the lake's outflow at the south end of the lake. The lake discharges into state-designated wetland No. G-6. Land along the lake's west bank is densely wooded, although a large single-family residential development has recently been constructed north and west of the lake just beyond the wooded strip and wetland No. G-8. Nine new single-family houses also have been built next to Park Avenue on the lake's east bank. Silver Lake Silver Lake is the largest body of water in the WAC 4 study area, covering 42 acres. It is near the headwaters of the main stem of the Mamaroneck River in and forms the boundary of Harrison and White Plains. The watershed of Silver Lake's tributary (the headwaters of the Mamaroneck River) is 0.6 square miles and consists largely of the undeveloped County-owned Silver Lake Park and newly developed residential neighborhoods in Harrison. The state's water quality classification for the tributary is Class D, and will not support fish propagation. The state's water quality classification for Silver Lake is Class B. Best uses are primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. According to the state classification, Silver Lake is suitable for fish propagation and survival. Mamaroneck Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake) The Mamaroneck Reservoir is east of Saxon Woods County Park in Mamaroneck Village and Harrison. It is east and north of Mamaroneck Avenue and west of Winfield Avenue, as well as south of corporate office development. A dam forming the reservoir was constructed for water supply purposes east of Winfield Avenue in Harrison in 1932. The lake basin was a former stream valley which was deepened and enlarged as part of the dam's construction. Use of the reservoir as a water supply was terminated in 1972. The reservoir was drained but allowed to refill over time. Currently, the Mamaroneck Reservoir has a state water quality classification of A. Best uses are as a water supply for drinking and culinary or food processing purposes, and primary and secondary contact recreation and for fishing. Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake) and Goodliffe Pond Larchmont Reservoir, also known as Sheldrake Lake, is a 22-acre lake formerly used by Larchmont as a source of drinking water. Its use as a reservoir ended and its use as a stormwater management facility began in 1975. Various flood control proposals over the past two decades have noted the flood waters storage capacity of the Larchmont Reservoir. The lake is the second largest water body in the WAC 4 study area and has a watershed of approximately 2,050 acres, most of which has been developed into residential neighborhoods and roads. It is formed by a dam across the Sheldrake River. The lake's dam was built in 1924 and elevated in 1935 when a concrete cap was placed on the existing masonry structure. A 100-foot-long concrete receiving channel at the dam's spillway discharges into Goodliffe Pond, which is immediately south of the lake. Goodliffe Pond is within the Larchmont Reservoir—James G. Johnson Conservancy and straddles the border of New Rochelle and Mamaroneck Town. It has been locally designated a Critical Environmental Area. In 1984, Larchmont dedicated the reservoir and pond in perpetuity as a 57 conservation area dedicated to specific public uses, including education, open space and flood control. Low- to medium-density residential neighborhoods and a golf course surround the protected open space that nearly encircles both Larchmont Reservoir and Goodliffe Pond. The open space consists of municipally owned woodlands, including the conservancy. Croker Pond wring Lake) Croker Pond, also called Spring Lake, is next to the East Branch of the Mamaroneck River north of Anderson Hill Road off Danbury Road in White Plains. It covers more than five acres immediately north of the confluence of the east branch and main stem. The lake's drainage basin has experienced a construction boom and is nearly completely developed into residential neighborhoods. The west bank, though, is relatively steep and is still forested. Blooniftdale Pond Bloomingdale Pond, southwest of Interstate 287 next to Bloomingdale Road in White Plains, is next to city-owned open space and lands owned by New York Hospital. About an acre in size, the pond is fed from the south by a small intermittent stream, locally known as Cassaway Brook. The pond discharges to the north, where its waters later enter the Mamaroneck River near Interstate 287, approximately 1,500 feet north of Bloomingdale Pond. Carpenter Pond Carpenter Pond in New Rochelle is surrounded by city-owned woodlands and wetlands. It is formed by a dam across the Sheldrake River immediately north of Daisy Farms Road west of Weaver Street. Less than an acre in size, the pond acts as a detention basin for the Sheldrake River, trapping sediment and other nonpoint source pollutants. The woodlands and freshwater wetlands next to the pond also act to filter out pollutants. The pond is considered to be an important natural resource because of its water quality protection capabilities. FISH AND WILDLIFE Fish and wildlife habitats along the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers maintain a degree of diversity relative to the area's on-going urbanization. According to previous studies conducted by the County of Westchester in the mid 1980's, approximately 240 species of birds, including 90 nesting and 150 migratory species, 40 species of mammals, 16 species of amphibians, and 17 species of reptiles may be found in the WAC 4 study area. In addition, 15 freshwater fish species are may occur in the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers, and approximately 60 species of fish are typical of the estuaries forming the north shore of Long Island Sound. No endangered or threatened species are known to inhabit the study area, although the migratory species of birds reported in the area includes two rare coastal migrants, the American peregrine falcon and the American osprey. Vegetation and wildlife habitats along the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers are generally limited by the area's suburban development. Relatively undisturbed stream segments still exist, particularly along the Mamaroneck River upstream of Interstate 95. Vegetation in the riparian 58 river corridors include black willow, white ash, sugar maple, white oak, black birch, white birch, red maple, silver maple, sweetgum, scotch pines, vibernums, sumacs, and various wetland grasses, rushes and sedges. Wildlife occurring in the area include whitetail deer, squirrels, chipmunks, raccoons, muskrats and rabbits. In addition, numerous resident birds include the following: song sparrows, field sparrows, common starlings, cardinals, robins, bluejays, wood ducks and Canada geese. Fish species diversity and abundance in the streams are generally limited for the following reasons: (a) the poor water quality and insufficient flows are not favorable to natural fish propagation, particularly game fish species; (b) insufficient base flow within the streams themselves, that is, shallow, low-flow conditions are experienced during portions of the year; (c) relatively poor stream cover(shading) is found along the urbanized river stretches; and (d) high amounts of sediment suspended in the water column or blanketing the stream bed. Some fishes, including species such as sunfish, goldfish, white sucker, eels, carp, bass, brown trout, shiners and minnows are present in the larger water bodies of the WAC 4 study area. The Mamaroneck River drains into Long Island Sound at Mamaroneck Harbor. A diminished seasonal fishery for striped bass, bluefish, and blackfish (tautog) exists around the outer harbor, along with some recreational lobster harvesting. A small fishery exists in the harbor itself for snappers and bluefish. Eels, stickleback, toadfish, sculpin, killifish, flounder and various rough fish are found on and near the harbor bottom, while the shoal areas adjacent to the north side of Harbor Island Park support some razor clams, soft shell as well as hard shell clams - all inedible due to the poor quality of the bottom sediments. Some recreational fishing in the harbor for flounder, smelt, and snappers also is reported. The soft bottom sediments in the harbor's mid channel support little in the way of shellfish. Progressing outward from the harbor, more bottom life of all kinds can be found, particularly away from the main channel, in keeping with the improved water quality of open water. In the summer, large schools of bunkers can be found in the harbor. GENERAL LAND USE The watershed is highly urbanized with residential densities ranging from one-eighth- to two- acre lots. Existing development and land use patterns within the study area are varied and diversified. The upper reaches of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers generally consist of low- to medium-density residential neighborhoods. While the streams here have generally suffered from increasing development and encroachment along their banks, there remain many areas that are still somewhat reminiscent of their undeveloped state. The lower reaches of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers consist of low-, medium- and high-density residential neighborhoods as well as varied commercial (retail and office) and light industrial properties. Many of these have been constructed to the edge of the river banks. PREVIOUS STUDIES Previous reports and studies of all or parts of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake river watersheds focused almost entirely on stormwater modeling and flood control. However, a three-year water quality monitoring program for the Mamaroneck River was completed in June 2000 by Manhattan College on behalf of the Westchester County Department of Planning. This study, which also monitored Blind Brook, showed that the river is typical of urban streams but does not 59 generally exceed water quality standards for most parameters. The notable exception, though, is coliform. Both total coliform and fecal coliform had been significantly higher than water quality guidelines and standards and well above typical urban streams. Several earlier reports investigated flood control improvements along the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers. The earliest of these was a report on flooding and recommended stormwater controls for several streams in Westchester County, including the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers, which was submitted to the Westchester County Board of Supervisors in 1945. Major flood relief recommendations made in the majority of the previous studies reviewed included: (1) discourage encroachment into flood plains; (2) preserve freshwater and tidal wetlands; (3) remove large debris and man-made obstructions from river channels; (4) protect and repair river banks that experience chronic erosion; (5) clean out all catch basins and storm sewers; (6) require the implementation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control practices for all construction-related activities; (7) enlarge undersized culverts and catch basin; and (8) require stormwater management facilities for all newly developed and redeveloped areas. Other site-specific recommendations included: (1) stream channel improvements along the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers in Mamaroneck Village; (2) the diversion of flood flows from the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers in Mamaroneck Village; and (3) flood detention along the Mamaroneck River at the Westchester Joint Water Works Reservoir, and along the Sheldrake at the Larchmont Reservoir and on the East Branch. PRIORITY WATER BODIES LIST (PWL) The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Water had prepared a "Priority Water Bodies List" (PWL), which identifies surface waters whose designated class standards have one or more uses that are not fully realized or are threatened by declining water quality. The list assists the NYSDEC in managing its programs (funding, reclamation, restoration and preservation) and is usually updated every two to four years. Individual water body data sheets for priority water bodies describe the conditions, causes, and sources of water quality problems for specified watercourses as well as water bodies. The individual data sheets note the potential for restoration (high, medium or low) of a resource on the PWL (called resolution potential). High resolution potential indicates that the water quality problem has been deemed worthy of expenditures (time and dollars) because of the level of public interest and the expectation that the commitment of funding will measurably improve water quality. The 1996 PWL (currently being updated for LIS) includes seven stream segments or water bodies in the WAC 4 study area: two segments of the Sheldrake River, Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake), Goodliffe Pond, Silver Lake, Mamaroneck River, and Long Island Sound. According to the PWL, bathing in Silver Lake is stressed by aquatic vegetation, which is abundant due to excessive nutrients. Lake nutrients have increased due to urban stormwater runoff and lawn chemicals. The segment of the Mamaroneck River from Winfield Avenue downstream to Harbor Island Park boat launch is stressed by nutrients from urban runoff, according to the PWL, which further 60 states that fishery habitat and recreational uses in Long Island Sound and the lower Mamaroneck River have been stressed by urban/suburban nonpoint sources of pollution. According to the PWL description of the Sheldrake River, the primary problem for the West Branch of the Sheldrake River is diffuse urban/suburban stormwater runoff, including from storm sewers and roadway drainage along Pine Brook Boulevard and Weaver Street. Fishing is impaired on the Sheldrake River, including a health advisory on the American eel due to contamination by PCBs. Aesthetics also are impaired due to urban/suburban stormwater runoff, according to the PWL. In addition, nutrient loadings reportedly originate from surface runoff (lawn fertilizers) and from the improper disposal of yard waste along the stream channel. The Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake) is stressed by diffuse urban/suburban runoff, including storm sewer and roadway drainage along Pine Brook Boulevard and Weaver Street, in addition to local roads. Another significant problem is sedimentation coming from the Sheldrake River, which is associated with diffuse urban/suburban runoff from upstream development, according to the PWL. Goodliffe Pond, the water body immediately downstream from the Larchmont Reservoir, has reduced water quality seasonally (during the summer months) due to eutrophication and algal blooms also occurring in the upper reservoir. The primary impairments originate from diffuse urban/suburban runoff and the nutrients contained in this runoff. The PWL states that shellfishing is precluded in Mamaroneck Harbor and Long Island Sound because of pathogens and sludge deposits. In addition, Long Island Sound beaches have been periodically closed in Mamaroneck Village. According to the PWL, local studies have identified bacteria sources such as boat pollution and illegal sanitary connections to storm drains as contributing factors leading to beach closures. Fishing is also impaired by consumption advisories for striped bass and other game fish because of PCB contamination. STREAMWALK-EAR TH TEAM VOL UNTEERS In addition to using existing information, such as the PWL, a field inspection of the streams throughout the watershed has been undertaken using the Volunteer Streamwalk Program, which is supported by the USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Earth Team Volunteer Program and the Westchester County Department of Planning and Soil and Water Conservation District. A team of approximately 40 Earth Team Volunteers from Westchester County, dubbed the "Streamwalkers," assessed most of the study area's streams, ponds and lakes. The Earth Team Volunteers formed "stream teams" and were trained by Westchester County Planning Department and Soil and Water Conservation District staff to identify overall stream corridor conditions and specific areas where physical conditions may be indicative of adverse water quality conditions (impaired sites). As the volunteers walked through the stream systems, they filled out two inventory analysis forms: (1) a segment assessment survey designed to collect data that would provide a general description of the stream corridor, and (2) an impaired site assessment sheet, which identified areas along the stream corridors where physical signs of adverse water quality conditions were present. 61 The Streamwalkers inventoried and assessed the streams, ponds and lakes in Harrison, Mamaroneck Town and Village, New Rochelle, Scarsdale and White Plains. Their inventory and assessment of these watercourses and water bodies helped WAC 4 prepare its watershed management plan by allowing the committee to identify specific water quality impairments and make recommendations for improving water quality by restoring riparian habitats. IMPAIRED SITE IDENTIFICA TION AND RES TORA TION • An "impairment" is a symptom indicating that something is wrong with the water quality. Examples include: hypoxia (lack of oxygen in the water); eutrophication, restrictions on fish and shellfish consumption, habitat loss; beach closures; reduced diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife; and floatable debris. • "Suggested Best Management Practices" (BMPs) include the actions and/or steps that should be taken to reduce or eliminate a pollution source or disturbance, thereby reducing or eliminating a water quality impairment. Forty-four impaired sites were identified in the WAC 4 study area. Twelve are in Harrison, five in White Plains, six in Scarsdale, four in New Rochelle, six in Mamaroneck Town, seven in Mamaroneck Village, and four in the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed. The Mamaroneck River watershed has the highest number - 27 - of impaired sites in the study area. It also is the second largest tributary, next to the Bronx River, in the Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County. The Sheldrake River watershed has 12 impaired sites. The remaining five impaired sites are in the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed. Restoration opportunities have been described below and in the accompanying tables for each municipality in the study area so that targeted nonpoint source pollution management could be targeted to maintain or improve existing water quality. Mamaroneck River Harrison Impaired Site Identi catiorn Approximately 7.48 square miles of Harrison are in the Mamaroneck River watershed and 17.13 miles of the Mamaroneck River flow through the town. The Streamwalkers identified 12 impaired stream sites in Harrison. These impairments are described below. Headwaters 1. An impairment was found upstream from Park Lane (Stonewall Circle), where the stream has been impacted due to the construction of new homes. The stream was reported dry at the time of observation and stream flow blockage and resultant ponding were reported due to the construction of a new road. A slight oil sheen was reported on the ponded water surface, possibly originating from construction vehicles adjacent to the stream. In addition, a slight sewage smell was noted. 2. Diminished riparian vegetation and uncontrolled stream bank erosion, manipulated channels and overly steepened stream banks are conditions possibly resulting from the construction of several new homes near Park Lane. 62 3. An impairment was found in the north end of Forest Lake. This area is influenced by new development east of Park Lane. Several storm drains discharge directly into the northern tributary of Forest Lake. Construction debris was reported close to the mouth of the northern tributary. The excessive amount of algae and weed growth observed in the lake indicates that it is subject to eutrophic conditions. 4. The area surrounding the fourth impaired site is relatively remote. It is part of Silver Lake County Park. General refuse and debris, including white metal (e.g., old washing machines, refrigerators, etc.), were observed in the park's parking lot. 5. Two meandering river segments between Interstate 684 and Purchase Street, near Barnes Lane, range from one to three feet deep with an average stream width of one to four feet. Riparian buffers range from 25 feet to 50-feet in width and nearly complete tree canopies were reported over the river channel. The stream bed consists of rock with some coarse sediment and small cobbles in varying pool and riffle sequences. Streamwalkers identified eleven stormwater outfalls up to 28 inches in diameter in the segment between Lake and Purchase streets, southward to where the stream flows beneath Interstate 684. Some outfalls are covered or nearly covered by sediment. 6. A segment of the East Branch of the Mamaroneck River, north of Barnes Lane, flows southward from a wetland system toward Brae Burn Country Club. Excessive algae, sedimentation, pipe discharges and manipulated stream banks are identified impairments in the segment between Barnes Lane south through Brae Burn Country Club into an approximately 50-foot-diameter excavated pond. East Branch 7. The segment from Spring Lake upstream to its source is described as meandering with many pool and riffle sequences having an average depth of 8 inches and an average width of 8 feet. Much of the stream in this area has a nearly complete tree canopy with riparian zones greater than 100 feet wide. The adjacent land use in this area is described as low density residential. Numerous cul-de-sacs in the area, including Windsor Place, have large 24-inch outfall pipes leading to the stream, but were reported dry. Farther north, more drains are reported east of Brae Burn Country Club from several cul-de-sacs off of Pinehurst Drive. At the outlet of Spring Lake, Streamwalkers noted what appeared to be a leaking 12-inch- to 14-inch-diameter sanitary sewer pipe. The end cap was reported to be leaking raw sewage. This pipe protruded from the side of the headwall structure associated with the dam near the Spring Lake outlet. In addition, a strong sewage odor was noted. From the outlet of Spring Lake to the confluence of the East Branch and the main stem, the stream is described as "highly sculpted" with both poured concrete as well as stone retaining walls. Several residential homes were reported directly adjacent to these retaining walls. 8. A tributary near the intersection of Anderson Hill and Glen Park roads is described as having highly manipulated, approximately 10-foot-wide channels and stream banks. Also noted in this stretch were 10 small (less than 5 feet in height) man-made dams. The adjacent land use in this area is described as medium density residential. Yard waste discarded in the vicinity of the stream also was reported. 63 Main Stem 9. Excessive stream bank erosion was evident in a tributary adjacent to the U.S. Postal Service main distribution center near exit 9A of Interstate 287. The average stream depth and width are reported to be 2 feet and 4 feet, respectively, with nearly complete tree canopy and riparian buffers ranging from 25 feet to 50 feet wide. The stream bed composition is generally rocky substrate with sandy bottoms in pools. 10. Extensive stream channel and bank manipulation were conditions reported in a tributary that flows through corporate parks east of Interstate 287 near Gannet Drive. An average stream depth of 2 inches, and average stream width of 1.5 feet to 3 feet were reported with much of the stream reported as being lined with concrete, armored with rock, or piped at intervals of varying distances. Four man-made ponds with highly manicured shoreline areas also were observed in the vicinity of the corporate parks. In addition, approximately 10 stormwater discharge pipes were observed, one of which was 24 inches in diameter. According to Streamwalkers, these discharge pipes convey stormwater flows from adjacent parking lot surfaces directly into the tributary. 11. A tributary of the East Branch of the Mamaroneck River, southeast of the interchange of the Hutchinson River Parkway and Interstate 287, contains two small ponds flowing westward beneath Kenilworth Road and the Hutchinson River Parkway into the East Branch of the Mamaroneck River. The tributary is approximately one mile in length from its origin near Rockledge Road to its confluence with the East Branch of the Mamaroneck River, south of the interchange of the Hutchinson River Parkway and Interstate 287. The land use in the areas immediately adjacent to this tributary are low-density residential. Excessive algae, several stormwater discharge pipes, and diminished riparian vegetation were observations recorded at a pond near Ironwood Lane. Three of the pipes were 36 inches in diameter and appeared to originate from catch basins along Kenilworth Road and Ironwood Lane. A second hourglass-shaped pond is near the end of Rockledge Road. Similar impairments associated with this pond were observed by Streamwalkers. 12. A stretch of the tributary described in impairment number 11, from Kenilworth Road west to its confluence with the East Branch of the Mamaroneck River, was described as having a highly manipulated channel ranging from 6 feet to 10 feet in width with a water depth from 6 inches to 8 inches. Land use in the vicinity of this stretch is low- density residential. Eroded stream banks and diminished riparian buffers also were noted. In several areas, lawns were mowed to the edge of the stream bank. Several small stormwater outfall pipes reportedly to drain driveway runoff in the vicinity of Ironwood Lane, were observed. Harrison Restoration Ooortunity Stormwater catch basins draining impervious surfaces to Forest Lake, as well as the series of identified outfall pipes draining directly into the river from Lake and Purchase streets, could be improved by water quality devices, such as "Stormceptors" or "Vortechnics," to remove suspended solids and oil from stormwater runoff. These commercial subsurface water quality improvement structures are pre-fabricated concrete units designed to remove silt, sediment, and nutrients from stormwater runoff. They can be installed under roads, parking lots and other urban infrastructure. Sedimentation in the Mamaroneck River, from erosion and scouring caused 64 by excessive stormwater runoff, could be partially attenuated by these structures. They also could be applied to new residential developments, especially those in north Harrison, or as a stormwater quality retrofit for existing developments. Although these underground chambers have been shown to separate sediment and other pollutants from stormwater runoff, they will not properly function if they are not maintained. They must be periodically cleaned out. Otherwise, the sediment and other pollutants stored in the unit may be washed through the unit during severe storms and carried by storm pipes to streams, ponds, lakes or Long Island Sound. These in-line structures also are not intended to replace natural stormwater management systems, such as extended detention and retention basins, stormwater wetlands and biodetention and infiltration basins, because they are relatively limited in their overall storage capacity. However, enhanced water quality improvement devices may be effective as part of a "treatment train" approach, whereby several stormwater management techniques can be used together to maximize pollutant removal and flow attenuation. It also is recommended that, where practicable, a series of stormwater filtering systems be installed to"polish" stormwater runoff generated from impervious surfaces. Stormwater filtering systems generally use an artificial media, such as sand, to filter out pollutants entrained in urban stormwater. These filters are typically designed solely for pollutant removal and serve small development sites (usually less than five acres). Stormwater filters have been shown to provide more reliable rates of pollutant removal than "water quality inlets" if regular maintenance is performed. Based on information obtained from recently published stormwater design manuals, stormwater filters appear to have particular use in treating runoff from urban "hot spots," such as parking lots, vehicle service centers and industrial sites, as well as problematic street highway sites when other stormwater management practices are not feasible. In addition to the water quality and erosion and sediment impacts associated with runoff from impervious surfaces, and to mitigate the effects of increased stormwater runoff from extensive residential construction activities, the town should consider requiring the use of cast-in-place or pre-cast modular permeable pavement for new residential driveways, overflow parking lots, sidewalks and other appropriate surfaces requiring pavement. Alternative surface materials, such as permeable pavement, have been shown to dramatically decrease surface runoff and attenuate peak discharges under certain conditions. Water quality and quantity benefits also are realized through increased infiltration rates and aquifer recharge. It should be noted, however, that as with any pavement system, permeable pavement systems require careful preparation of the subgrade before installation. The compressive strength of a permeable pavement system relies, in large part, on the strength of the underlying soils. In addition, permeable pavement should be periodically sweeped, especially in winter when accumulated road sand could clog the pavement's pores. White Plains Impaired Site Identification Approximately 6.50 square miles of White Plains are in the Mamaroneck River watershed and 7.3 linear miles of the Mamaroneck River flow through the City. The Streamwalkers identified five impaired sites on the Mamaroneck River as follows: 65 Main Stem 13. Bloomingdale Pond on the New York Hospital property exhibits excessive algae growth with large aquatic plants growing in some areas. According to the Streamwalkers who visited this site, the appearance of the pond water led to its designation as an impairment. The color of the pond water was described as green. It is likely that elevated concentrations of nutrients contained in runoff from nearby lawns, roads and large parking lots, and possibly leaking sewage pipes, as well as a lack of adequate riparian vegetation around the pond, contribute to the highly eutrophic state of Bloomingdale Pond. The feeder stream to the pond (locally known as Cassaway Brook) is described as being a 3-foot- wide meandering watercourse with an average depth of 4 inches. The stream has moderate coverage by the tree canopy and adjacent non-residential land uses are reported as medium to high density institutional and commercial. 14. Severe erosion and unstabilized stream banks were reported along a meandering portion of the Mamaroneck River flowing through the northern portion of Maplemoor Golf Course, specifically between the tees on hole Nos. 5 and 6. Portions of the river in this area also have negligible riparian buffer vegetation. 15. Numerous sediment bars are present in the river channel in this segment along the eastern border of Maple Moor Golf Course. Accelerated sedimentation appears to be occurring as a result of recent development east of the Hutchinson River Parkway, as well as from intense stormwater flows from the parkway itself. The several discharge points for runoff from the parkway and resultant excessive storm flows have scoured portions of the stream bed, transported suspended sediments, and deposited silt and sediment in the slower flowing portions of the stream, specifically, a small in-stream pond along the edge of the golf course. Historically, this pond was used for irrigation. However, due to the impacts associated with accelerated sediment deposition, the use of the pond for irrigation has been precluded. 16. Good riparian buffers are present along the length of the Mamaroneck River corridor next to the Hutchinson River Parkway from the river's intersection with North Street southward to its intersection with Mamaroneck Avenue. However, litter accumulation, stream bank erosion, and sediment deposition are conditions reported near the service station on the Hutchinson River Parkway. In addition, a slight petroleum odor was noted along this stretch of the river by Streamwalkers. West Branch 17. The northernmost stretch of the West Branch of the Mamaroneck River, from its origin behind Archbishop Stepinac High School, south to its intersection with Ridgeway Avenue, was reported as severely degraded. The stream depth ranged from 1 inch to 6 inches and the width was reported to average approximately 2 feet. The stream bed substrate is reported to be "mucky" and strong organic decay odors were noted. Among the numerous stream impairments reported were excessive algae, impoundments, litter, sedimentation, stormwater discharges, diminished riparian vegetation, and channel and stream bank manipulation. An area east of the stream, extending from the origin of the west branch to its intersection with Ridgeway Avenue, was reportedly formerly used as a dump or 66 landfill. Streamwalkers also observed a small pond that exhibited a pungent odor. This pond reportedly contained discarded drums with unknown contents, barrels containing what appeared to be tar, pieces of styrofoam, tires, yard waste and other miscellaneous construction debris. A subsequent follow-up site visit revealed the presence of what appeared to be a former landfill, which had been recently graded in anticipation of construction activity. Waste materials observed included wood chips, miscellaneous yard waste, construction debris, several old tires and hard fill consisting of old bricks and broken concrete. No construction site erosion and sediment control measures were evident at the time of the follow- up site visit. Based on the presence of the waste materials, both in and immediately adjacent to the upper West Branch of the Mamaroneck River, and the highly disturbed and unstabilized condition of this site, it is reasonable to conclude that this impaired site has a significant adverse impact on the water quality of the west branch and the downstream main stem of the Mamaroneck River, as well as Long Island Sound. White Plains Restoration Opportunity Interstate 287 Part of the Mamaroneck River parallels Westchester Avenue and Interstate 287 in White Plains from Exit 8 southeast to the Hutchinson River Parkway. This segment receives considerable amounts of untreated stormwater from local and state roads. Numerous pipes discharge the stormwater directly into the river along this river segment. The state's massive road re-construction projects along I-287, as well as development projects along the Mamaroneck River next to I-287, should include provisions for improving stormwater quality before it enters the river. The current discharge of untreated stormwater, which likely contains hydrocarbons, sediment and other pollutants, is unacceptable from a water quality standpoint and should be corrected when opportunities arise. Any road work should be used as an opportunity to retrofit existing stormwater conveyances (i.e., pipes and swales) and implement stormwater controls to lessen stormwater impacts. The projects planned for this highway corridor next to the river should incorporate such retrofits. No stormwater should be discharged from the highway into the Mamaroneck River without first undergoing some level of treatment for pollutant removal. The NYS DEC's stormwater management guidelines state that "it is generally not acceptable to discharge untreated stormwater directly into naturally existing wetlands...." The same should be true for the discharge of untreated stormwater directly into streams and water bodies. WAC 4 recommends that a series of stormwater filtering systems, or "treatment train," be incorporated into road and development projects to "polish" stormwater runoff along the 1-287 corridor before it enters the Mamaroneck River. Stormwater filtering systems generally use a media, such as sand, to filter out pollutants entrained in urban stormwater. These filters, such as sand filters, are typically designed solely for pollutant removal and have been shown to provide reliable rates of pollutant removal if regular maintenance is performed. Other filters include those bearing trade names such as "Vortechnics" or "Stormceptor." These, like the sand filters, require regular maintenance to work effectively. But based on information obtained from 67 recently published stormwater design manuals, stormwater filters have particular utility in treating runoff from urban "hotspot" sources such as parking lots, vehicle service centers, and industrial sites, as well as problematic street and highway sites when other stormwater management practices are not feasible. Maplemoor Golf Course Of the impaired sites identified in White Plains, Maplemoor Golf Course is best suited to immediate restoration with public funding because it is publicly owned and because of the numerous impaired conditions associated with the Mamaroneck River, as well as areas along the golf course immediately adjacent to the Hutchinson River Parkway. A restoration project here can serve as a model for other projects on the golf course, along the parkway, and elsewhere along the Mamaroneck River and its tributaries. Restoration techniques include the installation of coconut fiber (coir) logs and erosion control mats. These should be positioned horizontally along the stream channel and banks, staked into place so that they are partially submerged in water, and planted with herbaceous plants. In several areas of the golf course, especially along sharp bends, and in the vicinity of stormwater drain outlets, the flow velocity of the water is too substantial to warrant the use of vegetation as a stabilizing device. In these areas, stone riprap or vegetated crib walls will be required to prevent further stream bank erosion and scouring. Woody vegetation planted along the banks and tops of the stream banks next to the Hutchinson River Parkway would help to further stabilize soils and provide much needed shade created by the tree canopy during the growing season. Furthermore, some studies have shown that woody plants are better at storing and transforming nutrients and other nonpoint source pollutants than herbaceous plants. Creating shaded stream sections will lower water temperatures in the summer months and increase dissolved oxygen levels for fish and other aquatic life. However, care should be taken to avoid too much shade, which will slowly kill shade intolerant plants, or to plant shade tolerant herbaceous plants and shrubs. Bare root, potted or balled and burlapped plants consisting of species such as "Bankers" dwarf willow, highbush blueberry, sweet pepperbush, chokeberry, "Streamco" purple-osier willow, red-osier dogwood, silky dogwood, among others, could be planted at the top of the stream bank in areas away from active play to provide the aforementioned enhancements. An alternative would be to take the former golf course irrigation pond next to the Hutchinson River Parkway "off-line" and re-route the stream around the pond. The pond could be maintained by stormwater runoff from the golf course and a specially created feeder channel from the Mamaroneck River. The pond, in effect, would serve as a stormwater management basin and irrigation pond. The stream channel could then be restored to the way it existed before the pond was created. Because the pond depletes the oxygen content of water entering it, especially during the summer, its separation form the main river channel would improve both water quality and fish habitat. A second option is the construction of a sediment basin or in- stream sediment trap to intercept sediment-laden stream flow and trap and retain sediment. It is possible that a notched weir or other appropriate outlet control structure could be constructed across part of the river to regulate the amount of sediment-laden runoff entering the main portion of the pond. Such a structure would allow for relatively cost-effective maintenance (i.e., only the basin would have to be periodically cleaned out instead of having to dredge the entire pond). 68 Periodic dredging of a small, easily accessible site is more cost effective than a larger dredging project. Further, a structure of this nature would reduce turbidity and sediment deposition in areas further downstream. Scarsdale Impaired Site Identification Approximately 1.32 square miles of Scarsdale are in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Approximately 0.5 mile of the Mamaroneck River flows through Scarsdale. Three impaired sites were identified. 18. Several impairments on a tributary of the Mamaroneck River flowing through Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course were noted. Near its headwaters, this small tributary is only a few inches deep and about 1 foot wide. This watercourse, though, carries water year-round and especially during from late fall mid spring and during severe summer storms. It is severely incised with eroding banks and has lawn to its edge for a distance of about 600 feet on fairway No. 8. 19. The banks of another tributary of the Mamaroneck River, flowing next to the hole Nos. 11, 15, and 16 at Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course, also are eroded and lack adequate stabilizing vegetation. 20. A tributary of the Mamaroneck River, originating from Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course, flows southward under the Hutchinson River Parkway and then northeastward, ultimately emptying into the northern end of the Mamaroneck Reservoir. The area south of the parkway is generally densely wooded. The tributary leading to the reservoir was described to be in excellent condition with a reported average depth of 6 inches and width of 10 feet. In this location, the tree canopy covers the tributary, and rock and sand compose the stream substrate. Many pools and riffles also exist in this segment. A stream crossing for a hiking trail consists of a 3-foot-diameter culvert covered by an earthen embankment. This culvert is reportedly clogged with debris, thus impeding flow into the reservoir. Streamwalkers commented that this undersized culvert should be removed and replaced by a small pedestrian footbridge, which would allow for greater volumes of water to pass through and for uninterrupted pedestrian traffic. Scarsdale Restoration ORportunity Incised tributaries of the Mamaroneck River at Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course make ideal candidates for restoration. Because the park is publicly owned, these restoration projects could be used to demonstrate restoration techniques. The incised tributary along the fairway at hole No. 8 could be stabilized using a combination of vegetative stream bank protection techniques. Because flows in this tributary are likely less than six feet per second, vegetative stream bank stabilization techniques would be suitable. Temporary structural elements such as coconut fiber logs could be used in conjunction with coconut fiber blankets at points of flow concentration to help establish vegetation and prevent additional scour. Herbaceous, low-growing plants could be installed in the logs and along the tributary banks. These plants could include a mix of grasses, rushes, sedges and wildflowers, including iris and cardinal flower. The roots created from vegetative plantings provide the tensile and shear strength required to address the potential for slope failure and additional scour. 69 Mamaroneck Town Impaired Site Identification Approximately 0.75 square mile of Mamaroneck Town is in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Approximately 0.87 miles of the Mamaroneck River flow through the town. One impaired site is described below. 21. A steeply sloped tributary of the Mamaroneck Reservoir, originating in the wooded portion of the Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course, was reported impacted by a large housing development off Old White Plains Road. An increased volume of stormwater runoff from the development is scouring the tributary and is transporting significant quantities of silt and sediment into the Reservoir. Streamwalkers reported that at the mouth of this tributary, the flow velocity is decreased when the tributary empties into the reservoir, allowing the formerly suspended sediments to settle out, thus creating a sand bar that is steadily extending into the reservoir. Mamaroneck Town Restoration Opportunity It is likely that the bulk of the sedimentation which has occurred is a direct result of construction and/or site disturbance activities during the period of active construction and shortly thereafter of upstream development. Since major land disturbance activities associated with development off of Old White Plains Road has largely ended, it is likely that extreme sediment transport and migration into the reservoir also has ended. However, the increased size of impervious surfaces is likely leading to increased stormwater flows and an accompanying increase in erosion, scour and resultant downstream sedimentation. For these impacts, permanent structural stormwater controls should be incorporated into the existing development. Stormwater management practices will likely limit pollutant loading and downstream sedimentation. These practices include diversions designed to intercept and convey runoff to stable outlets at nonerosive velocities and subsurface drains designed to replenish local aquifers, as well as biotechnical techniques, such as bio-retention systems which temporarily store stormwater runoff and treat it with vegetation and soils. Exact treatment methods should be determined based on a thorough review of existing site conditions, such as drainage area, slope, topography, soil types, soil characteristics and ground cover types. Mamaroneck Village Impaired Site Identification Approximately 1.38 square miles of Mamaroneck Village are in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Approximately 0.15 mile of the Mamaroneck River flow through Mamaroneck Village. The Streamwalkers identified six impaired sites described below. 22. Eight stormwater discharge pipes and five vehicle crossings were reported in the segment of the Mamaroneck River between Interstate 95 southwest to its confluence with the Sheldrake River at Columbus Park. According to Streamwalkers, approximately 95 percent of this segment is artificially manipulated. Eroded stream banks and litter were reported between Bradley and River streets. In this location, the river was averaged approximately 2 feet to 3- feet deep and 30 feet wide with a rocky substrate and 10-foot-wide riparian 70 buffers on both sides of the river. The land use around this site was described as medium density residential and commercial. 23. Streamwalkers reported miscellaneous garbage and debris at the bridge at the North Barry Avenue extension near Mamaroneck Avenue. In this location, the river is approximately 1 foot deep and 30 feet wide with 8-foot- to 10-foot-wide riparian buffers on both sides of the river. Mowed lawn to the river's edge exists in several areas near the bridge, however. 24. The segment from the intersection of Van Ranst Place and Jefferson Avenue Extension southeast to the New Haven Line railroad trestle bridge at Columbus Park was described as slow moving and averaged approximately 3 feet deep and 40 feet wide. Streamwalkers reported three oil adsorption booms spanning the river. The booms appear to have been placed to contain petroleum products (oil) in the river. In addition, the booms were reportedly trapping significant amounts of debris upstream from the railroad trestle bridge. Streamwalkers noted one 12- inch-diameter stormwater discharge pipe that appeared to originate from a catch basin on an adjacent street. In addition to the conditions described above, stream bank erosion and litter were prevalent in this segment. 25. The segment from the river's confluence with the Sheldrake River at Columbus Park to the point where it empties into Mamaroneck Harbor near Boston Post Road has been artificially manipulated. Meandering sequences of pools and riffles were recorded by Streamwalkers along about 80 percent of this segment, with an average depth of 1 foot to 2 feet and widths ranging from 25 feet to 40 feet. One dam, one 9-inch-diameter discharge pipe, and four vehicle crossings were noted along this stretch of the river. Much litter was reported trapped by various bridge abutments, specifically by a footbridge at the end of Anita Lane between Union and Ward avenues. 26. Litter, one 9 inch pipe discharge and streambank erosion were conditions recorded near the bridge crossing at Ward Street. Streamwalkers observed the 9- inch-diameter stormwater discharge pipe at this location. The pipe appears to originate from a catch basin on an adjacent street and was reported to be scouring portions of the river bank during intense rainfall events. 27. The river here is 2 feet to 3 feet deep and up to 60 feet wide from the mouth to the "inner" Mamaroneck Harbor. Land use in this area was described as commercial and high density residential. Much of the stream bank and stream bed have been stabilized with retaining walls and was absent any riparian vegetation. In addition, Streamwalkers noted significant quantities of construction debris discarded along the river. This debris appeared to have originated from a newly constructed condominium. Mamaroneck Village Restoration Opportunity Of the impaired sites identified on the Mamaroneck River in Mamaroneck Village, Columbus Park offers a suitable stream restoration site because it is publicly owned land and because of the numerous impaired conditions associated with the Mamaroneck River. A restoration project here could be used to demonstrate restoration techniques for other locations along the Mamaroneck River. In addition, education signs could be placed along the river to inform the public about the project's goals and objectives. Restoration techniques, including the installation of coconut fiber (coir) "logs," or tube shaped coconut fibers which have been compressed and 71 stuffed into netting from 8 inches to 16 inches in diameter, can be positioned horizontally along the river channel, staked into place so that they are partially submerged in water, and planted with herbaceous plants. After the river banks have been regraded to flatten them and make them less susceptible to erosion, coir mesh blankets could be installed along the banks with the seeds of various native grasses placed underneath the blankets. In several areas of the park at stormwater drain outlets, the flow velocity of stormwater is too substantial to warrant the use of vegetation as a stabilizing device. In these areas, stone riprap or vegetated crib walls will be required to prevent further river bank erosion and scouring. Herbaceous vegetation planted along the river banks and tops of the banks would help stabilize soil, decrease shear stress and limit further erosion and scour. Sheldrake River Scarsdale Impaired Site Identification Approximately 2.27 square miles of Scarsdale are in the Sheldrake River watershed. Approximately 1.58 miles of the Sheldrake River flow through Scarsdale. The Streamwalkers identified three impaired sites described below. 28. The upper reach of the Sheldrake River, from its origin near Garden Road through the Fenway Golf Club, is described as narrow and relatively shallow with sequences of pools and riffles. Tree canopy coverage is considered good (greater than 60 percent coverage) in most areas. The general land use is described as low density residential and recreational (Fenway Golf Club). Although not identified as a specific impairment by Streamwalkers, the river segment flowing through the golf course was reported to have minimal vegetated buffers. Approximately 50 percent of the river through the golf course was reported to be artificially manipulated. Impairments documented by the Streamwalkers were three discharge pipes greater than 24 inches in diameter and one 36-inch-diameter pipe reportedly originating from Cushman Road. 29. The pond south of the Fenway Golf Club was reported to be filling with silt, with a likely source being the golf course. According to area residents, 2 feet to 3 feet of silt has entered the pond over the past 10 years. 30. Streamwalkers reported that the segment of the East Branch of the Sheldrake River flowing through the Quaker Ridge Golf Course is almost entirely artificially manipulated and has very little naturally vegetated buffers. Two small ponds, seven dams and about 10 4-inch-diameter pipes discharging into the river were noted on the golf course. Scarsdale Restoration ftortunity The pond next to Fenway Golf Club could be restored to enhance its functional values for water quality protection, fish and wildlife habitat and flood storage capacity. The excavation of accumulated sediment will help restore the pond's flood storage capacity. Sediment excavation methods are highly dependent upon site access for heavy equipment and the availability of "spoils" retention and dewatering areas. Aquatic benches or shelves could be formed by sand and soil fill placed behind coconut fiber (coir) logs set about 10 feet into the pond along the pond 72 edge. These benches or shelves could then be planted with aquatic vegetation set in coir blankets and/or pillows. These benches or shelves have an important function in improving water quality, including filtering out sediment and nutrients. Where possible, native plant species should be used. They are typically better adapted to the local ecosystems and are less likely to become a monoculture than exotic, invasive plants. Another method of reducing nutrient levels in the pond is a "floating wetland." These structures have been successfully used in Europe, and have, for the first time in the United States, been used at Paine Lake in New Rochelle. They also will be installed in the spring 2001 at a pond in Town Park in Pound Ridge. Each unit of the "floating wetland" consists of two coconut fiber logs fastened to high-technology foam, which allows the logs to float. The unit is surrounded by fence to keep out geese and other waterfowl. The unit may be attached to other units to form a larger island. The logs are planted with herbaceous wetland vegetation, like grasses, sedges, rushes and bulrushes. The island is then anchored to the pond bottom by typical anchors. The vegetation will take up nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, and transform part of these nutrients into harmless substances (e.g., gas). The objective of these "floating wetlands" is to remove dissolved nutrients from the water column. Emergent vegetation in the aquatic bench or shelf is able to filter out sediment particles and aid in the treatment of contaminants found in urban stormwater. Certain types of aquatic plants improve water quality by absorbing pollutants, using nutrients, and providing suitable habitat for microorganisms that help to improve water quality. The management of aquatic vegetation in forebays and shallow benches and shelves around ponds and lakes may be perceived to be in conflict with golf course play. However, by taking the time to educate golf course maintenance staff and boards of directors about the water quality benefits of emergent aquatic vegetation, and with thoughtful design, conflicts can be avoided. In the case of Wykagyl Country Club in New Rochelle, a restoration project similar to that described above achieved water quality and fish and wildlife habitat benefits and improved the area's aesthetics. By improving the appearance of a degraded pond, golf course managers and members applauded the results of the project. New Rochelle Impaired Site Identification Approximately 1.48 square miles of New Rochelle are in the Sheldrake River watershed. Approximately 2.13 miles of the Sheldrake River flow through the city. The Streamwalkers identified four impaired sites on the Sheldrake River in New Rochelle. 31. Multiple discharge pipes were observed next to a shopping center near the intersection of Weaver Street and Wilmot Road at the corporate boundary between Scarsdale and New Rochelle. These pipes were observed discharging into the segment of the river beginning from the "Five Corners" in Scarsdale to Carpenter Pond in New Rochelle. All of these pipes were less than 24 inches in diameter. Due to the residential nature of this area, it is likely that these discharge pipes are "footer" or foundation drains that drain groundwater from building foundations during storm events or periods of high groundwater table elevations. However, one pipe behind the shopping center on Weaver Street was observed 73 discharging what appeared to be wash water, with a likely source being a network of floor drains in an adjacent building. 32. Dickermans Pond, north of Quaker Ridge Road and east of Pine Brook Boulevard, is reportedly completely filled with sediment and overgrown with phragmites and Japanese knotweed (an exotic, invasive wetland plant species). Streamwalkers observed accumulated sediment approaching the top of the pond's spillway. They also noted evidence of accumulated yard waste and homeowner dumping in the pond's immediate vicinity. 33. The segment of the Sheldrake River following Pine Brook Boulevard south of the Hutchinson River Parkway to the Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake) has an average stream depth of 1 foot to 3 feet and an average stream width of 30 feet. Riparian vegetation was absent from both sides of the stream. Excessive algae, litter and sediment were reported along the entire length of this segment. Streamwalkers also noted a total of 10 discharge pipes, one of which was a 24- inch-diameter pipe just upstream from the inlet to the Larchmont Reservoir. The land use in this area is medium density residential. 34. Streamwalkers noted several areas of significant sedimentation in the Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake). In addition, it was noted that the growth of purple loosetrife (an exotic invasive wetland plant species) is expanding into the reservoir along the northeast shoreline. New Rochelle Restoration Opportunity Due to its listing on the State's PWL, and the fact that it is publicly owned recreation land used extensively by the public throughout the WAC 4 study area, sediment removal from Larchmont Reservoir is highly recommended. Best Management Practices (BMPs) (i.e., erosion and sediment control and stormwater management practices) and land use controls (i.e., prohibiting disturbances to steep slopes and requiring naturally vegetated buffers next to wetlands, streams, ponds and lakes) are long-term solutions to sedimentation. But, because a significant loss of sediment storage capacity has occurred in Larchmont Reservoir, sediment removal is the only practical method of restoring the reservoir's original storage volume. In this situation, hydraulic dredging is the most feasible, least intrusive method of sediment removal. It is recommended that prior to conducting dredging activities, a feasibility study and engineering report be prepared (see also recommendations for restoring Dickermans Pond in the Wetlands Chapter). Mamaroneck Town Impaired Site Identification Approximately 1.48 square miles of Mamaroneck Town are in the Sheldrake River watershed. Approximately 2.13 miles of the Sheldrake River flows through the town. Streamwalkers noted many discharge pipes in the Mamaroneck section of the Sheldrake. However, most of these ranged from 4 inches to 10 inches in diameter. Five impaired sites were identified and are described below. Main Stem 35. Several impaired conditions were identified along the river corridor through Bonnie Briar Country Club. The river enters the golf course from Weaver Street, a medium-density residential area, and flows eastward approximately 800 feet 74 through the southern portion of the golf course. It was noted that both stream banks have been mowed to the stream edge. In addition, in most of the segment through the golf course, both banks were steep, severely eroded and susceptible to additional severe erosion. East Branch 36. Approximately five discharge pipes greater than 24 inches in diameter were identified south of the Winged Foot Golf Club. Just south of Rockland Avenue, Streamwalkers noted a degraded area of the East Branch of the Sheldrake River where lawns and decks encroach on the stream corridor. Severe algal growth was noted, as was a strong odor from decomposing organic matter. Streamwalkers also noted that tree canopy cover and naturally vegetated riparian buffers were absent. Lower Reach 37. Excessive algae, diminished riparian vegetation and high water temperatures were impairments reported in Gardens Lake. According to Streamwalkers, a yellow/brownish algal mat covered the entire pond. 38. Approximately 10 percent of the segment below Gardens Lake to Fenimore Road is reported to be artificially manipulated. This area is described as medium- density residential with some commercial areas. Most of this segment was described as being 7 inches deep and approximately 9 feet wide with many meanders and some sequences of pools and riffles. According to Streamwalkers, good tree canopy cover was reported as was a 25-foot- to 50-foot-wide naturally vegetated buffer. Evidence of yard waste dumping was noted along the entire stretch from Gardens Lake to Fenimore Road. Six discharge pipes were reported, and one adjacent to Fenimore Road was noted to be greater than 24 inches in diameter. 39. From Fenimore Road to Columbus Park, the river was approximately 8 inches deep and approximately 10 feet wide flowing through the industrial section of Mamaroneck Town and Village. The stretch beginning at Fenimore Road, flowing downstream along Plaza Avenue was reportedly littered with miscellaneous debris, including trash, old shopping carts and automobile parts. The entire stream corridor was stabilized with reinforced retaining walls. One 24-inch- diameter discharge pipe was noted as were four others varying between 12 and 18 inches in diameter. A 36-inch-diameter pipe discharging directly into the river at Columbus Park in Mamaroneck Village was noted. Mamaroneck Town Restoration 0 ortunity Stream bank stabilization and vegetative enhancement methods could be used at Bonnie Briar Country Club. Restoration techniques similar to those used in 1997 by Mamaroneck Town on a segment of the West Branch of the Sheldrake River between Brookside Drive and Hickory Grove Drive could be used throughout the WAC 4 study area as well as at Bonnie Briar Country Club. In the restoration project conducted by the Town, herbaceous vegetation was re- established along stream banks, and coconut fiber (coir) stabilization logs and mesh blankets 75 were used to provide long-term erosion control. A "no-mow" zone was then permanently established along the stream. After the wetland plantings become permanently established, the coconut fabrics will decay. Because of this "soft engineering" approach, projects of this nature can be used to educate the public about the benefits of vegetative stabilization measures in lieu of more traditional "hard-engineering" stream stabilization practices. A restoration project at Bonnie Briar Country Club could be used to demonstrate restoration techniques for other locations along the Sheldrake River, especially on golf courses. In addition, education signs could be placed along the river to inform golfers about the project's goals and objectives. Restoration techniques, including the installation of coconut fiber (coir) "logs," or tube shaped coconut fibers which have been compressed and stuffed into netting from 8 inches to 16 inches in diameter, can be positioned horizontally along the river channel, staked into place so that they are partially submerged in water, and planted with herbaceous plants. After the river banks have been regraded to flatten them and make them less susceptible to erosion, coir mesh blankets could be installed along the banks with the seeds of various native grasses placed underneath the blankets. In several areas of the golf course at stormwater drain outlets, the flow velocity of stormwater is too substantial to warrant the use of vegetation as a stabilizing device. In these areas, stone riprap or vegetated crib walls will be required to prevent further river bank erosion and scouring. Herbaceous vegetation planted along the river banks and tops of the banks would help stabilize soil, decrease shear stress and limit further erosion and scour. Mamaroneck Harbor Basin Mamaroneck Village Impaired Site Identi ication Approximately 0.72 square mile of Mamaroneck Village is in the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed. Streamwalkers noted one impaired site as described below. 40. Shoreline erosion, litter, sedimentation and stormwater discharge pipes were conditions described in the West Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor. Land use in this area was described as recreational (i.e., marinas and Harbor Island Park), although a variety of medium to high density residential, office and retail exist near the site. Five stormwater discharge pipes greater than 24 inches in diameter were reported in the west basin. Significant sediment accumulation was noted at the outlet to each of the pipes. They also noted over 100 Canada geese as well as a large amount of associated fecal matter in public areas of the harbor. Streamwalkers also noted a musty"sewer" odor. Mamaroneck Village Restoration Opportunity Stormwater catch basins draining impervious surfaces to Mamaroneck Harbor could be improved by water quality devices, such as "Stormceptors" or "Vortechnics," to remove suspended solids and oil from stormwater runoff. These commercial, subsurface water quality improvement structures are pre-fabricated concrete units designed to remove silt, sediment, and nutrients from stormwater runoff. They can be installed under roads, parking lots and other 76 urban infrastructure. Sedimentation in Mamaroneck Harbor, from erosion and scouring caused by excessive stormwater runoff, could be partially attenuated by these structures. They also could be applied to new residential developments or as a stormwater quality retrofit for existing developments. Although these underground chambers have been shown to separate sediment and other pollutants from stormwater runoff, they will not properly function if they are not maintained. They must be periodically cleaned out. Otherwise, the sediment and other pollutants stored in the unit may be washed through the unit during severe storms and carried by storm pipes to streams, ponds, lakes or Long Island Sound. These in-line structures also are not intended to replace natural stormwater management systems, such as extended detention and retention basins, stormwater wetlands and biodetention and infiltration basins, because they are relatively limited in their overall storage capacity. However, enhanced water quality improvement devices may be effective as part of a "treatment train" approach, whereby several stormwater management techniques can be used together to maximize pollutant removal and flow attenuation. It also is recommended that, where practicable, a series of stormwater filtering systems be installed to"polish" stormwater runoff generated from impervious surfaces. Stormwater filtering systems generally use an artificial media, such as sand, to filter out pollutants entrained in urban stormwater. These filters are typically designed solely for pollutant removal and serve small development sites (usually less than five acres). Stormwater filters have been shown to provide more reliable rates of pollutant removal than "water quality inlets" if regular maintenance is performed. Based on information obtained from recently published stormwater design manuals, stormwater filters appear to have particular use in treating runoff from urban "hot spots," such as parking lots, vehicle service centers and industrial sites, as well as problematic street highway sites when other stormwater management practices are not feasible. In addition to the water quality and erosion and sediment impacts associated with runoff from impervious surfaces, and to mitigate the effects of increased stormwater runoff from extensive residential construction activities, the village should consider requiring the use of cast-in-place or pre-cast modular permeable pavement for new residential driveways, overflow parking lots, sidewalks and other appropriate surfaces requiring pavement. Alternative surface materials, such as permeable pavement, have been shown to dramatically decrease surface runoff and attenuate peak discharges under certain conditions. Water quality and quantity benefits also are realized through increased infiltration rates and aquifer recharge. It should be noted, however, that as with any pavement system, permeable pavement systems require careful preparation of the subgrade before installation. The compressive strength of a permeable pavement system relies, in large part, on the strength of the underlying soils. In addition, permeable pavement should be periodically sweeped, especially in winter when accumulated road sand could clog the pavement's pores. Rye Neck(Town of RlI illage ofMamaroneck)Impaired Site Identification Approximately 0.45 square mile of Rye Town is in the Mamaroneck Harbor basin. Streamwalkers noted three impaired sites in the area known as Rye Neck, described below. 77 41. Litter in the harbor was noted in several areas along Shore Acres Drive in the West Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor. 42. Floating debris was observed next to Harbor Island Park in the eastern portion of the East Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor. The shoreline was reported to be heavily silted and six stormwater outfall pipes greater than 24 inches in diameter were observed in the vicinity of Harbor Island Park. The origin of these identified outfall pipes were reported to be catch basins on Boston Post Road and from the nearby wastewater treatment plant. 43. Sedimentation, shoreline erosion, and two pipe greater than 24 inches in diameter discharging into Mamaroneck Harbor were noted east of the Barry Avenue bridge near Boat House Lane. Streamwalkers noted that significant erosion here was causing severe silt deposition in Guion Creek. In addition, Streamwalkers noted that the shoreline along a wildlife sanctuary has been highly eroded from stormwater runoff from Shore Acres Street. 44. Excessive reddish-orange algae was reported where Guion Creek flows beneath Boston Post Road at the stream's inlet to the East Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor. Here, the inlet to the east basin is approximately one foot deep and 20 feet wide. Various waterfowl were reported in this area, as were several outfall pipes greater than 24 inches in diameter. Near the outfall pipes, Streamwalkers reported that the color of the water abruptly changes to reddish-orange. Town of R)e/Mamaroneck Village Restoration Opportunity Numerous stormwater outfall pipes, in the vicinity of Harbor Island Park, could be retrofitted with subsurface stormwater detention structures, such as "Stormceptor" or "Vortechnics," to remove suspended solids, nutrients and oil from stormwater runoff. Sand filters also could be incorporated into a"stormwater retrofit" for outfall pipes and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in coastal Long Island Sound. The East Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor would benefit from the retrofit of identified stormwater outfall pipes discharging directly into the East Basin. Such retrofits could help municipalities meet nitrogen reduction goals set by state and federal agencies. GENERAL STREAM RESTORA TION TECHNIQUES Vegetative Stream Bank Stabilization Eroding stream and shore banks have a detrimental impact on water quality because of the sediment that is discharged from the eroded banks and because eroded banks usually do not have any or enough stabilizing vegetation that also will act to filter out nutrients and contaminants and keep the stream cool by shading it from excessive sunlight. Although structural and non- structural methods can be used to stabilize eroding stream and shore banks, from a water quality protection standpoint, the best solutions are often those that focus on non-structural methods. Some of these methods are explained below. • Geo-textiles: Longitudinal geo-textiles are shaped like a boom or log (under the trade name Fiber-Schine) and are made of natural fibers, such as those from coconut trees, which have 78 been compressed and stuffed into netting. Seeds and/or plant plugs of wetland vegetation may be planted in the boom or log, which is then installed along stream, pond and lake banks and backfills with soil. The vegetation will become established long before the fibers decay. The geo-textiles also may be shaped like a fibrous mesh, blanket or plugs. The trade names of some of these are Fiber-Textiles, Fiber-Pallet, and Fiber-Plug, respectively. • Live staking: Live, rootable vegetative cuttings are inserted and tamped into the ground perpendicular to the slope. Most willow (Salix sp.) species root rapidly. • Live fascine: Long bundles of live branch cuttings are placed in shallow trenches dug on the contour of the slope. They are held by stout dead stakes driven through the fascines and stout live stakes inserted directly below the bundles. The fascines are then almost covered by moist earth and mulch is placed between rows. • Brush layering:_ Live branch cuttings are placed on small benches 2 to 3 feet wide, excavated at a slight tilt into the slope. Brush-layered branches serve as reinforcing units, retarding runoff and reducing surface erosion, aiding seed germination and natural regeneration. • Branch packing_ Alternating layers of live branch cuttings and compacting backfill may be used to repair small localized slumps, holes in slopes, and gullies. • Live cribwall: A hollow, box-like interlocking arrangement of untreated log or timber members is filled with suitable backfill material and layers of live branch cuttings. The cuttings root inside the crib structure and extend into the slope, gradually taking over the structural functions of the wood members. • Vegetated rockabg ions: Rectangular containers of triple twisted, hexagonal steel mesh are placed in position, wired to adjoining gabions, filled with stones, then folded shut and wired at the ends and sides. Live branches placed on each layer between the rock-filled baskets will take root inside the gabion baskets and in the soil behind the structures, consolidating the structure and, in time, binding it to the slope. • Vegetated rock wall: A combination of rock and live branch cuttings that differ from conventional retaining structures in that they are placed against relatively undisturbed earth and are not intended to resist large lateral earth pressures. • Joint planting Live cuttings are tamped into soil between open spaces in rocks that have been previously placed on a slope. Stream Channel Improvements • Remove Channel Lining/Establish Natural Channel - Structural modification impacts on the natural behavior of a stream; it prohibits the system from developing a natural pattern on the landscape. Modification usually occurs in the form of channel straightening, allowing for faster means with which to convey quantities of water. While this may be beneficial in some instances for flood control, water quality protection dictates the importance of slowing the velocity of water and allowing pollutants to settle or filter out of the water column. 79 • Storm Drain Retrofit - Storm drain outlets are one source of stream pollution. Some outlets contribute to channel erosion, channel scour and sedimentation. To ameliorate these conditions, it is recommended that repair and maintenance practices be implemented. These practices include filter screens, velocity reduction devices, backfilling, and revegetation of damaged stream banks. BEST MANA GEMENT PRA CTI CES FOR WA TER Q UALI T Y The physical and chemical characteristics and biological structure of urban rivers and streams are generally quite different from streams draining rural watersheds. No single factor is responsible for the progressive degradation of urban stream ecosystems. Rather, it usually is the cumulative effects of individual factors, such as sedimentation, nutrient loading, scouring, increased flooding, low seasonal flows, and increased water temperatures and pollution, all of which may be exacerbated by uncontrolled stormwater runoff. Studies on the quality of our nation's waterways indicate that the most widespread physical impacts to waterways are caused by sedimentation, bank erosion, and channel modification. Those physical impacts are responsible for a significant portion of our water quality problems. Urban communities frequently have stormwater design deficiencies responsible for difficult and expensive problems, such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation, accumulated debris, impaired water quality, property devaluation, excessive maintenance costs, degraded residential amenities, and infrastructure deterioration. The following is a description of other widely used structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that could be used to reduce nonpoint source pollution to streams in the study area. These practices can be used in conjunction with the restoration techniques described above. Buffer/Bank Enhancements Riparian buffers are transition zones between watercourses and upland areas. Buffers are naturally vegetated strips of land that protect water resources from disturbance. Buffers are designed to intercept surface and subsurface stormwater flows, thereby reducing velocities and allowing pollutants to be filtered out of stormwater before it enters a wetland or water body. Riparian buffers significantly improve water quality in many ways. They stabilize stream banks and reduce channel erosion, regulate channel shape and size, moderate runoff and stream temperatures, and control the velocity, quantity and quality of stream flows. In addition, buffers serve as corridors that provide landscape linkages between existing fish and wildlife habitats. Where feasible, WAC 4 recommends that riparian buffers (riparian zones) be enhanced, restored and, in appropriate places, established to a width of up to 100 feet, or more where warranted and feasible, from the edge of streams, wetlands and water bodies. This is important throughout the entire WAC 4 study area. However, it should be strongly promoted, strictly regulated and locally enforced in areas which are exhibiting the highest degree of residential development, particularly in White Plains and Harrison. 80 Stream Bank Stabilization Eroding stream banks contribute sediment to the water and stream bed and also can cause increased water temperatures. Stream bank erosion could alter the hydrology of an entire stream system due to the physical interaction between the flow of water and the channel that directs its path. Stabilizing stream banks will help reduce sediment deposition into the channel, assist in filtering out potential contaminants, and restore the hydrology of the stream. Where practical, WAC 4 recommends that identified eroding stream banks be stabilized through the use of vegetative, or biotechnical, water quality best management practices described above. Urban Housekeeping Practices • Grass Type and Mow Height - The type of lawn management practices, such as mowing height, are the most important factors when considering water quality benefits from a grass buffer. To improve a stream's riparian buffer for water quality purposes, it is best to allow grassed areas to grow to a more substantial height (increasing filtering and attenuation capacity). • Street Sweeping- Streams receive a large amount of sediment, not only from eroding stream banks but from stormwater runoff as well. Establishing a street sweeping program or revising existing street sweeping schedules will assist in reducing the amount of sediment entering the stream channel by means of stormwater runoff. To be effective, street sweeping should be conducted once per week, especially during winter and spring months. Natural Channel Restoration There has recently been a resurgence in river restoration and "naturalization" projects throughout the country to improve the functions of streams and water bodies (e.g., for fish and wildlife habitat). Millions of dollars had been spent to improve stream bank stability, fish habitat, stream aesthetics, and flood control structures, including manufactured "improvements" like concrete channels. Many of these projects, although well intended, inadvertently changed the dimension, pattern and/or the profile of streams. The project planners should have developed a firm understanding of how these morphological variables should be arranged to promote a "natural" and stabile state before designing the project. Proposed restoration efforts may be more focused on attacking symptoms rather than applying an appropriate cure to the cause(s) of the problem. Without taking into consideration stream characteristics, such as morphology and topography, as well as the contributing watershed(s), it is sometimes difficult or impossible to adequately prescribe stream restoration techniques and designs. The natural diversity that exists within a given stream as well as among different streams creates a wide range of"acceptable" desired future conditions. Therefore, to successfully implement established restoration guidelines, it is important to understand the functional relationships between stream dimension, channel and bank slopes and patterns, stream profile and other stream 81 characteristics, such as composition of the channel bed (e.g., cobble, gravel, sand, silt, etc.). Structural modifications to a stream bank or channel impact the natural behavior of the stream. Most channel manipulation is in the form of channel straightening, which allows water to be conveyed faster (with greater velocity). Lining a stream with concrete or other artificial material, redirecting a stream into a culvert, or creating impoundments all prohibit the stream from developing a natural pattern in the landscape. Lined channels and channel redirection can create adverse downstream impacts. Impoundments promote sedimentation and limit or prohibit the passage of fish and other aquatic life through the stream. Structural modifications to natural streams may be beneficial in some cases for flood control, but water quality and habitat protection issues usually dictate less intrusive or non-structural modifications. All concerns can usually be addressed with careful planning, design and implementation. The two most common symptoms of channel instability in the WAC 4 study area are degraded and incised channels (characterized as stream bed erosion). The second most common symptom is aggrading channels (characterized as streams without pool and riffle sequences and heavily silted bottoms). Channel incision is typically caused by an increase in stream flows from urban runoff being directed to the stream channel. Channel and bank manipulation is often one of the most expensive water quality impairments to improve in a stream. Given the level of urbanization and the highly manipulated condition of the streams in the watershed, WAC 4 recommends that municipalities fully explore alternatives to manipulation when reviewing development proposals calling for such manipulation. If the opportunity arises, existing manipulated streams should be restored to their pre-altered natural state. Nutrient Management Excess nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) and pesticides from lawn fertilization could lead to undesirable algae blooms in streams and enhance eutrophic processes. Golf course turf grass is extremely rich in nutrients so that exceptionally thick, green golfing surfaces can be created. Homeowners applying nutrients to their lawns to keep them green have a tendency of mowing to the stream edge (destroying any buffer capacity). Aging septic systems may fail and contribute nutrients to the soil. WAC 4 recommends the development of a golf course management program for all golf courses (public and private) throughout the watershed study area. This program should emphasize the education of golf course managers about turf grass management, including the rate, frequency and placement of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. For fertilizers, maximum nutrient recycling and uptake by plants should be encouraged. "No mow" zones next to streams and ponds should be implemented on golf courses. Homeowners also should also be educated about proper citing of home composting facilities, application of fertilizers and other chemicals on their lawns, as well as the benefits of riparian buffers. 82 Erosion and Sediment Control Construction site erosion and sedimentation can drastically deteriorate water quality in streams. It can reduce the capacity of storm water conveyance systems resulting in localized flooding. It can create unsuitable habitat for fish and other aquatic life. And it can alter water temperature, affecting the overall chemical composition of the water. WAC 4 recommends that appropriate construction site erosion control practices be implemented and maintained on disturbed areas. It also recommends that administrative control mechanisms, such as erosion and sediment control ordinances, subdivision rules and regulations, site review, zoning regulations, and special easements or covenants, be used to the fullest extent practicable. Common components of erosion and sediment control mechanisms include a sound legal framework, financial guarantees or bonds, inspections, enforcement and penalty provisions, and a public education component. This is important throughout the WAC 4 study area; however, it should be strongly promoted, strictly regulated, and locally enforced in areas with the highest degree of residential development, particularly in White Plains and Harrison. Storm Drain Retrofit—Water Quality Inlets Some storm drain outlets can be a significant source of pollution. Many outlets contribute to channel erosion, channel scour and sedimentation. To abate these negative impacts, WAC 4 recommends that outlets needing repair and maintenance be retrofitted as water quality inlets with sand filters to capture coarse-grained sediments, and to provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff. Stormwater catch basins could be improved by water quality devices, such as "Stormceptor" or "Vortechnics," to remove suspended solids and oil from stormwater runoff. These commercial subsurface water quality improvement structures are pre- fabricated concrete units designed to remove silt, sediment, and nutrients from stormwater runoff. They can be installed under roads, parking lots and other urban infrastructure. Sedimentation from erosion and scouring caused by excessive stormwater runoff, could be partially attenuated by these structures. They also could be applied to new residential developments or as a stormwater quality retrofit for existing developments. Although studies have shown that these underground chambers separate sediment and other pollutants from stormwater runoff, they will not properly function if they are not maintained. They must be periodically cleaned out. Otherwise, the sediment and other pollutants stored in them may be whisked away by fast-moving stormwater during severe storms and carried to streams, ponds, lakes and/or Long Island Sound. These "in-line" structures also are not intended to replace natural stormwater management systems, such as extended detention and retention basins, stormwater wetlands, naturally vegetated filter strips, and infiltration basins, because they are relatively limited in their overall storage capacity. However, enhanced water quality improvement devices may be effective as part of a "treatment train' approach, whereby several stormwater management techniques can be used together to maximize pollutant removal and flow attenuation. 83 It also is recommended that, where practicable, a series of stormwater filtering systems be installed to "polish" stormwater runoff generated from impervious surfaces. Stormwater filtering systems generally use an artificial media, such as sand, to filter out pollutants entrained in urban stormwater. These filters are typically designed solely for pollutant removal and serve small development sites (usually less than five acres). Stormwater filters have been shown to provide more reliable rates of pollutant removal than "water quality inlets" if regular maintenance is performed. Based on information obtained from recently published stormwater design manuals, stormwater filters appear to have particular use in treating runoff from urban "hot spots," such as parking lots, vehicle service centers and industrial sites, as well as problematic street highway sites when other stormwater management practices are not feasible. In addition to the water quality and erosion and sediment impacts associated with runoff from impervious surfaces, and to mitigate the effects of increased stormwater runoff from extensive residential construction activities, the town should consider requiring the use of cast-in-place or pre-cast modular permeable pavement for new residential driveways, overflow parking lots, sidewalks and other appropriate surfaces requiring pavement. Alternative surface materials, such as permeable pavement, have been shown to dramatically decrease surface runoff and attenuate peak discharges under certain conditions. Water quality and quantity benefits also are realized through increased infiltration rates and aquifer recharge. It should be noted, however, that as with any pavement system, permeable pavement systems require careful preparation of the subgrade before installation. The compressive strength of a permeable pavement system relies, in large part, on the strength of the underlying soils. In addition, permeable pavement should be periodically sweeped, especially in winter when accumulated road sand could clog the pavement's pores. Water Quality Inlet Inserts Three basic types of inlet inserts are available: tray, bag and basket. Each is installed in a water quality inlet or catch basin to treat stormwater runoff The tray allows stormwater to pass through a filter media contained in a tray placed around the perimeter of the inlet. The bag is made of fabric and is placed in the inlet or catch basin around the perimeter of the grate. Runoff passes through the bag before discharging into the inlet or catch basin outlet pipe. The basket consists of wire mesh placed around the perimeter of the inlet. A weir screens larger materials from the runoff. Some basket inserts contain filter media similar to the tray type. Drain inlet inserts of all types generally perform poorly for several reasons. First, contact time between the runoff and the filter media is very short. Second, only a small amount of storage area is available for the material that is removed from the flow. The insert acts as a temporary storage site by retaining solids as flow decreases, but it may allow these solids to be re-suspended when flow and velocity subsequently increases. Third, inserts require high maintenance and must be closely monitored during storm events to ensure that they are not clogged or bypassing flow. This level of maintenance is impractical for many installations except as a last line of defense in capturing fugitive sediment from nearby land disturbances and construction activities. 84 Bag and basket drain inlet inserts can be effective in removing floatable debris (i.e., trash) if they are well maintained. For areas with a limited number of inlets where trash removal is the desired objective, these types of inserts can be a useful BMP. Tray inserts are generally not effective in trash or solids removal. Septic System Maintenance While septic systems are not frequently used throughout the WAC 4 study area, those that are improperly maintained, designed or constructed may pose a significant threat to water quality, allowing nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) into the soil and water. Leaking sanitary sewer lines pose similar threats. As discussed earlier, excess nutrients not only pose a threat to human health but also fuel the growth of algae and limit oxygen in streams and water bodies. Maintenance is the most important consideration in making sure a septic systems work well over a long period of time. Periodic system inspections and routine pumping of the septic tank will assure long-term system efficiency. WAC 4 recommends that municipalities implement septic surveys, property/home sale contingencies, subdivision rules and regulations, and site review and zoning regulations pertaining to septic systems in the WAC 4 study area. Mowing Practices It is common to find streams or water bodies meandering through residential areas or through golf courses. More often than not, lawns adjacent to these streams are mowed up to the water's edge. This inhibits natural buffers along stream corridors, and reduces the filtering capacity they provide. A naturally vegetated buffer is especially important where property owners use fertilizer and other lawn care products. An unmowed buffer acts to filter out excess fertilizers and pesticides from runoff before they enter water bodies. Generally, buffers consisting of woody vegetation, such as shrubs and trees, are more efficient at filtering nonpoint source pollutants than buffers made up of herbaceous vegetation, such as grasses. Where practical, WAC 4 recommends that landowners increase mowing heights along streams and other water bodies. Where feasible, this should be combined with the establishment of riparian buffers (riparian zones), established to a width of 100 feet from the edge of a stream bank. Grass should be kept fairly long to retain its density and shade out annual weeds. After mowing, clippings should be allowed to remain on the lawn to help recycle nutrients. Cuttings should never be blown with leaf blowers into streets or storm drains. Soils should be analyzed for pH, nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (potash). Soil testing is available through the County Cooperative Extension Service. Sediment Removal Sediment, whether from road sanding practices, construction activities or eroding stream banks, is a water quality inhibitor. Among other things, sediment "smothers" stream beds and natural aquatic organism and fish habitats within a stream. WAC 4 recommends that where sediment is noted as an impairment, the source of the sediment be determined and 85 adjusted to reduce sediment deposition in the water body. For example, if construction activity is the source of sediment deposition in a water body, proper erosion and sediment controls should be implemented and maintained, including enforcement by municipal officials, on the construction site. In addition, the existing sediment in impaired water body should be removed, if appropriate, to restore the water body to its natural condition. 86 TABLE 1 : Stream Impairments in the WAC 4 Study Area WATERSHED MAMARONECK RIVER MUNICIPALITY HARRISON SCD M MMK V Impaired Site 1 4 h ; 9 10 11 12 1 14 1 16 1- 1 K 19 2t) 21 22 23 24 2 2 27 Impairment Impoundment X X X X Litter/Dumping X X X X X X X X X X X Golf Course I I 1XI X X X X Construction X X X Sedimemtation X X X X 1XI Streambank and Shoreline Erosion I 1XIX X1 Ix X1 I X X X Diminished Riparian Buffers X X X X X X X Ix X X X X Pipe Discharges X X X X X X X X XIX X Channel/Bank Manipulation ulation X X X I X X X X X Septic System X Excessive Algae I 1XIX xi--44- WATERSHED SHELDRAKE RIVER MMK HARBOR MUNICIPALITY SCD NRO MMK T RYE NECK Impaired Site 28 29 ,n 31 ? 34 35 36137 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Im airement Im_oundment Litter/Dumping X X X X X X X x Golf Course Ix X X Construction Sedimemtation X X X X X X Streambank and Shoreline Erosion X X X X X X Diminished Riparian Buffers I X1 I I X X X X Pipe Discharges X X1 I X I I X I X I X X x Channel/Bank Manipulation X X X Septic Svstem Excessive Algae X x X X X 44-,, X 87 TABLE 2: Best Management Practices for Streams in WAC 4 Study Area WATERSHED MAMARONECK RIVER MUNICIPALITY SCD MT Mv Impaired Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 110 11112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ImiDairement Housekeeping X X X X X a X X X X X Buffer/bank- Enhancement uffer/bankEnhancement I X I Ix X X X X X X X X X ' XI IX Nutrient Management X X X X X X X Erosion/Sediment Control X X X X Natural Channel Restoration X X X X X X X X X X Stream and Shore Stabilization I X I ix X Ix X X X X X X Septic System Maintenance X X Retrofit X1 I X X X X X I X I X XIX X X X ,Mowing Practices X X X X X X X X X Sediment Removal X X X X WATERSHED SHELDRAKE RIVER MMK HARBOR MUNICIPALITY SCD NRO MT RYE NECK linipaired Site 28 10 30 31 32 33 31 17 3s 3() 0 41 ? Im airement Housekeeping X X X X X X X X Buffer/bank- Enhancement uffer/bankEnhancement X X X X X Nutrient Management X X I X I X I X X X X Erosion/Sediment Control Natural Channel Restoration X X1 I ix X Stream and Shore Stabilization I ix 1xi I X X X Septic System Maintenance Stormdrain Retrofit X X X X X X X Mowing Practices I Ix XIX X X X Sediment Removal X X X X X X 88 ` MOUNTPLE` s:ANT 11 ��� ."s,a ;�:� K(Jnsico Basin STLb / o � NORTE, CA i lHl�e Like -�- J hoo, \ F(annElmsford i Q \ 7 1 / 6844 P, Lake - \ r- r. S1 8k i7 n 3 f \ 13•'. '�. f fIARR'TSON \ hzv '• ` \ 1 - t�2`7 Brook WHITE PLAINS zg! _GREENBPRGH t\'r ,� h2 RYE 211 ; T /1ONVN t� Mamaroneck ?151 ~ . r !- Poll 14 ' / / Rive( , ct Ii2og. r J 28' Basin' 1 q X17 .r S :AI�SDALE 29s :v<� z�, J 'lob, �� lit" S'ri 1 J --;�� • �'�� ,� r 1- JV } �s f F 1 Ill Chctiter'I \ - 20,E✓- ,� , z\ ur,�IJ l `1 N � r.31 18 X19 i'i t � t 1 t i \ Sheldrake � s s� . River 0a f �Fi' B E ! ;Basin f 21 TyCf 30-Ps J f 1. 611 E t 1r` � �> .22 � 41230 � 32 ` 'f . 24 TOwN/ 0 tW Idruke Lahr (] `•25 33 J,L.arrlunonl XeRJ *' `.., 1v�a�MARcc� .27.41Jt44 3,4 35 4 Tow438 37' Nlamaron,2ck NEW 1 :VillaL,e3Ztr„q �. r ROCHELLEr Majttaroneck ���,�.A/ V. - 0 7000 / t % Harbor111h ti - ---- i Basin 1 Scale in Feer 1 �J a WAC4 Boundary • Impaired Site - -- - Stream Waterbodies MAP 3 Westdter Impaired Stream Sites » ster Department of Planning Andrew.].Spauo WAC4 STUDY AREA Jo,.cc 1\1.Lannert CuuntN ExecutiveWAC4 FRESHWATER AND TIDAL WET-LAN-DS FRESHWATER AND TIDAL WETLANDS Regulations and best management practices have traditionally been used to reduce the harmful effects of polluted stormwater runoff. But the protection, restoration and creation of wetlands also are recognized strategies for controlling nonpoint source pollution. Once pollutants leave a site, wetlands become the first line of defense against the contamination of streams and rivers, ponds and lakes, and Long Island Sound. Therefore, the protection of existing wetlands, restoration of former or degraded wetlands, and creation of new wetlands are strongly recommended by WAC 4. THE WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS OF WETLANDS What Makes Wetlands Uniquely Suited To Improving Water Oualitr? Pollutants in stormwater runoff often take different modes of transportation to streams and rivers, ponds and lakes, and Long Island Sound. For example, phosphorus and metals might make their journey attached to sediment particles. Nitrogen, on the other hand, might travel in dissolved form suspended in the water column. The type and amount of pollution in runoff also varies according to season and land use. But regardless of their mode of transportation and concentration, most pollutants are easily tackled by the unique properties of wetlands. Wetlands take many forms. They come in many sizes. In Long Island Sound's watershed, wetlands may be either in or next to salt water (i.e., tidal wetlands) or fresh water (i.e., inland or freshwater wetlands). They may be permanently, seasonally, or irregularly flooded. But wetlands - swamps, marshes and bogs - all contain the proper balance of physical, chemical and biological conditions needed to break down or neutralize many common contaminants. Filtration of pollutants is a natural function of wetland ecosystems, improving water quality for the benefit of humans and nearly all other organisms. • Because of their landscape position between land and water, wetlands act as a buffer between the two. They intercept polluted stormwater runoff before it contaminates other waters, including inland waters and coastal embayments. • Dense wetland vegetation improves the clarity of water by trapping sediment and pollutants below ground in its roots or above ground at the base of its stem(s). • The chemical cycling of nutrients is eased by the presence of both aerobic (oxygen rich) and anaerobic (oxygen free) conditions in wetlands. Without this range of conditions unique to wetland ecosystems, pollutants can accumulate in water bodies. • A diversity of "decomposers," or microbes that break down organic matter, exists on root surfaces and in wetland soils. These microbiotic organisms biodegrade organic chemicals, including many forms of organic pesticides. • Wetland vegetation transports oxygen from its leaves to the rhizosphere surrounding its roots. This soil oxygenation is important for many of the microbial reactions that take place in wetlands. 90 • Wetland vegetation also traps sediment and removes nutrients or other pollutants from the water column and substrate. High productivity in most wetland ecosystems leads to high rates of mineral uptake, including nutrients, by plants. This productivity filters these substances from the water column. How Do Wetlands Filter Out These Pollutants? Wetlands filter pollutants from the water that flows into streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and Long Island Sound. Sediment Dense wetland vegetation resists the flow of stormwater runoff better than impermeable surfaces, like pavement. As a result, wetlands slow runoff. Instead of allowing sediment particles to be swept into streams and ponds with rapidly flowing water, wetlands slow the water and enable suspended particles to settle out. The roots of wetland vegetation also stabilize stream banks by holding soil together and preventing further erosion of sediments. • The City of Tallahassee, Florida constructed a two-acre marsh to remove pollutants from urban stormwater runoff. The artificial marsh reduced suspended sediment by more than 75 percent. • A study of the Minnehaha Creek watershed in Minnesota found that a naturally existing wetland there filtered out nearly all of the suspended solids entering the wetland. The wetland trapped about 16 tons of sediment annually before releasing the water into the nearby creek. Nutrients Plant roots absorb soluble nutrients, such as nitrate, from subsurface water flow. Nutrients taken up by the plants are stored in leaf matter and other plant parts. These decompose into the soil. Woody wetland plants provide even longer storage of nitrogen and phosphorus. Nitrogen may be converted to a harmless gas and released into the atmosphere after it is absorbed by plants. Scientific studies revealed high rates of nitrogen removal from flooded soils, especially in wetlands that experience periodic flooding and drying. • Forested wetlands along streams and rivers play a crucial role in reducing nutrient loading, particularly in agricultural areas that are polluted with nitrogen and phosphorus. For instance, a riparian forest in the Chesapeake Bay watershed removed about 80 percent of the phosphorus and 89 percent of the nitrogen from agricultural runoff entering a stream. • A pilot operation at Houghton Lake, Michigan used a natural wetland to filter 100,000 gallons per day of secondarily treated wastewater, resulting in significant improvements to water quality. The wetland removed approximately 70 percent of ammonia nitrogen, 99 percent of nitrate nitrogen, and 95 percent of total dissolved phosphorus from the wastewater. Other Chemical Contaminants Chemical pollutants sometimes attach themselves to sediment particles, which then settle out of solution at the bottom of a wetland. This process is called chemical precipitation. The high 91 productivity of wetland ecosystems often leads to high mineral uptake and assimilation by plants. This process is called biodegradation. • Studies show that some wetlands remove as much as 100 percent of heavy metals from the water column. • During the 1980s, more than 140 wetlands were constructed to control water pollution from mine drainage by removing iron and sulfates and rendering the water less acidic. Bacteria Dense wetland vegetation decomposes to form a substrate where natural microbes can work to remove bacteria. Artificial wetland systems are now being used for water purification purposes instead of tertiary treatment facilities. • Microbial action taking place on the wetland bottom may reduce coliform bacteria by 90 percent. • Prior to the restoration of the Arcata Marsh in California, local oyster harvesters faced lengthy closures and lowered income due to health hazards stemming from polluted runoff. Now that the marsh is being used to help clean wastewater effluent, half of California's multi-million dollar annual oyster harvest comes from the surrounding Humboldt Bay. POLLUTANT DISCHARGE TO NATURAL WETLANDS Although wetlands are excellent stormwater filters, prolonged discharge of pollutants can overwhelm them. For example, excessive amounts of sediment discharged with stormwater can smother some wetlands, dramatically changing their character and lessening their functional value. New York Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines concerning the discharge of stormwater into wetlands state: Wetlands are known to provide water quality benefits by filtering and trapping suspended solids, including sediment, chemical absorption, biological assimilation, microbial decomposition, and chemical decomposition...It is generally not acceptable to discharge untreated stormwater directly into naturally existing wetlands. Direct, untreated discharges may overload the natural system, and make it impractical to manage (e.g., by periodic sediment removal) resulting in contamination of the wetland and accelerated succession. Direct discharges also may alter the hydrology and hydroperiod of the wetland, which may significantly alter the vegetative community therein. However, incorporating an existing wetland in its natural state into a well- designed stormwater management plan may be an acceptable method of stormwater management when adverse impacts to the wetland can be avoided. Natural wetlands should be used only for final polishing after pretreatment by preliminary practices, such as infiltration, retention or extended detention. In these situations, ultimate discharge to the natural wetland may maintain base flow into the system, thereby helping to maintain the health of the wetland. 92 Effects Of Nonpoint Source Pollutants From Different Land Uses On Wetlands Land Use/Source Typical Pollutants Effect on Wetlands Agricultural Runoff Bacteria(coliform, Contamination of shellfish,rendering them inedible (cattle grazing land, streptococcus) manure) Suspended solids Clogged bottom sediments,interfering with fish spawning and benthic invertebrates, sediment buildup can significantly alter wetland hydrology,flood waters storage capacity,and plant and animal communities. Nutrients Increased vegetative productivity. resulting in increased standing stocks of vegetation,followed by increased rate of vegetative decay and higher community respiration rates Organic matter Greater oxygen demand/depletion Pesticides, salts Alteration of species distribution Agricultural Runoff Nitrogen,phosphorus Increased vegetative productivity, resulting in increased (feedlots) standing stocks of vegetation followed by increased rates of vegetative decay and higher community respiration rates Heavy metals Alteration of species distribution (Pb,Zn, Cu. Cd) Petroleum residues Decreased growth and respiration rates(chronic toxicity) Residential Stormwater Total nitrogen Increased vegetative productivity,resulting in creased Runoff(low to standing stocks of vegetation,followed by increasing moderate density) rates of vegetative decay and higher community respiration rates Bacteria(coliform) Contamination of shellfish,rendering them inedible Heavy metals Alteration of species distribution (Pb,Zn, Cu,Cd) Pesticides(diazinon) Alteration of species distribution 93 Land Use/Source Typical Pollutants Effect on Wetlands Urban Runoff Suspended solids Clogged bottom sediments,interfering with fish (developing areas) spawning and benthic invertebrates(smothering); sediment buildup can significantly alter wetland hydrology,flood waters storage capacity, and plant and animal communities Nitrogen,phosphorus Increased vegetative productivity, resulting in increased standing stocks of vegetation,followed by increased rates of vegetative decay and higher community respiration rates Lead Alteration of species distribution;decreased growth and respiration rates(chronic toxicity) Highway Stormwater BOD Greater oxygen demand/depletion Runoff Sheet flow blockage by Sheet flow reduced by embankments,decreasing the embankments sediment supply to wetlands and making the waters more likely to stagnate when fully flooded Alternation of the hydrologic regime,sediment loading, and direct wetlands removal;hydrologic isolation, decreased salinity in tidal marshes,and increase in vegetative cover;nutrient retention and signs of eutro hication Oil and grease;polyaromatic Reduced species diversity hydrocarbons Heavy metals(Pb,Zn)and Alteration of species distribution and replacement of deicing salt/sand sensitive species with tolerant species;decreased growth and respiration rates(chronic toxicity) Clogged bottom sediments,interfering with fish spawning and benthic invertebrates(smothering) Multifamily Nitrogen,phosphorus Increased vegetative productivity, resulting in increased Residential Area standing stocks of vegetation,followed by increased rates Stormwater Runoff of vegetative decay and higher community respiration rates Suspended soils Clogged bottom sediments,interfering with fish spawning and benthic invertebrates(smothering) Bacterial (coliform) Contamination of shellfish,rendering them inedible Heavy metals(Cu,Pb,Zn,N1, Reduced species diversity As,Be) Organics(bis-2-ethylhexyl Replacement of sensitive species with tolerant species phthalate) Pesticides(a-BHC) Alteration of species distribution Decreased growth and respiration rates(chronic toxicity) 94 Land Use/Source Typical Pollutants Effect on Wetlands Urban Stormwater Runoff Nitrogen,phosphorus Increased vegetative productivity, (developed) resulting in increased standing stocks of vegetation,followed by increased rates of vegetative decay and higher community respiration rates BOD Greater oxygen demand/depletion Suspended solids Clogged bottom sediments, interfering with fish spawning and benthic invertebrates; sediment buildup can significantly alter wetland hydrology, flood waters storage capacity, and plant and animal communities Heavy metals(Pb,Zn,Cu. Cd) Alteration of species distribution Pasture Stormwater Runoff Suspended solids Clogged bottom sediments,interfering with fish spawning and benthic invertebrates(smothering); sediment buildup can significantly alter wetland hydrology,flood waters storage capacity,and plant and animal communities Cultivated Land Stormwater Nitrogen Increased vegetative productivity, Runoff resulting in increased standing stocks of vegetation,followed by increased rates of vegetative decay and higher community respiration rates Suspended solids Clogged bottom sediments, interfering with fish spawning and benthic invertebrates Industrial Area Runoff Hydrocarbons Reduced species diversity; replacement of sensitive species with tolerant species;alteration of species distribution;decreased growth and respiration rates(chronic toxicity) BOD Greater oxygen demand/depletion COD Greater oxygen demand/depletion Suspended solids Clogged bottom sediments, interfering with fish spawning and enthic invertebrates(smothering); sediment buildup can significantly alter wetland hydrology,flood waters storage capacity, and plant and animal communities Sources: USEPA, 1983, 1993, 1995 95 WETLANDS IN THE WAC 4 STUDY AREA The WAC 4 study area contains both freshwater and tidal wetlands. Data from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), New York State Freshwater Wetland Maps and Tidal Wetland Maps, Soil Survey for Putnam and Westchester Counties, and municipal mapping available at the Westchester County Department of Planning, show that about 147 acres of freshwater wetland and seven acres of tidal wetland exist in the study area. However, a considerable amount of freshwater wetland has not been mapped by local, state and federal agencies. Therefore, the area of freshwater wetland is, in reality, considerably higher than the area noted on existing mapping. It is probable that the actual wetland acreage is at least twice that of the mapped acreage, which brings the total acreage in the study area to approximately 300 or more. The estimated tidal wetland acreage is generally accurate. Nevertheless, it is important to note that about 60 percent of the freshwater and tidal wetlands that once existed in the study area have been destroyed over the past three centuries. These wetlands have been drained and/or filled to accommodate residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural uses. In the WAC 4 study area, vegetated wetlands, the most common wetland type, can be separated into three major types based on their dominant vegetation: (1) emergent wetlands, commonly called marshes and wet meadows; (2) scrub-shrub wetlands, including shrub swamps and bogs; and (3) forested wetlands, such as wooded swamps and bottomland forests, dominated by trees. Non-vegetated wetlands include unvegetated mud flats. Often, wetland types are named after the dominant plant species, such as cattail marsh, red maple swamp and buttonbush swamp, or dominant physical feature, such as salt marsh and riparian (or streamside) wetland. Emergent Wetlands Examples of emergent wetlands include marshes and wet meadows. Marshes are flooded throughout the year or during certain seasons. They also may flood during and after a large storm. Or, in the case of salt marshes, they may be flooded by twice-daily high tides. Marshes usually have organic soils. Wet meadows are occasionally inundated. They usually have mineral soils that are saturated for long periods by high groundwater tables, usually from early November through April. A variety of herbaceous plants live in freshwater emergent marshes in the WAC 4 study area. These include broad- and narrow-leaved cattails, tussock sedge, purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, Joy-Pye-weed, and rough-stemmed goldenrod. Common reed is a dominant species in several marshes. Pickerelweed and arrow arum may be seen in shallow waters, adjacent to or sometimes intermixed with aquatic beds of white water lily, duckweeds, and water shield. Wet meadows may contain jewelweed, swamp aster, blue vervain, various goldenrods, soft rush, arrowleaved tearthumb, smartweeds, bittersweet nightshade, sensitive fern, rice cutgrass, wool grass, and asters. 96 Scrub-Shrub Wetlands Scrub shrub wetlands are dominated by shrubs and trees up to 20 feet in height. Most of the trees, if present, are relatively low growing (e.g., pussy willow) or are young (whips and saplings). Scrub shrub wetlands may be inundated for part of the year but few are inundated all of the year; exceptions include buttonbush swamps. They generally have mineral soils that are saturated for long periods by high groundwater tables. A few have organic soils. Scrub shrub wetlands in the WAC 4 study area may contain northern arrowwood, speckled alder, silky dogwood, red-osier dogwood, winterberry, willows, sweet pepperbush, highbush blueberry, red-panicled dogwood, broad-leaved meadowsweet, and spicebush. Forested Wetlands The majority of wetlands in Westchester County are forested wetlands dominated by deciduous trees greater than 20 feet in height. Red maple swamps are the typical forested wetlands in the county as well as the WAC 4 study area. Like scrub shrub wetlands, forested wetlands may or may not be inundated for part of the year but very few are inundated all of the year. They may have either mineral or organic soils that are saturated for long periods by high groundwater tables. Forested wetlands often contain red maple. They also may contain yellow birch, hemlock, green ash, and American elm, as well as a variety of the shrubs mentioned above and herbaceous plants, such as skunk cabbage, tussock sedge, sensitive fern, marsh fern, cinnamon fern, royal fern, peat moss, and jewelweed. Tidal Wetlands Tidal wetlands in the WAC 4 study area are generally characteristic of"low" marshes, or those that exist in the intertidal zone and are covered in whole or in part by the tides on a twice-daily basis. Most are dominated by smooth cordgrass but sometimes contain small patches of salt marsh hay. The tidal range of these wetlands can generally be divided into three zones: above mean high water (supratidal), from mean high water to mean low water (intertidal zone) and below mean low water (subtidal zone). The area above mean high water can be further divided into the area above the mean spring high tide and the area between the mean spring high tide and mean high water. Spring high tide is the elevation to which the tide rises during the two times of the month when the sun, moon and Earth are in direct line with each other - it has nothing to do with the season of spring. Due to encroachment by development and land filling, tidal wetlands between the mean spring high tide and mean high water are infrequently found in the WAC 4 study area. Where they might exist, these higher elevation wetlands (called "high" marshes) contain a variety of plant species, such as spike grass, black grass, black needlerush and marsh elder. 97 WA C 4 OBSER VA TIONS Adequate regulatory protection and the restoration of degraded wetlands were of primary concern to WAC 4. In the following sections of this report are described existing conditions of freshwater and tidal wetlands as well as sites that are potentially suitable for restoration. Also identified are those wetlands that, in the opinion of WAC 4, warrant extraordinary protection or acquisition by a land conservation organization or government. Because state and federal grant money is now available for restoring wetlands, an emphasis has been placed on restoration. The creation of new wetlands has not be widely considered by WAC 4. Although creation of new wetlands is a viable water quality protection technique in some circumstances, the lack of suitable land due to urbanization limits wetland creation opportunities in the WAC 4 study area. Wetlands have been degraded or eliminated by pollution, filling, draining, hydrologic alterations, and vegetation removal. Degraded sites provide the best opportunities for restoration, whether they be privately or publicly owned. Landowner consent is, of course, critical in planning, designing and implementing restoration projects. The consent of private property owners will be sought for some restoration projects, but most of the restoration projects recommended by WAC 4 are on publicly owned lands or lands that are easily accessible to the public. Mamaroneck Village's intertidal zones (between mean low and mean high tides) and stock of tidal wetlands offer several opportunities for salt marsh restoration, particularly on publicly owned lands in the vicinity of Harbor Island Park. Although Harrison, Scarsdale and White Plains have few wetland restoration opportunities on publicly owned lands in the study area, emphasis should be placed on fully protecting existing wetlands and restoring wetlands and wetland buffers on privately owned lands. This is especially important in the headwaters of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and riparian wetlands adjacent to these rivers and their tributaries. (NOTE: Although it is outside the WAC 4 study area, the village-owned Red Maple Swamp in Scarsdale is well-suited for restoration. It is in the Bronx River watershed). Saxon Woods County Park in Scarsdale and Mamaroneck Town and Maple Moor County Golf Course in White Plains each have several sites that can be restored to enhance their functional values for water quality protection. Mamaroneck Town and New Rochelle also have publicly owned sites that are suitable for restoration along the Sheldrake River, especially in the vicinity of Carpenter Pond and Sheldrake Lake. As with Harrison, Scarsdale and White Plains, Mamaroneck Town and New Rochelle should emphasize the protection of existing wetlands and restoration of wetlands and wetland buffers on privately owned lands. EXISTING CONDITIONS Mamaroneck River Watershed(Freshwater Wetlands The Mamaroneck River begins as a series of groundwater seeps, small intermittent, seasonal and perennial streams, and a cluster of small and moderately sized wetlands surrounding Forest and 98 Silver lakes in Harrison and White Plains. The river ends in the embayment called Mamaroneck Harbor. From the harbor, the river waters spill into Long Island Sound. From its headwaters immediately south of Rye Lake and the Kensico Reservoir to its mouth at Mamaroneck Harbor, the Mamaroneck River occupies one of Westchester County's largest watersheds in the Long Island Sound watershed. On its migratory route to the Sound, the river flows through some of the most densely developed neighborhoods in the county. Its tributaries flow through some of the most pristine. But through it all, the river is augmented by small wetlands that act like lymph nodes on the human circulatory system, filtering out pollutants that can damage the health of both the river and Sound. Mamaroneck River - The Headwaters The Mamaroneck River's headwaters exist in two general locations. The north end of the river consists of two branches flowing south and joining to form a single river in the vicinity of the Anderson Hill Road and Interstate 287 intersection on the border of White Plains and Harrison. The east branch begins as a cluster of small wetlands and ponds between Park Lane and Orchard Street in Harrison. It flows south into state-designated wetland No. G-8 and Forest Lake, which discharges into state-designated wetland No. G-6. A relatively large wetland south of Barnes Lane, between Interstate 684 and Purchase Street, drains into a small stream that feeds state- designated wetlands No. G-8 and G-6. From there, it flows south into Spring Lake and eventually the main stem of the Mamaroneck River. The west branch also begins as a cluster of small wetlands and ponds in the steeply sloped neighborhood of Buckout Road and Silver Lake County Park in Harrison. It flows south into Silver Lake, which discharges southward into the main stem of the Mamaroneck River. Mamaroneck River - Riparian Wetlands Small riparian wetlands flank segments of the river's main stem throughout its route to the Sound south of Silver and Forest lakes and state-designated wetland No. G-6. A large concentration of small wetlands exist in Saxon Woods County Park in Scarsdale and Maple Moor County Park in White Plains. All others are scattered at various locations along the river. Within Saxon Woods County Park, small vernal pools, buttonbush and red maple swamps, riparian marshes, and wet meadows dot the landscape. These small but significant wetlands serve as the headwaters for a tributary to the Mamaroneck River. Mamaroneck River - Tributaries The largest tributary of the Mamaroneck River, called the West Branch of the Mamaroneck River, begins at two wetlands immediately west of Archbishop Stepinac High School and Mamaroneck Avenue in White Plains. This tributary flows south through Saxon Woods County Park, where it joins with the river's main stem. Several riparian wetlands exist along the tributary, none of which have been mapped by the National Wetlands Inventory. The most extensive of these wetland systems is found in the general vicinity of Coralyn Avenue, Reynal Road and Hillair Circle in White Plains. Other smaller tributaries also exist. For example, a small stream flows south and parallel to North Street through "The Fairways" and "The Greens" subdivisions and Maple Moor Golf 99 MOUNT PZ ANT `.'' ��'� � sgrvoi tco \ Re r K1siCq Basin NORTH / I TL J 11�;�w♦ Rye Lake �► `�i 9A ` \ u r 4\♦ �♦ Sheldon White t i '0 Tains a Resrevoiisl) Silver 87 / Lake _. , r! `` Blind Iver to A ,,Basin ' - - - t] *44. 2 ' Brook . r ; ,\c ♦ ,1 � Basin r Bronx gQ River /" M >M. f e✓ Basin §014 ♦ I oo \ 1 ip �, Q, Rye � ♦ RVS \ WHITF/Pram L ma / 1 �.� GREB�VBURGH \� ' ` t e`" t27 . F ;4 ver B t ` f / assy I �� ♦ Mama �' . / �,i./ t \ Port / rain L �'"'� I Icheste l C'►�\ River r `1 asir;j 's \\ BasitW\,,-. / 1 r' too I+;SDAL �< <' Swamp � /r 7•►I `�~ ,1I J _ ` 7 Py 4�'� ` Brook Blihd P ,C'�iester t �, J / • c/ Basin _ Btbk yerbor �p� / ; IL. t �s �o / Beaver / 1 in _ Basin _ 1 '�—� , 'Swamp ♦ / I � � , '-.BI'OOkv Harbor Bronx , �,O! I She!(dra e :♦Ba ip ! / v River �a i R�ver Basin j basin ♦ 'i �. /r j l� I. so ♦/1 r. s ` :;:,`s3 ITV / T N n ,. 1 / / �l. Milton 0 O ILLEA y 1 C,? It heldrake iojte RY /'I' Harbor N ` ; 41 Latchtn Ites.) / -M onec 1 Basin J j � ! ;v a MamaF�oneck ♦ / 1 ARO CtC Harbor �Stephens¢n JTo / @asin / Brook Basin n 7000 I Pine i I rch o}yt' ♦ P 94raor Brook, vv r Scale in Feet �` `^Basin 1118 Tidal Wetland Water Bodies Major Drainage Divide - Freshwater Wetland --"-- -- Streams ____ Minor Drainage Divide - Hydric Soil (Possible Wetland) MAP 4 Com Hydrology WAC4 STUDY AREA DepartmentPlanning L Andrew J.Spano Joyce M.Lannert County Executive Commissioner Course to the Mamaroneck River in White Plains. Riparian wetlands exist along this stream, especially near the subdivisions. A tributary flowing north, alongside Mamaroneck Avenue, contains riparian wetlands on the grounds of Burke Rehabilitation Center and New York Hospital in White Plains. Small wetlands exist elsewhere in White Plains, including a riparian wetland adjacent to a tributary of the Mamaroneck River at Westchester Hills Golf Club and "isolated" wetlands near Cobblefield Road and West Street, Another tributary, originating in the vicinity of Rolling Hills Lane and Century Trail in Harrison, flows south through a riparian wetland north of Interstate 95 east of Palma Drive in Harrison. Another small tributary begins at state-designated wetland No. G-7, north of Ridgeway Avenue in White Plains. This large, forested wetland adjoins a commercial facility in the largely residential neighborhood around Ridgeway Avenue. The commercial facility is encroaching into the wetland and, especially, the upland fringe around the wetland. Another smaller wetland exists just downstream from the state-designated wetland within the residential complex called Club Pointe. This largely forested wetland, flanking the small tributary, also has been encroached on by the surrounding residential properties. Mamaroneck River-Near The Mouth South of Saxon Woods County Park, the Mamaroneck River flows through a much more densely developed corridor. Throughout most of this corridor, residential and commercial development has occurred close to the stream; exceptions include a portion of Columbus Park in Mamaroneck Village. A naturally vegetated corridor exists along the river in this corridor, but riparian wetlands are generally absent; an exception is a riparian wetland immediately north of Interstate 95 straddling the border of Harrison and Mamaroneck Town. The wetlands specifically identified above have been identified due to their size, high functional value, and strategic location in the landscape. Many other small wetlands, both riparian and "isolated," exist in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Most contribute to water quality protection. Although they are comparatively small, their cumulative loss can have significant adverse impacts on water quality in the watershed. Sheldrake River Watershed(Freshwater Wetlands) Sheldrake River- The Headwaters The Sheldrake River, a tributary of the Mamaroneck River, starts in two locations in the general vicinity of Fenway Golf Club in Scarsdale. From these headwaters, the river travels to its final discharge into the Mamaroneck River at Columbus Park in Mamaroneck Village. One of the headwaters' locations is immediately south of Garden Road in Scarsdale. This location includes a pond immediately east of Seneca Road south of Fenway Golf Club and a wetland north of Seneca Road in Scarsdale. The other location is in the vicinity of Murray Hill and Dolma roads in Scarsdale. From these headwaters, the river flows south past the middle school adjacent to Catherine Road in Scarsdale. The river continues its route to the south after the middle school in Scarsdale and eventually discharges into Carpenter Pond adjacent to Daisy Farms Drive in New Rochelle. This pond is significant from a water quality standpoint because of its placement in the landscape. It is just 100 below the headwaters and directly in the stream channel — all surface runoff collected in the watershed from the headwaters to the pond must pass through the pond. Furthermore, a freshwater wetland adjoins the pond's east and northeast sides. The river continues south after flowing through Carpenter Pond, passing underneath the Hutchinson River Parkway and through a wetland immediately south of the parkway in New Rochelle. This wetland, which has not been mapped on local, state and federal wetland maps, is easily identifiable in the field, on aerial photographs, and on the Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties. This wetland, like that adjoining Carpenter Pond, is significant from a water quality perspective because of its placement in the landscape and its direct connectivity to the river. Sheldrake River - Sheldrake Lake The Sheldrake River discharges to Sheldrake Lake south of the Hutchinson River Parkway. Immediately southeast of the lake, the Sheldrake River travels past a small wetland adjacent to Weaver Street in Mamaroneck Town. A small tributary whose headwaters originates in the vicinity of Crestwood Hollow Lane in New Rochelle intersects the Sheldrake River at the wetland next to Weaver Street. This tributary drains a cluster of three to five small wetlands in the vicinity of Crestwood Hollow Lane in New Rochelle. Sheldrake River- Riparian Wetlands Few riparian wetlands augment the Sheldrake River south of the Weaver Street wetland in Mamaroneck Town. The river corridor south of this wetland has been significantly manipulated during the development of surrounding land uses, including golf courses (e.g., Bonnie Briar Country Club), transportation facilities (e.g., Interstate 95) and residential and commercial properties (e.g., those between White Plains Road and Fenimore Road). Despite this significant alteration of the river corridor, a narrow band of wetland flanks some segments of the river from Fenimore Road to Revere Road in Mamaroneck Village. This riparian wetland is sandwiched between commercial development and Interstate 95 to the southeast and northwest, respectively. Another band of wetland flanks some segments of the river on lands that are a part of the Sheldrake Nature Trails adjacent to Rockland Avenue in Mamaroneck Town. Sheldrake River - Large Wetlands (e.g., Crossway Field In addition to riparian wetlands adjoining the Sheldrake River, several other wetlands exist within the river's watershed. The largest of these is the state-designated freshwater wetland (NYS DEC No. MV-1) southwest of Saxon Woods County Park at Crossway Field adjacent to Mamaroneck Road and the Hutchinson River Parkway in Scarsdale. The 15.8-acre Crossway Field wetland straddles Harvest Drive and the Hutchinson River Parkway. It serves as the headwaters for a tributary to the Sheldrake River. The tributary flows south through a small riparian wetland near Split Tree Road in the Town of Mamaroneck. The tributary eventually connects to the Sheldrake River in the vicinity of Brookside Drive in Mamaroneck Town. Another wetland exists next to Heathcote School adjacent to Palmer Avenue in Scarsdale. This wetland drains toward the state-designated wetland farther south. Another more "isolated" wetland exists immediately north of the Heathcote By-Pass at the eastern terminus of Brookby 101 Road. Other wetlands exist on both sides of Griffen Avenue a short distance west of Mamaroneck Road adjacent to Carriage House Lane. The largest of these wetlands is immediately north of Griffen Avenue but, at the time of a site visit in January 2000, this wetland was being partially disturbed by new residential development. A smaller wetland is immediately south of Griffen Avenue adjacent to a small stream that eventually discharges into the tributary fed by Crossway Field. Many other small wetlands, both riparian and "isolated," exist in the Sheldrake River watershed. Most contribute to water quality protection. The wetlands noted above, however, have been specifically identified due to their size, high functional value, and strategic location within the landscape. Mamaroneck Harbor (Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Tidal Wetlands The west side of the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed is in the WAC 4 study area (the harbor's east side was assessed as part of the WAC 3 study area and is included in WAC 3's April 1998 report). The watershed's west side occupies a small area from south of Prospect Avenue and east of Orienta Avenue to Mamaroneck Harbor. Within this small area, however, are productive tidal wetlands — also called salt marshes. Tidal wetlands in the WAC 4 study area are small in overall size compared to other areas of the county, such as the salt marshes in the WAC 3 study area flanking Milton Harbor. The small patches and strips of tidal wetlands on the west side of Mamaroneck Harbor cumulatively total about seven acres. However, their relatively small size belies their significant value in protecting water quality, as well as in performing a variety of other functions for the marine environment. Patches and strips of salt marsh (tidal wetland) exist along the west side of Mamaroneck Harbor in Mamaroneck Village. These adjoin: (1) Harbor Island Park, especially along the west side of the West Basin; (2) residential properties on side streets off Rushmore Avenue, especially in the vicinity of Indian Cove and Nichols Boat Yard; (3) private clubs at Orienta Point; and (4) commercial marinas, including Mamaroneck Beach, Cabana and Yacht Club, Beach Point Club and Orienta Beach Club at the southern terminus of Rushmore Avenue. Smaller wetlands also are found along the shoreline fronting Long Island Sound in the vicinity of Crab Island. These salt marshes are generally characteristic of "low" marshes - marshes that exist in the intertidal zone. They largely consist of smooth cordgrass, but other species, such as sea lavender, spike grass, and salt marsh hay, exist to a considerably lesser extent and often as individual plants rather than large populations. Along the west side of the West Basin at Harbor Island Park, a band of common reed is immediately upslope of a band of smooth cordgrass, the latter existing in the intertidal zone. Mowed lawn is immediately upslope of the common reed. 102 Freshwater Wetland A freshwater wetland (freshwater marsh) also exists in the Mamaroneck Harbor watershed in the WAC 4 study area. This wetland is near the west side of the harbor (West Basin) between Harbor Island Park and a marina south of the park off Rushmore Avenue. This wetland, though, has been dramatically altered by filling and further altered by mowing and its conversion from a naturally vegetated marsh to a managed lawn. In its current form, the wetland exists as a poorly drained lawn. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPR O VING WETLANDS AND WA TER Q UALITY IN WA C 4 Nonpoint source pollution is the leading cause of impairments to the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and a source of degradation for Long Island Sound, according to New York State's 1996 Priority Water Bodies List (PVL) (see Stream Chapter). Because wetlands are ideally suited for filtering out huge quantities of these pollutants before they reach these rivers and the Sound, WAC 4 recommends a comprehensive approach to wetland protection and management. WAC 4 recommends a three-pronged management strategy to maintain the water quality benefits provided by wetlands: (1) regulatory protection and preservation, (2) restoration, and (3) construction, or creation, of engineered systems (e.g., constructed wetlands) that pre-treat runoff before it reaches natural streams, ponds, lakes and wetlands. Regulatory Protection,Preservation The first strategy, regulatory protection and preservation, will protect the full range of wetland functions by discouraging inappropriate development activity. All six WAC 4 municipalities have their own wetland protection ordinance. Each of these ordinances is different, but each strives to protect wetlands "to the fullest practicable extent" (see separate chapter of this report addressing local ordinances). None of the six WAC 4 municipalities has an ordinance regulating activities in or adjacent to tidal wetlands (tidal wetlands are regulated by state law administered by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation). The Town of Mamaroneck is proposing to revise its existing wetlands protection law. If adopted, the revised law will regulate tidal wetlands. All municipalities regulate activities in and/or adjacent to freshwater wetlands, though to varying degrees. The implementation and enforcement of these regulations also varies. The regulatory protection and preservation strategy encourages proper management of upstream activities (e.g., residential and commercial development) and the use of best management practices (e.g., erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, wetlands management, etc.), as well as environmentally sound planning and zoning. Wholesale preservation of wetlands and/or lands containing both wetlands and uplands is strongly encouraged. Several programs administered by local, state and federal agencies 103 protect wetlands by controlling development activities affecting wetlands and provide financial assistance to people and entities wishing to protect them. Agencies that offer financial assistance programs include the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition, non-governmental groups that purchase wetlands for conservation purposes, such as the Westchester Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land, are playing increasingly important roles in protecting water quality. Several municipalities and the County of Westchester have already purchased wetlands and lands containing wetlands for preservation (e.g., Hommocks Marsh by the Town of Mamaroneck, Red Maple Swamp by the Village of Scarsdale, and Marshlands Conservancy by the County of Westchester). Preservation is the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems. Preservation involves more than preventing explicit alterations, such as removing trees from a red maple swamp or preventing the construction of mosquito ditches in a salt marsh. Preservation implies management of the aquatic ecosystem to maintain its natural functions and characteristics (e.g., weed and pest control to maintain a specific species or community and dredging to maintain a specific habitat). Preservation is sometimes mistakenly linked to mitigation under the assumption that a preserved aquatic ecosystem at one location will offset or mitigate the loss of displaced aquatic functions at another. Although such preservation may limit further losses, it cannot compensate for losses already incurred. Preservation is distinct from restoration and creation in that the functions and characteristics of the preserved ecosystem are presumed to exist, more or less, in their desired states. This is not to say that the aquatic ecosystem has not been subject to change over the years, but that the ecosystem is performing in an acceptable manner and does not require reclamation or rehabilitation. Restoration The second strategy promotes the restoration of degraded wetlands having the potential to control nonpoint source pollution. Riparian wetlands should be vegetated ecosystems next to a stream, river, pond or lake through which energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian wetlands characteristically have high water tables. They are subject to periodic flooding and influences from adjoining water bodies. They encompass wetlands and uplands, or some combination of the two. Too often, however, naturally existing streamside vegetation has been removed in favor of lawn or parking lots. Restoration should recreate the full range of pre-existing wetland functions, particularly for water quality enhancement and protection. It usually focuses on replanting degraded wetlands with native plant species. Depending on location and degree of degradation, structural devices may be needed to control water flow. The elevations of the restoration site also may need to be changed to support a "healthier," or more diverse, wetland community by altering the depth of the water table. Restoration incorporates ecological principles, such as habitat diversity and the connections between different aquatic and riparian habitat types. Wetlands constructed specifically for stormwater runoff treatment 104 do not usually incorporate these principles; their functional value, therefore, is limited to stormwater runoff treatment. In this watershed management plan, restoration is defined as the reestablishment of previously disturbed aquatic functions and related physical, chemical and biological characteristics. Restoration is a holistic process not achieved through the isolated manipulation of individual elements. Planting a few grasses and sedges does not constitute restoration. Restoration often requires one or more of the following: (1) reconstruction of previously existing physical conditions; (2) chemical adjustment of the soil and water; and (3) biological manipulation, including the reintroduction of native flora and fauna made nonviable by ecological disturbances (reintroduction is made possible by adjusting the existing environment to pre-disturbance conditions). The term "restoration" is used in regulations and public laws when "reclamation," "rehabilitation" or "mitigation" is often meant. "Mitigation," however, simply alleviates the detrimental effects from a given action (e.g., mitigation for filling a wetland to build a shopping center may involve restoring a nearby wetland that was filled for some other reason, or it can involve creating a wetland on an adjacent area that is upland). WAC 4 has focused its recommendations on restoration as "reclamation" and "rehabilitation." Engineered Systems (Wetland Creation) The third strategy is the construction of engineered vegetated treatment systems (VTSs). These systems, often called constructed or "created" wetlands, are especially effective at removing suspended solids (i.e., sediment) and excessive nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) from stormwater runoff before the runoff reaches naturally existing wetlands and water bodies. One type of VTS, the vegetated filter strip, is a band of grasses, rushes and sedges as well as shrubs and trees alongside streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and natural wetlands. The plants and soils in this band of vegetation intercept stormwater runoff before it reaches water bodies and wetlands. Vegetated filter strips are most effective at sediment removal, with removal rates usually greater than 70 percent. They also are capable of removing moderate amounts of other nonpoint source pollutants. Constructed, or "created," wetlands, another type of VTS, are typically man-made complexes of water, plants and animal life that simulate naturally occurring wetlands. Over time, they are intended to duplicate the characteristics of naturally existing wetlands, including wetland soil and hydrologic characteristics. Studies indicate that constructed wetlands can achieve sediment removal rates greater than 90 percent and significant removal rates for other pollutants. Like vegetated filter strips, constructed wetlands offer an alternative to structural systems, such as surface and subsurface detention basins. 105 REGULATOR Y PRO TECTIONIPRESER VA TION The federal government and several Westchester County municipalities have adopted a hierarchical system of wetland regulation. Under this system, applicants proposing to develop a site containing wetlands must first avoid wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Any impacts that cannot be avoided must then be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, if there are any impacts associated with a project that cannot be avoided and have been fully minimized, these impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation may be restoring a naturally existing wetland or creating a man-made wetland. Wetland restoration and creation, however, is not foolproof and many such projects have been unsuccessful due to poor planning, design, construction and/or maintenance. Most naturally existing wetlands, on the other hand, have persisted for many years, decades or centuries and have performed a variety of functions effectively and efficiently for as long. Therefore, WAC 4 recommends that stronger emphasis be placed on wetland impact avoidance rather than wetland impact minimization and, especially, mitigation for wetland losses. WAC 4 recommends a two-pronged approach to avoiding wetland impacts: (1) through strong wetland protection ordinances emphasizing wetland impact avoidance; and (2) by ensuring the preservation of highly beneficial wetlands through special regulations, conservation easements and land acquisition. Strong wetland protection ordinances and special regulations have been discussed in another chapter of this report (see Local Comprehensive Plans and Ordinances). Wetland Impact Avoidance The federal Clean Water Act (Section 404(b)(1) guidelines requires the applicant and reviewing agencies to determine whether or not a proposed project that results in wetland degradation (i.e., filling) can be relocated, repositioned or redesigned to avoid impacting aquatic ecosystems. If there is a practicable upland alternative to the proposed wetland impact(s) that results in less significant environmental damage, the permit can be denied. By law, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must follow these guidelines when reviewing permit applications and it must deny a permit for any proposal that fails to comply with them. The "practicable alternative" test is the heart of the guidelines. It establishes two presumptions that must be satisfactorily solved by the applicant: (1) that upland sites are available for non- water-dependent activities; and (2) that activities in uplands will have less adverse environmental impact than activities in wetlands. For example, shopping malls, condominiums and office buildings do not have to be near the water but marinas do. In theory, therefore, the Corps should deny a permit for these types of activities if they involve filling wetlands. Unfortunately, the guidelines are subjective tests with imprecise standards—a combination that spells trouble. In the guidelines, two phrases frequently cause problems: "practicable alternative" and "significant degradation." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines "practicable" as "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." "Significant degradation" includes "significantly adverse effects of the discharge [i.e., filling]...on human health or welfare...life stages of aquatic life...[and] aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability." Of course, 106 what EPA considers practicable or significant may differ from the interpretations of the applicant and/or Corps, possibly resulting in a long conflict to settle the differences. Therefore, WAC 4 recommends that Harrison, Mamaroneck Town, Mamaroneck Village, New Rochelle, Scarsdale and White Plains adopt a revised version of the federal guidelines from Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The guidelines' emphasis is laudable - that alternatives should be sought to prevent the degradation or loss of wetlands. Wetland impacts should be avoided, and such avoidance should be emphasized in municipal ordinances. However, the terms "practicable alternative" and "significant degradation" should be better defined by the municipalities of WAC 4. The EPA definitions offer a good foundation, but these definitions should be strengthened to plug loopholes, set clear standards and achieve the overall goal of the "practicable alternative," which is wetland impact avoidance (see also the Local Ordinances and Comprehensive Plans Chapter of this report). Wetland Preservation In its assessment of wetlands in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor, WAC 4 identified wetlands whose functional value for water quality is extraordinary for the region. WAC 4 did not identify any freshwater or tidal wetlands that have not been disturbed by human activities. All wetlands have had indirect or direct human impacts to some degree, including disturbances to adjoining upland buffers next to wetlands. The WAC 4 study area is characteristically urban and suburban, and development throughout the area has directly or indirectly impacted all wetlands. Some wetlands are more pristine than others, including those in Saxon Woods County Park in Scarsdale and Silver Lake County Park in White Plains, as well as small patches of salt marsh in and near Mamaroneck Harbor in Mamaroneck Village. Others wetlands have been disturbed, either indirectly or directly, but their overall functional value is still high. These include wetlands next to Forest Lake in Harrison, next to Lake Street in Harrison, at the Club Pointe residential complex off North Street in White Plains, next to Ridgeway Avenue in White Plains, at Crossway Field in Scarsdale, and next to Carpenter Pond in New Rochelle. All wetlands, regardless of their size and condition, are valuable to some degree. Of course, the largest, most pristine wetlands are of superior value. However, the smallest, most degraded wetlands also have some value, whether for a variety of functions or just one. These small and/or degraded wetlands may perform some level of function, whether for water quality, habitat, floodwaters storage, ground and surface waters recharge, etc. Therefore, the identification of wetlands whose value is extraordinary to the region should not be construed as dismissing the value(s) of other wetlands. About 60 percent of wetlands in the WAC 4 study area have been destroyed by human activities since the 1700s. Therefore, every surviving wetland should receive the best possible protection from degradation. WAC 4 has identified the following wetlands and wetland systems which it considers to be of extraordinary functional value to water quality in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor: 107 • wetland systems at the headwaters of the Mamaroneck River in Harrison and White Plains; these systems are in the general vicinities of Forest and Silver lakes and Park Lane and Lake Street and include state-designated wetland Nos. G-6 and G-8 • wetland system on the north and south sides of Ridgeway Avenue in White Plains, including state-designated wetland No. G-7 north of Ridgeway Avenue and the wetland at the Club Pointe residential complex south of Ridgeway Avenue • state-designated wetland No. MV-1 at Crossway Field in Scarsdale • wetland at the headwaters of a tributary of a tributary to the Sheldrake River at the Rocky Hollow residential complex on Fenimore Road in Mamaroneck Town • all freshwater riparian wetlands of the Sheldrake River in Mamaroneck Town, New Rochelle, and Scarsdale • all freshwater riparian wetlands of the Mamaroneck River in Harrison, Scarsdale, and White Plains • all freshwater riparian wetlands of the primary tributary (identified above) of the Sheldrake River in Scarsdale • all freshwater riparian and headwaters wetlands of the primary tributaries (identified above) of the Mamaroneck River in Harrison, Scarsdale, and White Plains, including those at Saxon Woods County Park These wetlands and wetland systems warrant extraordinary protection through either stringent regulatory controls (see Local Ordinances and Comprehensive Plans Chapter), acquisition or other mechanisms, such as conservation easements. They could be acquired through donation, land exchange, fee simple purchase, or less-than-fee-simple acquisition through bargain sales, installment sale, and right of first refusal. Grants and assistance from nongovernmental organizations, foundations and state and federal agencies are some of the potential funding sources for land acquisition. Other mechanisms for protecting these wetlands include: (1) property tax breaks (e.g., tax deduction for land donation or property tax deduction for protecting existing and restored wetlands); (2) zoning techniques (e.g., sale of transferable development rights and conservation developments - see Local Ordinances and Comprehensive Plans Chapter); (3) conservation easements; (4) deed restrictions; and (S) educational outreach programs that can persuade landowners to protect and preserve wetlands. An example of a successful federal program that, unfortunately, has not yet been used in Westchester County is the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service's Wetlands Reserve Program. This program allows private landowners to get paid for placing permanent easements or 30-year temporary easements on parcels containing wetlands and wetland buffers, and allows landowners to sign 10-year wetland restoration cost-sharing agreements. WAC 4 recommends that this program be used more often in Westchester County, including the WAC 4 study area. RESTORATION WAC 4 strongly recommends a policy to expand the size of freshwater and tidal wetlands in its study area. This policy goes beyond the federal "no net loss" policy and is more in harmony 108 with the Habitat Restoration Initiative of the state and federal Long Island Sound Study. Whereas the "no net loss" policy seeks to maintain wetland acreage at its current level, the "net expansion" policy seeks to enlarge wetland acreage over its current level. While the "no net loss" policy is laudable because it seeks to stop wetland destruction, the "net expansion" policy goes beyond just stopping wetland loss and seeks to increase the wetland supply through restoration and creation. Over the next 10 years, the Habitat Restoration Initiative seeks to restore 2,000 acres of habitat and 100 miles of river in the Sound watershed of New York and Connecticut. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also seeks to expand wetland acreage over existing conditions, despite the continued trend of wetland loss. Wetlands in the WAC 4 study area have followed the fate of wetlands throughout much of the nation. An estimated 53 percent of wetlands in the nation have been destroyed since the first European settlers arrived in the continental United States. Some states have lost as much as 90 percent of their wetlands. In New York, an estimated 60 percent of the state's wetlands have been destroyed. In the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor, which together comprise the WAC 4 study area, at least 60 percent of tidal and freshwater wetlands have been destroyed by filling and draining. Many others have been altered by clearcutting and hydrologic changes. A review of aerial photographs and the Soil Survey for Putnam and Westchester Counties indicates that sizeable areas used to be either freshwater or tidal wetlands but these have been filled to accommodate other uses. For example, much of the area surrounding Mamaroneck Harbor, especially its west basin, is filled tidal wetland. All of Harbor Island Park, including the portion on Rushmore Avenue, was created when salt marshes were filled to accommodate park uses before the advent of tidal wetland regulations. In addition to the park, several marinas and residential buildings on the east side of Rushmore Avenue were constructed on filled wetland. The transformation of wetlands to other uses by filling or draining is not unique to the area surrounding Mamaroneck Harbor, but this area is a striking example of the wetland loss that occurred, and continues to occur, throughout the WAC 4 study area. During their assessment of wetlands in the WAC 4 study area, staff of the Westchester County Department of Planning and WAC 4 members were mindful of degraded wetlands that can be restored. Through restoration, the study area's supply of healthy wetlands can be expanded, thereby furthering the "net expansion" policy. Particular attention was paid to wetlands on publicly owned lands, where restoration projects can be implemented using public monies (e.g., state and federal grants). Projects on public lands also are more visible to the general public, thereby enhancing their public educational value. Wetland restoration projects on privately owned lands also are encouraged, however. Ecosystems do not respect property boundaries. The degradation or restoration of a wetland on privately owned lands can adversely or beneficially impact Long Island Sound, just as the degradation or restoration of a wetland on publicly owned lands can impact the Sound. Whether they are on publicly or privately owned lands, restoration projects should be undertaken in tandem with a strong policy of avoiding adverse impacts to existing wetlands. Tidal Wetlands Unlike the north shore of Milton Harbor in Rye City, the WAC 4 study area does not contain any extensive salt marsh systems. However, the area does contain modest populations of smooth 109 cordgrass and a lesser amount of other tidal wetland plants in and around Mamaroneck Harbor. These plants are an obvious sign that the harbor can support cordgrass and other tidal wetland plants. However, the presence of sea walls and other man-made impediments along much of the shore limits the inland spread of cordgrass populations in most areas. Therefore, restoration efforts should focus on removing invasive plants, such as common reed (i.e., Phragmites), and establishing cordgrass populations in unvegetated areas. Common reed has long been considered an invasive weed of low overall value. However, new studies suggest that common reed is more beneficial than originally thought. For example, it is capable of removing substantial amounts of pollutants and nutrients and it harbors a number of insects that make up the base of the food chain. It also is habitat to a few birds, including the red-wing black bird. In general, though, common reed is often indicative of environmental stress (e.g., it often grows in abundance where human disturbances have changed the topography and hydrology). And once common reed invades a site, its dominance is usually complete — few other plant species are able to compete with its dense stand of stems. Due to the lack of plant diversity in reed communities, the diversity of other organisms within these communities also is low. Finally, the topographic and/or hydrologic changes that are often associated with common reed may diminish the reeds' ability to improve water quality. For example, reeds often thrive on fill that has been deposited in wetlands. Because the reeds then grow at a higher elevation than original conditions, their interaction with ground and surface waters may be lessened, thereby lessening their benefit to water quality. Because of these considerations, WAC 4 recommends the restoration of salt marshes dominated by common reed, especially in situations where the reeds have thrived due to environmental stress. Mamaroneck Village - Several potential salt marsh restoration sites have been identified by WAC 4 in Mamaroneck Village. The first is at the western end of Harbor Island Park next to the West Basin on Rushmore Avenue. At this site, a band of smooth cordgrass exists in the intertidal zone below the park's lawn. The lawn has been created on filled wetland. Between the smooth cordgrass and the lawn is a band of common reed, which established itself on an embankment created by the fill. Restoration would involve lowering the embankment occupied by the common reed to the same topographic elevation as the smooth cordgrass. The common reed stems as well as the soil containing the reed's roots and rhizomes would be removed from the site. A flatter embankment behind the common reed would be created through regrading. The area occupied by the common reed would be replanted with smooth cordgrass and/or other grasses and rushes, such as salt marsh hay and spike grass. The new embankment would be planted with coastal shrubs and grasses. A fence should be installed to protect the plantings from predation by geese and other waterfowl. A small amount of lawn would be sacrificed to create the new embankment, but the loss would be minimal. The restoration would establish a more diverse plant community better able to protect water quality and provide viable habitat for fish and wildlife. It also would be more aesthetically pleasing because of its diversity and because it would expand views of the harbor from the park (i.e., the tall common reed would be replaced by lower growing shrubs, grasses and rushes. The second potential restoration site is next to Nichols Boat Yard at the Indian Cove residential complex off Rushmore Avenue. A condition similar to that described in the park above exists at 110 Indian Cove. The residences have been constructed on filled wetland. A very narrow band of smooth cordgrass exists in the intertidal zone below the fill. A band of common reed exists on the embankment created by the fill. Restoration would follow the same process as that described above for the site at Harbor Island Park. However, the Indian Cove site is privately owned and opposition from residents is possible. Therefore, before proceeding with any restoration plans, the residents should be educated about the site's restoration potential and the elements and final product of restoration. Restoration would improve the site's appearance, as well as benefit the ecosystem and water quality; all of these benefits should be explained to residents. It is possible that, through education, the residents would fully support a restoration project. In addition to these two potential restoration sites, other smaller sites are available for the reintroduction of smooth cordgrass in the WAC 4 study area. These exist in the intertidal zone throughout coastal Mamaroneck Village. For example, a small population of smooth cordgrass can easily be established on an unvegetated beach of coarse sand and pebbles at the end of Bleeker Avenue. The site is flanked by boat docks and moorings as well as a boat launching ramp. But seawalls partially shelter it from severe waves and the beach substrate is well suited for smooth cordgrass. Cordgrass can easily be established at the same elevation as naturally existing cordgrass in the area. Bioengineering materials would be used to stabilize the cordgrass planting bed and protect the bed from erosive waves until it becomes well established and stabilized. Bioengineering materials would consist of logs and mats made from coir (coir is made from the fibers of coconut husks and bound together with fibrous twine). The logs would be held in place by long stakes and secured by twine. The mats would be anchored by either long "staples" or stakes driven into the ground. The logs would protect the bed from waves. The mats would act as a mulch, keeping the plant plugs in place until their roots systems anchor them firmly into the sandy soil. The plant "plugs" are grown from the seeds of smooth cordgrass or other plants. These young plants consist of a small stem and root system grown in a container. When they are removed from the container, the plants resemble plugs. Smooth cordgrass can be established in other areas along the coast, especially the rocky intertidal areas on the southeast shore of Mamaroneck Village. Small patches already exist in various locations from the Beach Point Club to Orienta Point. Smooth cordgrass colonies can be established in other areas at modest cost. Bioengineering materials and smooth cordgrass plugs can be installed in a number of suitable locations next to privately owned properties (no public lands, other than the areas below mean high tide, exist in this section of the coast). These plantings would be small, but cumulatively they would assist in improving water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in the Sound. Freshwater Wetlands In its assessment of freshwater wetlands, WAC 4 looked especially hard at potential restoration sites where state and/or federal grants can be used for restoration projects. Therefore, special attention was paid to publicly owned lands or lands owned by non-profit organizations, such as land trusts. However, although the WAC 4 study area has lost a substantial amount of tidal and freshwater wetlands to residential, commercial and institutional development, few opportunities for freshwater wetland restoration exist in the study area. 111 Restoring wetlands on privately owned properties may be difficult or impossible to accomplish. Ownership consent for restoration also may be difficult or impossible to obtain, especially if the landowner has contributed to the destruction or degradation. For example, a commercial land use has encroached on the state-designated wetland on Ridgeway Avenue in White Plains (NYS DEC No. G-7). Stopping the encroachment and restoring the site to its previous condition should be part of an enforcement action by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. State and/or federal grant monies for water quality and habitat improvement projects should not be used to restore such a site. Furthermore, it is not practical to expect that wetlands filled or drained to accommodate development will be restored to their pre- development condition. Examples include the wetland being partially filled to accommodate new residential development on Griffin Avenue in Scarsdale, and the wetland that had recently been filled to accommodate tennis courts for the Club Pointe residential complex in White Plains. The best long-term remedy for protecting wetlands from human encroachment is the preservation of existing wetlands (mentioned above under"Regulatory Protection/Preservation"). With no realistic opportunities for wetland restoration on privately owned lands, WAC 4 focused its attention on the restoration of freshwater wetlands on publicly owned lands or lands owned by non-profit organizations. The committee found four suitable sites for restoration: two are on Westchester County-owned lands at Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course and Maple Moor Golf Course; one is at Crossway Field at Harvest Drive in Scarsdale; the fourth is so-called Dickerman's Pond at the junction of Pine Brook Road and Quaker Ridge Road in New Rochelle. Dickerman's Pond (New Rochelle) — This site used to be a man-made pond, but it is now a freshwater marsh encompassing a section of the Sheldrake River in New Rochelle. The pond was created by damming a section of the river, allowing the pond to form behind the dam. A review of aerial photographs showed that the pond was an open body of water surrounded by upland forest, agricultural fields and Pine Brook Boulevard in 1940. Over the next 20 years, the pond was largely filled with sediment except for a channel carved out by the Sheldrake River. A marsh was evident in the 1960s. As more sediment entered the pond, the channel became more pronounced, sediment became deeper, and both invasive and exotic vegetation took over the marsh. Today, the relatively dry marsh is dominated by common reed (Phragmites sp.) and Japanese knotweed and is partially encircled by a steep, forested embankment next to Quaker Ridge Road. The Sheldrake River flows through the marsh. The marsh is currently owned by the Village of Larchmont as part of its holdings for the Larchmont Reservoir (Sheldrake Lake). It is located at the junction of Pine Brook Boulevard and Quaker Ridge Road, less than a quarter mile north (upstream) of Sheldrake Lake. WAC 4 recommends restoring the "pond" to improve water quality in Sheldrake Lake, as well as Long Island Sound. Restoration should include removing the accumulated sediment that has largely filled the pond. When the sediment is being removed, an aquatic "bench" (or "shelf') should be constructed along the pond's perimeter. The bench would be created by backfilling the outside perimeter of the pond with sand and a small amount of the excavated sediment. 112 The bench would be underwater and gently slope from a depth of six inches below the mean water level to a depth of twelve inches. It would be six feet to eight feet wide. The bench would be planted with a variety of aquatic and semi-aquatic species to improve water quality. The bench would be held in place by coir(coconut fiber) "logs" and "blankets." The plants would be planted on coir "pillows." Plant species would include giant burreed, softstem bulrush, arrow arum, soft rush, yellow flag, tussock sedge, sweet flag, rich cutgrass, yellow dock and pond lilly. A sediment basin would be constructed at the pond inlet to trap and store sediment and allow for easier maintenance of the pond. The vegetated buffer around the pond would be enhanced with native vegetation, which also would be used to restore the buffer during sediment removal and bench construction. Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course (Scarsdale) - As noted above, Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course in Scarsdale is riddled with small wetlands that form the headwaters of a tributary to the Mamaroneck River. Collectively, these small wetlands are critically important for water quality. Additionally, they also provide habitat for a variety of animals and plants, especially reptiles and amphibians, which thrive in several vernal pools within the park. Although much of the park is forested and in relatively pristine condition, part of the park is comprised of a golf course. At least two small wetlands on the park's golf course have been degraded by the deposition of fill and debris, such as rocks and concrete, grass clippings and brush. WAC 4 recommends that these wetlands be restored to their previously existing condition. All fill and debris should be removed from the wetlands. The sites should be fine- graded to previously existing elevations and planted with both herbaceous plants and shrubs. An excellent example of a buttonbush swamp is found in the park's forested portion. Therefore, consideration should be given to establishing a buttonbush swamp in one of the degraded wetlands to be restored. This will require inundation for part of the growing season, if inundation is not practicable, the site can be restored as a native scrub-shrub swamp with highbush blueberries, sweet pepperbush, swamp azalea and, if conditions are suitable, winterberry and red-osier dogwood. In any case, the restoration of these small wetlands will not only benefit water quality and plants and animals, it also will improve their appearance to golfers and the general public. Maple Moor Golf Course (White Plains — The Mamaroneck River flows between Maple Moor Golf Course and the Hutchinson River Parkway in White Plains. In this area, a small pond had been created earlier in the century within the river's channel. Over time, the pond fills with sediment and is periodically dredged. As of the date of this report, riparian wetland vegetation is becoming established both within the pond, which is again filling in, and river segments above and below the pond. Much of the vegetative community is made up of purple loosestrife, an invasive weed that is overwhelming many wetlands in the Northeast. This project will involve stabilizing the stream banks with bioengineering materials and native vegetation, removing the purple loosestrife either manually or with herbicide, and planting other native species of plants in the wetlands and along the stream. These species should include yellow and blue iris, various grasses, sedges and rushes; bulrushes; red-osier dogwood; winterberry; and sweet pepperbush. Bayberry, chokeberry and highbush blueberry can be planted at higher elevations along the river. 113 Crossway Field (Scarsdale) - A state-designated wetland (NYS DEC No. MV-1) southwest of Saxon Woods County Park is located at municipally owned Crossway Field, adjacent to Mamaroneck Road and the Hutchinson River Parkway in Scarsdale. The wetland straddles Harvest Drive and the Hutchinson River Parkway. Although this state-designated wetland is relatively large, it is flanked by residential development and athletic fields and fragmented by Harvest Drive (which is built on fill but unpaved and not used as a public thoroughfare) and the Hutchinson River Parkway. The lack of adequate upland buffer around the wetland has adversely impacted the wetland, but its biggest impact comes from Harvest Drive. Harvest Drive's location at the northern (upstream) end of the wetland has altered wetland hydrology immediately upstream and downstream of the road. As a consequence, the wetland has been degraded, particularly upstream from the road. The invasive common reed has gotten a strong foothold in the wetland north of the road. Other invasive and exotic plant species also exist. WAC 4 recommends that the wetland be restored by removing or altering the conditions that degraded it. Specific recommendations cannot be made without in-depth analyses, especially of hydrology. However, it is recommended that consideration be made to removing part of the unused dirt road to improve the hydrologic connection between the northern and southern ends of the wetland. The remainder of the road should be incorporated into a public nature trail through the wetland. The trail can connect to nearby Saxon Woods County Park and trails along the Hutchinson River Parkway. The trail should not, of course, adversely impact the wetland. It should avoid all of the wetland's most sensitive areas and be made from gravel and/or wood chips and, where necessary, consist of a raised boardwalk. Common reed and other invasive or exotic species should be removed mechanically or with herbicide. The site also might need to be regraded and elevations changed to allow for conditions that will support a more diverse wetland plant community. If the site is regraded or excavated, extreme care should be taken to avoid spreading the rhizomes and seeds of the common reed and other unwanted plant species. Once suitable wetland conditions have been established, the site should be re-planted with wetland shrubs and trees, such as red-osier dogwood, spicebush, sweet pepperbush, arrowwood, swamp azalea, elm, red maple, and pin oak. This potential restoration project offers an excellent opportunity to incorporate water quality, habitat and public educational benefits into its design. ENGINEERED SYSTEMS In addition to protecting, preserving and restoring wetlands, as described above, municipal and county officials and others should require and promote the use of so-called vegetative best management practices (BMPs). These practices should be required to treat stormwater runoff associated with a variety of land use activities, such as residential and commercial site development and public infrastructure and other projects, including recreational activities (e.g., golf courses). Vegetative BMPs include a variety of"landscaping" techniques that promote the contact of rainfall and stormwater runoff with upland (non-wetland) and wetland vegetation. Vegetative best management practices reduce nonpoint source pollution by reducing the quantity of stormwater runoff, which is achieved by enhancing infiltration and reducing pollutant concentrations through a combination of filtration, sedimentation and biological uptake (see Section II, "Wetlands," of this report). 114 WAC 4 recommends three major types of vegetative BMPs: vegetated filter strips, grassed swales, and constructed "stormwater" wetlands (wetland "creation"). Vegetated Filter Strips Vegetated filter strips are, as the name implies, vegetated strips of land designed to filter out stormwater pollutants before they reach watercourses, water bodies and wetlands. Filter strips cannot treat high velocity flows. Therefore, WAC 4 recommends that they be used in conjunction with low- to moderate-density residential development and recreational facilities (e.g., golf courses). A "vegetated filter strip" differs from a "natural buffer" in that the strip is not "natural." It is designed and constructed specifically for pollutant removal. However, filter strips might be enhanced natural buffers, whereby the pollutant removal capability of the natural buffer is improved through engineering and maintenance activities, including land grading, installation of additional plants, and/or the installation of a "level spreader" (used to diffuse concentrated flow). A natural buffer, also recommended by WAC 4 (see Stormwater Management Chapter), is formed when a designated portion of a parcel of land is left unaltered from its natural state during and after development. A filter strip is similar in concept to a grassed swale. However, stormwater runoff is intended to spread itself out throughout the strip, resulting in overland sheet flow. A swale, on the other hand, concentrates runoff in a channel creating concentrated flow. Also, a swale is a concave vegetated conveyance system, whereas a filter strip has a fairly level surface. A filter strip should have relatively flat slopes and adequate width (at least 65 feet is recommended to filter out most pollutants, depending on land use(s), topography, vegetative cover, and soils). It should be planted with erosion resistant plants. Filter strips often have been used to pre-treat stormwater runoff before it reaches other best management practices. For example, a strip can be placed in the path of stormwater runoff between a parking lot and constructed wetland. Recommendations for Use - Vegetated filter strips should be used next to wetlands, as well as all ponds, lakes, streams and rivers, in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor. Filter strips will be suitable for all remaining undeveloped tracts of land in the WAC 4 study area, especially those proposed for subdivision and office and retail development. Examples include the headwaters of the Mamaroneck River in Harrison, where expansive residential development is occurring next to watercourses, water bodies and wetlands. They will be suitable for proposals to redevelop previously developed tracts of land, including private golf courses and other recreational facilities, such as boat and beach clubs. Examples include Bonnie Briar Golf Course in Mamaroneck Town and Quaker Ridge Golf Club in Scarsdale, through which the Sheldrake River and tributary flow. They also will be suitable for large corporate and institutional campuses, where much land remains relatively undeveloped. Examples include the Burke Rehabilitation Hospital and New York Hospital facilities in White Plains, where tributaries and wetlands of the Mamaroneck River watershed can be found. Grassed Swales Grassed swales are earthen stormwater runoff conveyance systems whereby the filtering action of grasses and soils are used to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Swales consist of a 115 shallow, grass-covered channel that carries water at the surface (as opposed to buried storm drains whose abilities to protect water quality are negligible). Swales are best suited for low- to moderate-density residential development and golf courses where sediment may be less likely to clog the swale and where maintenance, including periodic mowing, is more likely to be performed. Swales should be constructed on relatively flat slopes and have well-drained soils. Grassed swales also may be used to pre-treat stormwater runoff before it reaches other best management practices, especially infiltration devices. Recommendations for Use - Grassed swales should be used in conjunction with all low- to moderate-density residential development in the WAC 4 study area. Other land uses where it should be used include, but are not limited to, golf courses, religious facilities and corporate offices. Stormwater Wetlands As part of site development and redevelopment or landscaping projects, it is possible to create shallow marshes and forested wetlands specifically designed to filter stormwater runoff. These "stormwater" wetlands are shallow pools that create ideal growing conditions for marsh and other wetland plants. Stormwater wetlands remove pollutants by temporarily storing stormwater in the shallow pools. The plants and associated microbiology act to filter sediments, uptake nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus), and biodegrade carbon-based materials (e.g., hydrocarbons). Stormwater wetlands can be applied to many situations, including residential and commercial developments, recreational activities (e.g., golf courses), "agriculture" (e.g., plant nurseries), and infrastructure and institutions (e.g., highways and schools). Stormwater wetlands, however, are "constructed" ecosystems. They should not be located in naturally existing wetlands. WAC 4 recommends that stormwater wetlands be designed and constructed to the fullest practicable extent to maximize pollutant removal through physical, chemical and biological actions in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor. [Physical mechanisms of pollutant removal include sedimentation, filtration, and volatilization. Chemical mechanisms include precipitation, adsorption to sediments, flocculation, and transformations like reduction. Biological mechanisms include plant and bacterial nutrient uptake.] Stormwater wetlands differ from artificial wetlands that have been created to comply with mitigation requirements. For example, stormwater wetlands do not try to replicate all the ecological functions of natural wetlands. Instead, the primary objective of stormwater wetlands is to improve water quality. However, stormwater wetlands might be innovatively designed to allow for a wide diversity of plant species and improved wildlife habitat. Pollutant Removal Rates - Stormwater wetlands vary in how much pollution they remove, but all can effectively remove a number of pollutants. Among the most important removal processes are the purely physical processes of sedimentation, which is caused by reduced stormwater flow velocities and filtration by hydrophytic vegetation. These processes account for high removal rates of suspended solids, the particulate fraction of organic matter(particulate biological oxygen demand or BOD), and sediment-attached nutrients and metals. Oils and grease are effectively removed through impoundment, photodegradation, and microbial action. Similarly, pathogens 116 show good removal rates in constructed wetlands by sedimentation and filtration, natural die-off, and degradation in sunlight. Dissolved materials, such as soluble organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus, tend to have lower removal rates in stormwater wetlands. Soluble organic matter is largely degraded by bacteria in the water column, algae and bacteria attached to plants, and microbes at the sediment surface. Ammonia (a form of nitrogen) is removed largely through microbial nitrification (aerobic) and denitrification (anaerobic), plant uptake, and volatilization. Nitrate is removed largely through denitrification and plant uptake. In both cases, denitrification is typically the primary removal mechanism. The microbial degradation processes are relatively slow, particularly for the anaerobic steps, and require longer residence times. This contributes to the more variable performance of constructed wetlands systems for these dissolved constituents. Phosphorus is removed mainly through soil adsorption, which is slow and varies based on soil composition, as well as through plant assimilation and subsequent burial in the leaf and stem litter. Consequently, phosphorus removal rates are variable and typically trail behind those of nitrogen. Metals are removed largely through adsorption. Removal rates for metals are variable, but are consistently high for lead, which is often associated with sediment particles. Advantages - Properly constructed and maintained stormwater wetlands can remove large amounts of pollutants from stormwater. These wetlands can improve water quality and reduce stormwater runoff peak discharges. Stormwater wetlands also can serve a dual role by both controlling stormwater pollution and providing a pleasing natural area. These wetlands may be much valued by residents. Therefore they could be given high visibility and serve as attractive centerpieces to developments and recreational areas. Studies also show that they typically increase property values. Stormwater wetlands recharge ground water, thus lessening the impact of impervious surfaces. This recharge also can provide a groundwater supply to surface water bodies, benefiting local vegetation and decreasing irrigation needs. Disadvantages - Stormwater wetlands may contribute to thermal pollution and cause downstream warming. This may preclude their use in areas where sensitive aquatic species live (e.g., stormwater wetlands will not be suitable next to portions of the Mamaroneck River having a NYS DEC classification of C(t) — able to support cold water fisheries). They also are not a competitive option when compared to other treatment methods where space is a major constraint. Maintenance - Stormwater wetlands will grow and mature, becoming a more stabile ecosystem with each passing month. While they are establishing themselves, however, they require regular inspection to monitor hydrologic conditions and vegetative establishment. Vegetation establishment monitoring and long-term operation and maintenance, including maintenance of structures, monitoring of vegetation, and periodic removal of accumulated sediments, must be provided to ensure continued function. Frequent initial maintenance to remove opportunistic species is typically required if a particularly diverse wetland regime is desired. Managers of stormwater wetlands may need to control nuisance insects, odors, and algae, although such control should be minimal if the wetland has been properly designed and constructed. 117 Recommendations for Use - The developed nature of the WAC 4 study area precludes the widespread use of stormwater wetlands, except as stormwater management basins. WAC 4 recommends, therefore, that municipalities study the possibility of transforming detention and extended detention stormwater management basins into stormwater wetlands (see Stormwater Management Chapter). This transformation can be achieved by a variety of mechanisms, including altering the outlet structure(s) to retain more water in the basin, excavating the basin floor to lower its elevation and bring the water table closer to the surface, and planting wetland vegetation once the proper hydrology has been achieved. The conversion of detention and extended basins to stormwater wetlands can be performed in conjunction with proposals to redevelop properties or expand existing site development. It also can be performed on publicly owned lands using state and federal grant monies. In short, wherever stormwater management needs to be addressed as part of site development and redevelopment proposals, WAC 4 recommends that priority be given to the conversion of existing stormwater management basins to stormwater wetlands. WAC 4 also recommends that municipalities require the construction of new stormwater wetlands as part of new or expanded site development and redevelopment for all land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and recreational). In addition, stormwater wetlands should be required in association with capital projects on municipally and county- owned lands. Any of these requirements obviously should apply only to those parcels where land is available or can be made available. If land does not appear to be readily available, consideration should be made to scale down proposed development or redevelopment to accommodate stormwater wetlands. The pollutant removal capabilities of stormwater wetlands have been proven by numerous studies. Therefore, WAC 4 strongly recommends that they be used much more extensively throughout the Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County and, especially, in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor. 118 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater management basins have been widely used to temporarily store stormwater runoff in the WAC 4 study area. Most of the area's existing basins have not been designed or constructed to improve water quality, however. Instead, they have been designed for water quantity, or flood control, purposes. If they do perform water quality improvement functions, it is by accident or as an afterthought. More needs to be done, therefore, to comprehensively address stormwater management from both water quantity and quality perspectives. Long-term flood control and water quality improvement can both be achieved with stormwater management basins, but careful planning and design must be exercised beforehand. Some of the planning that should go into designing stormwater management basins is the development of a comprehensive watershed management plan (e.g., the plan prepared by WAC 4). The plan's goals can be achieved by a comprehensive approach to erosion and sediment control, natural resources preservation, land use regulation, public education, and stormwater "best management practices," or BMPs. These BMPs can include non-structural, or vegetative, and structural practices. Watershed management plans need to identify existing natural and man-made resources (e.g., wetlands and stormwater management basins) and make recommendations for protecting and, where needed, restoring existing ecosystems, including naturally vegetated buffers next to streams, wetlands and water bodies. Buffers are nonstructural water filters, siphoning off many of the pollutants in urban stormwater runoff that could, if unchecked, reach water bodies like Long Island Sound. Unfortunately, many ecosystems have been dramatically altered in developed areas, including the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor. Therefore, there is reliance in the WAC 4 study area on man-made stormwater management structures. Unfortunately, too many of these structures do not achieve their intended goals and objectives. Many of them should be rehabilitated or reconstructed to meet these goals and objectives. It is the purpose of this chapter to identify those structures that need to be rehabilitated or reconstructed and offer recommendations for making these changes. Retrofitting stormwater management basins to upgrade their water quality improvement and flood control functions is usually straightforward. Modifications to enhance a basin's water quality protection function might include simple alterations to the outlet structure and/or low- flow channel through the basin. They also might include more substantial changes like enlarging the structure, dredging the basin to increase capacity and detention time, constructing a sediment basin immediately upstream from the basin, and/or establishing aquatic benches or shelves planted with wetland vegetation. The cost of rehabilitating or reconstructing a basin should not be a deterrent to improving water quality in developed areas. But, unfortunately, it occasionally is a factor in how well basins are maintained. Therefore, communities should identify the most problematic pollutants and select the most cost-efficient and effective solutions to deal with them. They should commit to their decisions and either maintain the basins themselves or assign another entity, such as a developer or neighborhood association, with the responsibility of 120 maintenance. Communities also should consider the least costly solution, which is to maintain an appropriately sized, naturally vegetated buffer alongside streams, wetlands and water bodies. Most of the basins that were assessed in the WAC 4 study area are on private lands, primarily residential subdivisions. Only a small percentage of these basins are on municipally owned lands. Municipally owned basins are often good candidates for retrofit due to the willingness of many municipalities to keep the basins in good working order. However, the ability of municipal agencies to retrofit, or even maintain, the basins is limited by funding and staff availability. Basin maintenance on privately owned lands is usually dependent on maintenance requirements imposed by governmental agencies. Responsibility for these basins falls on entities such as a neighborhood association or landowner(s). Maintenance responsibilities and enforcement should be specified as part of the approval process for subdivisions, site plans or other municipal development. The state Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and Environmental Protection Fund and grants through the federal Clean Water Act, Section 319, provide funding opportunities to aid municipalities in implementing stormwater basin retrofit projects for water quality. Projects that implement water quality improvements to stormwater management basins are eligible for funding, but planning proposals are often not eligible. Although matching funds are required, these are easily accounted for by "in-kind services" performed by the municipality. And making sure staff is available to write grant applications can be partly achieved by preparing for the applications well before the request for proposals (RFP) are issued. Forty-nine stormwater management basins were identified in the WAC 4 study area. Of these, 10 are in Harrison, 23 in White Plains, five in Scarsdale, five in New Rochelle and six in Mamaroneck Town and Village. The WAC 4 study area contains 24 retention basins (wet ponds) and 25 detention basins (dry ponds). The relatively high number of existing stormwater management basins demonstrates the reliance on structural methods for stormwater control in the WAC 4 study area. URBAN BEST MANA GEMENT PRA CTICES Best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint source pollution control on a specific site should be selected as part of an erosion and sediment control plan during the site development process, with long-term runoff management as part of the objective. Selecting the proper BMP system is critical in achieving the ultimate goal: reducing the volume of pollutants in urban runoff. In selecting the most appropriate BMPs for a specific site, consider the following: • the site's physical condition and development status, • runoff control benefits provided by each BMP; • the pollutant removal capability of each option under several design scenarios; • the environmental and human advantages of each BMP; and • the long-term maintenance cost of the BMP. 121 Urban BMPs are generally grouped into four categories. These categories are based on the mechanism used to reduce the amount of runoff pollutants. They include stormwater basins, infiltration, vegetation, and pollution prevention (source controls). Stornm,ater Management Basins - Stormwater management basins are popular methods of reducing suspended solids by temporarily holding runoff and allowing sediment to settle. Basins also serve an additional function by helping to lessen the impacts of flooding and stream bank erosion by delaying the amount of water released into receiving water bodies. This reduces the stress on the physical habitat. With proven success in controlling runoff, properly designed, constructed and maintained basins can reduce suspended solid concentrations by 50 to 95 percent (depending on the type of basin) and nutrients and other pollutants by equally substantial amounts. Basins can be incorporated into site plans for new development, and will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Underground basins, under names such as Stormceptor and Vortechnics, also have been shown to be effective at removing sediment and nonpoint source pollutants. However, the ability of these underground chambers to filter our pollutants is heavily dependent on regular and frequent maintenance. Without this, the basins may be nonfunctional. Finding suitable land for a basin is often difficult and constructing basins in developed areas may not be possible. One solution may be to convert detention basins previously installed to control the rate and volume of flow into extended detention or retention basins. Existing detention basins can often be economically retrofitted for longer detention time. Typical removal rates for pollutants after detention times of 48 hours or more are: • sediment - 90 to 95 percent • total phosphorus - 45 to 50 percent • nitrogen - 3 5 to 40 percent • organic matter- 45 to 50 percent • lead - 90 to 95 percent (Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1987). There is a still a moderate reduction in pollutant removal effectiveness for detention times of less than 24 hours. After 12 hours detention time, sediment removal rates are 60 to 65 percent, nitrogen removal rates are 20 to 25 percent, and lead removal rates are 70 to 75 percent. Because of their sediment trapping abilities, routine maintenance is required for basins. Solids should be removed regularly and, for underground chambers, frequently. Excessive amounts of accumulated solids from poorly maintained basins might be costly to remove, making regular maintenance more attractive from a financial standpoint. Stormwater management basins are generally of three types: • Detention Basins— Designed to hold water for 24 hours or less, detention basins are used for flood and erosion control. They remain dry and available to catch water following large storms. While intended to control water quantity, they can be retrofitted to improve water quality. 122 • Extended Detention Basins - These basins catch stormwater and retain it for 24 to 48 hours, remaining dry at other times. They remove pollutants by trapping sediment particles and allowing them to settle, along with nutrients and pollutants that have adsorbed to the particles. Vegetation in the basin helps to remove additional nutrients and pollutants. • Retention Basins - Designed to permanently hold water, retention basins, or wet ponds, can be highly efficient at removing sediment and nutrients through biological activity, such as algal growth. This allows for dissolved nutrients, in addition to those adsorbed to sediment particles, to be removed from the water column. Vegetation in the basin helps to remove additional nutrients and pollutants. Infillratior7 Devices - Infiltration devices allow runoff to percolate into the ground, reducing the amount of pollutants released through stormwater runoff into surface waters. Nutrients and pollutants (particularly suspended solids, bacteria, heavy metals, and phosphorus) are trapped in the upper soil layer through filtration and adsorption, which is expected to keep them from reaching ground water. Infiltration devices have the potential to remove many of the pollutants found in stormwater runoff, but a lot depends on the percolation rate, soil type, pollutants present, and available storage capacity. Success also depends on the volume and rate of rainfall. Infiltration devices also can provide a great benefit in developed areas by effectively reducing the volume of runoff. Site limitations for infiltration basins include: • poor site conditions (e.g., low porosity soils) • a high water table • bedrock These characteristics can lessen the effectiveness or cause failure of infiltration devices. Infiltration devices must be carefully installed to prevent soil compaction from heavy machinery. They also may require such pretreatment components as grass filter strips to remove coarse sediment before it enters the infiltration device. The operation and maintenance of infiltration devices also are critical. Many infiltration best management practices have failed from lack of maintenance. Devices must be designed for ease of access, maintenance, and operation. Infiltration devices fall into the following categories: • Infiltration Basins - An infiltration basin is a natural or excavated open depression. It temporarily stores runoff until the water percolates through the bottom or sides. Excess runoff can overflow through elevated outlets to maximize the storage volume. Because runoff usually percolates in a day or two, these basins can be dry much of the time. • Infiltration Trenches and Dry Wells - Similar in design, infiltration trenches and dry wells are excavated holes filled with coarse stones and then covered. Dry wells are used primarily for roof drainage. Trenches are used on larger areas, such as streets and commercial parking lots. In both designs, runoff infiltrates into the surrounding soil or is collected by perforated underground drain pipes and routed to an outflow. Infiltration trenches preserve the natural hydrology of an area and can fit on small sites. However, they require considerable maintenance and can contaminate groundwater in some conditions. 123 tf 1 T jr AV r"ttrEti4,y T1,691 hood � ,•, �r'"t7 ,i. .4��}E: .q , #'t'ts31,1!IPtt1r tlE, yrs,L .. Stdar,,ent l pp i�keib '}f ..°' A5 MAMI Retention (Wet Pond) Design. This is a common design for a retention basin. Notice the sediment forebay with aquatic vegetation at the inlet. (Source: MWCG, 1987). 124 or T-,p view `-^ Lowt►Stage �� C 14P Slag C a;'+ Wob , tow rti;c hatme i t L Hood t itte d Spillway Vie* 10 YO Wili't Surl&c r Lievillon Yet Ipr.1p, �#i�1lt a• r } ' Coital y e Extended Detention Design. The standard extended detention control device typically consists of a stand pipe with perforations designed to detain runoff for an extended period of time, such as 24 hours or more. (Source: MWCG, 1987). 125 Top View r. _- F owl t-:i: � rep sls�ja itiGrms+te ✓� 1 KsNE+�vi °• J ! @ti!tst trw �,s 6 �6{arSh + G.�tA+tl 1. � GE`L►fiYIIN4.p40:tCG+4 D6'Ewts>ravJ�l vz I is IC l Stat!w1 l�npr�rsN)#;!r 1 � r JIU C t�ezx�sc+5wincr£�c•n+tom ,.� tt `� 5 To3ptt4 BNIElwY 2.wv.reillCr Sts�4�i C�+gee �r�•'� 9Wio►auys+�.rrtlto ".--r�..�;r_,.._..., ..��_ ,,.�,.N 1 ermwsw L'-.4Iad rGreRltda:«t SAaIE9rr uvth �t Gas�2ischcs ti{��ta#gw '-3t Is+ Ntt h*li"t'!Si".RBVAOrDt t Extended Detention Basin with Shallow Marsh. The shallow marsh feature will enhance the nutrient removal capability of this extended detention basin. However, when displaced by urban runoff during summer months, the warm marsh water may be problematic if the receiving water body or watercourse supports a cold water fishery. (Source: MWCG, 1987). 126 PUBLICATIONS FOR SITING AND SIZING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES* An rican Society of Cir€► Engineers, to rm r_Q terRlan Outict Strtrct rA (New YQri., 198.5). Bruce K Ferguson, and Thornos N. Debro, n ile St4r weater M;4 rk4jErnpnt Aroication fair in Fnainegiring Seocwid Edition. plan Nostrand Reinhold, (New Yard, NY. 1990). New York State Department of Etnrironmental Conservatlon, 'Guidailnes for Design of Dams' (Albany, January, 1 ). L.A. oss-ner, B. Urbon s, and M, S. Sonnen, ( eSign of Urban Ru .irff Quality Controls. Proceedings, American Society of CNII Engineers (New Yori4, July, 1986). J,R. Shaeffer, et a(., Urban Slfwr g4lirV2e MA-n=, �rngnt, Marcto Decker, Inc., (New York, 1 2) P. Stahre, and B. Urbonas, Stprmwrater Det ntspL) fir Drain��g water Qt►a_! s3 � M&rgkg�rn,i?nt, Prentice Hall (Englewood Gds, New Jarsey, 19W). M.!Terstriep,and J.B. Stab. 'The Illinois Urban Drainage,+area Sirnuiator(liludas)*, 131h ols SW* Water Survey. Bulletin #%, (Springfi+rAd, 1974). U.S. Department of Agncuiture, Soil Conservaiion Service- 'Engineering Field Manual*, lata edition as appiic:abie 'Ponds - Planning, Design, ConstruclloW - Agricutzurai Handbook No. 59C- 1982, - 'Soil Conservation Service Standards and Specifications for Ponds'. Spocifications N4. 378. July 1981. 'Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds', Technical Release No. 55. Second Edition, June 1.986. 'Projec Formulation-HydrolW. Technical Release No 20Secow Edition (Draft), May, 1983. 'A Method for Estirroting Volume and Rate of Runoff in Srr►slt Water�,t7ods`, Technical Rciease No, 149 (Re sod). April, 1373. U,S. Depanment cif Army, Cors of Engineers: Vahow 'HEC' Programs. his list is not ali hdusNe. 127 • Porous Pavement - Most practical for parking lots and low volume roads and driveways, porous pavement increases infiltration of water into the soil, maintaining the water balance at nearly the same level as before the land was paved. Runoff rapidly permeates the pores of several layers of different permeable materials and filters the pollutants into the underlying subsoil or perforated drain pipes. The rate of pollutant removal depends on the amount of runoff and underlying soil type. A study by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments found that porous pavement removes as much or more pollutants (i.e. phosphorus, nitrogen, bacteria, lead, and zinc) as retention basins. Porous pavement also can moderate runoff rate and volume so that drainage patterns remain normal, improving erosion control and enhancing water quality. However, the success of porous pavement is dependent on proper design and maintenance. Porous pavement will eventually clog and should be regularly vacuumed. Certain types do perform better in milder climates than that of Westchester County, so the selection of the type of pavement also is important. Porous asphalt works best in the southern states where road sand is not as much of a threat to the pavement's pores. In the Northeast, permeable paving blocks work best (e.g., these have been installed in several locations in Westchester County, including Club Pointe on North Avenue in White Plains). • Oil/Grit Separators - Also known as water quality inlets and marketed under names such as Stormceptor and Vortechnics, oil/grit separators are designed to remove sediment and hydrocarbons from runoff before it is released to the storm drain network or infiltration system. Runoff passes through long, rectangular concrete chambers - modified to remove sediment, grit, and oil - before exiting through a storm drain pipe. Oil/Grit Separators have a limited ability to remove pollutants because of their short detention times and the possibility that pollutants removed during one storm could re- enter runoff from later storms. They can, however, remove coarse-grained sediments from urban runoff and treat runoff before it enters underground filtration systems. They are unobtrusive, compatible with storm drain networks, and easily accessed for maintenance. The functional benefit of oil/grit separators is dependent on faithful regular maintenance. • Sand Filters - The City of Austin, Texas first pioneered the use of sand filters to treat urban stormwater runoff in the early 1980's. The earliest designs consisted of a simple off- line sedimentation chamber and a bed of sand. The first flush of runoff is diverted into the first sedimentation chamber. In this chamber, coarse sediments drop out and the runoff velocities are reduced. Runoff is then spread over the sand filter bed where pollutants are trapped or strained out. A series of perforated pipes in a gravel bed collect the runoff passing through the filter bed and subsequently return it into the stream or channel. This type of sand filter was developed in Austin because no other urban best management practice works well in the Texas hill country. High rates of evapotranspiration and frequent droughts ruled out the use of ponds and marshes. Thin clay soils and a desire to protect groundwater quality eliminated the use of infiltration practices. Low soil moisture during the hot and dry summers made it difficult to establish dense and vigorous cover needed for vegetative practices. Stormwater designers were thus forced to create a closed 128 and self-contained practice with an artificial filtration media. Hence, the sand filter was developed. Sand filters have many advantages. They have a moderate to high pollutant removal capability, possess very few environmental limitations, require small amounts of land, and can be applied to most development sites, large or small. Compared to most other urban best management practices, they have fewer limitations and constraints. These qualities have made the sand filter an attractive alternative stormwater practice for many communities across the country. Design l ariations of the Sand Filter - Each sand filter design uses a slightly different profile within the filter bed. The required surface area of the filter is usually a direct function of the impervious acreage treated, and varies regionally due to rainfall patterns and local criteria for the volume needed for water quality treatment. In addition, designs often differ with respect to the type and volume of pretreatment afforded. The most common form of pretreatment is a wet or dry sedimentation chamber. Gravel or geotextile screens are sometimes used as a secondary form of protection. The relative volume dedicated to pretreatment versus filtration tends to vary considerably from one area to the next. Nearly all sand filters are constructed off-line. Runoff volumes in excess of the water quality treatment volume must be bypassed to a downstream quantity control structure. Feasibility of Sand Filters - Some kind of sand filter can be applied to almost any development site. The primary physical requirement is a minimum of 2 or 3 feet of head differential existing between the inlet and outlet of the filter bed. This is needed to provide gravity flow through the bed. Otherwise, use of sand filters is only limited by their cost and local maintenance capability. Sand filters are particularly suitable for smaller development sites where other stormwater practices are often not practical. These include the following: • infill developments, • ultra-urban downtown areas ; • gas stations and fast food establishments; • commercial and institutional parking lots; • small shopping centers; • townhouse and multifamily developments; and • confined industrial areas Care should be exercised in approving sand filters for individual lots and residential developments, as most homeowners lack the incentives or resources to regularly perform needed sand replacement operations. The State of Florida is considering limitations on the use of sand filters in residential areas, given the generally poor maintenance record of homeowner associations. 129 Pollutant Removal Performance of Sand Filters - Initial monitoring results suggest that sand filters are very effective in removing particulate pollutants such as total suspended solids, lead, zinc, organic carbon, and organic nitrogen. Removal rates in excess of 75 percent were frequently observed for each of these parameters. Removal rates for coliform bacteria, ammonia, orthophosphorus, and copper were moderate and quite variable. Results ranged from 20 percent to 75 percent in four sand filters tested in Austin. Negative removal rates were frequently reported for total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate-nitrogen. The negative TDS rate may be due to the preferential leaching of cations from organic matter trapped on the surface of sand filter. Similarly, the nitrate export observed in three of the four sand filters may indicate that nitrification is taking place in the filter bed. In the nitrification process, microbial bacteria converts ammonia-nitrogen into the nitrate form of nitrogen. The apparent loss of ammonia through the filter bed, coupled with the production of excess nitrate, strongly suggests that nitrification is taking place. The pollutant removal behavior of stormwater sand filters is quite comparable to that reported for sand filters used in wastewater treatment. There are some differences between the two systems, however. Wastewater sand filters typically contain finer sand, are cleaned more frequently, and subject to more uniform and controlled flow than their stormwater counterparts. Consequently, wastewater filters exhibit slightly higher removal rates for sediment, phosphorus, and organic carbon (often in excess of 90 percent), but seldom can achieve more than 20 percent removal of nitrate (again, due to nitrification). The one exception where wastewater filter consistently outperformed stormwater filters was bacteria removal. Wastewater filters frequently reduced bacteria levels by 90 percent, compared to a 25 percent to 65 percent removal for stormwater sand filters. Regular maintenance is an essential component of the operation of a sand filter. At least once a year, each filter should be inspected after a storm to assess the filtration capacity of the filter bed. Most filters exhibit diminished capacity after a few years due to surface clogging by organic matter, fine silts, hydrocarbons, and algal matter. Maintenance operations to restore the filtration capacity are relatively simple—manual removal of the top few inches of discolored sand followed by replacement with fresh sand. The contaminated sand is then dewatered and land-filled. The key point is that the operation of the sand filter requires the relatively frequent replacement of the surface sand layer. If periodic sand replacement is not conducted, the filter will not be effective. Chronic clogging problems in sand filters have been reported due to lack of maintenance and deposition of sediment from off-site locations. • Surface Screen. Underground sand filters in heavily urbanized areas tend to receive large quantities of trash, litter, and organic detritus. To combat this problem, the District of Columbia specifies the use of a wide mesh geotextile screen on the surface of the filter bed to trap these materials. During maintenance operations, the screen is rolled up, removed or cleaned, and reinstalled. • Careful Selection of Sod. Some sand filters that are constructed with a grass cover crop have lost significant filtration capability soon after construction. The clogging is often 130 traced to sod that has an unusually high fraction of fine silts and clays. In other situations, grass roots grow into the sand layer and improve the filtration rate. • Limiting Use of Filter Fabric to Separate Layers. The loss of filtration capacity often occurs where filter fabric is used to separate different layers of media within the filter bed, such as in "sandwich" filters. As a general rule, the less use of filter fabric to separate layers, the better. In some situations, layers of different media can be separated by a thin lens of pea gravel. • Providing Easier Access. During sand replacement operations, heavy and often wet sand must be manually removed from the filter bed. It is surprising that so few designs help a maintenance worker conveniently perform this operation. It is not uncommon that sand must be lifted six feet or more to get it out of the filter bed. Typically, however, no ramps, manhole steps or ringbolts are provided to ease the operation. Engineers also should keep in mind the ergonomics of maintenance when designing access to the sand filter. In some cases, heavy grates or large diameter manhole covers are specified that cannot be opened without using a portable winch. • Pretreatment. The frequency of sand replacement also can be reduced by devoting a greater volume to runoff pretreatment in the sedimentation chamber. Several designs provide up to 50 percent of the total runoff treatment volume in the sedimentation chamber. • risibility and Simplicity. When tinkering with new sand filter designs, two key principles should be kept in mind. First, the filter should be visible, i.e., that it be easily recognized as a BMP (so that the owner(s) realize what it is) and can be quickly located (so that it can be routinely inspected). This often requires the designer to consider the appearance and aesthetics of the final product so that it does not come to resemble a concrete sandbox. The second principle is that the design should be kept as simple as possible. Experience has shown that overly complex designs create greater operation and maintenance costs. • Imperviousness. Limit sand filters only to sites that are entirely impervious. Regional Design Considerations - Communities that are considering sand filters in their arsenal of watershed protection techniques should keep in mind several regional design issues: • Sand filters have yet to be widely applied in colder northern climates. Clearly, an extended cold snap could freeze the sedimentation chamber and perhaps even the surface of the filter bed (particularly for designs with relatively shallow chambers). I f this happens, the filter may be temporarily rendered partially or entirely ineffective. It is therefore quite prudent to design a bypass that will route excess runoff directly into the storm drain system or stream channel under these conditions. A few designs, such as the peat sand filter, are not designed to operate in the winter months. • The delta-T of sand filters has yet to be measured to determine if they contribute to warming of sensitive cool or cold-water streams. On one hand, sand filters might cool incoming runoff since it must pass through the sand and gravel layers of the filter bed. On the other hand, cooling may be more than offset by warming in the sedimentation pool or from concrete surfaces. • Sand filters need not always be lined by concrete to work effectively. In regions where groundwater quality is not a critical concern (e.g., communities that allow or encourage the infiltration of stormwater), the bottom and sides of the filter bed can be 131 contained by geotextile or even soil liners. The filter bed is excavated, permeable filter fabric is used to line the bottom and sides of the structure, and then sand is added. Vegetative Controls- Vegetative BMPs can improve water quality by: • decreasing the velocity of stormwater runoff • promoting infiltration and settling of suspended solids • preventing erosion • removing organic material, nutrients, and trace metals. Vegetative controls enhance the attractiveness and value of sites and are less costly than other control practices, but they should not be a site's only control practice. The ultimate performance of vegetative controls depends on the site's physical features. The effectiveness of plant material also varies according to season. Plant material must be selected carefully and regularly maintained. Using vegetative controls to pre-treat runoff improves the operation and maintenance of other BMPs. Several types of vegetative controls include: • Stormwater Management Basin Landscaping - Landscaping can improve a stormwater basin's effectiveness at removing pollutants. Landscaping around a basin may reduce the amount of impervious surface, provide an attractive buffer along stream banks, and protect and enhance the use of existing wetlands. Proper landscaping can route stormwater runoff through vegetation and away from steep slopes and other erosion-prone areas. An aquatic bench is a shelf along the perimeter of a pond. It is usually three inches to 18 inches deep and about 10 feet wide. Establishing an aquatic bench is good for water quality for several reasons. It allows marsh habitat to develop. A marsh, in turn, helps filter out nutrients and other pollutants and enhances fish and wildlife habitat. While most emergent plants withdraw nutrients from the sediments rather than the water column, associated algae, which is attached to the plants or shallow sediments, is capable of removing soluble nutrients. Shallow, organic-rich waters in the marsh fringe provide an ideal environment for bacteria and other microorganisms that reduce organic matter and nutrients. The marsh fringe also provides a habitat for predacious insects that serve as a natural population control for mosquitoes and other nuisance insects. From an aesthetic standpoint, the fringe of aquatic vegetation conceals trash and floatable debris, and disguises and stabilizes the pond shoreline, which is sometimes barren due to fluctuating water levels. Types of plants that can be used on a bench include: duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia), common three square (Scirpus pungens), softstem bulrush (Scirpus vandus), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), button bush (Cephalanthus ocidentalis), rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), rice cutgrass (Leerisa oryzoides), spatterdock (Nuphar luteum), arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica), pickerel weed (Pondederia cordata), and lizards tail (Saururus cemuus). 132 The fringe immediately above the aquatic bench may be planted with tall fescue (Festuca elation), river birch (Betula nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), arrowwood (T"iburnum sp.), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and possumhaw (Ilex decidua). Basin landscaping can incorporate more innovative techniques, such as the use of "bioengineering" techniques and materials (e.g., coconut (coir) fiber logs and mats) to establish an aquatic bench or "floating biofilter" (i.e., coir logs bound together by nylon rope, connected to highly buoyant foam, surrounded by waterfowl exclusion wire, and planted with wetland vegetation). A "floating biofilter" is designed to promote nutrient (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) filtration. It is usually placed at the inlet or outlet of a water body. It incorporates coir logs that float on the water's surface and provides a medium for planting aquatic vegetation. • Grassed Swales - Grassed swales are depressions, including stabilized gullies and drainageways, that allow stormwater runoff to infiltrate into the soil and/or transport runoff to a receiving point, such as a stormwater management basin. They are often used for residential development and on highway medians as an alternative to curb and gutter drainage systems. Swales control peak discharges by reducing runoff velocity. A swale allows some runoff to infiltrate the soil, thus diminishing the volume of water passing downstream. Swales are easy to construct, attractive, and provide habitat for wildlife. However, effectiveness varies considerably from site to site. Swales, if not properly designed and maintained, may promote mosquitoes, ragweed, dumping, and erosion. • Filter Strips - While similar to grass swales, filter strips are shallower and distribute runoff across a wider area. The may be comprised of grasses as well as shrubs and trees to increase their to absorb and retain nutrients. Their efficiency depends on strip length, slope and size; soil porosity; normal runoff velocity; and vegetation type. • Riparian Reforestation - Trees planted along streams and ponds can provide shade, absorb flood waters, reduce water temperature, and stabilize the soil, thereby decreasing the release of sediment from stream banks into streams and providing a benefit to many forms of aquatic life. Pollution Prevention — If they do not already have them, local governments should establish ongoing programs to reduce the amount of pollutants entering watercourses, water bodies and wetlands. These source-reducing programs are usually called "pollution prevention programs." These programs can have aesthetic and economic benefits, in addition to environmental benefits, as well as generate a sense of community. Pollution Prevention Controls — These are a type of nonstructural control, and include land use planning and zoning strategies, as well as public education efforts. Activities such as storm drain stenciling, recycling, and household hazardous waste collection all offer high value for the initial investment. Limiting the amount of impervious surface for various land uses can have tremendous impact on the region's water quality. Another example of a source control includes incentives for use public transportation. 1;3 In many cases, pollution prevention is more cost effective than structural BMPs in reducing pollutant loading. However, a combination of source reduction efforts and structural BMPs is generally needed to fully control the effects of urbanization. Source reduction practices require a combination of education, regulation, and guidance to be effective (for more discussion on issues related to citizen involvement and education, see the Outreach and Education Chapter). Listed below are common pollution prevention controls communities can consider: • collect and recycle crankcase oil; • establish a program for seasonally cleaning out and maintaining catch basins; • redesign road salting programs to minimize the salt quantity and, where feasible, use an alternative deicer; • educate the public about the hazards of fertilizers and pesticides used in commercial lawn care and grounds maintenance operations and the alternative organic treatments; • start remedial erosion control programs, • educate the public on how to reduce litter and properly dispose of pet wastes and household pollutants; • remove illegal and improper residential, industrial and commercial connections to storm drains that discharge directly into receiving waters without prior treatment; and • plug or seal abandoned wells and cisterns that are conduits for nonpoint source groundwater pollution. Other administrative strategies for protecting health and the environment may include hazardous waste restrictions or contingency plans and source prohibitions (i.e. barring storage or use of dangerous materials in a defined area). Many jurisdictions, including the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities, also offer hazardous waste disposal days, which provide residents with the opportunity to properly dispose of hazardous waste. Many commercial and industrial uses generate hazardous wastes that can, without careful mitigation, threaten water quality. These include dry cleaners, auto service stations, industrial plants, trucking and railroad facilities, and airports. Other activities - such as agriculture, junkyards, machine shops, landfills, and septic systems - also generate hazardous materials. These uses should be strictly limited or prohibited in sensitive areas, and mitigation criteria should be exhaustive. MAINTENANCE Routine Maintenance • Mowing - The upper stage, side-slopes, embankment and emergency spillway of basins should be mowed once or twice a year to discourage excessive woody growth. Soggy conditions can make mowing costly and difficult within the pond unless a two-stage design is used. The use of native or introduced grasses, which are water-tolerant, hardy and slow-growing are recommended, such as tall fescue, crown vetch, and switchgrass. • Inspections - Basins should be inspected on an annual basis to ensure that the structure operates as originally intended. Inspections can be performed by municipal personnel or contractors/consultants hired by neighborhood associations or other entities, depending 134 on ownership and other conditions. For example, a consultant hired by a landowner can inspect an extended detention basin at an office complex. The consultant can then submit his/her reports to municipal engineering, building or public works departments, as appropriate. When possible, inspections should be conducted during wet weather to determine if the pond is meeting the targeted detention times. In particular, the control device should be regularly inspected for evidence of clogging, or conversely, for too rapid a release. Outlets should be checked for erosion problems. Other problems which should be checked. These include: subsidence, erosion, cracking or tree growth on the embankment; the condition of the emergency spillway; the accumulation of sediment around the rise; the adequacy of upstream/downstream channel erosion control measures, erosion on the basin's bed and banks; and modifications to the basin or its contributing watershed that may influence basin performance. • Debris and Litter Removal - Debris and litter may accumulate near the control device and should be removed during periodic mowing operations. Particular attention should be paid to floatable debris that can eventually clog the control device or riser. • Erosion Control - The basin side slopes, emergency spillway and embankment all may periodically suffer from slumping and erosion, although this should not occur often if the soils are properly compacted during construction. Regrading and re-planting may be required to correct any problems. • Nuisance Control - Standing water or soggy conditions within the lower stage of extended detention basins can create nuisance conditions for nearby residents. Odors, mosquitoes, weeds and litter are all occasionally perceived as problems in stormwater management basins. Most of these problems are generally a sign that regular inspections and maintenance need to be better performed (e.g., mowing, debris removal, clearing the extended detention control device). Non-Routine Maintenance • Structural Repairs and Replacement - Eventually, the various inlet/outlet and riser mechanisms in a basin will deteriorate and must be replaced. Some local public works experts have estimated that corrugated metal pipe (CMP) has a useful life of about 25 years, whereas reinforced concrete barrels and risers may last from 50 to 75 years. Very few, if any, stormwater management basins have been "in the ground" for more than 25 years in the WAC 4 study area. Because of their relative newness of stormwater management basin in the area, there is not much local experience with maintenance. However, since the various water works constitute about 25 percent of the initial construction cost, their replacement will be a significant future expense if they are not properly maintained. • Sediment Removal — Even when properly designed, stormwater management basins will accumulate significant quantities of sediment over time. Sediment accumulation is a serious maintenance concern for several reasons. First, the sediment gradually reduces available stormwater storage capacity in the basin. The best available estimate is that P)5 approximately one percent of the storage volume associated with the two-year design storm can be lost annually. Thus, as much as 20 percent of the basin's total storage capacity can be lost within 20 years. Even more storage capacity is lost if the basin receives large sediment input during construction. Second, unlike retention basins (which have a permanent pool to conceal deposited sediments), sediment accumulation can make detention and extended detention basins very unsightly. Third, and perhaps most importantly, sediment tends to accumulate around basin control devices. Sediment deposition increases the risk that either the orifice or filter medium will become clogged, and also gradually reduces storage capacity reserved for pollutant removal. For these reasons, accumulated sediment may need to be removed by those responsible for its maintenance about every five to 10 years for extended detention basins and about every 10 to 20 years for retention basins. More frequent "spot clean-outs" may be needed around the control device for some designs. Sediment removal operations are relatively simple if access for heavy equipment is provided. Front-end loaders or backhoes can be used to scrape off the bulk of the accumulated sediment, followed by manual removal of sediment deposited around control devices. The disturbed area should be immediately stabilized with vegetation after removal operations are finished to prevent the control device from clogging again. If an on-site disposal area is not available, then transport and landfill tipping fees may double or even triple the total cost of sediment removal operations. STORHWATER RETROFIT POTENTIAL IN WAC 4 STUDYAREA TO OF HARRISON The WAC 4 study area portion of Harrison is in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Fourteen stormwater management basins have been identified in this area. Ten of these are retention basins and four are detention basins. Of the 14 identified basins, three were inaccessible for examination. Eleven were investigated. These basins are on privately owned lands associated with residential subdivisions, office complexes and Manhattanville College. The basins that were investigated are upstream from the only segment of cold water fisheries stream (Classified by the NYS DEC as C (T)) in the WAC 4 study area, according to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. This segment is on the Mamaroneck River just south of Maple Moor Golf Course. This classification is important when deciding to retrofit detention basins for retention or extended detention, due to the necessity of stormwater to remain cold in the system. With retention, there is a greater possibility of thermal pollution or stormwater warming, which can affect downstream trout habitat. An option noted in Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (NYS DEC 1992) is a combination of measures incorporating supplemental stormwater management practices to achieve "first flush," or first half-inch of precipitation, control objectives. This includes practices like grass swales, filter strips and water quality inlets. Most of Harrison's stormwater basins are retention basins, or wet ponds. Therefore, structural modifications are not necessary for extending retention time. However, most need to be better landscaped to improve their water quality enhancement capabilities. Many of the basins lack shallow, vegetated, aquatic benches or shelves along their perimeters. These should be within 136 their permanent pool of water. Establishing aquatic vegetation along basin perimeters will enhance their pollutant removal capabilities. It also provides fish and wildlife benefits by furnishing attractive fringe habitats with food and shelter, protecting the shoreline from erosion, and, if situated near the basin's inlet, trapping incoming sediment. Another option for increasing pollutant removal of retention basins is the "two bay system." In these systems, stormwater enter a "forebay" or smaller basin immediately upstream from the basin where most sediment if filtered out. Stormwater then flows into a larger basin or stormwater wetland that can consist of a vegetated marsh and/or open water. This design is easier to maintain because it is easier to remove sediment from the forebay than the larger basin or stormwater wetland (for more details on two-bay systems, see the Center for Watershed Protection's Course Notebook on Urban Watershed Management: Design of Urban Best Management Practices, January 1995). pecifrc Basin Recommendations (#1 & #2)Ophir Drive and Halliday Court — Ophir Farm Estates: These two small detention basins (#1 and #2) feed into a larger retention basin (#5) between Manhattanville College and Ophir Farm Estates. This residential subdivision provides a good example of a stormwater management system designed to improve water quality. Stormwater runoff is carried from the surrounding impervious surfaces through two pipes, which discharge at the edge of a small park. The pipes discharge stormwater into two small detention basins (basin 91) containing cattail, grasses, and other herbaceous vegetation. The stormwater then discharges via vegetated swales to a tributary of the Mamaroneck River. Stormwater is filtered through cattail and other emergent vegetation as it is routed through the tributary's channel, even though much of the tributary's banks are lined with rock. A small, nearby wetland (basin#2) accepts road runoff. This wetland is well vegetated and empties into a grassed swale, which discharges into the tributary. This basin, though functioning better than others nearby in terms of its value for water quality, could be improved. The small detention basins should be maintained (dredged out) regularly due to accumulated sediment and debris. Enlarging these basins, and providing for longer retention time, would provide for even greater water quality improvement. In addition, a 10-foot-wide strip around the basins and along the swale and tributary should be mowed only once or twice a year. This buffer will help to stabilize the soil alongside the swale and tributary and serve as a modest stormwater filter. The stormwater wetland (basin #2), which was laden with sediment and debris at its inlet, should be partially dredged to remove sediment and accumulated debris, which will restore its water holding and filtering capacity. This type of maintenance should be done on a regular basis to preserve the water quality and quantity benefits of this stormwater wetland. After the wetland is partially dredged (lowering its surface elevation), it should be re- planted with appropriate aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation. (#3 & #4) Century Country Club — Anderson Hill Road: Two retention basins, or wet ponds, are connected via a grassed waterway at Century Country Club. A northern pond (#3) accepts drainage from two grassed waterways emerging from a hillside above the pond. A southern pond (#4) has a six-inch-diameter corrugated pipe feeding water into its west side. The northern pond drains into the southern pond via the grassed waterway. The west banks of both ponds have lawn that is closely cropped to the water's edge. Numerous trees exist on the basins' east banks. The bank and channel of one of the grassed waterways feeding basin #3 is partially 137 eroding. Little vegetation is growing along the banks. There also is a sediment buildup at the junction of the waterways and ponds. The water quality improvement capabilities of these wet ponds could be improved by the installation of an aquatic bench, or shelf, along the perimeter of both ponds. A vegetated bench will provide greater nutrient removal, as well as increase aquatic habitat. A naturally vegetated buffer (of grasses or grasses and shrubs) should also be maintained around each pond, which can be achieved by reducing the frequency of mowing within a 15- to 20-foot-wide strip around the ponds to only once or twice a year and by installing appropriate shrubs. (#5) Manhattanville College and Ophir Farm Estates—Anderson Hill Road: This retention basin, or wet pond, is between Manhattanville College and the residential development called Ophir Farm Estates. Stormwater is fed to the pond through a rock-lined stream channel as well as a 24- inch-diameter, plastic stormwater pipe. The stream channel, a tributary of the Mamaroneck River, runs through the residential subdivision, accepting and treating runoff through various smaller scale detention areas (#1 and #2 — mentioned above) before reaching the larger retention basin (#5). This wet pond contained algae and an oily film on the water surface during a site visit in November 1999. The basin's banks contain many newly established shrubs (primarily species of dogwood). Established grasses exist to the water's edge in most areas. There is slight erosion on the east bank from channeled overland flow. There also is sediment deposition at the inlet pipe and common reed (Phragmites sp.) at the stream inlet. Water quality improvement recommendations include the following for this basin: (1) remove accumulated sediment and common reed at inlets; (2) regrade the eroded area and establish a grassed waterway to re-direct the channeled flow through a stabile swale; (3) install an aquatic bench around the basin perimeter; (4) install an oil/grit separator(such as Stormceptor or Vortechnics), due to evidence of the oily film in the pond (only recommended if proper maintenance, such as periodic cleanout, can be achieved); (5) add an aerator to help reduce algae. (#6) Manhattanville College: The retention basin at the college accepts runoff from surrounding impervious surfaces via two stormwater outfall pipes. The basin contains two aerators and flows directly into a tributary of the Mamaroneck River. Currently, closely cropped lawn is maintained to the water's edge. The pond discharges by flowing into a cement-lined channel and eventually into a tree-covered, rock-lined stream. The basin could be enhanced to better improve water quality through better landscaping practices and additional plants. An aquatic bench, or shelf, should be installed and should include aquatic and other emergent vegetation. A 15- to 20-foot-wide strip around the pond should be mowed only once or twice a year. A "floating biofilter" (i.e., coir logs bound together by nylon rope, connected to highly buoyant foam, surrounded by waterfowl exclusion wire, and planted with wetland vegetation) should be placed close to the pond's inlet. A"floating biofilter" is designed to promote nutrient (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) filtration. It is usually placed at the inlet or 138 outlet of a water body. It incorporates coir logs that float on the water's surface and provides a medium for planting aquatic vegetation. The recommendations mentioned above will increase the water treatment capabilities of this basin. (#7, #8) Detention Basins: Dry (detention) basins in the WAC 4 study area of Harrison include one in the office complex of Master Card International on College Road (0), and another between the westbound side of Westchester Avenue and Interstate 684 (98). Detention basins have limited ability to remove pollutants. These basins collect and store stormwater runoff in a temporary pool of water for less than 24 hours. Extended detention basins, which collect and store stormwater runoff in a temporary pool for more than 24 hours, have greater ability to remove pollutants. Retention basins, which retain a permanent pool of water and store runoff for two to 14 days, have even greater pollutant removal ability. Pollutant removal is even more limited if basins are not properly maintained. In general, the longer the detention time, the greater the pollutant removal. Therefore, detention basins should be modified to increase their water storage time. It is best to retrofit for extended detention and incorporate supplemental stormwater management practices for dealing with first-flush pollutants. Extended detention can be used to assure that runoff does not result in thermal problems in a cold water fisheries stream, such as is seen along a segment of the Mamaroneck River. Basins, including #7 and #8, can be transformed into extended detention basins by any one or a combination of the following.. • Relocate Basin Outlet — The outlet should not be located directly opposite the inlet, otherwise a low-flow channel might be created between the two, which would diminish detention time. Under this situation, stormwater from the most frequent storms would short-circuit the basin. A meandering channel should be encouraged to allow for the greatest interaction between the incoming stormwater and the basin's soil and vegetation; this might be achieved through careful placement of the outlet and inlet. A longer detention time will help to ensure that stormwater is treated to the maximum extent possible before exiting the basin. • Increase the Elevation of the Basin Outlet — The basin's outlet should be placed a certain distance above the basin floor to allow for a specified detention time for stormwater runoff. The higher the placement of the outlet, the longer the retention time. Therefore, the greatest settling of sediment and pollutants possible for the system will be achieved. • Excavate the Basin to Increase Storage Volume — The greater the basin's volume, the more water will be detained for a longer period of time and the greater the ability of the basin to settle out pollutants. This scenario is applicable only if at least one of the two recommendations described above are implemented. The water quality improvement capabilities of detention basins are greatly enhanced by vegetation in and around the basins (lawn is not an acceptable filter media; infrequently mowed grasses and/or a mix of grasses and shrubs is recommended). (#9) Kenilworth Road — Texaco Corporate Park: This basin is a good candidate for a water quality improvement project. It currently consists of two distinct sections. The northern section, where stormwater enters the system, contains a stormwater wetland made up of emergent wetland plants, primarily cattail, and some shrubs. The wetland drains into a larger retention basin, whose embankment is managed as closely cropped lawn. Erosion is occurring on the 139 western and southern banks due to steep slopes, waterfowl traffic and inadequate vegetation. Water quality at this particular retention basin can be improved by reducing erosion and increasing beneficial vegetation. Erosion can be partially controlled if a 15- to 20-foot-wide strip around the basin is mowed only once or twice a year. Erosion can be further controlled if shrubs are planted on the steep western and southern slopes to deter waterfowl and further stabilize the soil. Coir (coconut fiber) products can be used to further stabilize the basin's embankments at the water's edge. These products include coconut fiber logs and blankets to stabilize the soil and provide a medium for vegetation. An aquatic bench, or shelf, (see basin landscaping section of this chapter) should also be installed along the basin's perimeter and then planted with aquatic vegetation. Water quality could be improved in the stormwater wetland by removing accumulated sediment, as well as by planting additional herbaceous and woody wetland plants (e.g., grasses, rushes, sedges, and wetland shrubs). Aquatic habitat, both in the pond and downstream, could be improved by adding trees along the basin's embankments. Trees will shade the water, keeping it cooler, which will help maintain the integrity of downstream cold water fisheries. This project would be an ideal "model." It could serve as a demonstration project by helping to educate the public and others, including office park owners and managers. It could demonstrate the benefits of carefully planned and designed stormwater management basins, including their aesthetic appeal (park benches and a paved pathway make this area accessible to pedestrians). (#10) Croker Lake— Spring Lake Drive— Croker Lake, also known as Spring Lake and Harrison Pond, is between Spring Lake Drive and Duxbury Road. Access to this basin is limited except to surrounding homeowners. Much of the following information about this retention basin, or wet pond, is provided by the local homeowners' association (Harrison Pond Sporting Society). Croker Lake is bordered by single-family houses to the west and south, by the Mamaroneck River to the east, and by woodlands to the north. It is about four acres in size and 12 feet deep at its deepest point in the center of the basin. It is extremely shallow (one to two feet) near its inlet due to a buildup of sediment. The basin's west and south banks are maintained as closely cropped lawn (residential yards) and the east bank is forested. This retention basin partially intercepts flow from the Mamaroneck River. River water is diverted into the basin at its north end through an inlet consisting of a 36-inch-diameter culvert. The basin discharges into the Mamaroneck River via an outlet at its south end. To maintain flow into the basin, members of the homeowner's association remove sediment from a drainageway leading into the inlet on an annual basis. The basin is drained every three to four years to allow aquatic vegetation to freeze and die. It also is treated with herbicidal chemicals every summer. A large sediment trap used to exist next to the pond inlet, but sediment has since filled it in. This trap now consists of an assortment of pioneer plant species. The sediment and plants force the incoming water to channel around the trap and into the basin's inlet. There are many possibilities for improving the water quality benefits of this retention basin, but implementation depends on access being provided on private residential property. Sediment should be removed at the basin's inlet to increase storage capacity and retention, ultimately striving for original design capacity. Sediment also should be removed from the sediment trap. 140 These tasks will be made easier because of the basin's existing drawdown pipes —the basin could be emptied during dredging operations. Another opportunity to improve water quality would be to create a small wetland cell next to the inlet pipe, outside the basin's northeast bank. This wetland could provide additional storage capacity and filtering capabilities. Some soil slumping and erosion also exist at the culvert. This could pose a safety hazard, as well as cause the culvert to malfunction, and should be remedied immediately. A modest amount of aquatic vegetation exists along the western edge of the basin. A vegetated bench, or shelf, installed along the remaining edge will result in greater pollutant removal, especially of nutrients, from the water column. (#11) Corporate Park Drive: This basin is characteristic of a rock-lined detention basin. It exists where the Mamaroneck River is channeled through underground pipes. Stormwater runoff from surrounding roads and parking lots is fed directly into the river from this basin through a 24- inch-diameter metal outlet pipe. It is not likely that this arrangement allows pollutants or sediment to be filtered or settled out of solution before the stormwater enters the river. Such direct discharge also can negatively impact downstream trout habitat if heated stormwater from paved surfaces is discharged directly into the river. A higher elevation of the outlet pipe would partially slow water and allow pollutants and sediment to be filtered or settled out of solution. However, the most feasible improvement to this basin would be the installation of a supplemental treatment/filtration structure (e.g., underground sand filter, Stormceptor, Vortechnics, etc.). This detention basin is surrounded by impervious surfaces (two roads and a parking lot), leaving only a small amount of open space to expand the basin for its conversion to an extended detention or retention basin. Due to these area constraints, most water quality improvement projects would be very costly. Therefore, a supplemental underground structure is recommended. VILLAGE OFSCARSDALE Four stormwater management basins are in the Sheldrake River watershed in Scarsdale. Of these, only one detention basin was examined because the remaining three retention basins are inaccessible. They are on private residential property. The inaccessibility of these retention basins can increase the chances that they will malfunction due to lack of maintenance. Care should be taken at the municipal level to require accessibility to stormwater management basins for inspection and maintenance. Otherwise, their functional value for water quantity and quality could be jeopardized. pecific Basin Recommendations (#39 and 440) Gate House Road: The "dry" detention basin between Gate House Road and the Hutchinson River Parkway is a good water quality retrofit candidate. This linear detention basin has two outlet structures at both the east (439) and west (940) ends of the basin. At the time of the October 1999 site visit, ponded water was evident in the basin due to sediment deposition. The basin has a narrow band of trees around it (including on its embankments) and its floor is primarily covered with common reed (Phragmites sp.). The outlet at basin #40 was inaccessible and could not be analyzed closely due to a concrete wall and fence surrounding the area. 141 The basins' water quality treatment ability could be greatly enhanced by converting the basin into a retention basin, or wet pond. The basin could be converted by increasing the height of the outlet structures, which will allow the stormwater to be retained longer. Other structural modifications might be needed due to evidence of erosion/slumping behind the outlet structure in basin #39. Sediment and debris also should be removed to increase its stormwater storage capacity and pollutant removal capabilities. After the sediment is removed, the basin floor should be re-planted with aquatic vegetation to increase the basin's filtering capacity. Care should be taken to remove the seeds, roots and rhizomes of the common reed (dredged soil containing these plant materials should be removed to an acceptable upland location). TOWN OFMAMARONECK The Town of Mamaroneck is in both the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake River basins. There are four detention basins and one retention basin in the WAC 4 study area. Three of the detention basins are inaccessible. They are on private residential property. Specific Basin Recommendations (#46) Lakeside Drive, next to Interstate 95: The large retention basin off of Lakeside Drive has a rock-lined shore with closely cropped lawn maintained to the pond's edge. The basin is formed within a tributary of the Mamaroneck River. The tributary flows through a residential neighborhood above the basin, enters the basin, and flows through another residential neighborhood below the basin. The basin's outlet is lined with rock. The tributary is lined with trees above and below the basin. During a site visit in August 2000, the basin was relatively shallow(for the most part, one to two feet in depth) with an abundance of aquatic vegetation and sediment. The basin is not likely performing well for sediment and pollutant removal due to its shallow depth, lack of appropriate aquatic vegetation and diminished water holding capacity. Recommendations to increase the water quality benefits of this system include: (1) dredging the basin to its original design capacity; (2) installing a vegetated aquatic bench, or shelf, around the pond's perimeter; (3) installing a permanent sediment basin, or sediment trapping structure, at the inlet (access must be provided so that it can be easily and regularly maintained and cleaned out); and (4) installing a floating aquatic wetland or "floating biofilter" at the pond's inlet to aid in further nutrient removal. (#48) Marbourne Drive: The "dry" detention basin at Marbourne Drive is bordered by the Mamaroneck River within Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course. Although the basin is extremely well vegetated (woodlands surround it), it still does not perform as effectively at pollutant removal as extended detention or retention basins. Also, a large pipe near the basin drains untreated stormwater runoff from the surrounding residential development directly into the Mamaroneck River. The stormwater should be better filtered to sift out pollutants (including sediment and nutrients) before it enters the river. If the basin is converted to a retention basin and flow from the stormwater pipe is diverted into the basin, the river's water quality will be improved. The existing detention basin should be retrofitted by changing the elevation of its outlet or by constructing an earthen berm to retain water in the basin. Stormwater from the 142 residential development should be diverted to the basin and then drained into the Mamaroneck River. VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK Both the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers flow through the Village of Mamaroneck. A detention basin exists is in the village in the WAC 4 study area. pecific Basin Recommendations (#47) Top of the Ridge Drive: This detention basin is in a mature stand of trees, but the density of surrounding single family residences, as well as the Top of the Ridge Subdivision, will make it difficult to retrofit. Access to the basin is difficult. Detention basins do not perform a high level of pollutant removal. In this case, converting to a retention basin may not be practical due to access limitations, which also may mean lack of maintenance if the basin is retrofitted. The village should require better access to any stormwater management basin for inspection and maintenance purposes. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE Five stormwater management basins were evaluated in the City of New Rochelle: one detention (dry) and four retention (wet). The WAC 4 study area of New Rochelle is in the Sheldrake River watershed. Of the stormwater basins investigated, the major factors influencing their water quality benefits are dredging and maintenance. Szc Basin Recommendations (#36) Country Ridge Road, off of Wilmot Road: This municipally owned basin contains a small area of open water, which is surrounded by extremely dense vegetation and fencing. The property appears to be unmaintained. Close investigation was not possible during the site visit. Some existing vegetation needs to be removed to allow for better access, so that the basin's current effectiveness for stormwater storage and pollutant removal can be assessed. 037) Baraud Road: The small retention basin (wet pond) at Baraud Road accepts runoff from the surrounding residential neighborhood and roads. The pipe inlet structure was clogged with sediment and debris during a site visit in January 1999. The outlet structure is dam controlled. Closely cropped lawn surrounds the pond Water quality benefits of this basin can be enhanced by removing sediment to increase storage capacity, as well as by adding aquatic plants along the pond edge. A buffer zone of grasses and shrubs, approximately 15 to 20 feet wide, should be established around the entire basin to help filter some of the overland runoff coming directly from nearby road surfaces. The lawn surrounding the basin should be mowed only once or twice a year. This would enhance the buffer's effectiveness at removing nonpoint source pollutants. This pond would serve as an ideal community demonstration, restoration and/or education project due to its placement in a small neighborhood park. 143 (#38) Daisy Farms Drive - Carpenter's Pond: Here is an example of a well-maintained retention basin, performing adequate sediment and pollutant removal, as well as flood control. Although there is no aquatic bench along the pond's perimeter, a shallow marsh exists at the northern end of the basin. It filters incoming water from the Sheldrake River. The marsh is critical for removing sediment, nutrients and other nonpoint source pollutants entering the basin. The wooded perimeter surrounding the pond provides a natural buffer, which minimizes erosion and helps filter overland flow entering the pond. To uphold the water quality benefits of this retention pond, sediment and debris should be periodically removed from the basin. (#42) Quaker Ridge Road: This retention basin, between Quaker Ridge Road and the on/off ramps for Pine Brook Boulevard, intercepts the Sheldrake River. Before the Sheldrake River passes through the retention basin, stormwater runoff from the surrounding residential neighborhoods is discharged through various outfalls into the river. The retention basin should filter out sediment, oils and other pollutants draining into the river upstream, as well as provide some holding capacity for flood control. A large portion of the basin has filled in with sediment, forcing the entering water to concentrate in three channels before flowing back into the river, and allowing the basin to function only as a detention or extended detention basin. Dense stands of common reed (Phragmites sp.) and Japanese knotweed are abundant throughout the basin. The basin's outlet was inaccessible for evaluation. Many options are available to increase the water quality enhancement capabilities of this basin. Removal of sediment, common reed and knotweed would be the first step in increasing the basin's storage capacity (to accommodate its original design storm). This will allow water to spread throughout the entire basin, instead of forming distinct channels. This is important because the ability of the basin to remove sediment and pollutants largely depends on how long the water is retained. When flow is channeled, the stormwater is not spread out through the entire basin and retained. Therefore, settling of sediment and pollutants is limited. The basin should then have aquatic plants installed around its perimeter, as well as within the basin itself. Various species of grasses can be established on the embankments, as well as shrubs, which will increase pollutant removal effectiveness and provide the additional benefit of wildlife habitat. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS Twenty-three surface stormwater management basins were identified in the WAC 4 study area in White Plains. The city is in the Mamaroneck River watershed. Eight of these are detention basins. The remaining 15 are retention basins. Most of the basins are on privately owned lands, with the exception of a basin on Ridgeway and a basin on Barton Road, both of which are municipally owned. Only 15 (three detention and 12 retention) out of the 23 basins could be observed. The eight other basins were not examined due to their general inaccessibility or difficult-to-reach placement in residential neighborhoods. The inaccessibility of basins due to their placement far from roads, on private residential property, or in woodlands should be avoided. Basins should be located next to an open area or access road for vehicle accessibility and basin inspection and maintenance purposes. Basins in White Plains having limited accessibility include Nos. 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 30. The City of White Plains should require that basins be accessible. 144 The retrofit potential of a few detention basins in White Plains is affected by their placement in the watershed of the East Branch of the Mamaroneck River, which is partially classified as C(t) (for cold water fisheries) by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. This brings up the tricky issue of how to remove pollutants through stormwater management basins and preserve the C(t) classification by maintaining relatively cool water temperatures. This issue will be further addressed for specific basins in the following section. Finally, White Plains has enacted a requirement that all new curb inlets (catch basins) be of a style called the "Eco Curb." This style is similar to all other curbs except that the steel curb piece is to be cast out of a mold that has raised lettering saying "Dump No Waste - Drains To River." It also has the raised outline of a trout on each side of the phrase. The raised lettering and symbols will, of course, be permanent. The storm drain stenciling programs that have been held in several Long Island Sound watershed communities, including White Plains, have accomplished the same objective of marking storm drains to educate the public. However, unlike the paint used for storm drain stencils, the letters/symbols on the "Eco Curb" are permanent. WAC 4 supports this type of educational effort for stormwater management facilities. pecific Basin Recommendations (#12) Westchester Avenue Eastbound: This large detention basin accepts runoff from a large corporate office complex between Westchester Avenue and the Hutchinson River Parkway. The detention basin is rock lined on both sides and bottom. There are a number of patches of common reed (Phragnaites sp.), which have established themselves on the sediment deposits in the basin. Water quality improvements for this detention basin would include: (1) dredging and removing sediment; (2) retrofitting the outlet structure or increasing its elevation to extend detention time; (3) installing and planting of an aquatic bench; and (4) installing an oil/grease filter (sand filter, Stormceptor, Vortechnics, etc.). Hydrocarbons are a potential water quality problem due to the large area of parking lots and roads that drain into this basin. Other measures that will expand the water quality removal capabilities of the basin would be to: (1) remove the rock at the bottom of the basin; (2) install a vegetated bench, or shelf, with aquatic and other emergent vegetation along the basin's perimeter; and (3) reduce the frequency of mowing in a 15- to 20-foot-wide strip around the basin to only once or twice a year. 013)Wyndham Close off of Bryant Avenue: This retention basin, in a private residential subdivision, is flanked by a rock wall and closely cropped lawn. There is a modest amount of wetland vegetation (cattail) at the outlet, which helps filter pollutants, sediment and debris. The basin's benefits to water quality can be enhanced by an aquatic bench planted with emergent vegetation along the basins' perimeter, as well as much denser vegetation (e.g., various species of grasses and other herbaceous vegetation and shrubs) on the basin's embankments to create a vegetated buffer. The lack of aquatic benches and/or properly managed (from a water quality standpoint) vegetation on embankments also is evident at several other retention basins, such as: Glenbrook Drive (basin #17), which has virtually no vegetation due to the basin's rock-lined side walls; 145 Cobblefield Lane (basin #26); and Briga Lane (basin #30), which is entirely surrounded by single-family houses and inaccessible for retrofit. (#16) Maplemoor Lane: The retention basin, or wet pond, between Maplemoor Lane, Willows Lane, Homeside Lane and North Lake Drive is approximately 2.5 acres to 3.0 acres in size and is entirely surrounded by single-family houses. The local homeowners association assisted with a visual assessment in September 2000. The pond is shallow in depth, less than four feet in most areas, and contains exposed sediments in some locations. The pond has three main inlets (12- to 14-inch-diameter concrete pipes), which appear to drain stormwater from surrounding road surfaces. These inlets extend from the pond's southern, southeastern and northern banks. The outlet stems from the pond's west side and continues underneath Northlake Drive. The banks surrounding the pond are privately owned residential lawns — closely cropped to the water's edge. Sunfish, bass and carp are present, but emergent aquatic vegetation is largely absent. According to the homeowners association, a large algae bloom occurred in the summer of 1999 and a large fish kill occurred in August 2000. Retrofitting this basin will rely largely on the cooperation of the surrounding homeowners, as access will need to be granted on private property. It is clear that this retention pond has not been maintained for its intended purposes of water quantity and quality. There are a number of recommendations for improving this basin for both of these aspects, as well as for aquatic habitat. There has been a large influx of sediment to the basin. Accumulated sediment should be removed to restore the basin to its original design capacity (in other words, allow it to store its original volume of water). This is needed to protect surrounding properties from flooding. Increasing the storage volume also will enable sediment and attached pollutants to continue to settle out of the water column. In addition, increasing the pond's depth will assist in maintaining viable aquatic habitat for the existing species living there since the water will contain a cooler layer and will have greater amounts of dissolved oxygen. An aeration system also will help improve aquatic habitat and decrease algae production. An aquatic bench, or shelf, planted with emergent vegetation, should be installed along the pond edge to further assist with pollutant removal through biological and chemical transformations and settling of sediment. Due to the varied locations of inlet pipes, it is not feasible to establish a structure, such as a sediment basin, to facilitate sediment removal in a specific location. However, water quality may be improved by installing a floating wetland or "floating biofilter" (i.e., coir logs bound together by nylon rope, connected to highly buoyant foam, surrounded by waterfowl exclusion wire, and planted with wetland vegetation) close to the pond's outlet. A"floating biofilter" is designed to promote nutrient (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) filtration. It is usually placed at the inlet or outlet of a water body. It incorporates coir logs that float on the water's surface and provides a medium for planting aquatic vegetation. The recommendations mentioned above will increase the water treatment capabilities of this basin. It is important that a right-of-way or access road be permanently established for future maintenance. It also is important to develop and implement a periodic maintenance schedule. (#18) Barton Road, Westchester Hills Golf Club- This retention basin, not unlike most other retention basins in White Plains, could benefit, from a water quality standpoint, from the addition of an aquatic bench and embankment vegetation. Reducing the mowing frequency in a 15- to 20-foot-wide strip around the basin also could improve water quality by helping to filter overland 146 runoff. No outlet "structure" exists in the basin and water discharges from it through a rock- lined outlet and into a stream. To aid in further settling of sediment and pollutants within the pond, a floating wetland or "floating biofilter" should be installed near the pond's outlet. This high-tech but simply designed "biofilter" will help filter out pollutants, especially nutrients, from the water column. (419) Barton Road: This municipally owned basin on Barton Road is in line with a tributary of the Mamaroneck River. It can be transformed from an extended detention basin to a retention basin by retrofitting the existing outlet to allow for retention. This conversion can be accomplished by increasing the height of the outlet. A surrounding forested buffer already exists, as well as shrubs and other wetland vegetation (including swamp milkweed and pussy willow). This vegetation adds to the basin's value for water quality protection. The tree canopy as well as shrubs and saplings around the basin will protect and cool its waters. Therefore, downstream C(t)-classified waters will not be impacted by thermal pollution. The basin outlet leads to a rock-lined stream and eventually a forested wetland. Stormwater is channeled through the basin due to accumulated sediment and newly established vegetation (primarily common reed (Phragmites sp.)). Some removal of accumulated sediment will increase storage time and pollutant removal capabilities. This will allow stormwater to spread and interact with the entire basin instead of being channeled between the inlet and outlet. Areas disturbed by dredging should be stabilized with vegetation to keep sediment from clogging the outlet. The increased storage time (duration of inundation) is expected to weaken and/or eliminate the common reed population. Wildlife habitat value also would be improved by the elimination of the dense common reed provided that appropriate growing conditions exist for beneficial, native plants. (#20 and #28) Rosedale Avenue and Brookhills Drive: These two retention basins were constructed for handling stormwater from a private residential subdivision. They are connected via two cement box culverts under Brookhills Drive. One of these culverts was completely clogged with sediment and debris, rendering it not functional, during an October 1999 site visit. The eastern basin (920) has various pipe inlets, as well as direct stream flow from the Mamaroneck River. This basin is acting as an extended detention basin (not a retention basin, as originally designed) due to the accumulated sediment, which is channeling water and decreasing its detention time in the basin. Basin #28 currently retains water but it, too, is filling in with sediment. These large basins need to be dredged. Other than that, though, it does not require a great deal of enhancement to increase its water quality improvement potential. The basins have been constructed "in line" with a tributary of the Mamaroneck River. They also accept runoff from the surrounding residential subdivision. The basins contain shrubs and trees, such as alder, pussy willow and dogwood, as well as purple loosestrife. Purple loosestrife should be removed to ensure species diversity in the basin and optimize wildlife habitat as an additional benefit. By removing the accumulated sediment and debris, particularly in one of the culverts passing under Brookhills Drive, which has lost all flow, water could be retained and water quality treatment improved in the system. Removal of the sediment and debris will allow stormwater to spread out, interacting with the basin's soil and vegetation, instead of being channeled through the basin. This will increase the storage time and infiltration of stormwater and pollutant removal. An aquatic bench also should be added along the perimeter, as well as in front of the outlet to the 147 stream, to maximize pollutant and sediment removal and settling before the stormwater empties into the stream. (#29) Rosedale Avenue, between Cobblefield and Willowbrook Roads: This retention basin was largely inaccessible due to the density of the surrounding trees and shrubs. A rock wall prohibits the growth of side slope vegetation and surrounds the basin. Basic maintenance, including dredging, could improve the basin's water quality function. #31 #15): Well-managed basins that do not require a great deal of improvement include an extended detention basin off of Jared Drive (basin #31) and a retention basin in a new residential subdivision off of North Street on Club Pointe Drive (basin #15). Both have been constructed "in line" with existing streams. These Mamaroneck River tributaries discharge into the basins, which allow the stream flow to slow down and sediment and pollutants to settle out. The basins then discharge directly back into the tributaries. Aquatic benches are largely absent but much of the basins are surrounded by woodland, which shade the basins and keep water cooler for downstream trout habitat. The woodland buffers also filter excessive nutrients and pollutants from overland stormwater "sheet" flow. Another water quality enhancement is the presence of aerators in the basin at Club Pointe Drive. Aerators help restore dissolved oxygen levels, allowing for the breakdown of nutrients and other pollutants in pond systems. (#35) Purdy Avenue, Parker Corporate Center: Previously mentioned dredging recommendations also can apply to the stormwater management basin at the Parker Corporate Center. The basin contains shallow, "murky" water overrun with a dense stand of common reed (Phragmites sp.). The basin may have been designed for retention, but is currently containing water for a shorter period of time (extended detention) due to its diminished water holding capacity from infill of sediment and lack of maintenance. This basin also discharges to a branch of the Mamaroneck River. (#49 and #50) North Street St. Agnes Hospital: A prime opportunity for water quality retrofit exists in the two detention basins at St. Agnes Hospital. The basins accept runoff from the hospital's surrounding impervious surfaces and, after limited detention, the water is released into a tributary of the Mamaroneck River. The basins have been lined with closely cropped lawn. The water quality benefits of these two basins could be greatly increased by modifying the outlet structures. Design modifications (in accordance with the design guidelines of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992)) can include increasing the height of the basins' outlets, which will allow the basins to be transformed into extended detention or retention basins. This conversion will increase their pollutant removal effectiveness. A conversion to extended detention or retention should be planned and designed with careful consideration of the downstream cold water fisheries-classified waters (Class C(t)), as well as the basins' possible impact on the standards for that class. At the least, if the basins are not retrofitted, the lawn in the basins should be allowed to grow by reducing the mowing frequency to once (preferred) or, at the most, twice a year. Shrubs also should be planted on the basins' embankments. 148 i 1 i ' 1 • : . eeeeeeeeemmm®e®mmmmmmmmmm - - . ■■eeee■■ee■■e■eeee■e■■e■■ . - • -• eeeeeeeeeeeee■eeee■eeeeee . • ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■ -• - eeeeeeeeee■ee■eeeeee■■■■■ - . - .-. eeee■■e■e■■■■■e■e■ee■■■■■ -• : - eeee■eeee■eee■■eee■e■■■■■ ©e■■■■e■■■ee■■■e■■ee■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■e■■■e■e■■■■eeeee • • . . ■■eeee■eeeeee■■eee■e■■■■■ - - � eeeee■■■■eee■■eee■e■■■e■■ . - • -. eeeee■eeeeee■■■■■■■eee■ee • ©�■■■e■■■■■■eeeeeee■■■e■■ -.- . . ,-. ■■ee■■e■■■■■eeee■■e■■■■■■ ■■■■■e©ee■■■©e©e■ee■■■eee - . - ■e■eee■■■eee■ee■■■eeee■■e . . . e■eee■eee■■■■■■e■■e■■■e■e TABLE 5: Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management Basins in the WAC 4 Study Area MUNICIPALITY HARRISON WHITE PLAINS Basin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 18 19 201. 21 22 23 24 25 Retention X X X X X X X X XIX X X X Detention X X X X X X X X1 X X X X Best Management Practice Housekeeping Sediment Removal X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Invasive Species Removal X X X X Mowing Practices X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bank Stabilization X X Upland Buffer X X X X X X XIX X X X X X X Aquatic Plantings X X X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X X Erosion/Sediment Control X X X X Nutrient Management X X Structural Retrofit X X X X X rstallation of Outlet tructure X Increase Access X X F-iX +XX X X MUNICIPALITY WHITE PLAINS SCARSDALE NEW ROCHELLE MAMARONECK Basin 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 49 50 32 33 '14139140 36 37 38 1 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Retention X X X X X X X X X X X X X Detention X X X X X X X X X X X X Best Management Practice Housekeeping X Sediment Removal X X1 Ix X X I X X X X X X Mowing Practices X I X X X X X Bank Stabilization Upland Buffer X X X X X X Aquatic Plantings XIX X X X XIX X XIX X X X I X 1X , Erosion/Sediment Control Nutrient Management tructural Retrofit X X X X X X X X X installation of Outlet Structure I I I I I X X X Increase Access X X X —Tx---x —X—F X X X X X X X X 150 NO TH // MOUNT PLjA►• NT 1 w Ke'it r 4 -- / t ` \ Rcxq,u,rr / ! r kpsfo[I !.�%' .h'\"--+1.'C ..,,_,r+, `r € f{'r �, , .'t•/Stlie, . i ". ` i 4' � 't'�1 Luk, t 3A �2 i 490 50 80 7 Br 11 it \ t � r W'HITEIPLAINS 73A sa 287 1 _ 'fes• g it _ GREENBURGH r f n t ri vk, f 140 ,2T, 120o a R E Mamaroneck `' t� // River / POTC h � Bastn 1516 .J 1100' Chester, j 1 31 � A A17 � 32 19 ALZO 3k34. 213srlPe, 287 S�SDAL V oJ 26 022• 23 y ti ti , i ,- i /7', 35 24� 1 ` I /f /l.. Port Che 51r 36 I / A j ���♦ D` , i Is 'r r ♦ 48 � H�{ 50139 '; \ A r CITY ! 40 Sheldrake ;I �.c t l eL61, / 8asir�� 0 � iRive 44 4345 *v heldrrik¢Lunn •rt��rrrl..1lnnecl►I 3N N " ` Y L 1 ._ L ' TOW1 Mamaroneck `( `"c: . 0 7000 RQCHELLE iAV t I),rhor I� ��'' ti ; i Sr.,lc in Feet i y Dry Basins A& Wet Basins MAP 5 Stormwater Basins �Ovconl Department of Planning Andrew I Spano WAC4 STUDY AREA Joyce M. Lannert County ExeCLItiVe Commissioner FLOATING WETLAND FILTER Paine Lake - New Rochelle, N.Y. As recommended by WAC 5 A floating wetland filter is made from coconut fiber logs fastened to a highly buoyant foam surrounded by wire _ fence to keep out waterfowl. The filter is then anchored to a pond or lake bottom. It also be installed at the inlet or J outlet of a pond or lake. j. Coconut fiber logs are planted with emergent wetland vegetation, which will help remove nutrients from the water column. �r 'std �r Floating wetland filters increase the wetland area of a pond or lake to improve its pollutant Y removal capabilities LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ORDINANCES LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ORDINANCES WAC 4 Watershed--ode Recommendations Share Services Among Municipalities In WAC 4 Study Area - With water quality improvement objectives being consistent throughout the WAC 4 study area, the services needed to achieve these objectives should be shared among the area's municipalities. Shared services would be a benefit to each municipality by allowing an economy of effort and cost, as well as ensuring the coordination of programs throughout the study area. One example where shared services are particularly appropriate, if not necessary, is in the generation of a build-out analysis. Such an analysis will show the full impact of development as allowed under existing municipal guidelines and regulations. It would promote the development of cohesive comprehensive plans among the area's municipalities that extend beyond municipal boundaries and reflect the study area as a watershed unit. Performance standards and regulatory restrictions can then be developed to ensure that the various land use practices are truly protecting water resources. Grants are available and have been applied for to conduct such an analysis in other areas of Westchester County. Another opportunity for shared services is in revising or drafting new municipal ordinances that protect water quality. Many of WAC 4's recommendations suggest that municipal regulations be revised to achieve the maximum level of protection and efficiency. For a particular regulation or group of regulations common to more than one municipality, the services of one attorney or consultant should be shared so that the necessary revisions can be performed more uniformly and at lower cost. By coordinating in this way, regulations throughout the watershed will have greater consistency and will advance the common objectives of the municipalities in the WAC 4 study area. Environmental code enforcement is another area where shared services would be especially useful. A number of municipalities have recognized the need for additional enforcement capabilities, but lack the fiscal ability to enlist additional qualified staff to perform such duties (see "Improve Enforcement of Environmental Regulations" at the end of the "Watershed-Wide Recommendations" section of this chapter). By joining forces with other municipalities, a full- time environmental enforcement officer can be hired to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. The Long Island Sound Watershed Intermunicipal Council (LISWIC) provides a current example of the fruits of such coordinated efforts. LISWIC, a partnership of Long Island Sound watershed communities, successfully obtained a grant to hire a code enforcement officer whose duties will be shared amongst the various participating communities. The code enforcement officer will be responsible for ensuring implementation of sewer inflow and infiltration corrections on the homeowner level, an objective of LISWIC. 153 Other possibilities for shared services include a geographic information system (GIS) data base of natural resource and land use categories in the WAC 4 study area. The Westchester County Department of Planning has developed a data base of environmental and land use features, including freshwater and tidal wetlands, steep slopes, hazardous waste sites, flood plains, State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit sites, bedrock characteristics, streams, and water bodies, as well as land use and zoning. This data base could be shared with municipalities who have or acquire a GIS. Likewise, municipal data bases could be shared with the county. Funding to obtain GIS may be sought through grants, as opportunities become available. Conduct Study Of Total Impervious Surfaces And Set Goals For Reduction — Due to the strong relationship between imperviousness and degradation of water quality, an understanding of the extent of impervious surfaces that exist or may exist in a municipality is important. Mapping existing and anticipated impervious cover (as circumscribed by local zoning and other land use regulations) in the entire watershed and an analysis of the resulting impact should be undertaken. Related to the build-out analysis mentioned above, an analysis of existing impervious coverage would enable municipalities to target areas that currently have significant impact on water resources and set achievable goals to reduce such coverage. This is especially applicable for developed neighborhoods that have the potential to be redeveloped for other uses or a similar but more intensive use. Strategies for limiting impervious surface coverage include adoption of lot coverage limits, reassessment and reduction (where feasible) of parking requirements in the zoning regulations, application of conservation development techniques, and requiring pervious pavement where applicable. (For other strategies to minimize impervious surfaces, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Tools" in Section II.) Improve Enforcement of Environmental Regulations — Environmental regulations, such as erosion and sediment control and wetland protection, have been adopted to ensure preservation of natural resources. With increasing understanding and concern about the importance of protecting the natural environment, environmental controls have become more complex. It is often the case, however, that these regulations are not adequately enforced and degradation of these resources continues to occur. The cause of this inadequacy may be a lack of education pertaining to natural resource protection and/or a shortage of staff. Many municipalities are under tight budget constraints and are unable to hire adequately trained personnel to enforce environmental regulations. One solution to this problem is to adopt provisions that would pass the burden of enforcing environmental controls on to the developer. When appropriate, the municipality can enlist the services of a properly trained environmental consultant, who would carry out inspections, ensure that environmental controls are in place, and issue stop work orders on projects if the owners/builders/developers are not in compliance. The regulated community would pay for the services of the inspector through fees, and the municipality would be assured that a certified professional is overseeing the task of environmental enforcement. For example, the Village of Croton-On-Hudson has adopted an ordinance, titled "Environmental Compliance," to implement such a method of enforcement; a copy this ordinance is available at the Westchester County Department of Planning. A certification program exists to train, test and identify specialists who meet established standards of expertise in the field of erosion and sediment control. Known as Certified 154 Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC), this program is sponsored by the Soil and Water Conservation Society and International Erosion Control Association. Six states and numerous counties now recommend the use of CPESC-certified professionals to implement erosion and sediment control projects and programs. Municipalities should insist on the use of CPESCs to enforce erosion and sediment control guidelines, policies and regulations and/or afford existing municipal staff the necessary training to become CPESCs. This system would help ensure that properly educated and experienced persons are designing, implementing and enforcing erosion and sediment control plans and practices. Although inspection by well-trained professionals offers the most thorough type of control over inadequate erosion and sediment control practices, professionals cannot be on site at all times. Between regular inspections, the public can be of great assistance to inspectors by noting and reporting control failures. To train the public about key elements of erosion and sedimentation and other environmental issues, training classes should be conducted for local Conservation Advisory Councils (CACs), Conservation Boards, and other concerned members of the general public. In addition, planning and zoning board members would benefit from such training because of their involvement in the initial development planning stage and because they could become resident watchdogs. The Westchester County Department of Planning occasionally offers erosion and sediment control workshops; workshops can be developed based on community needs. These or municipal-sponsored workshops should be made available to interested residents. Encourage Conservation Development And Preservation Of Open Space - Conservation development, also referred to as cluster development, involves site design that limits the area of development to part of a project site and preserves a significant area of the site as open space. Utilizing this type of design protects the most sensitive natural features on a site and reduces the extent of clearing, regrading, and erosion and sediment controls necessary to control runoff from the site. In addition, dedicated open space enhances the value of adjacent properties. Conservation development requires some flexibility in regulations regarding lot size and road width, among others. However, the benefits derived from this type of development are significant. Municipalities should ensure that conservation development provisions are available in their local regulations and encourage its use by their land use board(s). Along the same lines as cluster or conservation developments, "model development principles" have been developed to help counter the prevailing "cookbook" approach that has resulted in development that ignores or is insensitive to natural resources and/or on- and off-site natural features (e.g., topographic and geologic features, wildlife corridors, etc.). In addition to items already mentioned, such as modifications to street dimensions and parking ratios, "model development principles" promote techniques such as the replacement of curb and gutter requirements with vegetated open channels and "bioretention" islands, which are naturally vegetated, man-made depressions that receive storm water and allow for infiltration. Municipalities or planning boards should adopt such water quality-minded development principles to better guide new development. (For further information on "model development principles," see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-regulatory Tools" in Section II.) Municipalities also should have an action-oriented policy advocating open space preservation. Some municipalities have established goals of preserving 25 percent or more land as public and private open space. However, such an objective should not be done arbitrarily. It 155 should be based on a thorough understanding of the municipality's natural resources and identification of the areas that should be preserved for environmental benefits, as well as with sensitivity to resources that may exist in adjoining municipalities. Municipalities with little remaining undeveloped land also should consider open space restoration possibilities. For example, in Philadelphia, the Green Land Initiative has taken many of the lots that have been vacated due to a population migration to the suburbs and restored them as diverse wildlife habitats and passive recreation parks. Municipalities should identify and target sensitive areas, such as properties adjacent to stream corridors, for possible acquisition and restoration should the economic climate or site-specific conditions permit. The Beaver Swamp Brook Restoration Project, located between Taylor and Coolidge avenues on the border of Harrison and Rye, is a local example of restoration efforts that are currently being pursued in a developed/highly degraded area. Preserve Naturally Vegetated Buffers Along All Streams and Water Bodies — In concert with open space preservation, there should be a policy of preserving, or restoring to its natural condition, the land next to all watercourses and water bodies . Naturally vegetated buffers improve water quality by promoting biological uptake of nutrients, hydrocarbons and trace metals and intercepting sediment and other pollutants carried by stormwater runoff. They also provide wildlife habitat, promote biodiversity, and enhance the aesthetics of a municipality. Municipalities should undertake actions/projects to preserve or enhance riparian buffers on public lands and provide incentives to private landowners to do likewise. Incentives include providing assistance to homeowners who want to implement natural landscaping. Local gardening and environmental organizations can be recruited to provide knowledge and information about the benefits, sources and care of natural plantings. Some organizations have created detailed homeowner guides (e.g., A Land Practice Guide, prepared by the LIFE Center and the Town of Mamaroneck and Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck, and Sound Advice: A Resident's Guide to Reducing Pollution at Home, prepared by the Westchester County Department of Planning). These guides provide information on native vegetation, as well as proper land maintenance that minimizes environmental impacts. Some organizations also have partnered with nurseries to supply natural plantings at a discount. Municipalities that understand the value of protecting water quality also could consider offering tax credits for properties or portions of properties maintained in their natural state, such as through conservation easements. These and other incentives should be considered and employed to encourage riparian buffers on private land. The preservation or enhancement of buffers along all waterways and water bodies would provide enormous environmental benefits and serve as a visual reminder to residents of the importance of preserving water quality. (For specific recommendations, see the chapter on "Stream Restoration.") Consider The Creation Of A Stormwater Utility District — Managing and treating stormwater represents a significant cost to a municipality in terms of construction, monitoring and maintenance. Different types of land use, such as residential and commercial, contribute varying amounts of stormwater and pollutants to the drainage system. For example, land uses with greater areas of impervious surface contribute significantly higher volumes of runoff than do undeveloped or minimally developed land. With the rate of development in the Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County continuing to be high, stormwater drainage systems are subject to greater amounts of runoff than ever before. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued "Phase II" stormwater regulations requiring certain municipalities to 156 MOUNT PL ANT Kenfico I'^� —�NORTH/ TL Res'rvoir II Rye lake 1 9A Q A\ White l �� Plains ) 1 Resrevoirs,') ni / s er -t � �-•- � 0 `— 87. ke - tIV 2 Vol, � 1 9 5 V y U. Q i SON p \ \ 0Ry ,.� r, WHI #�287 1� Brook `T GREENBIJRGH \ 127 "�'r R# J, Q\ \\ '� r , 14 ■ maroneck \ 1 Port ` River \ 20 1 Cheste Basin >y> I 100 S RSDA I •� a i //� , - Port Chester ',Harbor drake ; er `—' sin / • _ ITY 01 1 i / r�•� �o��f O r ♦- x ; RY 1 / heldrake lake '•+•�•yp 111 N �� 1 LarchmonrRes.) M3 ones ll1 ARO r � �' - h TO NEW ,yl m t�titin 0 7000 RgCHEL .E 11 ka\wne �Mamck S�Qroneck�Q�6orC' 0, Ha Ha Scale in Feet I \ '`y 1996 LAND USE CATEGORIES NON-RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL Institutional&Public Assembly = Public Parks,Parkway Lands Very Low Density(.2 to 2 du/acre) Mixed Use = Water Supply Lands Low Density(2-6 du/acre) Retail Nature Preserves Medium Density(6-16 du/acre) Campus Office&Research s Private Recreation High Density(16+du/acre) Manufacturing,Industrial,Warehouse Cemeteries Transportation,Communication,Utility Interior Water Body 4�vxor MAP 6 D Undeveloped vcom Generalized Land Use Department of Planning Andrew J.Spann Joyce M.Lannert County Executive WAC4 STUDY AREA Commissioner be responsible for the quality of stormwater runoff produced within their boundaries (see explanation in Section II). It is important, therefore, for municipalities to institute plans to maintain stormwater drainage systems and provide adequate treatment of stormwater runoff. Municipalities also need to find equitable sources of funding to pay for stormwater system design and maintenance. To provide such funding, municipalities should consider creating a "stormwater utility district." Currently in existence in over 20 states, stormwater utility districts are similar to water and sewer utility districts, whereby customers pay a fee according to usage. Residential property owners would typically pay a minimal fee or may be granted some exemption based on local zoning criteria. Commercial property owners would be charged based on the amount of impervious surface or on the amount of water that leaves their properties. The advantages of a stormwater utility district are many. First, funding for stormwater management is permanently established. There are no concerns about appropriation of money from one year to the next. Second, the system is equitable. Customers pay based on their degree of use of the system. Third, credits are given for implementation of stormwater best management practices, thereby providing an incentive for customers to install effective volume control and water quality enhancements. Fourth, with rates based on areas of impervious surface, stormwater utilities may provide some incentive to create less impervious surface so that usage fees will be lower. In the early 1990s, the Town of Greenburgh created a stormwater drainage district for the Sheldon Brook watershed. This enabled the town to fund the construction of stormwater drainage facilities to control flooding along Sheldon Brook. Unlike the aforementioned stormwater utility districts, which are perpetual, the Sheldon Brook drainage district was designed to reimburse the town for only the initial construction costs and would end once the bonds that were issued to fund this construction are paid off. The Village of Mamaroneck's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program suggests the establishment of drainage districts to provide funding for the preparation of intermunicipal watershed management plans. Practice Good Housekeeping — One of the most effective methods of persuasion is to practice what you preach. Municipalities need to apply many of the same principles and practices that they require of or hope private landowners or the general public will apply. Municipalities can and should implement a wide variety of water quality protection techniques and "good housekeeping" practices. Those with municipally owned stormwater management basins should properly maintain such facilities. Integrated pest management (IPM) should be practiced on municipal properties. Cornell Cooperative Extension Service has offered to implement IPM at public facilities to serve as models for the public. Other "good housekeeping" practices include: (1) periodic street sweeping and catch basin cleaning; (2) a multi-faceted approach to deicing, which minimizes salts and other contaminants, and (3) proper storage of materials and wastes at public works yards and waste transfer sites. Municipalities need to develop operation and maintenance programs that prevent or reduce pollutant runoff from municipal operations, including parks, fleet and building maintenance. Not only is this appropriate, but this is also now one of the requirements of the EPA Phase II Stormwater Regulations (see the "EPA Phase II Stormwater Regulations" in Section II for further information about these regulations). WAC 4 Plan Implementation And Monitoring — WAC 4's management plan will only be successful if it is endorsed, at least in principle, by the municipalities in the study area. Once the 157 plan has been endorsed, it must be transformed from recommendations on paper to actions that will improve the health of the area's water resources and Long Island Sound. Each municipality should designate a municipal staff member, such as a municipal planner or engineer, and/or a group or organization, such as a municipal conservation advisory council or board, to further the recommendations of this plan. The designee(s) should act as a coordinator and facilitator in advancing the plan's recommendations and act as a liaison to WAC 4, the Westchester County Department of Planning, the Westchester County Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution, and any other entity that may provide technical, administrative or other support. An ongoing system of monitoring and tracking water quality at locations throughout the watershed should be commenced. Such a program would measure appropriate physical, chemical, and biological parameters to help assess the effectiveness of implemented WAC 4 recommendations. Since results may not be immediately evident, extended monitoring is important. A corresponding tracking of initiatives adopted or implemented by municipalities in the WAC 4 study area will help identify the most effective strategies and may assist WAC 4 members, and the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Volunteers (see Outreach and Education Chapter), with developing or implementing water quality improvement techniques. This information should be combined in an annual progress report that can be prepared by a shared consultant. Grants can be sought to fund such a joint effort. With the increasing enhancement and coordination of school and citizen stream monitoring programs, extended monitoring may even be available in future years at relatively little or no cost to the municipality. An ongoing assessment of the results of the WAC 4 plan will ensure that the initiatives in this document are effective and evolve with time and experience. TowmVillage of Harrison Overview The Town/Village of Harrison is a suburban community in the southeastern portion of Westchester County. Harrison can be separated into three principal areas: Downtown Harrison, Purchase, and Silver Lake or West Harrison. The WAC 4 study area covers part or all of these areas. Land use in the study area includes residential, neighborhood business, and special business that consists primarily of large office complexes. The Town/Village of Harrison has a Master Plan and has adopted ordinances to address the following: Animal Waste (Chapter 91), Erosion and Sediment Control (Chapter 130), Excavation and Regrading of Land (Chapter 133), Flood Prevention (Chapter 146), Freshwater Water Wetlands Protection (Chapter 149), Subdivision (Chapter 204), Tree Protection (Chapter 220) and Water Pollution (Chapter 230). Building coverage limits, cluster zoning provisions and some setback requirements are addressed in the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 235). Except for cluster zoning, the Town/Village of Harrison has not implemented the ordinance- related recommendations made by WAC 3, which completed its management plan in April 1998. As such, WAC 4 endorses all of the ordinance recommendations made by WAC 3. It supports the implementation of all recommendations that have not already been implemented. The , recommendations noted below focus on concerns in the WAC 4 study area. 158 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Upgrade Master Plan Update Of 1988 To A Comprehensive Plan — The Town/Village of Harrison should consider adopting a Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Section 272-a of New York State Town Law. The Comprehensive Plan would update the town's 12-year- old Master Plan Update (MPU) to account for current conditions and needs. It will allow for the incorporation of additional considerations and recommendations, including an open space plan and specific water quality improvement or protection measures. Finally, a Comprehensive Plan will carry with it the mandates that local land use regulations be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that governmental agencies consider the recommendations made by such a plan when they propose capital projects. The MPU was adopted by the Harrison Planning Board in January 1988. In addition to assessing the municipality as a whole, the plan focuses on three areas of particular interest: Downtown Harrison, Purchase, the Silver Lake or West Harrison. The overall goals of the MPU include promoting a balanced form of development that preserves or improves the existing quality of life, respects the natural environment, and maintains the prospect of future development. The MPU recommends that Purchase remains low-density residential in nature and suggests the use of mandatory clustering to protect steep slopes, wetlands, and other features that preserve the environment or neighborhood character. A cluster zoning provision incorporating these recommendations was added to the Zoning Code in 1998. The MPU also advocates the subtraction of wetlands, steep slopes and other natural features from the calculation of density in new subdivisions. With the rapid pace of growth in Harrison, especially during the last decade, and an increasing awareness of the impacts of that growth, it is time for Harrison to upgrade its 1988 Master Plan Update (MPU) to a Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should address many quality of life issues in Harrison, including the environment, economics, recreation, traffic, and schools. It would enable the town to take a pro-active approach to potential development, anticipate the impacts, and develop strategies to preserve the quality of life and encourage sustainable growth. The Comprehensive Plan should include the development of Conservation Overlay Districts or Open Space/Recreation Districts as recommended in the MPU. An Open Space preservation, maintenance and acquisition plan also should be created, and conservation easements should be required, where feasible, for stream and wetland corridors and water bodies and required setbacks thereto to protect water quality. Currently, six golf courses are wholly or partially in the Town/Village of Harrison. Together, these courses comprise 1,036 acres of open space, or nearly 70 percent of all of the open space in Harrison. The MPU states that golf courses could become vulnerable to future development. It that happens, Harrison could lose a substantial amount of its open space. To protect those resources and acquire additional open space, Harrison should enter into "right of first refusal" agreements with the golf courses. This strategy could be part of the overall Open Space Plan. An Open Space Fund, funded by taxes on real estate transactions or other means of revenue, could be used to purchase golf courses, if they became available, and other open space. 159 ORDINANCE RECOMMENDA TIONS Amend The Erosion And Sediment Control Ordinance– The Town/Village of Harrison should combine its Excavation and Regrading of Land Ordinance (Chapter 133) and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 130) to more efficiently address the issues of excavation, regrading and soil erosion. The combined ordinance should: require the issuance of permits for all types of land disturbing activities; give Planning Board oversight of land disturbing activities greater than one (1) acre; request greater details in its submission requirements; provide more specific criteria and performance standards; and include performance bond requirements or other means to ensure compliance. The headwaters of the Mamaroneck River exist in West Harrison. Therefore, the control of erosion and sediment in the town are of extreme importance to WAC 4. As discussed in WAC 3, the Town/Village of Harrison has two separate ordinances regarding erosion and sediment control—an Excavation and Regrading of Land Ordinance (Chapter 133), adopted in 1970, which applies to regrading activities and commercial excavation and an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 130), adopted in 1982, which only applies to activities requiring a municipal permit. There is some overlap between these ordinances. On the other hand, there are some aspects of erosion and sediment control and regrading that are not fully addressed. As recommended by WAC 3, the town should consider combining the two ordinances to more efficiently and thoroughly address the issues of excavation, regrading and soil erosion. The combined ordinance should require the issuance of permits for all land disturbing activities, regardless of the requirement of other municipal permits. In addition, this ordinance should stipulate that the Building Inspector would have the authority to grant a permit for regrading activities involving less than one acre, but regrading projects of larger scope would require the review of the Planning Board or other approval authority. Submission requirements should be more detailed, particularly with regard to an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit. Standards for erosion control should be more explicit than those in the existing Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. They should require additional actions if stabilizing practices do not adequately control erosion. The combined ordinance should require that the smallest practical area of land should be exposed for the shortest practical time during development, and a maximum threshold of soil exposed at one time should be established. Design criteria for erosion control should be based on calculations for a 10-year or less frequency storm. Timing and installation of control measures should be addressed, as well as protection of watercourses. Provisions for the requirement of performance bonds should be included in the ordinance as a measure to ensure compliance. An inspection schedule should be established, and penalties for violations should be substantially increased. The town should refer to the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Erosion and Sediment Control, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control, and Westchester County's Best Management Practices Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control (1991) for further guidance. (See also "Municipal Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Tools" in Section 2). 160 To further ensure that the new erosion and sediment ordinance is properly implemented, Harrison should review its enforcement procedures, identify any problems that may exist, and develop a plan to ensure full erosion control implementation throughout the town. Adopt A Stormwater Management Ordinance—WAC 4 recommends that the TownNillage of Harrison adopt a Stormwater Management Ordinance to address both the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff produced in the town. This ordinance should require treatment of the "first flush" as well as the most effective and appropriate stormwater basins and conveyances to ensure water quality improvement. The Stormwater Management Ordinance also should include provisions for stream corridor management, which will encourage the preservation of vegetation along those corridors. Preference should be given to natural drainage systems, with justification required for the use of closed conveyances. As stated above, with the headwaters of the Mamaroneck River, as well as significant portions of its tributaries and main stem, being in Harrison, impacts to water quality in Harrison affect the entire Mamaroneck River watershed. Much of the land use in the WAC 4 study area of Harrison is zoned for Special Business Districts, which are primarily comprised of corporate parks and hotels. These land uses are accompanied by large areas of impervious surfaces (i.e., large buildings and parking lots). Studies (Schueler, 1992) of the impacts from impervious surfaces indicate that the stormwater quality can be adversely affected when impervious cover reaches 10 percent of the land area. It becomes significantly degraded at 25 percent or greater. Some land uses, such as high density residential development, office complexes and shopping malls, can have up to 90 percent or more of impervious surface. With a significant portion of the WAC 4 study area dedicated to land uses having a lot of impervious surface, the implementation of stormwater "best management practices" is needed to protect water quality. Although Harrison addresses stormwater management in several sections of the Town Code— Subdivision (Chapter 204), Flood Prevention (Chapter 146), Water Pollution (Chapter 230), and Erosion and Sediment Control (Chapter 130)--these ordinances concentrate primarily on controlling the flow, or volume, of stormwater runoff with only minor reference to water quality. Adoption of a Stormwater Management Ordinance by the town would set specific standards for water quality protection, as well as provide guidance on stormwater management practices that should be implemented to effectively improve the quality of stormwater runoff associated with development. These management practices would include the treatment of the "first flush," which typically contains the heaviest pollutant load transported by runoff, during the early stages of a storm. Other management practices would be selected based on their water quality improvement capability. For example, infiltration ponds yield the greatest water quality treatment with stormwater percolating into the ground and being treated through natural processes. When infiltration ponds are not viable, retention (wet) ponds should be considered to hold and treat stormwater. However, where retention is not possible, extended detention ponds, which hold stormwater for a shorter time (at least 24 hours) to allow for settling out of particles, should be utilized. Dry detention basins are the least desirable method of stormwater management because of their minimum water quality benefit. The Stormwater Management Ordinance also should protect streams in their natural state, including the preservation of riparian vegetation along stream banks and within a specified distance or distances, depending on the nature of the development and/or lot size, to serve as a 161 buffer. The use of closed conveyances should be discouraged and stringent justification, which weighs potential environmental degradation with anticipated benefits, should be required for any such proposal. In developing a stormwater management ordinance, the Town/Village of Harrison should refer to NYS DEC guidelines, such as Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff ftom New Development (1992) and "Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development" (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8). The town also should refer to Westchester County's Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management. (For additional information about stormwater management techniques, see the "Stormwater Management" chapters in Sections I and II.) Because of the recent interest in the redevelopment of several corporate park locations in Harrison, this would be a particularly opportune time to institute stormwater regulations to help improve water quality. Adopt A New Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance — The Town/Village of Harrison should replace its existing Freshwater Wetlands Protection Ordinance with a new ordinance that more closely resembles the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection (January 1998). The new ordinance should provide a more functional definition of wetlands and a more defined set of standards. It also should include provisions for wetland mitigation and watercourse protection. Existing penalties should be increased and other methods need to be considered to bolster the town's enforcement actions. Wetlands are important natural resources which render many benefits to municipalities, such as treating pollution, controlling flooding, providing wildlife habitat, etc. The current Freshwater Wetlands Protection Law of the Town/Village of Harrison (Local Law No. 1 of 1976) is based on the New York State's Freshwater Wetlands Act. Because the State Freshwater Wetlands Map illustrates only the largest wetlands (12.4 acres or greater), it does not recognize many local wetlands that need protection. Also in the current ordinance, permit requirements are not adequately detailed, mitigation and enforcement criteria are not clearly defined, and penalties are not substantial enough to deter violations. The Town/Village of Harrison should rewrite the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Ordinance in accordance with the County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection (January 1998). It would provide a more functional definition of"wetlands" and defined set of standards, and incorporate wetland mitigation provisions. In addition, it would allow for the inclusion of watercourse protection. Although civil and criminal sanctions are included in the present ordinance, the lack of enforcement of wetland protection provisions has undermined the effectiveness of the town's ordinance. The town should increase the penalties in its ordinance, as well as consider ways to bolster its enforcement capabilities if it truly wants to succeed at protecting wetlands and, therefore, water quality. Adopt A Steffi Slopes Ordinance — Harrison should adopt a Steep Slopes Ordinance. Such an ordinance would be aimed at preventing steep slope disturbance and require mitigation where steep slope avoidance is not practicable. Extensive review of projects proposed on steep slopes and rigorous standards should be established for development on those slopes. 162 These standards should include requirements on cut and fill, padding and terracing, use of explosives, erosion and sediment control practices, etc. Enforcement should be vigilant and penalties for violation should be significant. Areas of steep slopes with gradients of 15 percent or greater exist in Harrison within the WAC 4 study area, particularly in Purchase and West Harrison. Poorly designed development on steep slopes can cause excessive erosion, degrade habitats, alter drainage patterns, contribute to downstream flooding, etc. Development on steep slopes should be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The town should adopt a steep slopes ordinance that would provide a procedure for review and standards for development on Harrison's steep slopes. The ordinance should discourage development on steep slopes and require mitigation where avoidance is not feasible. Sample steep slopes ordinances are on file for reference at the Westchester County Department of Planning. (For further information on steep slopes protection, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-regulatory Tools" in Section 2.) Amend Zoning Ordinance — The TownNillage of Harrison should amend its Zoning Ordinance in the following ways: 1) It should adopt lot coverage limits that limit all types of impervious cover for all zoning districts. This is particularly important in the Special Business Districts because of the existing extensive amounts of impervious cover and the recent interest in redevelopment of sites in these districts. 2) It should reevaluate its parking requirements for all zoning districts to ensure that such requirements reflect the actual needs of the respective districts. Impervious parking area requirements should be based on the average needs of the particular land use (e. g, office building, shopping center). The code should require additional overflow parking to be made of pervious material to accommodate above-average parking needs. 3) In addition to the Town Engineer, the town Wetlands Consultant should be required to review development proposals within one hundred (100) feet of a stream or water body to recommend appropriate actions regarding stream and water body protection before the issuance of a building permit. The input of the Wetlands Consultant would help to ensure that water quality and ecological issues are addressed in addition to engineering issues. 4) It should create Overlay Districts for Conservation and Open Space/Recreation to ensure adequate protection of sensitive environmental features and open space resources in specific areas of the town, such as existing golf courses. Lot Coverage Limits - A portion of Harrison in the WAC 4 study area has a number of Special Business Districts (SB-0, SB-1, SB-35 and SB-100), which contain many office park complexes. These complexes contain large office buildings and parking lots to accommodate building tenants and visitors. This type of development is associated with large amounts of impervious surface, which generates polluted stormwater. Of the Special Business Districts in the study area, only SB-35 is regulated by floor area ratios (FARs), which limit the total floor area of the 163 structure to a percentage of the total lot area. FARs, however, do not limit the amount of parking _ lot, sidewalk, or other impervious surfaces. Similarly, residential neighborhoods are regulated by "lot coverage" limits that apply only to main and accessory structures, not to other impervious -- surfaces, such as driveways, tennis courts, etc. The town should adopt true lot coverage limits, which apply to all types of impervious surfaces, for all zoning districts. Such lot coverage limits will help lessen the amount of impervious surface that could be developed and, thereby, minimize water quality impacts throughout Harrison. It also will provide a framework for reducing impervious surfaces at sites being considered for redevelopment, particularly in the Special Business Districts. Reevaluate Parking Requirements In Zoning Regulations - Another method of reducing impervious surface in Special Business Districts, and other districts as well, is to reevaluate the parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. In business districts, parking lots are constructed based on a ratio of a specified number of parking spaces per square foot of building space. This formula is designed to accommodate the maximum building occupancy. However, large buildings seldom reach their full occupancy or use all of their associated parking spaces. Therefore, parking lots are not filled. Ideally, parking lots should be only large enough to serve the average building usage, and overflow parking lots should be made of an acceptable form of permeable pavement capable of handling occasional excesses of vehicles. Office buildings, hotels, etc. should be encouraged to share parking facilities, especially when peak usage occurs at different times of day. In addition, businesses should be encouraged to give incentives to employees to utilize park and ride facilities or mass transit. Smaller parking lots and greater use of mass transit would not only have a positive impact on water quality, but also would lessen traffic. Expand Setback Requirements From Streams And Water Bodies — Naturally vegetated buffers protect streams and water bodies by filtering out polluted stormwater and trash, and slowing the flow of surface water runoff. They also provide wildlife habitat. In Chapter 235-31, the Zoning Ordinance currently regulated certain activities within fifty (50) feet of streams and water bodies in all zoning districts except R-75, B, and MF Residence Districts and PB, NB, CBD and MFR Business Districts. The Freshwater Wetlands Protection Ordinance regulates certain activities within one hundred (100) feet from the edge of wetlands. In the aforementioned zoning districts, it is the Town Engineer's responsibility to determine how a stream or water body is to be managed or protected prior to the issuance of a building permit. The town should expand its regulated setback from streams and water bodies in the Zoning Ordinance to one hundred (100) feet, just as it does for wetlands in the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Ordinance. A setback of one hundred (100) feet is generally recognized as the minimum distance needed to fully provide the benefits derived from buffers, including water quality improvement and protection, flood control, and fish and wildlife habitat. The Zoning Ordinance should require the town Wetlands Consultant to review building permit applications that propose development within one hundred (100) feet of any stream or water body in any district and recommend appropriate accommodations regarding stream and water body protection. The input of the Wetlands Consultant would help ensure that water quality and biological issues are addressed in addition to the engineering issues addressed by the Town Engineer. _ 164 Create Conservation/Open Space Overlay Districts_ With the remaining undeveloped land in Harrison at a premium and the desire to protect open space in Harrison increasing, the use of Conservation or Open Space Overlay districts could help to preserve remaining natural resources. Six golf courses currently lie wholly or partially within the borders of Harrison. These golf courses represent 70 percent of the open space in the entire town. Although these golf courses are not under consideration for development at the present time, conventional development on these sites could have a significant adverse impact on sensitive environmental and open space resources in Harrison. To protect remaining open space and natural features, overlay zones should be created for cluster development and open space preservation. Cluster development regulations are currently addressed in Section 235 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section was adopted in 1998 to protect unique and sensitive environmental features in the R-1, R-2 and R-2.5 Zoning Districts. Cluster zoning allows the development of part of a site while leaving the rest of it in its natural state. Cluster provisions allow for flexibility in design of subdivisions in terms of lot size and width, and front, rear, and side yard setbacks. Under this section of the Zoning Ordinance, the density of a proposed cluster development cannot exceed the density permitted under the site's zoning classification. Overlay Districts would help define specific areas containing significant natural resources, topographic or geologic features, and other land that warrants protection as open space. It would then set forth protective provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Overlay Districts for open space and/or recreation were recommended by the Master Plan Update of 1988, but have not yet been adopted by the town. Amend Subdivision Ordinance - WAC 4 recommends that Harrison amend its subdivision regulations (Chapter 204) as follows: 1) Add a provision which would allow the Planning Board to deny an application where significant trees have been removed within one year prior to the submission of an application for subdivision. 2) Exclude wetlands, steep slopes, streams, watercourses, water bodies and other natural features from the calculation of lot density for new subdivisions. Add A Provision Regarding Removal Of Significant 1 gees Prior To Subdivision Application-- Clear-cutting pplication_Clear-cutting or regrading of land without proper permits and controls can cause erosion, destruction of wetlands, and other significant environmental damage. In the past, disturbances have occurred on undeveloped land prior to submission of a subdivision application and have resulted in the destruction of sensitive environmental features. Even after the town adopted a tree protection law in 1989, disturbances continued to occur prior to any town approval. The Town/Village of Harrison should consider including a provision that would allow the Planning Board to deny an application where significant trees have been removed within one year prior to submission of an application for subdivision. The Village of Scarsdale has a comparable provision in its Zoning Regulations and it has proven to be successful in deterring developers from disturbing land prior to submitting for subdivision approval. Such a provision should be coordinated with Harrison's Tree Protection Law(see below). Subtract Areas Of Wetlands, Watercourses, Steep Slopes And other Natural Features From Lot Density Calculation - The Master Plan Update of 1988 recommends that the following provision 165 be established in the Subdivision Regulations: "calculation of density in new subdivisions should be modified to subtract wetlands, steep slopes and other natural features." Streams, watercourses and water bodies also are sensitive environmental features that would benefit from the same exclusion from the lot density calculation. WAC 4 supports this recommendation and suggests that streams, watercourses, and water bodies also be subtracted from the calculation of lot density for new subdivisions in addition to wetlands, steep slopes, and other natural features, as outlined in the Master Plan Update of 1988. Amend Animal Waste Provisions — Amend the animal waste provisions (in Chapter 91) to protect water resources from equestrian facilities, which should include a minimum one hundred- (100-) foot-wide buffer between manure stockpiles, riding rings and paddocks and streams and wetlands. Regulations on animal waste are found in Chapter 91 of the Town Code. These provisions primarily regulate canine waste. Although there are a few horse stables close to water bodies in the study area, WAC 4 recommends the adoption of regulations on equestrian facilities to protect water resources in other parts of Harrison, as also recommended by WAC 3. Amend Tree Protection Law — The TownNillage of Harrison should increase the penalties for violations. The maximum fine should be higher or be applied on a per tree basis and violations should accumulate on a per diem rather than weekly basis. In addition to fines, there should be a requirement for the replacement of each tree that was removed without approval. The town adopted a tree protection law in 1989. The law applies to all private property and protects trees as small as four (4) inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Despite this fairly stringent law, violations have occurred, particularly with respect to large scale development. This could be due, in part, to the relatively small fines that can be exacted by the town. Under the current law, the maximum fine is limited to $250, regardless of the number of trees that are taken down, and separate violations can only be issued on a weekly basis. To provide a more effective deterrence, the town should consider increasing its maximum fine to account for large- scale removals or apply the fines on a per tree basis. Each day, rather than week, of continued violation should constitute as a separate offense, as is provided for in many of the other municipal tree protection ordinances. Some of these other ordinances also require replacement of trees that were removed in violation. Harrison should seriously consider all of these provisions in light of past problems. Town of Mamaroneck Overview The Town of Mamaroneck partially fronts Long Island Sound, in the vicinity of Hommocks Road and Premium Point. Most of the Town, especially its north end, is within the Sheldrake River and Mamaroneck River watersheds, which drain to Mamaroneck Harbor. The southwestern corner is within the Pine Brook watershed, which drains to Larchmont Harbor. 166 The Town's land use is primarily medium- to low-density residential. The Town's north end is dominated by two private golf courses and part of Saxon Woods Golf Course and County Park. The Town has limited commercial and industrial development. The areas within the Larchmont Harbor and Pine Brook watersheds is part of the WAC 5 study area, whose management plan was completed in June 1997. Since that time, the Town of Mamaroneck has initiated revisions to its Freshwater Wetlands and Watercourses Protection Ordinance, which is anticipated to include regulations on tidal wetlands. The recommendations below reiterate those made in the WAC 5 plan, with some expanded thoughts and new recommendations. The Town of Mamaroneck has a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, as well as various separate planning documents that guide development in specific areas of the Town. In addition to the previously mentioned Freshwater Wetlands and Watercourses Protection Ordinance (Chapter 114), which is currently being revised, the Town also has a Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 95), an Animal Waste Ordinance (Chapter 58), and a Tree Ordinance (Chapter 207). The Town's Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 240) contains some lot and building coverage limits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDA TIONS Adopt A Comprehensive Plan And Periodically Update LWRP — The Town should consider adopting a comprehensive plan that essentially assembles the various plans and studies into a unified plan for the Town. The comprehensive plan should emphasize and address the importance of controlling both point and nonpoint source pollutants and encourage the protection of existing natural resources on both public and private lands. The comprehensive plan should incorporate recommendations made by WAC 4 and WAC 5. In addition, the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont LWRP should be periodically updated to reflect guideline, policy and regulatory changes at the local, state and federal government levels as well as new technology and techniques to protect the environment. The Town of Mamaroneck currently has multiple planning documents that guide development in the Town. The Town last updated its Master Plan of development (which was prepared jointly with the Village of Larchmont) in 1987. However, neither the 1987 update nor its 1966 predecessor includes substantial discussion of environmental protection or nonpoint source pollution control, and only addresses commercial areas. In 1986, the Town adopted a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) (also prepared jointly with the Village of Larchmont), which was updated in 1994. This program includes policies aimed specifically at controlling nonpoint source pollution. The Town's LWRP embodies state-generated policies, such as "best management practices will be utilized to minimize the nonpoint discharge of excess nutrients, organic compounds and eroded soils into coastal waters" as well as locally formulated subpolicies, such as "litter and dog waste shall be strictly controlled in the coastal area." (policy Nos. 37 and 39A, respectively). The LWRP also highlights the need for intermunicipal cooperation to protect these shared water resources and encourages County leadership in planning and implementing watershed management programs. 167 The following are noteworthy among the many policies directly or indirectly related to controlling nonpoint source pollution and recommendations for implementing such policies in J the LWRP: • The Town and Village shall preserve all remaining natural wetlands (freshwater, tidal) and floodplains (riparian areas). • Where feasible, the restoration of damaged wetlands and riparian systems in areas where they could serve in nonpoint pollution abatement should be undertaken. • Natural buffers along watercourses "should be retained where they exist, and where appropriate, restored or enhanced." Similarly, 100-foot-wide buffers, at a minimum, are recommended, where feasible, to protect wetlands. • Non-structural and structural best management practices, such as the construction of stormwater management basins, should be employed. The program notes that structural measures, in some cases, are inappropriate and that "non-structural best management practices, therefore, will be required or encouraged to the greatest extent appropriate and feasible...." • Alternatives to chemical fertilizers and pesticides include organic gardening and biologic pest management. Supported by the LWRP and other planning documents, the Town of Mamaroneck conducted "A Study of Land Use Regulations and Development Impacts in the Golf Course Area," which was completed in 1988. This led to further studies and the eventual creation of a "recreation" zoning district, which applies to two private golf courses in the Town of Mamaroneck. This new district sets forth recreation facilities as its principal uses and dictates higher area requirements, such as a minimum lot area of 50 acres and a building coverage limit of 1.25 percent. Other studies undertaken by the Town include: Myrtle Boulevard Area Study, dated April 1999 and a Hydrologic Study of the Sheldrake River Watershed, prepared in the early 1990s. In addition, the Town of Mamaroneck was part of WAC 5, which covered the watersheds of Stephenson Brook, Burling Brook, Pine Brook and Larchmont Harbor. WAC 5's plan was completed and endorsed by the Town in 1997. In keeping with the recommendations of the LWRP and the WAC 5 plan, the Town of Mamaroneck (in conjunction with the Village of Larchmont and County of Westchester) has cooperated with the restoration of East Creek. While much of the Town is already developed and the primary large tracts of land (i.e., Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot golf courses) have been protected from extensive residential development by the recently established "recreation" zoning district, the Town should consider adopting a comprehensive plan that assembles the various plans and studies into a unified plan for the Town. The comprehensive plan need not repeat all of the details that have already been presented in existing documentation; these can be incorporated by reference. However, the comprehensive plan should emphasize and address the importance of controlling both point and nonpoint source pollutants and encourage the protection of existing natural resources on both public and private lands. Specific recommendations made by WAC 4 and WAC 5 should be incorporated into the comprehensive plan. Under current New York State law, a comprehensive plan carries added weight over its predecessor—the master plan—in that it compels all town land use regulations to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and it requires "all plans for capital projects of 168 another governmental agency on land included in the town comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to..." the applicable State law to "...take such plan into consideration." In addition, the LWRP should be periodically updated as was done in 1994, as techniques for controlling nonpoint source pollution and educating the public about this pollution become more refined, and as regulations are changed to reflect this refinement. ORDINANCE RECOMMENDA TIONS Replace Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance— As is currently being considered, the Town should replace its Freshwater Wetlands and Watercourses Protection Ordinance (Chapter 114) with a new ordinance that includes oversight of tidal wetlands, as well as provides for a scientifically-based definition of wetlands, buffer protection, standards for decisions, and mitigation requirements. The Town is currently considering changes to its Freshwater Wetlands and Watercourses Ordinance. The original law (Local Law No.7 —1986) is based on the State's Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24), although it was expanded to include any freshwater wetland more than a quarter (0.25)-acre in size, as well as nearly all watercourses within the town. However, it generally lacks specific standards for decisions and mitigation requirements. The new ordinance is anticipated to incorporate many of the provisions suggested in the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection. These provisions (some of which were specifically recommended by WAC 5), include: a wetlands definition based on the Federal 1989 delineation method; a 100-foot-wide regulated setback; mitigation provisions; and tidal wetlands regulations. Such changes would strengthen water quality protection. Therefore, they are recommended. Amend Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance — Minor amendments should be made to strengthen the Town's Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 95). The regulations affecting surface water should include provisions such as required treatment of the "first flush," usually the first half-inch, of stormwater runoff and an established order of preference with respect to the types of water quality management systems that should be implemented. The ordinance also should include the following provisions: control of erosion from impacts of up to a 10-year frequency storm; installation of perimeter controls; diversion of clean surface water runoff around construction sites; and removal of sediment carried onto paved roads at the end of each day. Additionally, the Town should consider lowering the threshold for steep slopes from 25 percent to 15 percent. The Town's Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Local Law No. 5-1993) contains regulations affecting both stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. As was recommended by WAC 5, the ordinance contains most of the recommended standards for erosion and sediment control but the surface water regulations should be strengthened. Features that are needed include provisions for the treatment of pollutants contained in the "first flush" and identifying preferred management systems (i.e., in descending order of preference: infiltration, retention, and extended detention) For further details, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Tools" in Section 1I). 169 Only minor amendments are needed to include additional standards or requirements, such as: controlling erosion from impacts of up to a 10-year frequency storm; installation of perimeter controls; diversion of clean surface water runoff around construction sites; and removal of sediment carried onto paved roads at the end of each day. The Erosion and Sediment Control Section of this ordinance also refers to minimizing disturbance on steep slopes, with the policy that clearing or grading should not occur on slopes in excess of 25 percent. The Town should consider lowering the 25 percent threshold for steep slopes protection to 15 percent, which is a generally recognized threshold for special controls. According to the U.S.G.S. topographic maps, slopes of 25 percent or greater within the Town are found primarily in the vicinity of Saxon Woods Golf Course and County Park, Amend Zoning Ordinance — The Town could make several amendments to its Zoning Ordinance to provide for additional water quality protection: it should add lot coverage limits to every district; it should exclude sensitive areas in allowable coverage calculations; it should re-evaluate parking requirements and provide for pervious pavement alternatives; and it should consider provisions for cluster development in its Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations. Mamaroneck Town provides an assortment of coverage limits in its zoning regulations. Lot coverage limits, which provide limits on paved areas as well as structures, govern only single- family and two-family residential districts. Office and business districts, however, contain only building coverage limits in addition to floor-area ratio (FAR) standards. The innovative "recreation" district also contains only building coverage limits. Multiple-residence districts contain neither building or lot coverage limits, although they do require a specified amount of usable open space per dwelling unit. While the business districts are mostly developed, the Town should add lot coverage limits to every district to ensure that impervious surfaces, not just those of buildings, are regulated in all areas whenever possible. This would be especially beneficial for the Recreation district. In addition, sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, steep slopes) should be excluded in whole or in part from FAR and allowable coverage calculations. Another method of limiting impervious surfaces is to allow for the use of non-paved or permeable pavement parking areas to handle excess or overflow parking. Parking lots are frequently designed to accommodate maximum or near-maximum usage. By allowing pervious pavement alternatives to accommodate occasional above-average parking needs, impervious surface coverage can be reduced. The Town should re-evaluate the parking requirements in its Zoning Ordinance and consider modifications to provide for the use of pervious pavement options in its business and "recreation" districts. In addition, the Town should consider provisions for "cluster" development in its Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations. Only minor zoning modifications are permitted "for reasons of topography, shape or dimensions," according to Section 240-16 of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Other "reasons," such as wetlands and other significant natural features, should be included. Cluster development provisions would provide added flexibility and lay out the means for permanently protecting such areas of concern. Amend Tree Ordinance — The Town of Mamaroneck should consider amending Chapter 207, which regulates tree removals, to dedicate the funds received through existing provisions 170 allowing for payment in lieu of tree replacements for the purposes of tree plantings or enhancements elsewhere. The Town has a strong Tree Ordinance, applying to trees greater than six (6) inches in diameter at four (4) feet in height on properties greater than 20,000 square feet in size. It contains criteria for approving tree removals and requires both a performance bond and a maintenance bond to be held for two years to ensure survivability of replacement trees. In cases where the lots are substantially wooded, the ordinance allows the tree replacement requirement to be waived or to be substituted by the payment of a fee. The ordinance should identify a dedicated tree fund to which the fees would be deposited and set criteria as to how it should be spent (e.g., for tree plantings on public property). Village of Mamaroneck Overview The confluence of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake river is in Mamaroneck Village. The Village is a densely developed community, containing a range of land uses from industry to beach and yacht clubs. Its predominant land use, however, is residential. Mamaroneck Village has not yet implemented any of the recommendations made by WAC 3 and WAC 5 concerning comprehensive plans and ordinances. The study areas of these advisory committees also included parts of the Village. As such, the recommendations are essentially repeated below with some expanded thoughts and new recommendations. The Village of Mamaroneck has a Master Plan of Development, a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and a Harbor Management Plan. It also has a Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance (Chapter 192), an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 186), a Tree Ordinance (Chapter 318), and an Animal Waste Ordinance (Chapter 156). It also has building coverage limits in its Zoning Ordinance. COMPREHENSI VE PLAN RECOMMENDA TIONS Update Master Plan, LWRP And Harbor Management Plan - The Village of Mamaroneck needs to revise its Master Plan of Development, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and Harbor Management Plan to include more specific recommendations and policies to improve the quality Long Island Sound and its tributaries and embayments. Master Plan revisions should call for nonpoint source pollution reduction goals. They also should consider redevelopment potential and provide a vision towards decreasing impervious surfaces and recapturing buffer areas along streams and the waterfront. The LWRP should incorporate additional nonpoint source pollution control strategies and projects that enhance water quality. These could include better enforcement against littering and contamination from land uses next to watercourses and water bodies, promoting the use of integrated pest management, and identifying areas for wetland restoration. The Village's LWRP should recommend adherence to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Reducing the Impacts of.Stornnvater Runoff from Nov Development(1992) in addition to the County's best management practices guidelines. The Harbor Management 171 Plan should be re-evaluated to consider how it can provide better guidance on cumulative impacts from boater use as well as how it can better regulate potential pollution and contamination resulting from waterfront uses. Mamaroneck Village's Master Plan of Development, adopted in 1986, acknowledges the environmental sensitivity associated with the Village's low-lying coastal location, much of which is within the 100-year floodplain. The Master Plan discusses the adverse impacts that extensive development can, and has had, on flooding within the Village. However, it does not directly address the issue of nonpoint source pollution and the impact development can have on the water quality of Long Island Sound. Furthermore, the plan recommends increased development, particularly in the way of infilling, in the Village without consideration of how this may exacerbate flooding within its borders. In fact, recent development projects have been much larger in scale than the previous developments they have replaced. Conservation and safeguarding the natural environment are identified as one of the Village's goals in the Master Plan. However, little is actually recommended to implement such a goal. A conservation overlay zone is recommended, but with the intention of maintaining the neighborhood character and scale, rather than for environmental benefits. Similarly vegetated buffers are recommended in the industrial area, but only as it applies to visual screening between industrial and non-industrial uses. The Plan does recommend that the Village "landscape and clean-up the banks of the Sheldrake River as a neighborhood amenity." Unfortunately, again, the focus is not for water quality purposes and, as previously indicated, no means for implementation are provided. The Village adopted a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) in 1984. While the program espouses many of the state coastal policies which touch on nonpoint source pollution, it primarily focuses on the issues of flooding, sewage overflows, sedimentation of the harbor as it interferes with navigation, and facilitation of water-dependent uses. The program's concern over stormwater runoff and its attendant recommendation to develop a watershed management plan are based largely on water volume, not water quality, considerations. The LWRP further advises that structural flood control projects be implemented to "increase the carrying capacity of rivers." Such a recommendation, without careful consideration, can have a detrimental impact on the quality of downstream water resources. The program does suggest that "best management practices will be utilized to minimize the nonpoint discharge of excess nutrients, organic compounds and eroded soils into coastal waters." The LWRP also identifies sensitive wetland habitats deserving protection. The LWRP relies substantially on the local environmental quality review (SEQR) process, however, to implement the policies that promote protection of these sites and overall water quality. In follow-up to the LWRP, the Village adopted a Harbor Management Plan in 1986. The LWRP recommended such a plan in order to address the present and future needs of Mamaroneck Harbor. The Harbor Management Plan sets forth policies and identifies steps to implement these policies. These policies are to serve as guidelines for the Village's Harbor Commission and Harbor Master. This plan, however, focuses primarily on boater usage and safety, including such matters as moorings, dredging, use of municipal facilities and watercraft operations. Furthermore, the plan advocates increasing the boater capacity of Mamaroneck Harbor where possible. Of the thirteen policies, only one pertains to environmental degradation and pollution. Steps to implement this policy include: ensuring compliance with noise and marine sanitation 172 device codes; establishing pump-out stations; and cautioning Village agencies to bring to the Village Board's attention any action or lack of action that might adversely impact marshes, other wetlands and wildlife sanctuaries within the Village's coastal zone. While these steps are helpful, particularly the establishment of two public pump-out stations and the designation of Mamaroneck Harbor as a No-Discharge Zone in the 1990s, the plan fails to provide guidance on the cumulative impacts of the construction or reconstruction of water-dependent structures or increased boater use within the harbor. It also does not address the potential pollutant contribution associated with marina and marine-related operations in or near the shore, or with the potential redevelopment of existing sites along the harbor. Although the Village's various plans discuss coastal natural resources and offer some protective recommendations and policies, the Village of Mamaroneck needs to revise its Master Plan of Development, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and its Harbor Management Plan to include more specific recommendations and policies for improving the quality of the tributaries and embayments of Long Island Sound. These recommendations should encompass the reduction of nonpoint source pollutants from residential, municipal, commercial and industrial facilities. Any revision of the Master Plan should take into account nonpoint source pollution reduction goals. It should consider redevelopment potential and provide a vision towards decreasing impervious surfaces and recapturing buffer areas along streams and the waterfront. More so, the LWRP should incorporate additional nonpoint source pollution control strategies and projects that enhance water quality. These could include better enforcement against littering and contamination from land uses adjacent to water courses and water bodies , promotion of the use of integrated pest management and identifying areas for wetland restoration/enhancement. With regard to best management practices, the Village's LWRP should recommend adherence to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992) in addition to the County's best management practices guidelines. The Harbor Management Plan should be re-evaluated, as it requires of itself under policy No. 13. The update should consider how it can provide better guidance on cumulative impacts from boater use as well as how it can better regulate potential pollution and contamination resulting from waterfront uses. ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS Amend Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance — The Village of Mamaroneck should amend its Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance to include: a wetlands definition based on the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands; mitigation sequencing requirements; and more specific standards in accordance with the Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance.for Wetland Protection. The Village's Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance (Chapter 192) is based on the State's Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24), but is somewhat more inclusive; it calls for the identification of wetlands based on the Article 24 definition but has no minimum size threshold. However, the ordinance lacks a specific description of how wetlands are to be identified and allows for an 173 ambiguous determination by the Planning Board. It also lacks mitigation sequencing requirements and could benefit from more specific criteria in its standards for issuing a permit. The existing ordinance should, therefore, be amended to include a wetlands definition based on the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, as well as mitigation sequencing requirements. The Village should refer to the Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection for more specific criteria on application submission requirements and factors used to determine whether permits should be granted or denied. Adopt Tidal Wetlands Ordinance— The Village should adopt a local tidal wetlands ordinance to allow for greater regulation of activities in areas next to tidal wetlands. The Village contains a significant amount of tidal wetlands along Long Island Sound. As such, the Village would benefit by adopting a local tidal wetlands ordinance to supplement the State's tidal wetlands regulations. The State's regulations are limited to the seaward side of bulkheads or seawalls greater than 100 feet long. Much of the Village's shoreline is lined by seawalls. While the landward side of seawalls is typically not wetland, some land uses and construction- related activities in these upland areas can adversely impact the health of adjoining wetlands. Amend Flood Damage Prevention, Erosion And Sediment Control Ordinance — The Village should amend Article II of Chapter 186 to include the design of erosion and sediment control practices to handle impacts of up to a 10-year frequency storm, diversion of clean surface water runoff around construction areas, stabilization of all pipe outlets, and require that controls be functional before any land is disturbed. The Village's regulations on Erosion and Sediment Control (Article II of Chapter 186) incorporate most of the currently recommended standards. Only a few standards need to be added to complete the ordinance. They include the following: design of erosion controls to handle impacts of up to a 10-year frequency storm, diversion of clean surface water runoff around construction areas, stabilization of all pipe outlets, and requiring that controls be functional before any land is disturbed. It should be noted that the Coastal Zone Management Commission, which has land use regulatory authority in the village (Chapter 146, Coastal Management Ordinance), requires best management practices for new construction, including practices related to erosion and sediment control. Ensuring the adequacy of construction site runoff controls is one of the requirements of the EPA Phase II Stormwater Regulations. (See "Stormwater Management" chapter for further details on the Phase II regulations. For further information about erosion and sediment control, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-regulatory Tools" in Section II). Adopt A Stormwater Management Ordinance — The Village of Mamaroneck should adopt a comprehensive stormwater management ordinance, which provides for both water quality and water quantity control, in accordance with NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormtivater Runoff front New Development (1992), Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8), and the County's Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Runoff Control(1984). 174 The Village has worked with neighboring municipalities to develop an intermunicipal stormwater management plan for the Beaver Swamp and Brentwood Brook watersheds. This plan provides for detention capable of handling a 100-year frequency storm, but applies only to the Beaver Swamp and Brentwood Brook watersheds, which is in the WAC 3 study area, and affects only a small portion of the Village of Mamaroneck. Other references to stormwater management are found in various ordinances, including the Village's Housing Standards Ordinance (Section 226-16) and its joint Flood Damage Prevention; Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Section 186-9). Section 226-16 simply requires proper drainage away from buildings, sidewalks, and the like. Section 186-9 references the County's Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Management, but primarily in relation to controlling off-site erosion. The quality of stormwater runoff can be significantly improved if appropriate stormwater management techniques are used. These include such items as infiltration, retention and extended detention facilities, with infiltration yielding the most effective water quality treatment and detention yielding the least. Municipalities should understand the differences in water quality treatment effectiveness and require stormwater management plans that are designed for improvement of water quality as well as management of water quantity. The Village should adopt a stormwater management ordinance which consolidates all requirements into one section and provides for water quality control in addition to controlling water volume. The Village should refer to the NYSDEC guidelines—Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff (1992) and Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8)--in addition to the County's Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Runoff Control (1984) (For additional information about stormwater management techniques, see the "Stormwater Management" chapters in Sections I and 11). Amend Zoning Ordinance – The Village should amend its Zoning Ordinance to provide lot coverage limits in all districts. Sensitive areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes, should be excluded in whole or in part in the FAR and allowable coverage calculations. Parking ratios should be re-evaluated to determine where ratios are above real needs and to allow for parking alternatives, such as pervious pavement to accommodate overflow parking needs. As mentioned in the discussion on Master Plans, the Village should consider implementing buffer provisions or additional setbacks to protect areas adjacent to watercourses and the waterfront. The Village's Zoning Ordinance provides building coverage limits as well as FAR standards in its zoning regulations. It does not, however, include lot coverage limits. The addition of lot coverage limits is recommended to ensure that all impervious surfaces, not just those of buildings, are regulated. Studies have shown a correlation between increasing amounts of impervious surface and degradation of water quality. Therefore, finding ways to limit or reduce impervious surfaces, such as by modifying parking requirements, would help in improving the quality of the Village's surface water. The Village's Zoning Ordinance also does not provide for sensitive environmental areas to be excluded in FAR or building coverage calculations. This is necessary to balance the size of development against existing site constraints. Currently, only Section 342-52, "Planned Residential Developments," contains a regulation of this nature, allowing no more than 10 percent of a project site to consist of wetlands. A provision for steep slopes should also be considered since the Village contains a few areas with steep slopes. Although most of these areas are developed, there is one particular area (along Rock Ridge 175 Road) that would benefit greatly from such protection. Cluster development is another method for reducing impervious surfaces and preserving sensitive areas and contiguous open space. In the Mamaroneck Village, "Planned Residential Developments" are floating zones that allow for cluster development in single-family districts. The Village of Mamaroneck has also been known to adopt a separate local law to apply cluster provisions to a site that did not qualify under "Planned Residential Developments." Amend Tree Ordinance - The Village of Mamaroneck should revise Chapter 318 to regulate tree removal on private property and to provide for replacement of trees whenever possible. Chapter 318 of the Village code provided for the creation of a Tree Committee to assist in the preservation of trees. However, the duties of the Tree Committee extend only to providing advice to other Village agencies regarding trees on public lands or to the Planning Board with respect to site plan and subdivision cases. The ordinance also enables the Tree Committee to accept donations for tree plantings. The Village of Mamaroneck should revise Chapter 318 to regulate tree removal on private property as was done in the Town of Mamaroneck and Harrison. This will enable the Village to truly protect the full body of trees within the Village, the sum total of which is necessary to maintain a community's aesthetic character, as well as the ecological benefits, including nonpoint source pollution control. The ordinance should ensure that trees that are removed are replaced whenever possible. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE - Overview The City of New Rochelle abuts Long Island Sound. Its "downtown" is highly urbanized and is centered along U.S. Route 1. However, land use in the city's northern and coastal neighborhoods is generally residential with some retail areas, schools, private clubs and golf courses. The coastal area of New Rochelle as well as several of the waterways that drain into the Sound through New Rochelle, namely Stephenson, Burling and Pine brooks, were evaluated in a prior report prepared by WAC 5. The WAC 4 report covers the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers. In the City of New Rochelle, the Sheldrake River travels through the northeast portion of the city before entering into the Town of Mamaroneck at Sheldrake Lake. Land use in this area of the city is primarily medium-density residential, with a few large open space parcels. The City of New Rochelle has a Comprehensive Plan, a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and a Harbor Management Plan. It has provisions concerning freshwater wetlands, stormwater management and erosion and sediment control in its Land Development Ordinance (Chapter A361). There are lot coverage limits and limited cluster zoning provisions in its Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 331). The City also has an Animals Ordinance (Chapter 89), which addresses animal waste, and a Tree Ordinance (Chapter 301). Overall, the City of New Rochelle has shown much progress in addressing water quality issues since the WAC program was initiated in 1995 and should be commended for its actions. However, since the City's starting point was somewhat behind that of some of the other 176 communities in the WAC 4 study area, there is more that the City can do to cooperatively achieve the goal of a cleaner Long Island Sound. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Periodically Update Comprehensive Plan. LWRP & Harbor Management Plan — The City of New Rochelle should regularly assess and update its Comprehensive Plan, Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) and Harbor Management Plan (HMP). The LWRP and HMP should suggest further measures to protect water quality, as well as recognize past accomplishments. Additional measures to be considered include use of porous pavement for parking to reduce runoff and address water pollution associated with waterfront development. Water quality also needs to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan to cover the City's northern neighborhoods, which are outside the jurisdiction of the LWRP and Harbor Management Plan. Stream buffers, overlay zones, and/or open space acquisition of stream corridors are among the other measures that should be considered to protect the Sheldrake River watershed. The City of New Rochelle adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1996. The plan states that "the City's 9.3-mile-long waterfront has long been a source of pride for the City" and identifies preservation of open space and natural resources as objectives. However, the plan does not address environmental protection or natural resource issues, including the protection of Long Island Sound's water quality and nonpoint source pollution control, to any meaningful degree. Design guidelines and standards suggested by the plan focus primarily on aesthetics and improving the environment's human elements. Although the Comprehensive Plan refers to the LWRP for water quality protection issues, the LWRP boundary lies close to the Long Island Sound shoreline. Similarly, most of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan focus mainly on the city's southern, more urbanized areas and do not affect the northern neighborhoods, which are part of the Sheldrake River watershed. Aside from mandatory sewer improvements to correct for inflow and infiltration, which may result in point source pollution, the Comprehensive Plan offers only one recommendation which affects property within the Sheldrake River watershed. The plan suggests the creation of a Residential Cluster district to permit single-family detached clustered development in the R-IAA and R-IA districts. This would help improve water quality by minimizing development impacts and maximizing open space preservation. A future revision of the Comprehensive Plan should provide a more detailed assessment of water resources in the northern part of the City and offer measures, such as stream buffers or overlay zones, to protect the Sheldrake River and its tributaries. In November 1999, the City adopted both a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) and a Harbor Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is an integral component of the LWRP. These documents are being submitted to the Department of State for approval under the New York State Coastal Zone Management Program. Although the LWRP and HMP pertain only to the coastal area of the City, which is part of the WAC 5 study area and not that of WAC 4, the nonpoint source pollution control plan of WAC 5 was completed prior to the completion of these documents. Since the LWRP and HMP address water quality issues, a brief discussion is included with this WAC 4 plan. 177 As in other LWRPs, the City of New Rochelle's LWRP espouses the applicable polices of the NYS Coastal Management Program. This includes enhancing water-dependent uses and public access, as well as protecting water quality and wetlands. The City's LWRP frequently references ordinance changes and projects that have been initiated in response to the WAC 5 plan, which advance many of these policies. While the City should be commended for its past accomplishments, there is still room for improvement. The LWRP should make additional recommendations that can further advance such policies. For instance, the document mentions that the City Planning Board has initiated a practice of requiring stormwater treatment for major projects that may not otherwise be compelled by law to do so. Such a practice should be applicable to all major redevelopment projects and should be backed by regulation. The fact that New Rochelle is a highly developed community underscores the need for established criteria applicable to all major redevelopment projects and not just to new development project or those that will expand impervious surfaces by more than a quarter or half and acre. In addition, more thought should be given to minimizing impacts associated with the advancement of other policies pertaining to the promotion of water-dependent uses and public access. For example, plans to enhance public waterfront parks include expanding parking areas in the coastal zone. Instead of increasing paved areas, consideration should be given to pervious pavement options that would minimize stormwater runoff (see "Watershed-Wide Recommendations"). Development criteria for Davids Island also could be strengthened. Given that this property is currently under public ownership and is zoned for planned unit development, building setbacks from mean high tide should be greater and setbacks from impervious surfaces to the water's edge should be added, particularly where there is no seawall or where the seawall has deteriorated and tidal wetlands can be restored, re-established or created. One of the HMP's three primary goals is "to ensure that the integrity of significant natural resources in the harbor is preserved and where practical, improved." The HMP discusses in some detail the environmental resources and conditions of the City's coastal water bodies and inlets. It discusses the impacts of nonpoint source pollution, including contributions from stormwater runoff and boater usage, as well as the presence of existing resources, such as wetland and fish and wildlife habitats. It recognizes the close connection between water quality and the human enjoyment of Long Island Sound and makes some concrete suggestions to protect or improve water quality. The recommendations include retrofitting the City's existing stormwater drainage system with water quality structures and basins, providing an additional pump out station, and limiting expansion of marinas at specific sites of great benefit to fish and/or wildlife, such as Huckleberry Island and the Premium Marsh. The plan also encourages low-density development on small outer islands. However, the HMP falls short on water quality in its discussion of waterfront uses. While small- scale wetland restoration projects are identified as helpful in reversing the loss of vegetated tidal wetlands due to landfilling and the installation of seawalls and bulkheads, no practical recommendation is given to minimize the encroachment or impact on remaining wetlands along the waterfront. The HMP should include standards to regulate water quality impacts from water- dependent uses along the waterfront. 178 ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS Replace Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance — Local wetland regulations should be expanded to regulate developments other than subdivisions. To ensure that no wetland is overlooked, the City of New Rochelle should consider replacing its Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance with a more comprehensive local ordinance patterned after the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection. Until recently, the City of New Rochelle's Freshwater Wetlands regulations (Chapter 22 of the City's General Ordinances) only co-regulated state-designated wetlands under Article 24 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. However, only one state-designated freshwater wetland exists in New Rochelle, and it is within County-owned Nature Study Woods. Because New Rochelle contains other freshwater wetlands that were otherwise not regulated, WAC 5 recommended that the City replace its existing Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance with a comprehensive local ordinance. In response, the City revised its Land Development Ordinance (Chapter A361) to include regulations for wetlands of a quarter-acre or more in size or smaller wetlands on the same property whose cumulative area is a quarter-acre or more. These new regulations require that impacts "be avoided or, where avoidance is not practical, minimized to the fullest practical extent." However, this amendment, which is located under A361-21, applies only to subdivisions. WAC 4 recommends that a more comprehensive ordinance, patterned after the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection, be considered to limit encroachments on wetlands from all types of development. The model ordinance provides other criteria, such as defining wetlands and mitigation requirements, which are key elements in effective ordinances. At the very least, the City should amend its Land Development Ordinance to include a definition of wetlands (i.e., using the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands), to include "wetland" boundaries in submission requirements for building applications, and to include wetland protection provisions in its site plan regulations. New Rochelle has a significant amount of tidal wetlands along its coast and tidal tributaries. During the preparation of the WAC 5 plan, City representatives believed the City's tidal wetlands are sufficiently protected by state and federal regulations (i.e., via the New York State Tidal Wetlands Act and the federal Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act). The City, however, may eventually want to consider adopting local tidal wetland regulations along with a new freshwater wetlands ordinance. One of the benefits of local tidal wetland regulations is that it can capture those cases that fall outside of the state's jurisdiction, such as projects located on the landward side of roads or one of the City's many seawalls. While typically no longer wetlands, these are adjacent areas where unregulated activities can significantly impact the health of adjoining wetlands. Another benefit is that it would give New Rochelle additional control and possible avenues for mitigation. Consider Adoption Of A Stormwater Management Ordinance — The City should consider the benefits of adopting a more comprehensive stormwater management ordinance in accordance with current NYSDEC guidelines (i.e., NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development and its Division of Water Technical and Operation Guidance Series 5.1.8) and the County's Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management. This would provide other criteria, including preservation 179 standards, infiltration preferences, and flood control calculations, which are critical to effectively controlling the variety of water quantity and quality impacts associated with development. Until recently, only brief references to stormwater management were found in various city ordinances, such as Chapter III (Building Construction) and Chapter A361 (Land Development). These references were limited to developments involving five lots or more and focused merely on changes in off-site drainage direction. In response to recommendations made by WAC 5, the City amended its Land Development Ordinance to require treatment of the "first flush" of stormwater from new subdivisions involving five or more lots or from projects that create a half-acre or more of new or additional impervious surfaces. In addition, the City subsequently added that the "first flush" treatment be required for projects creating new or additional impervious surfaces of a quarter-acre or more within the City's coastal zone (as defined by the LWRP). Lowering this threshold in the coastal zone, however, is recommended by WAC 4, especially because of the intensive development that already exists in this zone and the lack of natural filters, such as vegetated buffer strips, necessitating structural or alternative water quality protection measures. The City also recently adopted provisions mandating the completion of semi-annual maintenance reports and that long-term maintenance bonds be posted for all oil/grit separators required for the treatment of storm water. While these amendments represent important steps to addressing stormwater impacts in New Rochelle, the City should consider the benefits of adopting a more comprehensive stormwater management ordinance in accordance with current NYSDEC guidelines (i.e., NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development and the Division of Water Technical and Operation Guidance Series 5.1.8) and the County's Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management. Such an ordinance would provide other criteria, such as preservation standards, infiltration preferences and flood control calculations, with which to appropriately control the variety of water quantity and quality impacts associated with development. This would be especially useful for the Sheldrake River watershed, since its upper reaches are in northern New Rochelle, where there is more opportunity for non-structural and alternative structural water quality protection. Consider Adoption Of An Erosion And Sediment Control Ordinance — The City should consider the adoption of a comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, which would apply to all types of development and land disturbances, which can contribute to erosion and sedimentation. In response to recommendations made by WAC 5, the City amended its Land Development Ordinance (Chapter A361) to require an erosion and sediment control plan for subdivision developments of five lots or more or projects that will create a half-acre or more of impervious surfaces. The sediment control plan is to be prepared in accordance with the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control(199 1) and be acceptable to the City building official. This represents a considerable improvement to the City's erosion and sediment control requirements. However, the City should consider the benefits of adopting a comprehensive erosion and sediment control ordinance that can be applied to all land development. Such an ordinance would provide other critical elements, such as regular inspections and enforcement measures, necessary to ensuring proper implementation. The 180 ordinance can be patterned in whole or in part after the Westchester County's A Model Ordinance for Erosion and Sediment Control. Amend Zoning Ordinance — Lot coverage limits should be set in all districts. Existing limits should be lowered in the few districts having lot coverage limits, particularly in the CM-1 and R-1AD zones near the Sound shore. Exclusions for additional sensitive natural features should be considered in lot coverage calculations. Provisions for clustering of single-family detached homes should be added for the R-1AA and R1A districts as recommended in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the Sheldrake River watershed, a conservation overlay zone, which can provide additional standards for stream protection, such as stream buffers, should be considered. In addition, the City should reconsider parking requirements, including allowing shared parking facilities, and allow for porous pavement alternatives to reduce impervious surfaces. The New Rochelle Zoning Code provides maximum FAR, building coverage and lot coverage limits for many of the City's zoning districts. It excludes underwater lands in its coverage calculations. WAC 5 recommended only minor amendments to strengthen the existing regulations. These include adding lot coverage limits for districts that currently do not have them and lowering existing lot coverage limits for those that do. Lot coverage limits should be lowered particularly in the CM-1 and R-1 AD zones near the Sound shore, which currently allow up to 75 percent coverage. Also recommended is the whole or partial exclusion of natural features, such as wetlands and steep slopes, from coverage calculations. The City should consider excluding all or part of such areas to ensure that the remaining developable land is capable of supporting allowable densities without impacting sensitive natural features. Incorporating this type of exclusion in coverage calculations is more easily applied to natural features found throughout the City, as opposed to having it in an overlay zone, which applies only to specific areas. An overlay zone, however, would be appropriate and is recommended for the Sheldrake River corridor and its tributaries to ensure that natural buffers are maintained to protect water quality. Clustering provisions exist in the form of floating zones, R-TH and SFSC. The R-TH floating district allows for attached townhouses in single-family residential districts R-1AA and R-1A. The SFSC or Single-Family Senior Citizen District can apply to any district and allows for modifications to yard requirements, along with other considerations, to meet the housing needs of senior citizens. As recommended in its Comprehensive Plan, the City would benefit from adding a provision to allow for clustering of detached single-family homes, particularly in the northern portions of the city where there are larger parcels that may be subject to intense development pressure. The City also should consider reevaluating its parking standards to reduce impervious surfaces that contribute to water quality degradation. Parking lots are frequently designed to accommodate maximum or near maximum use. Impervious surfaces could be reduced by allowing pervious pavement alternatives to be utilized to accommodate occasional above- average parking needs. Shared parking lots and garages also should be considered for adjoining and nearby land use(s). 181 Amend Tree Ordinance – Article III of the City's Tree Ordinance (Chapter 301) should be amended to extend permit requirements to trees on any portion of a private, unimproved lot and to include standards or criteria for tree replacement. Consideration also should be given to regulating trees on private properties of less than 1.5 acres in size, which make up much of New Rochelle. Trees contribute to the health of our waterways and water bodies. Trees help prevent erosion and aid in the absorption of storm water. They uptake nutrients and moderate water temperatures for the survival of native organisms. It is, therefore, important that municipalities have ordinances that protect against the indiscriminate removal of trees on both public and private properties. Trees are regulated in Chapter 301 of the Code of the City of New Rochelle. Article II, which was adopted in 1986, applies to public trees and tree planting on public property. It protects existing public trees from various private actions. It also requires tree replacement by private individuals requesting that an existing public tree be removed for safety reasons. Article III was added in 1998 to include regulations that apply to private property. It requires all subdivisions and site plan applications to include a tree plan. The plan must show all existing trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of eight (8) inches or more, as well as indicate which trees are to be removed and which are to be planted. It also requires owners of lots of 1.5 acres in size or greater, whether or not the lots are developed, to apply for permits to remove any tree of eight (8)-inch dbh or greater within 20 feet of a side or rear property line. However, these regulations contain weaknesses that may undermine their effectiveness. For example, under current regulations, an owner of an unimproved lot can remove all interior trees without a permit and do so before applying for a subdivision or site plan approval. In addition, there are no standards or criteria for tree replacement. Extending permit requirements to include trees on any portion of an undeveloped lot and adding criteria for tree replacement will help prevent large-scale tree removal and provide guidance on the number, size and type of trees that should be planted to help offset tree losses. Since the City is a highly developed community with many properties less than 1.5 acres in size, the City also should consider regulating tree removal on properties smaller than 1.5 acres. This will protect trees where they are needed most—in the intensely developed portions of New Rochelle. Village of Scarsdale Overview Several residential zones with two business districts, the Village Center and Heathcote business area, make up Scarsdale. The Village of Scarsdale is within four different watersheds: Bronx River, Hutchinson River, Mamaroneck River, and Sheldrake River. Therefore, the preservation of water quality in Scarsdale will have a beneficial impact on a large number of downstream communities. The WAC 4 study area, however, incorporates only the watersheds of the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck rivers. The Hutchinson River Basin will be addressed by WAC 6. Scarsdale has a Comprehensive Plan and codes on Freshwater Wetlands (Chapter 171), Animal Waste (Chapter 141-4), Trees, Brush, Grass and Weeds (Chapter 281), and Diversion of Watercourses (Chapter 302). The Village also addresses lot coverage, cluster zoning, stormwater and other environmental controls in various sections of the Zoning (Chapter 310) and Subdivision (Chapter A319) Regulations. 182 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Update Comprehensive Plan —Future updates of Scarsdale's Comprehensive Plan should encourage water quality improvement initiatives, such as the preservation or restoration of vegetated buffers next to streams, wetlands and water bodies, both on public and private lands within the Village. The most recent Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Scarsdale was adopted in October 1994, when it replaced the Master Plan of 1971. The Comprehensive Plan calls for retaining the character of Scarsdale, while providing excellent services and community programs, maintaining open space and preserving the tax base. The Comprehensive Plan contains a number of recommendations for the preservation and protection of natural features. They include updating the inventory of Village-owned land, preparing an open space policy and acquisition plan, designating environmentally sensitive areas, mandating the use of clustering techniques to preserve environmentally sensitive physical features, reviewing wetland regulations, and creating new regulations for certain activities near streams. The Plan also encourages a balance between active and passive open space and proposes links between open space parcels. Three golf courses exist in the Village of Scarsdale: Fenway, Quaker Ridge, and Saxon Woods. The latter is a County-owned park and its future redevelopment is unlikely. The other two golf courses in the Village are not the subject of any current development proposals. However, the Comprehensive Plan attempts to address that possibility if it arises. Its recommendations include obtaining a right of first refusal in case the golf courses are sold and identifying and designating environmentally sensitive areas on golf courses requiring greater scrutiny in the event of development. Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the Village amended the Cluster Development Provisions (Chapter 77-1G) to require clustering for lots with an area of 40,000 square feet or greater. The Village also amended the existing Wetlands Protection Law to address issues concerning wetlands and streams. In addition, Scarsdale's Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation has completed a map showing open space in the Village, and is preparing an inventory to accompany the map. Minor updates to the Comprehensive Plan are expected to be prepared in the near future. WAC 4 recognizes Scarsdale's significant progress toward the environmental protection goals suggested in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan, and supports all current and future initiatives referenced above. WAC 4 also recommends that the Comprehensive Plan Update encourage water quality improvement initiatives, such as naturally vegetated buffers, or filter strips, next to streams, wetlands and water bodies both on public and private lands in the Village. These buffers will help filter out pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams and water bodies, provide wildlife habitat, and be of aesthetic and educational value to the community. ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt A Stormwater Management Code — The Village of Scarsdale should adopt a Stormwater Management Code, which would set water quality standards for stormwater management plans. The code should be based on New York State DEC guidelines, such as 183 Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff front New Development (1992) and Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8), as well as the County's Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Runoff Control (1984). Such a code would require the treatment of the "first flush" of stormwater runoff and establish a hierarchy as to the type of Stormwater management techniques that should be selected, based on their water quality treatment capability and feasibility. The code also should include requirements for inspection schedules, maintenance plans, performance bonds, and penalties to better enforce compliance. Based on concerns with existing stormwater management basins (see Stormwater Management Chapter), regulations on basin accessibility also is needed to allow for proper maintenance and inspections. Development and the associated increase in impervious surfaces can increase stormwater runoff and degrade water quality. The quality of stormwater runoff can be preserved and significantly improved if appropriate stormwater management techniques are used. Bioretention, which uses constructed wetlands to treat stormwater through biological and chemical actions, has proven to be a successful water quality improvement technique. In addition, different types of Stormwater basins (infiltration, retention, extended detention and detention) provide varying amounts of water quality treatment. Infiltration, when appropriate, yields the most effective water quality treatment, while detention yields the least. Municipalities should understand the differences in water quality treatment effectiveness and require stormwater management plans that are designed to improve water quality as well as manage water quantity. Although stormwater is discussed in the Flood Damage Prevention Code (Chapter 167) and Subdivision Code (Chapter A319), the emphasis is solely on diversion and management, not water quality. The Flood Damage Prevention Code is adapted from the FEMA model ordinance, and its main purpose is flood control. Without specific water quality criteria, existing ordinances do not provide water quality protection or improvement for streams and water bodies in Scarsdale. WAC 4, therefore, recommends that Scarsdale adopt a stormwater management ordinance, which sets water quality standards for stormwater management plans. This ordinance should require the control of the "first flush" to treat the high concentration of pollutants that are carried away by stormwater during the early stages of storms. In addition, it should provide standards for the selection of stormwater management techniques based on their water quality treatment capability and feasibility. Having a separate Stormwater management ordinance also would allow for the provision of additional requirements, such as an inspection schedule, maintenance plan, performance bonds, and penalties for non-compliance with approved plans. Although the Village has easements or controls land for limited access to stormwater management basins for maintenance, the lack of maintenance in some of Scarsdale's existing basins indicates that accessibility may be problematic. A Stormwater Management Code should, therefore, include provisions to ensure accessibility to stormwater management basins for the purpose of maintenance as well as inspections. A good stormwater management ordinance will help maintain groundwater recharge and the w hydrological functions of the receiving stream or waterway. In preparing such an ordinance, the Village should refer to New York State DEC guidelines, such as Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Rranoff from New Development (1992) and "Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development" (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8), in addition to the 184 County's Best Management Practices.for Stormwater Management. (For additional information about stormwater management techniques, see the "Stormwater Management" chapters in Sections I and II.) Adopt An Erosion And Sediment Control Code — The Village of Scarsdale should adopt an Erosion and Sediment Control Code, patterned in whole or in part after the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance ./or Erosion and Sediment Control. Such a code should define and regulate all land-disturbing activities. It should mandate the preparation and submission of erosion and sediment control plans, establish guiding standards, provide for maintenance inspections, and require the posting of performance bonds and penalties to ensure compliance. Significant soil erosion can cause catch basin clogging, wetland and watercourse filling and downstream flooding. To control soil erosion from all land disturbing activities, specific criteria should be established for erosion and sediment control. The Flood Damage Prevention Code (Chapter 167) cites erosion control as one of its specified purposes, yet it contains no specific guidelines for the implementation of measures to reduce erosion and sediment entering local waterways. WAC 4 recommends that Scarsdale adopt an Erosion and Sediment Control Code. This code would define and regulate all land-disturbing activities. It would require erosion and sediment control plans that incorporate specific measures, such as sediment basins, barriers and filters. Performance bonds would be required if deemed appropriate by the approval authority. The Erosion and Sediment Control Code also would stipulate enforcement criteria and penalties for non-compliance, including fines and site restoration. The Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance_for Erosion and Sediment Control should serve as a model for the creation of such a code. (For further information about erosion and sediment control, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Tools" in Section II.) Amend The Freshwater Wetlands Protection Code — The Village should make several amendments to Chapter 171, which regulates freshwater wetlands in Scarsdale, to achieve more thorough protection of wetlands in the Village. Its definition of wetlands should include the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. The use of this manual in defining wetlands would give the village a less ambiguous, more scientifically defensible definition of wetlands and means of delineating their boundaries. The ordinance should require on-site delineations of wetland boundaries by certified wetland scientists, as well as more detailed submissions regarding the identification of proposed disturbances, as suggested in the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection (January 1998). The Village also should consider prohibiting the planting of exotic, invasive species as well as clarifying the term "controlled areas." Wetlands are important because they provide water quality treatment, flood control and rich wildlife habitat. Protection of these natural resources is important to communities everywhere. Scarsdale has recently amended its Freshwater Wetlands Code (Section 171) to reflect the many of the provisions set forth in A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection (1998), published by the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District. These amendments are consistent 185 with many of the recommendations of WAC 4 and have increased the level of wetland protection in Scarsdale. There are still a few areas, however, where the Wetlands Code could be improved. The wetlands regulated by the existing code are limited to those mapped on the Freshwater Wetlands Map of Scarsdale, dated August 17, 1976, and lands "capable of supporting aquatic or semiaquatic vegetation." Although the map indicates a number of wetlands that abut watercourses flowing through the Village, other unmapped wetland systems, pocket wetlands, vernal ponds, and previously disturbed wetlands exist in the village, although they do not appear on the Freshwater Wetlands Map. Furthermore, "capable of supporting aquatic or semiaquatic vegetation" is a vague term that is subject to debate. Incorporating the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989) into the definition would add a less ambiguous, more scientifically defensible means of identifying and delineating wetlands in the village. This method incorporates three parameters - vegetation, soils and hydrology - to determine wetland boundaries. Using the federal definition should include small, seasonal, or disturbed wetlands that may not appear on Village mapping. The Village could employ the services of a consulting wetland scientist (e.g., Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District) or outside agency at the applicant's expense to undertake field evaluation and delineation of wetlands. With regard to the regulatory process, the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Code references the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter A319-44) for wetland permit application requirements. The requirements outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance do not include verification of wetland boundaries by a qualified wetland scientist. Although Scarsdale has mapped many of its wetlands, field evaluations are still necessary to determine the site-specific accuracy of these wetlands. A wetland scientist should make an accurate determination and mark the boundaries of the wetland in the field, which should be subsequently surveyed, in advance of any construction activity. This will identify the extent of regulated areas and help to ensure maximum wetland protection. A town-wide wetland map is a useful tool to determine the general location of wetlands. However, field evaluation and delineation are necessary to ensure accuracy and maximum protection. The Village should, therefore, include the delineation of wetlands by a certified wetland scientist in the Permit Requirements Section of the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Code. In addition, WAC 4 recommends that permit requirements require technical and other information pertaining to general disturbances, draining and filling, creation of ponds or stormwater management basins, and erosion and sediment control techniques. This information is needed to determine all potential wetland impacts from proposed activities, to evaluate efforts to avoid or minimize disturbances, and to set mitigation requirements, if appropriate. For additional information regarding wetland permit requirements and wetland delineation, consult Westchester County's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection. In the section describing the activities not regulated, the planting of decorative shrubs and trees does not require a permit. In some cases, decorative plants and trees may inhibit wetland species, health, and function. To further protect wetlands and native plants, the Village should prohibit the planting of exotic, invasive plants, such as purple loosestrife, multiflora rose and porcelain berry, in or next to wetlands. (for more information about wetland plants, enhancement of wetlands, and mitigation, see the "Wetland Restoration."). This prohibition could be stated as either an exclusion from the section that allows the planting decorative shrubs and trees without a permit or as part of a new section called "Prohibited Activities." Wetland ordinances of some 186 communities contain such a section, which identify as prohibited activities the deposition of solid waste, chemicals and high temperature stormwater or effluent discharges in wetlands, among other prohibitions. "Controlled areas" were included in the definition of"Freshwater Wetlands Map" in the original freshwater wetlands regulations and referred only to the wetland itself. In the recently adopted Freshwater Wetlands Code, the "Freshwater Wetlands Map" definition was revised and no longer includes the term "controlled areas." However, the term "controlled areas" is still used in the body of the regulations without being appropriately defined. Furthermore, the term has apparently changed to include the area within 100 feet of a wetland. It would be prudent to connect the term with its definition (i.e., Section 171.6), particularly since a new definition for a Wetland/Watercourse Buffer, which is different from the controlled area, directly precedes the use of the term and can lead to confusion. Amend The Diversion Of Watercourses Code — The Village should consider amending the Diversion of Watercourse Code (Chapter 302) to require that plans for diverting watercourses be referred to the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District for review and comment. Diverting watercourses may cause adverse on-site and downstream hydrologic and ecologic impacts. Any watercourse diversions should be evaluated by qualified professionals in the fields of both engineering and ecology. The existing code is designed to control watercourse alterations from their natural channel without a permit. A watercourse diversion must first be approved by the Village Engineer and then by the Board of Trustees. To ensure that environmental and regional impacts are fully considered, such plans should also be referred to the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District, so that they can be reviewed by environmental professionals with specific training in such matters. Amend Zoning Code — The Village should adopt a Conservation Overlay District for areas containing environmentally sensitive features, most notably the existing golf courses, to require appropriate development techniques and adequate review to protect these precious resources. The open space inventory that is being prepared by the Village's Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation should be referred to in helping to identify such areas. The Village should consider some provisions to protect steep slopes. The Village also should provide lot coverage limits for non-residential uses in Residence A districts to control the amount of impervious surface. With very little undeveloped land remaining in Scarsdale, the protection of open space and environmentally sensitive features is of great importance. The golf courses in the Village represent a significant resource in terms of open space and contain sensitive environmental features. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the Village to acquire right of first refusal agreements with the golf course owners in the event of the sale of those parcels. If, for some reason, the golf courses become available and Scarsdale is unable to purchase the properties at that time, conventional development could cause significant environmental damage to the resources on those sites. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the designation of "sensitive areas" on golf courses to require greater scrutiny in the event of development. Conservation Overlay Districts, which would designate specific areas of particular environmental concern and require specific standards and conditions to protect sensitive environmental resources, could be 187 used to better manage and protect the natural resources on golf course properties in the event of future development. (For more information regarding overlay districts, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Tools" in Section II.). Development on steep slopes, if not properly planned and executed, can cause significant adverse impacts both on and off site. These impacts include soil erosion, slope failure, and sedimentation of wetlands, watercourses and water bodies. Scarsdale contains a few steep slopes in excess of 15 percent, primarily in the Bronx River watershed and in Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course, as well as various areas in the watersheds of the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck rivers. Although steeps slopes in the Village are not abundant and many have already been developed, the potential for erosion and other environmental impacts exists when any construction occurs on steep slopes. Therefore, WAC 4 recommends that the Village consider amending the General Dimensional Requirements in the Zoning Code by subtracting the area of steep slopes from the lot area calculation or limiting the amount of steep slopes on any new lot to 10 percent. Scarsdale has a similar restriction on the percentage of lot area that can be occupied by floodplains, water bodies, or retention ponds (Zoning Code 310-14), which limits these areas to 10 percent of the lot area (a similar Village-wide deduction might also be made for wetlands, since reductions for wetlands are only applicable to Residence A districts). Such a Zoning Code amendment would help ensure that building lots have enough buildable area and would limit the need to use steep slopes for development. (For more information on steep slopes protection, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-regulatory Tools" in Section II.). At present, the Zoning Code (Chapter 310) includes lot area coverage ratios for the Residence A District and floor area ratios (FARs) in the Village Center. Lot area coverage ratios restrict all impervious cover on a site. FARs only limit the floor area of a structure in relation to the total lot size. FARs offer no restriction on other types of impervious surface, such as parking lots or tennis courts. Studies have shown a relationship between increasing amounts of impervious surface and degradation of water quality; therefore, it is important to find strategies to limit impervious surfaces in the watershed. While WAC 4 recommends that lot area coverage ratios be adopted for all districts, Scarsdale has very little commercial or other districts and existing commercial districts are nearly fully developed. Lot coverage limits, therefore, should especially be applied to non-residential uses in residence districts. If redevelopment occurs on these non-residential sites, impervious coverage can then be minimized by a variety of methods, including sizing parking lots based on average use and allowing pervious parking areas to meet overflow parking needs. (For further information concerning impervious surfaces and impacts on water quality, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-regulatory Tools" in Section II). Amend Trees, Brush. Grass and Weeds Code — The Village should consider protecting trees that are smaller than 12 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). The Village also should consider regulating the removal of certain trees on developed private land, not just unimproved land, since the majority of Scarsdale is already developed. Trees contribute to the health of our waterways and water bodies. They help impede erosion and v absorb significant quantities of water. They provide nutrient uptake and moderate water temperatures for the survival of native organisms. It is, therefore, important that municipalities 188 have ordinances that protect against the indiscriminate removal of trees on both public and private property. In addition to regulating tree removals connected with site plan, subdivision and wetland permit approvals, the Village of Scarsdale has a separate ordinance (Chapter 281), entitled Trees, Brush, Grass and Weeds, which requires private property owners to obtain a tree permit to remove any tree greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) on unimproved land. The Village should consider lowering the dbh threshold to six (6) or eight (8) inches (like that of Mamaroneck Town and New Rochelle, respectively) to protect a greater majority of trees. Since most of Scarsdale is already developed, the Village also should consider regulating the removal of trees on private properties that have already been developed to prevent the unnecessary removal of significant trees or to ensure the replacement of trees, where necessary. City of White Plains Overview The City of White Plains is centrally located in the County of Westchester. It is a regional center for business, retail, government and medical services. White Plains has a diversity of residential neighborhoods, with single-family homes predominating. White Plains is divided into three geographic areas: the Core, Close-In Area, and Outer Area. The Core contains primarily commercial and retail businesses. The Close-In Area largely consists of medium- to low-density neighborhoods, and functions as a transition area between the Core and Outer Area. Land use in the Outer Area primarily consists of low-density residential districts and office parks, which are located in the Campus Office Zoning District. The WAC 4 study area in White Plains covers the Close In Area and Outer Area of the City and comprises more than half of the City's total land area. To address environmental issues concerning development, White Plains has a staff Environmental Officer. The Environmental Officer reviews and comments on development proposals. He also visits all proposed development sites containing environmentally sensitive features to fully understand the nature of the resources to be protected. The Environmental Officer is a member of the Tree Preservation Committee that reviews tree protection and replacement plans required by the Tree Preservation Guidelines (Section 7-5). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Implement Comprehensive Plan Recommendations — The City of White Plains should follow through and implement the following recommendations from its current Comprehensive Plan: create an open space trailway; conduct an open space inventory; develop an open space maintenance and acquisition plan; explore funding sources for open space acquisition; reduce zoning density on golf courses; apply cluster zoning provisions to golf courses; renew right of first refusal agreements with golf courses; revise existing zoning, subdivision, cluster and environmental regulations to better preserve environmental and open space features; and address nonpoint source pollution in future planning and environmental reviews. 189 In 1997, White Plains adopted its most recent Comprehensive Plan, White Plains Vision, a Plan for the 21" Century, recognizing the value of planning and a commitment to citizen participation during its preparation. The process involved approximately 400 citizens and the formation of seven task forces. Throughout the document there are numerous references to the preservation of open space and natural features, indicating a concern about environmental conservation and preservation. The Comprehensive Plan envisions an Open Space Trailway from the Harrison border at the south end, through White Plains, with a connection to Silver Lake Park in West Harrison at the north end (this trailway would be entirely in the WAC 4 study area.). The Comprehensive Plan calls for an open space inventory to be conducted, maintenance and acquisition plans to be developed, and funding sources to be explored. With two private golf courses located entirely within White Plains, the preservation of these open spaces is of great importance to the City. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a reduction in zoning density on existing golf courses and the application of cluster provisions in the event the golf courses are redeveloped into residences (currently cluster zoning provisions do not apply to golf courses). White Plains also has right-of- first-refusal agreements with owners of those golf courses and the Comprehensive Plan encourages renewal of those agreements. The Comprehensive Plan states that ensuring the protection of open spaces, wetlands and natural features is one of the primary planning issues facing the outer area neighborhoods, many of which are contained in the study area. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends "revising existing zoning, subdivision, cluster and environmental regulations (with particular attention to building coverage) to reduce permitted density and provide greater flexibility in preserving critical environmental and open space features." In addition, the 1997 Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City "address the issue of non-point source pollution in future planning and environmental reviews" (p. 2-II-29). Many of the aforementioned recommendations will protect water quality. Therefore, WAC 4 strongly supports the implementation of the recommendations made in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. ORDINANCE RECOMMENDA TIONS The City of White Plains has incorporated many of its environmental controls and requirements for stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, etc., in the Subdivision (Chapter 9), Site Plan (Section 7), Building (Part 607), Building Construction (Part 654) and Zoning codes. In addition, White Plains has adopted "Tree Preservation Guidelines" (Chapter 7-5, Article II) and an "Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features" Ordinance (Chapter 3-5) to provide additional protection for specific natural resources, such as trees, wetlands and steep slopes. Essentially, the provisions of these ordinances are enforced by being made a part of the conditions of approval associated with existing development approvals. The City of White Plains prefers to use "guidelines" that are incorporated into existing development approval processes, instead of having separate permit approvals, in order to keep the approvals process simple and minimize excessive/overlapping administration. Due to the City's preference for and general success with this method of regulation over proposed development, the adoption of w similar "guidelines" are being recommended in some cases by WAC 4. However, some of the ordinances may need to also include provisions that regulate actions not connected with a development approval, as discussed below. 190 Adopt Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance — The City of White Plains should adopt an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. The ordinance should cover all types of land disturbing activities. For those activities that require local development approvals, erosion and sediment control provisions should be treated as guidelines to be incorporated during the development review process. A separate permit process, however, will be necessary to regulate those activities that may result in erosion or sedimentation but might, otherwise, not require local approval. During construction, regrading or other land disturbing activities, soil erosion can cause a number of impacts on and off site. Excessive amount of erosion can lead to the clogging of stormwater catch basins, filling of wetlands and waterways, and eventual down-stream flooding. Erosion from construction sites can often cause soil and muddy conditions on local roads, and wind erosion can cause significant levels of dust to enter the air. Erosion control is generally addressed in existing White Plains regulations, such as Building (Part 607), and Building Construction (Part 654), Subdivision (Chapter 9), and Site Plan (Section 7) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Site Plan regulations require the use of Westchester County BMPs for proposed developments, but does not list any specific requirements or guidelines for other land-disturbing activities. WAC 4 recommends that White Plains adopt a comprehensive ordinance that specifically addresses erosion and sediment control. The ordinance would define regulated (land-disturbing) and non-regulated activities and would clearly outline the standards for protection of adjacent properties and environmentally sensitive features. The ordinance could provide erosion and sediment control guidelines that may be incorporated into an existing municipal permit approval process. However, a separate permit approval process may be necessary to regulate those actions that may have erosion or sedimentation impacts, but are not subject to local approval, such as general land clearing and grading. In either case, submission of an erosion and sediment control plan should be required and the plan should include specific techniques to control erosion, such as vegetation, sediment basins, and barriers, etc. The guidelines should require performance bonds to ensure proper implementation, as well as an enforcement schedule for the plan. Fines and penalties for violation of the approved plan should also be included. Additional information about creating erosion and sediment control guidelines can be obtained from the County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Erosion and Sediment Control, NYSDEC's "Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines" (Technical Operations Guidance Series 5.1.10), and the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control. (For more information about erosion and sediment control, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Tools" in Section 2). Adopt Stormwater Management Guidelines — White Plains should adopt "Stormwater Management Guidelines" that set standards for stormwater quality as well as quantity in the design of stormwater management systems. In recent years, stormwater management technologies have evolved to address the quality, as well as quantity, of stormwater runoff. These technologies, like bioretention, where constructed wetlands are used to hold and treat stormwater and create attractive wildlife habitat, are becoming commonplace and are proving successful. Other more traditional forms of stormwater management offer varying degrees of water quality treatment, with infiltration offering the greatest benefit and short-term detention offering the least. Because stormwater detention 191 methods can have a significant impact on water quality, it is important that municipalities require stormwater management techniques, which yield the greatest water quality benefit. White Plains generally addresses stormwater management in the site plan Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is required to provide details of storm drain loads and runoff patterns, and plans should provide adequate storm and surface water drainage while minimizing downstream flooding. The Site Plan regulations, however, make no mention of implementing technology which would treat stormwater and improve the quality of runoff. WAC 4, therefore, recommends that White Plains adopt "Stormwater Management Guidelines" that set standards for Stormwater quality as well as quantity in the design of stormwater management systems. The guidelines should require stormwater management techniques that yield the highest water quality, e.g., bioretention, retention, and infiltration. Regulated and non-regulated activities should be defined and submission requirements clearly explained. In addition, guidelines should require an inspection schedule and maintenance plan, provide for the use of performance bonds to ensure compliance, include enforcement criteria and stipulate penalties for violations. The City needs to also include provisions that ensure basin accessibility for both maintenance and inspections. A number of the existing stormwater basins were found to be inaccessible during this study (See Stormwater Management chapter). To construct the stormwater management guidelines, White Plains should consult NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992), and "Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development" (Technical and Operations Guidance Series 5.1.8), and the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Runoff Control (For additional information about stormwater management and water quality, see "Stormwater Management" in Section 2.) Amend The Environmentally Sensitive Sites And Features Ordinance — The City of White Plains should amend Chapter 3 through 5 as follows: (a) substantially increase the penalties for violations and require performance bonds; (b) remove "the planting of decorative shrubs or trees" from the list of unregulated activities and include mitigation criteria for wetlands disturbance; and (c) reduce the threshold for steep slopes from 20 percent to 15 percent. As an alternative to adopting separate ordinances to address wetlands, watercourses, steep slopes, etc., White Plains adopted an ordinance in 1989 to protect a variety of natural resources. The Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance (Chapter 3-5) protects watercourses, floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, specified minimum areas of wetlands, steep slopes 20 percent or greater, rock outcroppings and erodible soils. The ordinance defines these areas of concern, lists the regulated activities in these areas, and provides for restitution and/or penalties. These regulations are cross-referenced/incorporated in the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 9-4) and site plan Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, which require that impacts on environmentally sensitive features or sites shall be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable. As part of the existing municipal permit process, a development plan that contains or affects environmentally sensitive features are required to undergo an increased level of review, whereby additional conditions are applied to protect these features. A "supermajority" or an affirmative vote of 2/3 or more members of the designated approval agency are required for _ plans involving or affecting environmentally sensitive features. The Site Plan regulations also require a review and report by the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC). In addition, the 192 White Plains Environmental Officer reviews and comments on proposals involving or affecting environmentally sensitive sites and features. Several amendments, however, should be made to the Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance in order to enhance its effectiveness at protecting environmentally sensitive sites and features. Although, the Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance provides for penalties for violations, these penalties are not substantial enough to have a deterrent effect on potential violators. If penalties are not significant, there may be a tendency for violators to incur fines instead of absorbing the cost of avoidance or other conditions required by the ordinance. Additionally, the Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance does not contain any provision for the requirement of performance bonds, where the applicant must post a bond before work is commenced and the bond is not released until work is completed and approved. Performance bonds are generally useful tools to ensure compliance with development plans and would help to provide protection of environmentally sensitive sites and features. WAC 4 recommends that White Plains substantially increase the penalties for violations of the Environmentally Sensitive Features and Sites Ordinance and include a provision that performance bonds will be required when deemed appropriate by the approval authority. For more information about violations, penalties, and performance bonds, see the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection. Wetlands play an important role in water quality protection. They filter out pollutants, recharge groundwater, help control flooding, and provide rich wildlife habitat. Under the current Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance, when avoidance of wetlands is determined to be impracticable, wetland encroachment is permitted provided it is minimized "where practicable." The current Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance does not specify any criteria for mitigating wetland intrusion or destruction. Wetland mitigation options include restoration or creation, with enhancement being a lesser option, depending on the severity of the impact. Without proper mitigation, all benefits provided by impacted wetlands could be lost. The Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance also lists the planting of"decorative shrubs or trees" in regulated areas as an activity not subject to regulation. The planting of decorative trees and shrubs can significantly impair wetland health and function, as these may include invasive and/or exotic plant species. WAC 4 recommends that White Plains incorporate standards for mitigation in its Environmentally Sensitive Features and Sites Ordinance to offset intrusion in or destruction of wetlands. WAC 4 also recommends that the words "decorative shrubs or trees" be removed from the list of excluded activities in areas regulated by this ordinance and be replaced with "native wetland species." Wetland mitigation criteria can be found in the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District's A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection. (For more information regarding wetland function, protection, and mitigation, see the "Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands" chapter in Section 1 and "Municipal Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Tools" in Section 2.) Development on steep slopes, if not carefully planned and executed, can cause a number of adverse environmental impacts, such as erosion, wetland destruction, downstream flooding, and slope failure. Steep slopes of 20 percent slope or greater are regulated by the White Plains Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance. In many municipalities, slopes of 15 percent and greater are regulated. The 1997 Comprehensive Plan also recommends protection of steep slopes on golf course properties and sites near the south end of Mamaroneck Avenue. WAC 4 recommends that White Plains reduce the threshold for slope regulation to 15 percent to 193 enhance the protection of slopes between 15 percent and 20 percent. (For more information about steep slopes protection, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-regulatory Tools" in Section 2.) Amend Zoning Ordinance — The City of White Plains Zoning Ordinance should be amended to include: (a) "gross land coverage" limits for all zoning districts in the Close-In Area and Outer Area of the City; (b) modify parking requirements where possible to reduce impervious surfaces and allow for pervious pavement options to handle above-average capacity needs; (c) increase regulated setbacks from and preserved "buffers" next to wetlands and watercourses to 100 feet; (d) provide steep slopes criteria for development on slopes when unavoidable; (e) exclude wetlands, watercourses, water bodies, and steep slopes in lot area calculations; (f) revise cluster zoning provisions, extending them to existing golf course areas and adopting gross land coverage limits for clustered lots; and (g) designate conservation overlay districts to identify and protect environmentally sensitive sites. Land use has a significant impact on water quality. Uses which potentially threaten environmentally sensitive sites and features should be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable in areas where those sites are prevalent. The following recommendations relate to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance, which should be revised to help improve water quality in the Mamaroneck River watershed. In some cases involving wetlands, watercourses or steep slopes, it may be more efficient to consider amending the Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance instead of each of the various sections to which the similar recommendation applies. ' (a) Adopt Gross Land Coverage Limits - The amount of impervious surfaces on a site directly relates to the quality of stormwater runoff generated on site. The greater the area of impervious surfaces, the lower the water quality. Studies have indicated that when impervious surface coverage exceeds 25 percent, water quality becomes degraded. It is important, therefore, to limit the amount of impervious surface to the maximum extent practicable, and to utilize strategies that permit appropriate land uses, while minimizing impervious surface coverage. White Plains currently has maximum Building Coverage provisions for all zoning districts listed in the Zoning Ordinance. These provisions limit the `percent of the land area covered by the combined "building area" of all "buildings."' In addition, there are maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) provisions for most zoning districts. FAR is defined as the "`gross floor area" of all "buildings" on a "lot" divided by the area of such "lot."' Both Building Coverage and FAR regulations limit building size, but do not limit the area of parking lot, driveway, tennis court, or other forms of impervious surface. Since reducing the amount of impervious surfaces has been shown to improve water quality, WAC 4 recommends that White Plains adopt "Gross Land Coverage" provisions for all zoning districts in the Close- In and Outer Areas of the City. These provisions would limit `the percentage of the land area covered by the combined area of all "buildings," ..structures" and paved areas on the "lot."' This category of land use regulation appears in the "Definitions" section of the Zoning Ordinance, but does not currently apply to any zoning district in the City. With a high potential for development and redevelopment in some areas of White Plains, adopting "Gross Land Coverage" limits would have a significant positive impact on the quality of stormwater runoff generated in these areas in the future. 194 (b) Reevaluate Parking Requirements - The "Off-Street Parking and Loading" section of the Zoning Code lists parking requirements for specific land uses in the City. Parking lots, which are usually constructed of impervious material, contribute to significant amounts of runoff and degradation of water quality. White Plains' parking needs have changed with recent development and redevelopment projects throughout the City. Because of these changes, the Comprehensive Plan recommends that parking standards be re-evaluated throughout the City for a number of reasons. In some areas of the City, parking is at a premium, and in others, such as some Campus Office districts, parking is underutilized. WAC 4 recommends reevaluating the parking standards in White Plains, especially in zoning districts such as Campus Office, where large building structures are required to have specific numbers of parking spaces per square foot of building space. Parking requirements that insist on utilizing impervious pavement should be based on an average anticipated use of the building(s), with additional overflow parking required to be constructed of pervious materials to accommodate above-average use. Shared parking should also be considered for adjoining Campus Office properties or other land uses throughout the city. With redevelopment potential very high in a number of zoning districts throughout the City, this is a most opportune time to re-analyze and in some cases, reduce the City's impervious surface parking requirements. (c) Increase Width of Wetland/Watercourse Setbacks and Protected Buffers To 100 Feet — Naturally vegetated buffers offer significant protection to wetlands and watercourses. Such buffers filter out pollutants, take up nutrients, and slow the flow of stormwater runoff, among other benefits. Naturally vegetated buffers are extremely important for keeping wetlands healthy and improving water quality in watercourses. With regard to wetlands, the Subdivision (Chapter 9) and Site Plan (Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance) regulations govern the upland area within 50 feet of wetlands. Both of these regulations require that this area be preserved in its natural state. The wetland definition found in the Environmentally Sensitive Sites and Features Ordinance is based on the NYS Freshwater Wetlands Act and the 1989 Federal Manual for Ident ging and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. WAC 4 recommends that naturally vegetated buffers next to wetlands be increased from 50 feet to 100 feet in width and similar buffers for watercourses be provided, especially on large parcels of undeveloped land or open spaces, such as existing golf courses. Increased buffer dimension would help preserve stream corridors as linear open space as recommended in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan, protect wetlands, and help to improve water quality in the substantial area of White Plains within the WAC 4 study area. If buffers of this size are not feasible or practicable in all zoning districts of the City, Conservation Overlay Districts could be created to delineate specific areas where such buffer widths would be appropriate. (For more information about the importance of wetland buffers and wetland protection, see the Wetland and Stream Buffers Chapter in Section 2.) (d) Expand On Steep Slopes Review Criteria — In general, development on steep slopes should be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The Zoning (Section 4) and Subdivision (Chapter 9-4) ordinances list general criteria for the review and approval of steep slopes development. These criteria include shape, attractiveness, view and erosion before and after construction. More detailed criteria, including cut and fill requirements, padding and terracing, use of explosives, etc. should be included in the regulations for protection of steep slopes. WAC 4 recommends that the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances state that development 195 on steep slopes be avoided or minimized, whenever possible. However, when development on steep slopes is unavoidable, more detailed criteria should be included in the Zoning and ' Subdivision ordinances to ensure safe development on those slopes. This criteria should include - cut and fill requirements, padding and terracing, use of explosives, etc. Sample steep slopes ordinances are on file at the Westchester County Department of Planning for reference. (For further information on steep slopes protection, see "Municipal Regulatory and Non-regulatory Tools in Section 2. (e) Deduct Areas Of Wetlands, Watercourses, Water Bodies And Steep Slopes From Minimum Lot Area Requirements — Even with regulations that note the importance of protecting environmentally sensitive features, impacts to these features can occur if there is no limitation on buildable area. In many residential districts in White Plains, after a house and driveway are sited on a lot, there is little or no undisturbed space left on that lot. If a wetland or other sensitive environmental feature are located entirely or partially on that lot, there is little room to protect that feature. However, if the environmentally sensitive feature is deducted from the minimum lot area calculation, then, presumably, all of the minimum lot area would be free of environmentally sensitive features. Adequate space can then be allocated to installing protective measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on the environmentally sensitive features. If deducting the entire area of environmentally sensitive features is not possible, these features should not make up any more than 10 percent of the required lot area, leaving 90 percent free of environmentally sensitive features. This may provide enough room to protect environmentally sensitive features as well as build a structure on the lot. Other municipalities, such as Scarsdale, have adopted regulations which limit the area of water bodies, floodplains or retention basins for drainage control when calculating lot area. WAC 4 recommends that the White Plains Zoning Ordinance be amended so that the area of environmentally sensitive features (wetlands, watercourses, water bodies and steep slopes) on proposed building lots be excluded from or limited to 10 percent of the lot area calculation to better protect these features. (f) Reduce Zoning Density On Ridgeway And Westchester Hills Golf Courses - The Comprehensive Plan recommends a reduction in zoning density on existing golf courses in the event of future development. This reduction in density would help to preserve open space and natural features on these significant undeveloped parcels. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan also recommends a reduction in zoning density in several close-in neighborhoods to maintain the existing density and prevent excessive in-fill development that would adversely affect the character of those areas. WAC 4 concurs with the White Plains Comprehensive Plan and recommends decreasing zoning density on existing golf course properties and in close-in neighborhoods to preserve open space and neighborhood character. (g) Revise Cluster Provisions/Create Conservation Overlay Districts — Cluster or conservation development is a technique that concentrates development on a specific portion of a site and leaves the remainder of the site undeveloped. This approach to development preserves open space and natural features on a site while permitting the established zoning density for the entire site to be built on a portion of the site. Flexibility in lot size and setbacks are necessary for cluster zoning to be implemented. White Plains currently has cluster provisions in its Zoning (Section 5.7, "Conservation Development") and Subdivision (Chapter 9-4) ordinances, which — have been implemented primarily in the Outer Area of the City. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that these provisions be reviewed and revised to better protect sensitive 196 environmental features. Currently, the Conservation Development provisions do not apply to existing golf courses. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that cluster provisions be applied to golf course properties, and also recommends that gross land coverage limits be established for lots in cluster development, which would limit the amount of impervious surfaces on the "clustered" lots. Because there are several areas of significant open space and/or sensitive environmental features in White Plains, Conservation Overlay districts could be delineated to indicate areas of particular environmental concern. Development proposals for properties in these districts should undergo extensive review and require site-specific conditions to protect the sensitive natural resources in those districts. WAC 4, again, concurs with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends that cluster zoning provisions be reviewed to ensure adequate protection of sensitive environmental features. Cluster zoning provisions should apply to existing golf courses and gross land coverage limits should be adopted for "clustered" lots. WAC 4 also recommends that Conservation Overlay districts be designated in areas of significant open space or environmentally sensitive sites to require extensive review and ensure adequate protection of these precious resources. Amend Tree Preservation Guidelines — The City should consider amending Chapter 7-5 to regulate tree removal on private properties that are not necessarily being proposed for development. Chapter 7-5 of the White Plains Code was adopted in 1994 (and revised in 1996) to preserve trees and the benefits derived therefrom. It contains two articles. The first applies to trees on public property. The second article regulates tree removal on private property. But the latter is applicable only to those properties that are the subject of a review by a land use or building agency or official, such as a variance or site plan approval. As written, trees can be removed from undeveloped properties that are not yet the subject of local review. In addition, trees can be removed from developed properties not associated with further construction. Since the majority of White Plains is developed, the City should consider regulating tree removals on properties that are already developed, but are not associated with additional development. This will allow the City to fully mitigate the indiscriminate removal of trees. Such regulations also will close the loophole that allows developers to clear property prior to applying for development approvals. 197 OUTREACH AND EDUCATION OUTREACH AND EDUCATION Even the best plan for managing watersheds and controlling nonpoint source pollution cannot succeed without community participation and cooperation. An aggressive public outreach and education program, therefore, is essential and must be nurtured. The following education and outreach strategies and ideas would, if implemented, raise the community's consciousness about the importance of water quality and the watersheds draining to Long Island Sound. These strategies and ideas have been fully endorsed by WAC 4. In the sections following these recommendations, WAC 4 has noted existing and proposed organizations that could implement the recommendations. It is hoped that additional organizations also could assist in carrying out these recommendations. WAC 4 OUTREACHAND EDUCATION STRATEGIES The first step in furthering the education and outreach goals of WAC 4: target audiences should be identified and carefully assessed. The second step: specific activities matching their interests should be designed. For example, stream and pond sampling for water quality and aquatic animals is a great way to involve and educate teenagers. Utility bill inserts that have tips on reducing pollution at home are a great way to educate adults. Because some people respond better to certain "messages" than others, education and outreach programs should incorporate several different strategies, each intended for different segments of the audience. In general, therefore, variety and flexibility should be the rules when developing and implementing education and outreach programs. WAC 4 has organized a group of volunteers, called the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Volunteers, to implement many of the outreach and education recommendations of this chapter. The group will consist of people living and/or working in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor. The group will coordinate its activities with the outreach and education efforts of the Westchester County Department of Planning. More information on the group can be found under the "Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Volunteers Action Plan" section of this chapter. The following are recommended strategies and ideas that any individual, organization, governmental agency or others can use to further the public's knowledge of nonpoint source pollution and its relationship to water quality: • Regularly scheduled meetings should be held between members of WAC 4, or any other appropriate intermunicipal committee, and Westchester County Department of Planning staff and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution. The WAC 4 action plan for implementing this public outreach and education program can be discussed at these meetings. It is important to begin with small steps that lead to the overall goal, otherwise volunteers may lose interest and drop out. Realistic goals need to be set, taking into account the time each person is willing and able to commit to projects relative to the time it takes to successfully fulfill a particular objective. Even small gains should show tangible results, so that participants remain encouraged and are more willing to tackle the bigger tasks. 199 • Instill a sense of proprietorship for the watershed in the people who live and work in it. Without community support by citizens who understand their individual responsibilities regarding the community's needs, remediation efforts will progress only slowly and sporadically. Media • Ask local newspapers (weekly and daily) to run a regular column (weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly) on nonpoint source pollution control activities (municipal and county activities). These columns can feature municipal, county, state and federal activities as well as those by private businesses and industries. Other techniques include press releases and photographs with captions. • Ask local radio stations to run short, regular features (public service announcements) and/or have guest speakers on regular talk shows. • Ask local cable stations to further the ideas described in this chapter. Suggestions include a sixty-second public service announcement focused on nonpoint source pollution control efforts in the community. Another suggestion would be a cable television show aimed at educating the public about nonpoint source pollution and steps the average citizen can take to reduce this type of pollution at home. • Submit articles to newsletters, such as those for governmental and civic associations, chambers of commerce, or corporations, or initiate a new newsletter for inclusion with other municipal mailings that focuses on nonpoint source pollution and ways residents can assist in its control. • Develop public educational fliers and posters, such as the series of four posters developed by the Westchester County Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound, for display at kiosks in malls, train and bus stations, public facilities, and other locations. • In conjunction with municipal and county parks and recreation departments, initiate a campaign to minimize chemical use and other adverse landscaping practices, such as by using integrated pest management and creating naturally vegetated buffers next to stream, wetlands and water bodies. • Use public gatherings, club meetings, special conferences, and workshops to explain the nonpoint source pollution control program for the Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County, customizing the message to the audience. A good model for this type of presentation is that given by Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (MEMO), which has given presentations to several communities in the watershed. A speakers bureau of municipal and county officials also should be formed. Face-to-face communication with a specialized audience provides a powerful opportunity to deliver a message, answer questions, and clarify ambiguities. CoWorations.'Busine.sses 200 • Identify corporations/businesses in the WAC 4 study area and approach them about co- sponsoring nonpoint source pollution educational activities from printing/layout of publications to best management practices implementation on their properties (chemical use minimization, buffer establishment, stormwater management basins, etc.). • Draft sample inserts for bills (water, electric, tax, etc.) that describe the nonpoint source pollution control program and various components (fertilizer and pesticide use minimization, soil erosion and sedimentation control, buffer corridor protection, septic maintenance, etc.). • Ask private golf course superintendents and managers to integrate nonpoint source pollution control practices into their maintenance and landscaping activities. • Approach and meet with golf course and landscape/lawn care industry leaders and organizations about nonpoint source pollution control issues, landscaping practices, and implementing best management practices. • Approach small businesses, possibly through the Chamber of Commerce, about their role in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Businesses should strive to implement some prevention measures for which they can receive positive public relations. Encourage mention of the prevention measures that have been implemented in its newsletter and press releases. Targeted Education • Educating young people about nonpoint source pollution and its influence on water quality and fresh and salt water ecosystems can best be achieved by coordinating educational efforts with grade schools. If school districts understand the intrinsic value of making this part of a science curriculum, future generations may better understand and appreciate the value of protecting and improving water quality — and ways they can help improve water quality. Each WAC 4 liaison, or designated representative, should meet with the superintendent of schools or other school official from each school district to put forth the idea and initiate efforts to begin incorporating nonpoint source pollution education in the curriculum. Water quality monitoring has been successfully undertaken in several of the county's schools already, including Isaac Young Middle School and New Rochelle High School in New Rochelle, but other tools and approaches also are possible. • Involve grade school students in preparing and giving presentations on student environmental activities before appropriate municipal boards and commissions. The Town of Yorktown has initiated such a program for its students. • Host workshops targeting members of municipal planning, zoning, conservation and other boards as well as staff involved in land use planning and decision-making. These workshops would focus on topics such as ordinances related to water quality protection and the need for enforcement and consistent implementation. They also would focus on the need to balance economic growth with a healthy environment and the importance of best management practices, such as erosion and sediment control and stormwater quantity and quality control, and ecological and water quality principles, such as vegetation buffers and stream management. 201 • Develop a handbook for municipal boards and commissions describing how to incorporate nonpoint source pollution control strategies into local land use guidelines, policies and laws. • Ask garden clubs and the landscaping/lawn care industry about developing a public education program on topics such as landscaping and lawn care practices. In addition, ask Cornell Cooperative Extension Service to use "Sound Gardening" as a pilot program in a few watersheds of the Long Island Sound watershed. • Initiate an annual certificate award program for corporations, schools, municipalities, etc., that implement a nonpoint source pollution control project. This type of program will broaden the visibility of these projects, recognize good work, and gain a variety of advocates for the program through these conservation awards for young people, public service awards, and participation and sponsorship awards. Possible award names, patterned after the Environmental Leadership Award in Harrison, include: Champions of the Environment Award, Environmental Achievement Award, Clean Water Award, and/or Environmental Partner Award. • Develop a circular to foster public awareness about the need for and importance of natural buffers and stormwater management basins, emphasizing scientific support. Environmental Organizations and Citizen Groups • Encourage municipal staff and volunteers to attend educational conferences and seminars on water quality related topics. For example, the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District conducts periodic seminars, which traditionally draw a large audience to hear subjects of a technical nature. Request that the District focus future seminars on implementing best management practices to avoid nonpoint source pollution. Other groups which host annual or bi-annual conferences, particularly those dealing with water-related issues, such as the Savewater Symposium or the WaterWise Council, should be asked to include the topics of nonpoint source pollution control and watershed management in future conferences. These groups reach a diverse audience. • Request that the Westchester County Environmental Management Council and Soil and Water Conservation District focus future programs or workshops on nonpoint source pollution control. With grant money and other funding that can be obtained, the EMC and SWCD could conduct seminars on water quality; and the EMC's quarterly meetings also could become an educational forum for speakers and issues related to the subject. Other efforts should include a traveling exhibit to bring to the various forums or conferences attended by the SWCD and EMC, as well as distribution of fact sheets on nonpoint source pollution and articles in the quarterly Environmental Bulletin. The EMC-sponsored "roundtables" should also be used as a forum whereby the coastal communities could come together and plan the most effective ways in which to broaden the visibility of the nonpoint source pollution control program. • Encourage the SWCD and EMC to coordinate with the Westchester Municipal Planning Federation (WMPF) so that the issues of nonpoint source pollution control and land use planning become part of the agenda for the next series of the WMPF-sponsored "short courses." This is an effective way to continue disseminating information to municipal 202 officials, local government staff, planning and zoning boards, and others who generally attend the WMPF courses. • A liaison should be established with the US Environmental Protection Agency-Long Island Sound Office (i.e., Long Island Sound Study) to coordinate the public education and outreach efforts of this office with those of WAC 4. Representatives of the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Volunteers and Westchester County Department of Planning should meet with EPA staff to dovetail the Long Island Sound Study and WAC 4 education and outreach efforts to avoid duplication and maximize the products of both programs. • Any WAC 4 municipalities that do not have a Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) or similar board or commission should form one. This type of body can serve as a vehicle for environmental education. Other boards or commissions which can fulfill this role include a Coastal Zone Management Commission, such as that for Mamaroneck Town and Larchmont. A board or commission of this type would be the best liaison between the Long Island Sound Study and WAC 4, and can best coordinate public information and participation activities. The CRCs should closely communicate with other municipal boards and commissions to share information and elicit support for nonpoint source pollution control programs. • Work with citizen groups in the community. Environmentally conscious citizens have made great contributions to local programs nationwide. Groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Watch, Save the Sound Inc., and Streamwalk Committee in Seattle, have become integral parts of water quality programs. Citizen groups can collect valuable information on basic parameters - they can monitor and identify problems, collect surface water samples, and measure turbidity. Outreach and Volunteerism • It is important to identify, collect, and, if necessary, generate materials which can be used for a "traveling road show" or exhibit. A moveable exhibit could be taken to festivals and other events as well as workshops or seminars where diverse groups can view the exhibit and take home pamphlets, brochures or other material for further education. • Outdoor billboards and other signs advertising the importance of citizen participation in watershed management and nonpoint source pollution control have been successfully used in some communities. For example, the City of Springfield, Illinois was the first city to use billboards paid for by federal Clean Water Act grants. The first billboard message, "We All Live Downstream, Protect Your Watershed," was displayed in the spring of 1995 at 14 locations throughout Springfield. A second billboard message, "A River Runs Through It, Protect Your Watershed," was displayed at a new set of 14 locations in the summer of 1995. During the summer and fall of 1996, new messages have been displayed at the same 28 locations. In some states, it is common to see watershed signs on highways which advise motorists that they have entered the watershed area of a specific river or water body. Similar signs should be installed throughout the Long Island Sound watershed as another way of raising people's consciousness. • The importance of volunteers in watershed education cannot be stressed enough. Activities that can be carried out by volunteers include the Earth Team's Streamwalk (see stream 203 restoration chapter), storm drain stenciling, certain components of wetland restoration and stream bank stabilization projects, distribution of informational literature, water sampling and J quality monitoring, and ecological assessments. Volunteers not only provide the labor necessary to undertake these projects but also act as ambassadors to other groups and advocates of watershed protection. As a result of their volunteerism, they not only become educated themselves but also educate others. EXISTING PROGRAMS Some effort has already been made to educate the public about nonpoint source pollution in the study area of WAC 4, which is comprised of the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor. Environmental Partnerships A potential tool for public outreach and education is environmental partnerships, such as the New Rochelle Environmental Partnership. The formation of similar environmental partnerships is recommended by WAC 4. Although currently inactive, the New Rochelle Environmental Partnership has focused on educating the public about watershed management and controlling nonpoint source pollution in New Rochelle, with emphasis on "neighborhood watershed awareness." This alliance includes representatives of local and regional civic organizations (e.g., Save the Sound Inc.), the city's public school system, and colleges, as well as government agencies of the City of New Rochelle and County of Westchester. The New Rochelle Environmental Partnership is a strong foundation for public education activities and source of potential volunteers. Other groups that may have an interest in furthering the public outreach and education goals of WAC 4 include various civic groups, such as the League of Women Voters in Scarsdale and the various Lions Clubs. These groups are very active in their communities and would be powerful allies in any outreach and education campaign to control nonpoint source pollution. Storm Drain Stencilii Storm drain stenciling projects have taken place periodically in all or parts of Harrison, Mamaroneck Town, Mamaroneck Village, New Rochelle, Rye City, Scarsdale, and White Plains. A federal grant, from the Long Island Sound Study Public Participation Information and Education Small Grant Project, funded these projects beginning in 1996. The grant, awarded annually, would allow this effort to continue if another is sought and acquired by a municipality or the Westchester County Department of Planning. Stencils from the initial grant awarded to the County are still available from the Department of Planning. In addition to painting notices on storm drains, New Rochelle's Department of Public Works has glued permanent vinyl plaques on approximately 125 drains. Storm drain stenciling projects are not complicated to implement and are immediately effective due to their high visibility. These projects are of interest to young people as well as adults and are relatively inexpensive to implement provided volunteers are available for their implementation. Projects may be carried out with the help of volunteers, including those from civic organizations, such as fraternal organizations, garden clubs and environmental groups, and youth groups, such as school clubs, science classes and scouts. 204 Finally, the City of White Plains has enacted a requirement that all new curb inlets (catch basins) be of a style called the "Eco Curb." This style is similar to all other curbs except that the steel curb piece is to be cast out of a mold that has raised lettering saying "Dump No Waste - Drains To River." It also has the raised outline of a trout on each side of the phrase. The raised lettering and symbols will, of course, be permanent. The storm drain stenciling programs that have been held in several Long Island Sound watershed communities, including White Plains, have accomplished the same objective of marking storm drains to educate the public. However, unlike the paint used for storm drain stencils, the letters/symbols on the "Eco Curb" are permanent. WAC 4 supports this type of educational effort for stormwater management facilities Brook Fest In 1999, the TownNillage of Harrison and City of Rye sponsored a Brook Fair, partially funded through a grant from the Long Island Sound Study. The fair was designed to focus public attention on nonpoint source pollution in the Blind Brook watershed. It was held at the Rye Nature Center in Rye City. Participating in the event was Manhattan College, which demonstrated the water quality monitoring program it is conducting on Blind Brook at the Rye Nature Center. Although a lower than expected turnout was disappointing, the event gave fair sponsors the experience needed to run successful events in the future. Another similar event might be planned for 2001. Nature Centers Four nature/environmental education centers exist in the study area of WAC 4. Area residents also use the Greenburgh Nature Center on Dromore Road (off Central Avenue) in Greenburgh. This nature center is outside the study area in the Bronx River watershed. However, it conducts education programs on water quality and general ecology of interest to all Westchester County residents. The following nature/environmental education centers exist in the study area: • Cranberry Lake Preserve on Old Orchard Street (off Route 22) in White Plains • Larchmont Reservoir — James G. Johnson Jr. Conservancy (Sheldrake Lake) at 687 Weaver Street in New Rochelle • L.I.F.E. Center(Local Involvement For Environment) at 685 Weaver Street in New Rochelle • Weinberg Nature Center at 455 Mamaroneck Road in Scarsdale These nature/environmental education centers are important resources for disseminating information about nonpoint source pollution and water quality in the Long Island Sound watershed. They all offer facilities, programs and services that further the goals of WAC 4, and offer programs of interest and use to educators and school groups. Schools Scarsdale High School has an environmentally oriented club, called EcoSavers. This club is a valuable educational tool for young people. It can be used to foster a greater appreciation of the environment, including water quality protection, as well as a greater understanding of nonpoint source pollution and ways to control this type of pollution. 205 The Mamaroneck School District, in cooperation with the town's Department of Conservation, conducts environmentally oriented field sessions for fifth and sixth graders, during which ' students learn about ecology and other environmental issues, including issues handled by local government, such as the Coastal Zone Management Commission. A water quality monitoring project also is proposed for the students. Teachers from Harrison's LMK Middle School have expressed interest in implementing a water quality monitoring project at that school. Girl Scouts from Heathcote Middle School in Scarsdale have been developing a stream stewardship and park beautification project for Scarsdale. The project is expected to be implemented beginning in 2000. In the spring 2000, middle school students from Scarsdale and Rye City will clean up stream corridors in Scarsdale and beaches in Rye City as part of a partnership between the two school districts. WATERSHED EDUCATION RESOURCES Westchester County Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound, staffed by the Westchester County Department of Planning, has produced a number of educational products for county residents, especially those in the watershed of Long Island Sound. These include a booklet called Sound Advice: A Long Island sound Resident's Guide to Reducing Water Pollution at Home. Another product is a series of four posters aimed at educating the general _ public about nonpoint source pollution. The posters focus on lawn fertilization, home car washing, leaking automobile engines, and pet waste. Other products include a series of six fact sheets aimed at a general audience and pertaining to different best management practices for controlling nonpoint source pollution, and a series of public service announcements on nonpoint source pollution designed for newspapers and other printed media. The Committee and Department also have sponsored education workshops on topics related to water quality and nonpoint source pollution. New York Sea Grant, regionally based in Stony Brook, New York, and Save the Sound Inc., of Stamford, Connecticut, are furthering educational programs in the WAC 4 study area. They also are advancing educational programs in other areas of Westchester County as part of their educational support for communities in the Long Island Sound watershed. Save the Sound Inc. has a well-developed water quality monitoring program for the Sound. Established in 1991 as the Adopt-A-Harbor Program, the Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program is a key research project of Save the Sound. Based on solid science, it monitors the harbors and bays of Long Island Sound using methods approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Save the Sound has used volunteers from throughout the watershed to implement its monitoring project, which includes water sampling from Mamaroneck Harbor and Echo Bay in New Rochelle. New York Sea Grant was initiated through a grant from the State University of New York (SUNY) and Cornell University in 1971. By agreement and policy of the governing board of the New York Sea Grant Institute (constituted in 1974 and comprising representatives of SUNY, 206 Cornell, and other agencies), the Sea Grant Extension Program at Cornell is identified as the institute's formal outreach (marine advisory) arm. It is recognized as such by the National Sea Grant College Program Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. The mission of the New York Sea Grant Extension Program is to implement problem-solving educational projects with coastal resource users, businesses, and agencies, based on research and information generated at SUNY, Cornell, and other institutions involved with research, resource management, and education. Sea Grant's targeted audience includes seafood consumers; people and businesses that harvest, culture, or process fish; tourism entrepreneurs; shoreland owners; grade school teachers and students; agency, public utility, and elected decision-makers; and manufacturers. State University of New York at Purchase (Harrison) offers environmental degree programs, and some of its students have occasionally become involved in water sampling projects along the Mamaroneck River. The university's environmental program students also are initiating a newsletter, which could provide an avenue for nonpoint source pollution education. Save the Sound Inc. has three water quality sampling stations in Mamaroneck Harbor in the vicinity of Harbor Island Park and another at the mouth of the Mamaroneck River. Hudson Basin River Watch (HBRW) is actively seeking to improve water quality and protect biodiversity in Westchester County through the Watershed Improvement Network (WIN). A subset of WIN, the Long Island Sound Watershed Improvement Network will pull together educators, students, resource partners, community entities and decision-making agencies from the Long Island Sound watershed into a regional network. The aim of this network will be to maximize resources and create lasting partnerships between school groups and resource partners. HBRW provides participating groups with training, guidance and technical support. An HBRW representative works through the Westchester County Department of Planning. Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (MEMO), a product of the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System, has expanded into Westchester County. NEMO is fast becoming a national model for the use of technology-assisted education in confronting the difficult problem of nonpoint source pollution associated with the suburban/urban sprawl pattern of growth prevalent across the nation. NEMO uses geographic information system (GIS), remote sensing (RS), and World Wide Web technology to educate community decision makers and landowners about the relationship of their land use decisions to water resource protection and watershed management. A representative of NEMO has given educational presentations in Harrison and New Rochelle, and is trying to arrange similar presentations in White Plains, Scarsdale and Mamaroneck Town and Village, as well as additional presentations in New Rochelle. Westchester Land Trust published the Watershed Education Program Guide, which is currently being used by at least two middle schools in Westchester County. The Guide should be a teaching guide for many other schools in the county. Although the Land Trust has relinquished its active education programs, its Guide offers a series of lesson plans which may be used as hands-on science projects to teach students about the watershed they live in; to field test the rivers or streams within it; to learn about the effects of human lifestyles on water quality; and to evaluate and disseminate student findings. Science teachers in the WAC 4 study area should use 207 the Guide whenever feasible as part of their science curriculum. For example, students at New Rochelle High School have easy access to Stephenson Brook and those at Harrison High School have easy access to a pond. This stream and pond are on school property. At these sites, students can implement water quality monitoring and learn about stream ecology and restoration in their own back yard. The Guide can be augmented by materials available through the Westchester County Planning Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, in New York City, such as maps, aerial photographs, fact sheets, brochures, and other informational literature. MAMARONECK-SHELDRAKE VOL UNTEERS A CTION PLAN Members of Watershed Advisory Committee 4 have begun forming a watershed-wide volunteer group, the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Volunteers (MSV). MSV would help lead and coordinate education and outreach efforts in the WAC 4 study area. Potential members of the group include residents from all six municipalities in the study area. Many of them were Streamwalkers (see Stream Chapter). Each is in touch with persons in his/her community who can be useful in this effort. MSV will set up its own web site, MSWatershedorg, and update it periodically. The site will provide basic information on the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and its problems, as well as current information on the implementation of the WAC 4 plan and education and outreach projects. It also will announce evolving activities of different organizations for participation in the education and outreach effort and specifically in "Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Watershed Month" (see below). Existence of the web site will be made known to the news media, public access TV, and key people throughout the WAC 4 study area. Enlist Westchester Counij,Support Many of the specific education and outreach strategies described in this chapter will require some degree of participation by County agencies, specifically the Department of Planning. Liaison between the local and County levels is essential. For this purpose, the County Department of Planning should designate a staff member to communicate with MSV, which also will appoint a volunteer to work with the Department. It will be the responsibility of these two to: (1) coordinate the development and dissemination of educational materials and projects produced by the County, and (2) contact people, agencies or organizations outside the study area who might be able to assist MSV. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS "Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Watershed Month" The many projects described in this chapter vary widely in content, technique, duration, and the target groups they seek to involve. Whatever the substantive importance of each one, all of these projects executed singly may produce a "scattershot" effect in which the strategic whole remains invisible to the public. Therefore, to maximize public consciousness of the watershed, its problems and solutions, publicity about all these projects should be synchronized at an early 208 point in the implementation of the WAC 4 plan to achieve a concentrated impact on the public mind and hence maximum participation. With this in mind, MSV plans to enlist schools, colleges, news media, local governments, and nonprofit organizations throughout the WAC 4 study area in observance of Mamaroneck- Sheldrake Watershed Month in May 2001. During the month, events can be staged calling attention to projects recommended by WAC 4 and seeking wider participation by volunteers. A video and illustrated brochure may be produced and distributed dramatizing the need for better watershed management. Follow-up events and exhibits would keep public support of the WAC 4 plan at a high level following this special month. School Watershed Educational Resources • A major resource in watershed education is the Long Island Sound Watershed Improvement Network (WIN), coordinated in Westchester by the County Department of Planning. It works closely with Hudson Basin River Watch (HBRW), which assists science teachers and others in water quality monitoring, an activity with both educational and publicity value. HBRW provides teachers with instruction, test kits and other equipment. It also encourages participating students to testify before municipal boards about their water quality findings. MSV will facilitate WIN and HBRW contacts with local schools. - Save the Sound Inc. organizes water quality monitoring is the Sound's rivers and harbors, among them Mamaroneck Harbor. Since 1985 it has included high school students in its program and is currently working with schools in Stamford and Greenwich CT. MSV, in consultation with the County Department of Planning, will explore whether this water quality monitoring program, which includes the nationwide "Adopt-a-Watershed" program, can be extended to schools in the Westchester's Long Island Sound watershed, including the WAC 4 study area. - Mamaroneck High School is a recruiting ground for the summer work crew which is deployed in Mamaroneck Town conservation areas by the Town's environmental coordinator. These areas include the Larchmont Reservoir Conservancy and the Sheldrake Trail, both of which lie along the Sheldrake River. The school and work crew can be used for water quality monitoring and/or stream bank stabilization projects, which can be incorporated into the work of the summer crew. If such a project is acceptable to the environmental coordinator, MSV will make the necessary contact with sources of relevant technology and instruction. • Instruction for students in freshwater ecology, chiefly in the Mamaroneck school district, has recently been initiated under the auspices of the L.I.F.E. Center, which uses a "living machine" to display the interaction of organisms over time in a tank filled with pond water. Other schools may benefit by this teaching technique. MSV will help to spread the word. - The Watershed Education Program Guide, published by the Westchester Land Trust, is being used in several middle schools in the county. MSV will see that copies are made available to science departments in all school districts in the WAC 4 study area, as well as to the L.I.F.E. Center and other local organizations with an interest in the environment. • Adult education programs, conducted annually by school districts and by BOCES/Southern Westchester, offer a wide range of courses for modest fees, many of them teaching technical 209 skills. MSV will encourage the inclusion of courses in watershed management. Qualified instructors may be culled from a variety of sources, including the L.I.F.E. Center, Westchester County Department of Planning and Friends of the Reservoir. College Contacts MSV will contact relevant science faculty at colleges and universities in and near the WAC 4 study area, such as Pace University (White Plains), Iona College (New Rochelle), the College of New Rochelle, Mercy College (White Plains), and State University of New York at Purchase, with a view to involving their students in study of the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor. Private Businesses • A number of major companies, as well as medical institutions such as New York Hospital- Cornell Medical Center and the Burke Rehabilitation Center, have large lawns surrounding their headquarters in the WAC 4 study area. In the interest of public and community relations, directors of maintenance and others should be asked to set a good example by adopting best management practices in lawn and landscaping care (e.g., minimal use of chemicals, proper mowing methods, use of naturally vegetated buffers along streams and wetlands). The same best management practices also should be applied to golf courses. MSV will consult with the County Department of Planning to further this objective. • Major utilities that do business in the WAC 4 study area, such as Con Edison and Bell Atlantic, should be asked to include inserts in their bills addressed to customers in the Long Island Sound watershed, urging them to follow best management practices, such as those pertaining to lawn care and disposal of household hazardous wastes. MSV will contact these utilities to implement this recommendation. Small Businesses Certain kinds of small businesses, by the nature of their work, are potential sources of pollution. These especially include auto service stations/repair shops, dry cleaning establishments, landscapers, and building contractors. Through trade associations or chambers of commerce, MSV, in appropriate consultation with the County Department of Planning, will seek to obtain from such enterprises the best available instruction in best management practices for their particular trade. Homeowners MSV will strive to educate homeowners about the environmental problems associated with improper lawn and landscaping practices and improper disposal of household hazardous waste. In consultation with the County Department of Planning, MSV will further existing educational strategies developed by the Department of Planning, EPA-Long Island Sound Office, New York Sea Grant, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and other agencies and organizations. News Media, Clubs, Nonprofit Organizations 210 MSV will work with local media to further its goals and objectives. The print media includes the newspapers Journal News, Scarsdale Inquirer, Sound View News, Sound & Town Report, Larchmont Sentinel, New Rochelle's Tomorrow, and Westchester County section of The Sunday New York Times. Magazines include Spotlight, published in Mamaroneck. The key radio station is WVOX in New Rochelle. Local environmental newsletters distributed in the WAC 4 study area include those produced by the L.I.F.E. Center, Friends of the Reservoir, Scarsdale Chapter of the Audubon Society, Town of Mamaroneck, and Federated Conservationists of Westchester County. Public cable television stations include LMC-TV in Harrison, Mamaroneck and New Rochelle. Traveling Exhibit A traveling exhibit on nonpoint source pollution, for use at festivals, seminars and other important environmental gatherings in the county, will be used by MSV, which will work with the County Department of Planning Department in developing themes and graphic materials for the exhibit. peakers'Bureau MSV will form a speakers' bureau and seek engagements with clubs (Rotary, Lions, etc.) whose interest is not solely environmental. Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) has given presentations to several communities in the watershed and offers a good model for this work. Workshops and Handbook for Municipal Governments Working with the County Department of Planning, MSV will host and organize workshops in each of the WAC 4 municipalities for municipal officials and members of boards and commissions who deal with planning, zoning, environmental and other land use issues, including ordinances. MSV also will encourage attendance through publicity. Among the subjects explored will be balancing economic growth with a healthy environment; the importance of best management practices in erosion and sediment control; control of stormwater runoff, water quality principles and measurement, stream management; and vegetation buffers. A handbook covering these subjects will be distributed in connection with the workshops. Note: These workshops should supplement, not duplicate, the workshops and "roundtable" discussions conducted by the Soil and Water Conservation District and Westchester County Environmental Management Council. Awards Program Assisted by the County Department of Planning, MSV will initiate a program to award annual certificates of merit for contributions to reducing nonpoint source pollution in the Long Island Sound watershed. The program will come under the auspices of the Westchester County Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound, which will request nominations from each of the six Watershed Advisory Committees (WACs), including WAC 4. The awards will be open to corporations, schools and colleges, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and news media, as well as to individuals. The certificates should be signed by the county executive or commissioner of planning and presented in a public ceremony with due publicity. 211 FUNDING FUNDING EXISTING PROGRAMS AND FUNDING SOURCES Because nonpoint source pollution, or polluted stormwater, is a major contributor to the degradation of the nation's waters, local, state and federal governments have initiated programs to abate such pollution through financial assistance. The impetus for these programs has been the desire to protect especially valuable water bodies, such as Long Island Sound. Local and state governments have taken action because most existing federal programs are not intended to address the wide range of problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. Although federal agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have limited available resources to address some nonpoint source pollution categories and provide some funding for state and local programs, these programs are very small compared to the magnitude of the nonpoint source pollution problems across the nation. The purpose of this section is to describe particularly effective local, state and federal nonpoint source pollution funding mechanisms. This will give municipalities an understanding of these mechanisms as they implement and seek funding for their own nonpoint source pollution control programs. Back rg ound Only recently have government agencies begun in a more comprehensive way to identify types of nonpoint source pollutants, measure the volume of nonpoint source loadings affecting surface and ground waters, and design effective watershed projects and regulatory programs to abate nonpoint source pollution. Only a few municipalities, counties and states have been implementing nonpoint source pollution control projects to reduce loadings and improve water quality for more than five or ten years. In 1989, Congress appropriated the initial funds for the Environmental Protection Agency to award demonstration grants to states to develop and implement statewide nonpoint source pollution management programs under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Section 319 specifies that states shall, "to the maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a management program under this subsection on a watershed-by-watershed basis within such State." Section 319 grants provide sufficient funding to allow local and state agencies to hire nonpoint source pollution control staff to carry out several projects or programs each year. These grants can be considered an initial step toward a national effort to assist states in abating nonpoint source pollution. This effort is spearheaded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, it is clear that much more will be necessary if the nation as a whole is to succeed in abating nonpoint source pollution. Prior to the initial appropriation of funds from Section 319, other federal agencies, most notably the Department of Agriculture (USDA), provided funding and technical assistance to producers, such as farmers and coal operators, to encourage voluntary reduction of nonpoint source 213 pollution created by their economic activities. USDA, for example, provides direct grants (cost sharing) to individual farmers to pay part of the cost of selected practices used by the farmer to reduce runoff. Technical assistance to the farmer which facilitates implementation of these practices is often provided by the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. In some cases, state and local governments have decided not to rely on national solutions and have developed their own, often unique, programs for controlling non point source pollution and equally unique means to pay for the control programs. An understanding of selected nonpoint source pollution control programs operated by local and state governments can assist other communities in developing and funding effective nonpoint source pollution abatement programs in the future. NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act The New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, passed in 1996, provides an additional source of funding for water quality improvement projects. Of the $1.75 billion Bond Act, $200,000,000 had been earmarked for Long Island Sound. Projects under this funding include wastewater treatment improvement projects, nonpoint source abatement and control program projects, and aquatic habitat restoration projects. In 2000, $20 million had remained from this fund for Long Island Sound. Revolving_Funds Regarding state revolving funds, which already exist in every state (funded by EPA grants and a state match), each state decides whether to use its fund for nonpoint source pollution programs, municipal treatment plants or estuarine projects. Consequently, state environmental officials and legislators currently have the authority to decide whether or not to use the very large, existing sums in revolving loan funds for nonpoint source pollution purposes. The existence of large state revolving funds (SRFs), which have been established since the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, by annual capitalization grants from the EPA and state matching funds, provides all states the opportunity to use these funds to finance local and state nonpoint source pollution control projects. SRF loans are particularly suitable for funding structural best management practices (BIVIPs), such as extended detention and retention basins. Generally, these loans are not suitable for other program costs, such as salaries and indirect costs. SRFs were originally established to assist states to upgrade their sewage systems, but the authorizing statute also specifies that nonpoint source pollution control activities are eligible for revolving fund loans. As the number of states meeting performance levels for municipal waste treatment increases, additional states will have the option of using all or part of their revolving fund resources for nonpoint source pollution abatement. Use of Special Fees and Taxes An example of special fees and taxes if the Iowa Ground Water Protection Act. It is a good example of a user fee/tax program established to fund nonpoint source pollution projects and programs. The Iowa law places fees and taxes on the sale of fertilizers and pesticides, waste disposal and underground storage tanks. In this type of program, there is a delicate balance between establishing an economic disincentive which results in water quality benefits and an 214 economic hardship which may be a critical factor for business survival. In Iowa, the fees on the sale of pesticides and fertilizers were balanced with an extensive technical assistance and education program which actually resulted in substantial savings to many of the users. RECOMMENDATIONS Grants — Municipalities should apply for state and federal grants to implement nonpoint source pollution control and public outreach and education programs, as well as natural resource restoration and protection programs. Some of these grant programs are: State: (1) New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act (eligible projects under this funding include wastewater treatment improvement projects, nonpoint source abatement and control program projects, and aquatic habitat restoration projects); (2) Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) (the WAC 4 plan has been prepared using an EPF grant). These grant programs are administered by the DEC and New York Department of State. Federal: (1) Sections 319 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, administered by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (2) EPA's Environmental Education Grants Program and Wetlands Protection Program; (3) Long Island Sound Study's Public Education Small Grants Program; (4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Challenge Cost Share Program; and (5) other federal grants are available through the EPA, EPA-Long Island Sound Office, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, and FWS. State Revolving Funds (SRF) - Use the SRF, which is particularly suitable for funding stormwater management basin retrofits and construction of structural best management practices, including detention, extended detention and retention basins. Special Fees and Taxes - Determine if special fees and taxes would be appropriate for the communities in the WAC 4 study area. Clean Vessel Act Pump-out Grant Program - Propose new marina pump-out facilities or improvements to existing facilities for funding through the Clean Vessel Act Pump-out Grant Program. Contacts: EPA-Long Island Sound Office: (203)977-1541; Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/regionOl/eco/lis/ New York Department of Environmental Conservation: (518)457-6559; Web Site: http://www.dec.state.ny.us New York Department of State: (518)474-6000; Web Site: http://www.dos.state.nyu.us/cstl/cstlwww.html United States Environmental Protection Agency: (212)637-3408; Web Site: http://www.epa.gov United States Fish and Wildlife Service: (413)253-8200; Web Site: http://northeast/fws.gov USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service: (315)477-6504; Web Site: http://www.nres.usda.gov 215 Section II:Appendix US EPA PHASE II STORMWATER REGULATIONS US EPA PHASE II STORMWATER REGULATIONS The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Phase II Stormwater Regulations are important to note for all municipalities within the WAC 4 study area. All municipalities represented by WAC 4 will be affected by these newly implemented EPA regulations. By adhering to the proposed water quality improvement recommendations within this report, municipalities will be better equipped to meet the Phase II regulation requirements. Since the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the quality of our Nation's waters has improved dramatically. Despite this progress, however, degraded water bodies still exist. According to the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory (Inventory), a biennial summary of State surveys of water quality, approximately 40 percent of surveyed U.S. water bodies are still impaired by pollution and do not meet water quality standards. A leading source of this impairment is polluted runoff. In fact, according to the Inventory, 13 percent of impaired rivers, 21 percent of impaired lake acres and 45 percent of impaired estuaries are affected by urban/suburban storm water runoff and 6 percent of impaired rivers, 11 percent of impaired lake acres and 11 percent of impaired estuaries are affected by construction site discharges. Phase I of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) stormwater program was promulgated in 1990 under the CWA. Phase I relies on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit coverage to address storm water runoff from: (1) "medium" and "large" municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally serving populations of 100,000 or greater (of which Westchester County is included), (2) construction activity disturbing five acres of land or greater, and (3)ten categories of industrial activity. The Stormwater Phase II Final Rule is the next step in EPA's effort to preserve, protect, and improve the Nation's water resources from polluted storm water runoff. The Phase II program expands the Phase I program by requiring additional operators of MS4s in urbanized areas and operators of small construction sites, through the use of NPDES permits, to implement programs and practices to control polluted storm water runoff. A series of 14 fact sheets on the Phase II Stormwater Regulations prepared by the EPA can be viewed at the following internet site: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2. See Fact Sheets 2.0 and 3.0 for overviews of the Phase II programs for MS4s and construction activity. Phase II is intended to further reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat by instituting the use of controls on the unregulated sources of storm water discharges that have the greatest likelihood of causing continued environmental degradation. The environmental problems associated with discharges from MS4s in urbanized areas and discharges resulting from construction activity are outlined below. II-3 MS4s in Urbanized Areas Storm water discharges from MS4s in urbanized areas are a concern because of the high — concentration of pollutants found in these discharges. Concentrated development in urbanized areas substantially increases impervious surfaces, such as city streets, driveways, parking lots, and sidewalks, on which pollutants from concentrated human activities settle and remain until a storm event washes them into nearby storm drains. Common pollutants include pesticides, fertilizers, oils, salt, litter and other debris, and sediment. Another concern is the possible illicit connections of sanitary sewers, which can result in fecal coliform bacteria entering the storm sewer system. Storm water runoff picks up and transports these and other harmful pollutants then discharges them — untreated — to waterways via storm sewer systems. When left uncontrolled, these discharges can result in fish kills, the destruction of spawning and wildlife habitats, a loss in aesthetic value, and contamination of drinking water supplies and recreational waterways that can threaten public health. Construction Activity Uncontrolled runoff from construction sites is a water quality concern because of the devastating effects that sedimentation can have on local water bodies, particularly small streams. Numerous studies have shown that the amount of sediment transported by storm water runoff from construction sites with no controls is significantly greater than from sites with controls. In addition to sediment, construction activities yield pollutants such as pesticides, petroleum products, construction chemicals, solvents, asphalts, and acids that can contaminate storm water - runoff. During storms, construction sites may be the source of sediment-laden runoff, which can overwhelm a small stream channel's capacity, resulting in streambed scour, stream bank erosion, _ and destruction of near-stream vegetative cover. Where left uncontrolled, sediment-laden runoff has been shown to result in the loss of in-stream habitats for fish and other aquatic species, an increased difficulty in filtering drinking water, the loss of drinking water reservoir storage capacity, and negative impacts on the navigational capacity of waterways. Are Municipally Operated Sources Exempted by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA) of 1991 A f fected by the Final Rule? Provisions within ISTEA temporarily delayed the deadline for Phase I industrial activities (with the exception of power plants, airports, and uncontrolled sanitary landfills) operated by municipalities with populations of less than 100,000 people to obtain an NPDES storm water discharge permit. Congress delayed the permitting deadline for these facilities to allow small municipalities additional time to comply with NPDES requirements. The Phase II Final Rule ended this temporary exemption from permitting and set a deadline of no later than March 10, 2003 for all ISTEA-exempted municipally operated industrial activities to obtain permit coverage. How Was the Phase II Final Rule Developed? II-4 EPA developed the Phase II Final Rule during extensive consultations with a cross-section of interested stakeholders brought together on a subcommittee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and with representatives of small entities participating in an advisory process mandated under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. In addition, EPA considered comments submitted by over 500 individuals and organizations during a 90-day public comment period on the proposed rule. Why Does Part of the Phase II Final Rule Use a Question and Answer Format? The provisions pertaining to operators of small MS4s are written in a "readable regulation" form that uses the "plain language" method. Questions and answers are used to create more reader- friendly and understandable regulations. The plain language method uses "must" instead of "shall" to indicate a requirement and words like "should," "could," or "encourage" to indicate a recommendation or guidance. Who Is Covered by the Phase II Final Rule? The final rule "automatically" covers two classes of stormwater dischargers on a nationwide basis: (1) Operators of small MS4s located in "urbanized areas" as delineated by the Bureau of the Census. A "small" MS4 is any MS4 not already covered by Phase I of the NPDES storm water program; and (2) Operators of small construction activities that disturb equal to or greater than 1 (one) and less than 5 (five) acres of land. See Fact Sheet 3.0 for more information on small construction activity coverage. The Phase II regulations take a "best management practice" approach, providing municipalities with the flexibility to decide what their storm water control practices will be. Municipal storm water programs must include at least these six control measures: —> Public outreach and education —> Public involvement and participation Illicit discharge detection and elimination -� Construction site storm water runoff control -� Post-construction stormwater management Pollution prevention, or"good housekeeping" for municipal operations Waivers Permitting authorities may waive "automatically designated" Phase II dischargers if the dischargers meet the necessary criteria. See Fact Sheets 2.1 (small MS4 waivers overview), 3.0 (construction waivers overview) and 3.1 (construction rainfall erosivity waiver) for details. Phased-in Permit Coverage Permitting authorities may phase-in permit coverage for small MS4s serving jurisdictions with a 1I-5 population under 10,000 on a schedule consistent with a State watershed permitting approach. Additional Designations by the Permitting Authority Small MS4s located outside of urbanized areas, construction activity disturbing less than 1 acre, and any other storm water discharges can be designated for coverage if the NPDES permitting authority or EPA determines that storm water controls are necessary. See Fact Sheet 2.1 for more information on the designation of small MS4s located outside of urbanized areas. Small Construction Activity What Does the Phase II Final Rule Require? Operators of Phase II-designated small MS4s and small construction activity are required to apply for NPDES permit coverage, most likely under a general rather than individual permit, and to implement storm water discharge management controls (known as "best management practices" (BMPs)). Specific requirements for each type of discharge are listed below. A regulated small MS4 operator must develop, implement, and enforce a storm water management program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from their MS4 to the "maximum extent practicable," to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the CWA. The rule assumes the use of narrative, rather than numeric, effluent limitations requiring implementation of BMPs. The small MS4 storm water management program must include the following six minimum control measures: public education and outreach; public participation/involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control; post-construction runoff control; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping. A regulated small MS4 operator must identify its selection of BMPs and measurable goals for each minimum measure in the permit application. The evaluation and assessment of those chosen BMPs and measurable goals must be included in periodic reports to the NPDES permitting authority. The specific requirements for storm water controls on small construction activity will be defined by the NPDES permitting authority on a state-by-state basis. EPA expects that the NPDES permitting authorities will use their existing Phase I general permits for large construction activity as a guide for their Phase II permits for small construction activity. If this occurs, a storm water pollution prevention plan will likely be required for small construction activity. What Is the Phase II Proms am Approach? The Phase II program, based on the use of federally enforceable NPDES permits: • encourages the use of general permits-, II-6 • provides flexibility for regulated operators to determine the most appropriate storm water controls; • allows for the recognition and inclusion of existing NPDES and non-NPDES storm water programs in Phase II permits; • includes public education and participation efforts as primary elements of the small MS4 program; • attempts to facilitate and promote watershed planning and to implement the storm water program on a watershed basis; and • works toward a unified and comprehensive NPDES storm water program with Phase I of the program. How Does the Phase II Final Rule Address the Phase I Industrial "No Exposure"Provision? In addition to establishing a deadline for ISTEA facilities and designating two new classes of dischargers, the Phase II Final Rule revises the "no exposure" provision originally included in the 1990 regulations for Phase I of the NPDES storm water program. The provision was remanded to EPA for further rulemaking and, subsequently, included in its revised form in the Phase II rule. Under the Phase II Final Rule, a conditional no exposure exclusion is available to operators of all categories of Phase I regulated industrial activity (except category (x) construction activity) who can certify that all industrial materials and activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt, and/or runoff. To obtain the no exposure exclusion, written certification must be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority. The final rule includes a No Exposure Certification form for use only by operators of industrial activity in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. See Fact Sheet 4.0 for more information on the conditional no exposure exclusion for industrial activity. For Additional Information Contact: U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 • E-mail: SW2@epa.gov • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 II-7 United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-001 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 1.0 �-CEPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule An Overview Storm Water Phase II Why Is the Phase II Storm Water Program Necessary? Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Since the passage of the Clean Water Act(CWA),the quality of our Nation's waters has improved dramatically. Despite this progress,however,degraded waterbodies still exist. Overview According to the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory(Inventory),a biennial summary of 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final State surveys of water quality,approximately 40 percent of surveyed U.S.waterbodies are Rule: An Overview still impaired by pollution and do not meet water quality standards. A leading source of this Small MS4 Program impairment is polluted runoff. In fact,according to the Inventory, 13 percent of impaired rivers,21 percent of impaired lake acres and 45 percent of impaired estuaries are affected by 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water urban/suburban storm water runoff and 6 percent of impaired rivers, 11 percent of impaired Program Overview lake acres and 11 percent of impaired estuaries are affected by construction site discharges. 2.1-Who's Covered?Desi nation and Waivers of Regulated mall MS4s Phase I of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency's's EPA)storm water program was promulgated in 1990 under the CWA. Phase I relies on National Pollutant Discharge 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition Elimination System(NPDES)permit coverage to address storm water runoff from: and Description (1)"medium"and"large"municipal separate storm sewer systems(MS4s)generally serving Minimum Control Measures populations of 100,000 or greater,(2)construction activity disturbing 5 acres of land or greater,and(3)ten categories of industrial activity. 2.3-Public Education and Outreach The Storm Water Phase II Final Rule is the next step in EPA's effort to preserve,protect, 2.4-Public Participation/ and improve the Nation's water resources from polluted storm water runoff. The Phase II Involvement program expands the Phase I program by requiring additional operators of MS4s:in urbanized 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection areas and operators of small construction sites,through the use of NPDES permits,to and Elimination implement programs and practices to control polluted storm water runoff. See Fact Sheets 2.6-Construction Site Runoff 2.0 and 3.0 for overviews of the Phase II programs for MS4s and construction activity. Control 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff Phase II is intended to further reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic;habitat by Control instituting the use of controls on the unregulated sources of storm water discharges that have the greatest likelihood of causing continued environmental degradation. The environmental 2.8-Pollution PreventiordGood problems associated with discharges from MS4s in urbanized areas and discharges resulting Housekeeping from construction activity are outlined below. 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: MS4s in Urbanized Areas The Process and Requirements Storm water discharges from MS4s in urbanized areas are a concern because of the high 2.10-Federal and State-Operated concentration of pollutants found in these discharges. Concentrated development in MS4s: Program Implementation urbanized areas substantially increases impervious surfaces,such as city streets,driveways, Construction Program parking lots,and sidewalks,on which pollutants from concentrated human activities settle 3.0-Construction Program and remain until a storm event washes them into nearby storm drains. Common pollutants Overview include pesticides,fertilizers,oils,salt,litter and other debris,and sediment. Another 3.1-Construction Rainfall concern is the possible illicit connections of sanitary sewers,which can result in fecal Erosivity Waiver coliform bacteria entering the storm sewer system. Storm water runoff picks up and transports these and other harmful pollutants then discharges them-untreated-to Industrial"No Exposure" waterways via storm sewer systems. When left uncontrolled,these discharges can result in 4.0-Conditional No Exposure fish kills,the destruction of spawning and wildlife habitats,a loss in aesthetic value,and Exclusion for Industrial Activity contamination of drinking water supplies and recreational waterways that can threaten public health. r Fact Sheet 1.0—Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Page 2 Construction Activity Why Does Part of the Phase II Final Rule Use a Uncontrolled runoff from construction sites is a water quality Question and Answer Format? concern because of the devastating effects that sedimentation can have on local waterbodies,particularly small streams. he provisions pertaining to operators of small MS4s are Numerous studies have shown that the amount of sediment Twritten in a"readable regulation"form that uses the transported by storm water runoff from construction sites "plain language"method. Questions and answers are used to with no controls is significantly greater than from sites with create more reader-friendly and understandable regulations. controls. In addition to sediment,construction activities yield The plain language method uses"must"instead of"shall"to pollutants such as pesticides,petroleum products, indicate a requirement and words like"should,""could,"or construction chemicals,solvents,asphalts,and acids that can "encourage"to indicate a recommendation or guidance. contaminate storm water runoff. During storms,construction sites may be the source of sediment-laden runoff,which can Who Is Covered by the Phase H Final Rule? overwhelm a small stream channel's capacity,resulting in streambed scour,streambank erosion,and destruction of near- he final rule"automatically"covers two classes of storm stream vegetative cover. Where left uncontrolled,sediment- Twater dischargers on a nationwide basis: laden runoff has been shown to result in the loss of in-stream habitats for fish and other aquatic species,an increased (1) Operators of small MS4s located in"urbanized difficulty in filtering drinking water,the loss of drinking areas"as delineated by the Bureau of the Census. water reservoir storage capacity,and negative impacts on the A"small"MS4 is any MS4 not already covered by navigational capacity of waterways. Phase I of the NPDES storm water program. See Fact Sheets 2.1 and 2.2 for more information on Are Municipally Operated Sources Exempted small MS4 coverage. by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA) of 1991 Affected by (2) Operators of small construction activities that the Final Rule? disturb equal to or greater than 1 (one)and less than 5(five)acres of land. See Fact Sheet 3.0 for Provisions within ISTEA temporarily delayed the deadline more information on small construction activity for Phase I industrial activities(with the exception of coverage. power plants,airports,and uncontrolled sanitary landfills) operated by municipalities with populations of less than Waivers 100,000 people to obtain an NPDES storm water discharge Permitting authorities may waive"automatically designated" permit. Congress delayed the permitting deadline for these Phase 11 dischargers if the dischargers meet the necessary facilities to allow small municipalities additional time to criteria. See Fact Sheets 2.1 (small MS4 waivers overview), comply with NPDES requirements. The Phase II Final Rule 3.0(construction waivers overview)and 3.1 (construction ended this temporary exemption from permitting and set a rainfall erosivity waiver)for details. deadline of no later than March 10,2003 for all ISTEA- exempted municipally operated industrial activities to obtain Phased-in Permit Coverage permit coverage. Permitting authorities may phase-in permit coverage for small MS4s serving jurisdictions with a population under 10,000 on How Was the Phase H Final Rule Developed? a schedule consistent with a State watershed permitting approach. EPA developed the Phase II Final Rule during extensive consultations with a cross-section of interested Additional Designations by the Permitting Authority stakeholders brought together on a subcommittee chartered Small MS4s located outside of urbanized areas,construction under the Federal Advisory Committee Act,and with activity disturbing less than 1 acre,and any other storm water representatives of small entities participating in an advisory discharges can be designated for coverage if the NPDES process mandated under the Small Business Regulatory permitting authority or EPA determines that storm water Enforcement Fairness Act. In addition,EPA considered controls are necessary. See Fact Sheet 2.1 for more comments submitted by over 500 individuals and information on the designation of small MS4s located outside organizations during a 90-day public comment period on of urbanized areas. the proposed rule. Fact Sheet 1.0—Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Page 3 What Does the Phase II Final Rule Require? this occurs,a storm water pollution prevention plan will likely be required for small construction activity. Operators of Phase II-designated small MS4s and small See Fact Sheet 3.0 for more information on potential construction activity are required to apply for NPDES program requirements and appropriate BMPs for permit coverage,most,likely under a general rather than small construction activity. individual permit,and to implement storm water discharge management controls(known as"best management practices" What Is the Phase II Program Approach? (BMPs)). Specific requirements for each type of discharge are listed below. he Phase II program,based on the use of federally Tenforceable NPDES permits: Small MS4s ❑ Encourages the use of general permits; ❑ A regulated small MS4 operator must develop, ❑ Provides flexibility for regulated operators to implement,and enforce a storm water management determine the most appropriate storm water program designed to reduce the discharge of controls; pollutants from their MS4 to the"maximum extent practicable,"to protect water quality,and to satisfy ❑ Allows for the recognition and inclusion of existing the appropriate water quality requirements of the NPDES and non-NPDES storm water programs in CWA. The rule assumes the use of narrative,rather Phase II permits; than numeric,effluent limitations requiring implementation of BMPs. ❑ Includes public education and participation efforts as primary elements of the small MS4 program; ❑ The small MS4 storm water management program must include the following six minimum control C] Attempts to facilitate and promote watershed measures: public education and outreach;public planning and implement the storm water program participation/involvement;illicit discharge detection on a watershedd basis;and and elimination;construction site runoff control; post-construction runoff control;and pollution ❑ Works toward a unified and comprehensive NPDES prevention/good housekeeping. See Fact Sheets 2.3 storm water program with Phase I of the program. through 2.8 for more information on each measure, including BMPs and measurable goals. How Does the Phase H Final Rule Address the Phase I Industrial"No Exposure" Provision? ❑ A regulated small MS4 operator must identify its selection of BMPs and measurable goals for eachTn addition to establishing a deadline for ISTEA,facilities minimum measure in the permit application. The land designating two new classes of dischargers,the evaluation and assessment of those chosen BMPs Phase II Final Rule revises the"no exposure"provision and measurable goals must be included in periodic originally included in the 1990 regulations for Phase I of the reports to the NPDES permitting authority. See Fact NPDES storm water program. The provision was remanded Sheet 2.9 for more information on permitting and to EPA for further rulemaking and,subsequently,included in reporting. its revised form in the Phase II rule. Under the Phase II Final Rule,a conditional no exposure Small Construction Activity exclusion is available to operators of all categories of Phase I regulated industrial activity(except category(x)construction activity)who can certify that all industrial materials and ❑ The specific requirements for storm water controls activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent on small construction activity will be defined by the exposure to rain,snow,snowmelt,and/or runoff. To obtain NPDES permitting authority on a State-by-State the no exposure exclusion,written certification must be basis. submitted to the NPDES permitting authority. The final rule includes a No Exposure Certification form for use only by ❑ EPA expects that the NPDES permitting authorities operators of industrial activity in areas where EPA is the will use their existing Phase I general permits for NPDES permitting authority. See Fact Sheet 4.0 for more large construction activity as a guide for their information on the conditional no exposure exclusion for Phase II permits for small construction activity. If industrial activity. Fact Sheet 1.0—Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Page 4 What Is the Phase II Program Implementation For Additional Information "Tool Box?" EPA is committed to providing tools to facilitate Contacts implementation of the final Phase II storm water program Ow U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management in an effective and cost-efficient manner. The"tool box"will Phone: 202 260-5816 include the following components: E-mail: SW2@epa.gov • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 ® Fact Sheets; ® Guidance Documents; ow Your NPDES Permitting Authority.(A list of names ® Menu of BMPs; and telephone numbers for each U.S.EPA Region is ® Information Clearinghouse/Web Site; included in Fact Sheet 2.9. A list that includes State storm water contacts can be obtained by contacting ® Training and Outreach Efforts; the U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management.) ® Technical Research; ® Support for Demonstration Projects;and Reference Documents ® Compliance Monitoring/Assistance Tools. or Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 A preliminary working toolbox is available on EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/owm/sw/toolbox. Three years after Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) publication of the final rule,when the general permits are Internet: wwS.EP Water C issued,a fully operational tool box is scheduled to be Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202 260-7786 available. — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov What Is the Schedule for the Phase II Rule? ❑ The Phase II Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999(64 FR 68722). ❑ The Conditional No Exposure Exclusion option is available February 7,2000,in States where EPA is the permitting authority. ❑ The NPDES permitting authority will issue general permits for Phase II-designated small MS4s and small construction activity by December 9,2002. ❑ Operators of Phase II"automatically"designated regulated small MS4s and small construction activity must obtain permit coverage within 90 days of permit issuance. ❑ The NPDES permitting authority may phase-in coverage for small MS4s serving jurisdictions with a population under 10,000 on a schedule consistent with a State watershed permitting approach. ❑ Operators of regulated small MS4s must fully implement their storm water management programs by the end of the first permit term,typically a 5-year period. United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-002 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.0 EPA Storm Water Phase II �-C Final Rule Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview Storm Water Phase II olluted storm water runoff is often transported to municipal separate storm sewer systems Final Rule P(MS4s)and ultimately discharged into local rivers and streams without treatment. EPA's Fact Sheet Series Storm Water Phase II Rule establishes an MS4 storm water management program that is Overview intended to improve the Nation's waterways by reducing the quantity of pollutants that storm 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final water picks up and carries into storm sewer systems during storm events. Common pollutants Rule: An Overview include oil and grease from roadways,pesticides from lawns,sediment from construction sites, and carelessly discarded trash,such as cigarette butts,paper wrappers,and plastic bottles. Small MS4 Program When deposited into nearby waterways through MS4 discharges,these pollutants can impair 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water the waterways,thereby discouraging recreational use of the resource,contaminating drinking Program Overview water supplies,and interfering with the habitat for fish,other aquatic organisms,and wildlife. 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small In 1990,EPA promulgated rules establishing Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge MS4s Elimination System(NPDES)storm water program. The Phase I program for MS4s requires 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition operators of"medium"and"large"MS4s,that is,those that generally serve populations of and Description 100,000 or greater,to implement a storm water management program as a means to control polluted discharges from these MS4s. The Storm Water Phase II Rule extends coverage of the Minimum Control Measures NPDES storm water program to certain"small"MS4s but takes a slightly different approach to 2.3-Public Education and how the storm water management program is developed and implemented. Outreach 2.4-Public Participation/ What Is a Phase II Small MS4? Involvement 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detectione small MS4 is any MS4 not already covered by the Phase I program as a medium or large and Elimination AMS4. The Phase II Rule automatically covers on a nationwide basis all small MS4s located in"urbanized areas"(UAs)as def red by the Bureau of the Census(unless waived by 2.6-Construction Site Runoff Controlthe NPDES permitting authority),and on a case-by-case basis those small MS4s located outside of UAs that the NPDES permitting authority designates. For more information on Phase II 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff small MS4 coverage,see Fact Sheets 2.1 and 2.2. Control 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good What Are the Phase II Small MS4 Program Requirements? Housekeeping 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: Operators of regulated small MS4s are required to design their programs to: The Process and Requirements ❑ Reduce the discharge of pollutants to the"maximum extent practicable"(MEP); 2.10-Federal and State-Operated ❑ Protect water quality;and MS4s: Program Implementation ❑ Satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act. Construction Program 3.0-Construction Program Implementation of the MEP standard will typically require the development and Overview implementation of BMPs and the achievement of measurable goals to satisfy each of the six 3.1-Construction Rainfall minimum control measures. Erosivity Waiver The Phase II Rule defines a small MS4 storm water management program as a program Industrial"No Exposure" comprising six elements that,when implemented in concert,are expected to result in 4.0-Conditional No Exposure significant reductions of pollutants discharged into receiving waterbodies. Exclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.0—An Overview of the Small MS4 Storm Water Program Page 2 The six MS4 program elements,termed "minimum control or NOI,its chosen BMPs and measurable goals for each measures,"are outlined below. For more information on each minimum control measure. To help permittees identify the of these required control measures,see Fact Sheets 2.3—2.8. most appropriate BMPs for their programs,EPA will issue a "menu,"of BMPs to serve as guidance. NPDES permitting O Public Education and Outreach authorities can modify the EPA menu or develop their own Distributing educational materials and performing list. For more information on application requirements,see outreach to inform citizens about the impacts polluted Fact Sheet 2.9. storm water runoff discharges can have on water quality. What Are the Implementation Options? ® Public Participation/Involvement he rule identifies a number of implementation options for Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in Tregulated small MS4 operators. These include sharing program development and implementation,including responsibility for program development with a nearby effectively publicizing public hearings and/or regulated small MS4,taking advantage of existing local or encouraging citizen representatives on a storm water State programs,or participating in the implementation of an management panel. existing Phase I MS4's storm water program as a co-permittee. These options are intended to promote a regional approach to ® Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination storm water management coordinated on a watershed basis. Developing and implementing a plan to detect and eliminate illicit discharges to the storm sewer system What Kind of Program Evaluation/Assessment Is (includes developing a system map and informing the Required? community about hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste). ermittees need to evaluate the effectiveness of their chosen PBMPs to determine whether the BMPs are reducing the ® Construction Site Runoff Control discharge of pollutants from their systems to the"maximum Developing,implementing,and enforcing an erosion and extent practicable"and to determine if the BMP mix is sediment control program for construction activities that satisfying the water quality requirements of the Clean Water disturb 1 or more acres of land(controls could include Act. Permittees also are required to assess their progress silt fences and temporary storm water detention ponds). in achieving their program's measurable goals. While monitoring is not required under the rule,the NPDES ® Post-Construction Runoff Control permitting authority has the discretion to require monitoring Developing,implementing,and enforcing a program to if deemed necessary. If there is an indication of a need for address discharges of post-construction storm water improved controls,permittees can revise their mix of BMPs runoff from new development and redevelopment areas. to create a more effective program. For more information Applicable controls could include preventative actions on program evaluation assessment,see Fact Sheet 2.9. such as protecting sensitive areas(e.g.,wetlands)or the use of structural BMPs such as grassed swales or porous pavement. For Additional Information ® Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Contact Developing and implementing a program with the goal of °w U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal � Phone: 202 260-5816 operations. The program must include municipal staff E-mail: SW2@epa.gov training on pollution prevention measures and techniques Intemet: www.epa.gov/ownVsw/phase2 (e.g.,regular street sweeping,reduction in the use of Reference Documents pesticides or street salt,or frequent catch-basin cleaning). ow Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Intemet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 What Information Must the NPDES Permit Application Include? 9W Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 The Phase II program for MS4s is designed to Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center accommodate a general permit approach using a Notice — Phone: 202 260-7786 of Intent(NOI)as the permit application. The operator of a — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov regulated small MS4 must include in its permit application, United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-003 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.1 �-CEPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small NIS4s Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Who Is Affected by the Phase II Small MS4 Program? Fact Sheet Series Overview he Storm Water Phase II Final Rule applies to operators of regulated small municipal 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final separate storm sewer systems(MS4s),which are designated based on the criteria discussed Rule: An Overview in this fact sheet. In this fact sheet,the definition of an MS4 and the distinction between small, Small MS4 Program medium,and large MS4s is reviewed. Conditions under which a small MS4 may be designated as a regulated small MS4,as well as the conditions for a waiver from the Phase 11 program 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water requirements,are outlined. This fact sheet also attempts to clarify possible implementation Program Overview issues related to determining one's status as an operator of a regulated small MS4. 2.1-Who's Covered?Desi nation and Waivers of Regulated mall MS4s What Is a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)? 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description hat constitutes an MS4 is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. The term MS4 does Wnot solely refer to municipally-owned storm sewer systems,but rather is a term of art with Minimum Control Measures a much broader application that can include,in addition to local jurisdictions,State departments 2.3-Public Education and of transportation,universities,local sewer districts,hospitals,military bases,and prisons. An Outreach MS4 also is not always just a system of underground pipes—it can include roads with drainage 2.4-Public Participation) systems,gutters,and ditches. The regulatory definition of an MS4 is provided below. Involvement 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination According to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(8),"municipal separate storm sewer 2.6-Construction Site Runoff means a conveyance or system of conveyances(including roads with Control drainage systems,municipal streets,catch basins,curbs,gutters,ditches, 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff man-made channels,or storm drains): Control (i) Owned or operated by a State,city,town,borough,county, 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good parish,district,association,or other public body(created by or Housekeeping pursuant to State law)...including special districts under State law such as a sewer district,flood control district or drainage 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: district,or similar entity,or an Indian tribe or an authorized The Process and Requirements district, Indian tribal organization,or a designated and approved 2.10-Federal and State-Operated management agency under section 208 of the Clean Water Act MS4s: Program Implementation that discharges into waters of the United States. Construction Program (ii) Designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water; 3.0-Construction Program Overview (iii)Which is not a combined sewer;and 3.1-Construction Rainfall (iv) Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works Erosivity Waiver (POTW)as defined at 40 CFR 122.2." Industrial"No Exposure" 4.0-Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.1—Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s Page 2 What Is a Small,Medium, or Large MS4? ❑ Urbanized Areas ❑ EPA's NPDES(National Pollutant Discharge An urbanized area(UA)is a land area Elimination System)storm water permitting program comprising one or more places—central place(s) labels MS4s as either"small,""medium,"or"large" —and the adjacent densely settled surrounding for the purposes of regulation. area—urban fringe—that together have a residential population of at least 50,000 and an ❑ A small MS4 is any MS4 that is not already covered by overall population density of at least 1,000 people the Phase I storm water program. Small MS4s include per square mile. It is a calculation used by the Federally-owned systems,such as military bases. Bureau of the Census to determine the geographic boundaries of the most heavily ❑ The Phase I storm water program covers medium developed and dense urban areas. and large MS4s. Phase I MS4s were automatically designated nationwide as medium MS4s if they were located in an incorporated place or county with a Before the time of permit issuance(which must population between 100,000-249,999 or as large be by December 9,2002),UA calculations based MS4s if located in an incorporated place or county with on the 2000 Census should be published. The a population of 250,000 or greater. Many MS4s in regulated universe then will be based on these new areas below 100,000 in population,however,have calculations. For more information on UAs,see been individually brought into the Phase I program by Fact Sheet 2.2. NPDES permitting authorities. Such already regulated MS4s do not have to develop a Phase II program. ❑ Preamble of the Phase II Final Rule: Appendix 6 Are All Small MS4s Covered by the Phase II Final Rule? A listing of governmental entities that are located either fully or partially within a UA according to No. The universe of small MS4s is quite large since it the 1990 Census can be found in Appendix 6 to the includes every MS4 except for the approximately 900 Preamble. The list is a general geographic reference _ medium and large MS4s already regulated under the Phase I intended to help operators of small MS4s determine storm water program. Only a select sub-set of small MS4s, whether or not they are located in a UA and, referred to as regulated small MS4s,is covered by the consequently,required to comply with the regulation; Phase II Final Rule,either through automatic nationwide it is not a list of all Phase II regulated MS4s. For designation or designation on a case-by-case basis by the example,the list does not include small MS4 NPDES permitting authority. operators such as colleges and universities,Federal prison complexes,and State highway departments How Is A Small MS4 Designated as a Regulated located within a UA. See Fact Sheet 2.2 for more Small MS4? information on how to determine potential coverage under the Phase II program. Appendix 6 can be obtained from the EPA Office of Wastewater Asmall MS4 can be designated by the permitting authority Management(OWM)or downloaded from the as a regulated small MS4 in one of three ways: OWM web site. O Automatic Nationwide Designation ® Potential Designation by the NPDES Permitting The Phase Il Final Rule requires nationwide coverage Authority—Required Evaluation of all operators of small MS4s that are located within the boundaries of a Bureau of the Census-defined Anoperator of small MS4 located outside of a UA may be designated as a regulated small MS4 if the NPDES "urbanized area"(UA)based on the latest decennial Census. Once a small MS4 is designated into the permitting authority determines that its discharges cause, or have the potential to cause,an adverse impact on program based on the UA boundaries,it cannot be water quality. The Phase II Final Rule requires the waived from the program if in a subsequent UA calculation the small MS4 is no longer within the UA NPDES permitting authority to develop a set of boundaries. An automatically designated small MS4 designation criteria and apply them,at a minimum, remains regulated unless,or until,it meets the criteria to all small MS4s located outside of a UA serving a for a waiver. jurisdiction with a population of at least 10,000 and a population density of at least 1,000 people/square mile. - Fact Sheet 2.1—Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s Page 3 ❑ Designation Criteria EPA recommends that the NPDES permitting Physically interconnected means that one MS4 is authority use a balanced consideration of the connected to a second MS4 in such a way that it following designation criteria on a watershed or allows for direct discharges into the second system. other local basis: ✓ Discharge to sensitive waters; Are Waivers from the Phase II Permit/Program ✓ High population density; Requirements Possible? ✓ High growth or growth potential; ves,two waiver options are available to operators of ✓ Contiguity to a UA; 1 automatically designated small MS4s if discharges do ✓ Significant contributor of pollutants to not cause,or have the potential to cause,water quality waters of the United States;and impairment. ✓ Ineffective protection of water quality The first applies where: concerns by other programs. (1) the jurisdiction served by the system is less than ❑ Preamble of the Phase H Final Rule: 1,000 people; Appendix 7 A listing of governmental entities located outside of (2) the system is not contributing substantially to the a UA,that have a population of at least 10,000 and pollutant loadings of a physically interconnected a population density of at least 1,000 people per regulated MS4;and square mile can be found in Appendix 7 to the Preamble of the Phase II Final Rule. Similar to (3) if the small MS4 discharges any pollutants identified Appendix 6,the list is a geographic reference only— as a cause of impairment of any water body to which it is not a list of regulated entities. Operators of it discharges,storm water controls are riot needed small MS4s located within a listed area could be based on wasteload allocations that are part of an examined by their NPDES permitting authority for EPA approved or established "total maximum daily potential designation into the Phase II program. load"(TMDL)that addresses the pollutant(s)of Furthermore,the NPDES permitting authority concern. reserves the right to designate for regulation any small MS4 that is contributing pollutants to waters of the United States,whether or not its jurisdiction is TMDLs are water quality assessments that found in Appendix 7. Appendix 7 can be obtained determine the source or sources of pollutants of from the EPA Office of Wastewater Management or concern for a particular waterbody,consider the downloaded from the OWM web site. maximum amount of pollutants the waterbody can assimilate,and then allocate to each source ❑ Deadline for Designation a set level of pollutants that it is allowed to The NPDES permitting authority is required to discharge(i.e.,a"wasteload allocation"). Small designate small MS4s meeting the designation MS4s that are not given a wasteload allocation criteria by December 9,2002 or by December 8, would meet the third criterion above. 2004 if a watershed plan is in place. ® Potential Designation by the NPDES Permitting Authority—Physically Interconnected Pollutants of Concern include biochemical oxygen demand(BOD),sediment or a parameter Under the final rule,the NPDES permitting authority is that addresses sediment(such as total suspended required to designate any small MS4 located outside of a solids,turbidity or siltation),pathogens,oil and UA that contributes substantially to the pollutant loadings grease,and any pollutant that has been identified of a physically interconnected MS4 regulated by the as a cause of impairment in any water body to NPDES storm water program. The final rule does not set which the MS4 discharges. a deadline for designation of small MS4s meeting this criterion. Fact Sheet 2.1—Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s Page 4 The second applies where: Who Is Responsible if the Small MS4 Operator (1) the jurisdiction served by the system is less than Lacks the Necessary Legal Authority? 10,000 people; ome regulated small MS4s may lack the necessary legal S authority to implement one or more of the required (2) an evaluationof all waters of the U.S.that receive a minimum control measures that comprise the Phase II discharge from the system shows that storm water storm water management program. For example,a local controls are not needed based on wasteload government that is a small MS4 operator may be in a State allocations that are part of an EPA approved or that does not have an enabling statute that allows local established that addresses the pollutant(s) regulatory control of construction site runoff into the sewer of concern orr an an equivalent analysis;and system. Another example is a State DOT that may not have (3) it is determined that future discharges from the small the legal authority to require and enforce controls on illicit discharges into its system. In these situations the small MS4 MS4 not have the potential to result in is encouraged to work with the neighboring regulated small exceedances of water quality standards. MS4s. As co-permittees,they could form a shared storm The NPDES permitting authority is required to periodically water management program in which each permittee is review any waivers granted to MS4 operators to determine responsible for activities that are within their individual legal whether any information required for granting the waiver has authorities and abilities. changed. Minimally,such a review needs to be conducted once every five years. Are There Allowances for Phasing-in Permit For Additional Information Coverage? Contact Yes. Small MS4s serving a jurisdiction with a population °w U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management under 10,000 can be phased-in for permit coverage, • Phone: 202 260-5816 following establishment of a State watershed permitting E-mail: SW2@epa.gov approach. NPDES permitting authorities that choose this Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 option must establish a schedule to phase-in permit coverage annually for approximately 20 percent of all small MS4s that Reference Documents qualify for such phased-in coverage. Where this option is MR' Storm Water Phase 11 Final Rule Fact Sheet Series followed,all regulated small MS4s are required to have Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 permit coverage no later than March 8,2007. sw Storm Water Phase 11 Final Rule(64 FR 68722) Can More than One MS4 in the Same Political Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 Jurisdiction Be Automatically Designated? Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202 260-7786 Yes. Since the final rule provides automatic coverage — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov of all small MS4s within a UA,the result would likely be coverage of several governments and agencies with multiple, perhaps overlapping,jurisdictions. For example,a city that is located within a UA and operates its own small MS4 could be designated alongside the State's department of transportation (DOT)and the county's DOT if the State and county operate roads that are within the borders of the city. All three entities would be responsible for developing a storm water management program for the portion of their respective MS4s within the city limits. In such a case,the permittees are strongly encouraged to work together to form a unified storm water management program. United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-004 Environmental Protection (4203) December 1999 Agency Fact Sheet 2.2 EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Storm Water Phase II Final RuleA s discussed in Fact Sheet 2.1, Who's Covered?Designation and Waivers of Regulated Fact Sheet Series mall MS4s,the Phase II Final Rule covers all small municipal separate storm sewer systems(MS4s)located within an"urbanized area"(UA). Based on the 1990 Census,there Overview are 405 UAs in the United States that cover 2 percent of total U.S.land area and contain 1.0-Storm Water Phase 11 Final approximately 63 percent of the Nation's population. These numbers include Puerto Rico— Rule: An Overview the only U.S.Territory with UAs. Small MS4 Program UAs constitute the largest and most dense areas of settlement. UA calculations delineate 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water boundaries around these dense areas of settlement and,in doing so,identify the areas of Program Overview concentrated development. UA designations are used for several purposes in both the public 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation and private sectors. For example,the Federal Government has used UAs to calculate and Waivers of Regulated Small allocations for transportation funding,and some planning agencies and development firms MS4s use UA boundaries to help ascertain current,and predict future,growth areas. 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description What Is an Urbanized Area(UA)? Minimum Control Measures T he Bureau of the Census determines UAs by applying a detailed set of published UA criteria 2.3-Public Education and 1 (see 55 FR 42592,October 22, 1990)to the latest decennial census data. Although the full Outreach UA definition is complex,the Bureau of the Census'general definition of a UA,based on 2.4-Public Participation/ population and population density,is provided below. Involvement 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection An urbanized area is a land area comprising one or more laces— and Elimination P g P Control central place(s)—and the adjacent densely settled surrounding area— CConstruction Site Runoff urban fringe—that together have a residential population of at least Co 50,000 and an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff square mile. Control 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping The basic unit for delineating the UA boundary is the census block. Census blocks are based on visible physical boundaries,such as the city block,when possible,or on invisible political 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: boundaries,when not. An urbanized area can comprise places,counties,Federal Indian The Process and Requirements Reservations,and minor civil divisions(MCDs-towns and townships). 2.10-Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation How Can Status as a Regulated Small MS4 Be Determined? Construction Program The drawing below(see Figure 1)is a simplified UA illustration that demonstrates the concept 3.0-Construction Program of UAs in relation to the Phase II Final Rule. The"urbanized area"includes within its Overview boundaries incorporated places,a portion of a Federal Indian reservation,an entire MCD,a 3.1-Construction Rainfall portion of another MCD,and portions of two counties. Any and all operators of small MS4s Erosivity Waiver located within the boundaries of the UA are covered under the Phase II Final Rule,regardless of Industrial"No Exposure" political boundaries. Operators of small MS4s located outside of the UA are subject to potential 4.0-Conditional No Exposure designation into the Phase II MS4 program by the NPDES permitting authority. Exclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.2—Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Page 2 Operators of small MS4s can determine if they are located Storm Water Coordinators: The NPDES permitting within a UA,and therefore covered by the Phase II storm authority may be the State or the U.S.EPA Region. water program,through the following two steps: The Storm Water Coordinators for each U.S.EPA Region are listed in the For Additional information — STEP 1 — section in Fact Sheet 2.9. These regional contacts can assist with UA information and provide the names of Refer to a listing of incorporated places,MCDs,and counties State storm water contacts. Regional and State contact that are located entirely or partially within a UA. Such a information can also be obtained from OWM. listing,based on the 1990 Census,can be found in Appendix 6 to the Preamble of the Phase II Final Rule;it does not State Data Centers: Each State's Data Center receives include governmental entities already permitted under listings of all entities that are located in UAs,as well as Phase I. If a small MS4 is located in a listed incorporated detailed maps and electronic files of UA boundaries. place,MCD,or county,then the operator of the small MS4 The Bureau of the Census web site includes a list of should follow step(2)below. (Note: Appendix 6 can be contact names and phone numbers for the data in each obtained from the EPA Office of Wastewater Management State at www.census.gov/sdc/www. (OWM)or downloaded from the OWM web site.) State Planning/Economic/Transportation Agencies: — STEP 2 — These agencies typically use UAs to assess current development and forecast future growth trends and, therefore,should have detailed UA information readily Some operators of small MS4s may find that they are located available to help determine the UA boundaries in any within an entity listed in Appendix 6 but not know if their given area. systems are within the urbanized portion of the listed entity. In such a case,they should contact one or more of the ❑ County or Regional Planning Commissions/ following institutions for more detailed information on the Boards location of the UA boundary: ❑ The State or NPDES Permitting Authority As with State agencies,these entities are likely to have (may be the State or the U.S.EPA Region) detailed UA data and maps to help determine UA boundaries. Figure 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I ® Central Place OI Incorporated Place � I Federal Indian Reservation(FIR) ' ■ Unincorporated"UrbanizedW" Area" Portion of a Town I (MCD)or County Gty I I —•- Urbanized Area - -- Town or Township as a functioning Minor Civil Division I (MCD).An MCD is the primary subdivision of a County. �MC County r , Couniy=$ 1719D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� Fact Sheet 2.2—Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Page 3 ❑ The Bureau of the Census Any additional automatic designations of small MS4s based on subsequent census years is governed by the Bureau of the Urbanized Areas Staff: 301457-1099 Census' definition of a UA in effect for that year and the UA boundaries determined as a result of the definition. Web Site: www.census.gov The site provides information on purchasing UA Once a small MS4 is designated into the Phase II storm water maps and electronic files for use with computerized program based on the UA boundaries,it can not be waived mapping systems. Obtain free UA cartographic from the program if in a subsequent UA calculation the small boundary files(Arc/Info export format)for MS4 is no longer within the UA boundaries. An Geographical Information System(GIS)use at: automatically designated small MS4 will remain regulated www.census.gov:80/geo/www/cob/ua.html. unless,or until,it meets the criteria for a waiver(see Fact Sheet 2.1 for more information on the regulated small MS4 UA Maps: Detailed UA maps are available for waiver option). purchase with a$25 minimum order($5 per map sheet).Each map sheet measures 36 by 42 inches. For prices and a listing of UAs,visit www.census.gov/mp/www/geo/msgeol2.htm1. Order For Additional Information from the Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census(MS 1921),P.O.Box 277943,Atlanta,GA Contact 30384-7943(Phone: 301457-4100;Toll-free fax: 1-888-249-7295). aRr U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 ❑ U.S.EPA E-mail: SW2@epa.gov • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 EPA is modifying a web-based geographic program called Enviromapper. This will allow MS4 operators Reference Documents to enter a location and see a detailed map of the UA Storm Water Phase lI Final Rule Fact Sheet Series boundary. Information about Enviromapper will be Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 available at www.epa.gov/owm/phase2. Ow Storm Water Phase 11 Final Rule(64 FR 68722) How Will the Year 2000 Census Affect the Internet: www.epa.gov/owrn/sw/phase2 Determination of Status as a Regulated Small Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center MS4? – Phone: 202 260-7786 – E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov The listing of incorporated places,MCDs,and counties located within UAs in the United States and Puerto Rico, found in Appendix 6,is based on the 1990 Census. New listings for UAs based on the 2000 Census are scheduled to be available by July or August of 2001. Once the official 2000 Census listings are published by the Bureau of the Census,operators of small MS4s located within the revised boundaries of former 1990 UAs,or in any newly defined 2000 UAs,become regulated small MS4s and must develop a storm water management program. United States Office of Water EPA 833-F00-005 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.3 .-.EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Public Education and Outreach Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase IIr7-,his fact sheet profiles the Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure,one Final Rule 1 of six measures an operator of a Phase II-regulated small municipal separate storm sewer Fact Sheet Series system(MS4)is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)storm water Overview permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the regulated small MS4 Rule: An Overview operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control Small MS4 Program measure requirements. 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water Why Is Public Education and Outreach Necessary? Program Overview Y 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation An informed and knowledgeable community is crucial to the success of a storm water and Waivers of Regulated mall MS4s management program since it helps to ensure the following: 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition - Greater support for the program as the public gains a eater understandingof thend Description reasons why it is necessary and important. Public support is particularly beneficial Minimum Control Measures when operators of small MS4s attempt to institute new funding initiatives for the 2.3-Public Education and program or seek volunteers to help implement the program;and Outreach • Greater compliance with the program as the public becomes aware of the personal 2.4-Public Participation/ responsibilities expected of them and others in the community,including the individual Involvement actions they can take to protect or improve the quality of area waters. 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination What Is Required? 2.6-Construction Site Runoff Controlrr�o satisfy this minimum control measure,the operator of a regulated small MS4 needs to: 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff 1 Control ❑ Implement a public education program to distribute educational materials to the 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good community,or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of storm Housekeeping water discharges on local waterbodies and the steps that can be taken to reduce storm water pollution;and 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements ❑ Determine the appropriate best management practices(BMPs)and measurable goals 2.10-Federal and State-Operated for this minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, MS4s: Program Implementation BMPs(i.e.,the program actions/activities),and measurable goals are suggested Construction Program below. Over Construction Program What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Overview p g p g 3.1-Construction Rainfall Measure? Erosivity Waiver 'ndustrial"No Exposure" Three main action areas are important for successful implementation of a public education and outreach program: 1.0-Conditional No Exposure exclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.3—Public Education and Outreach Minimum Control Measure Page 2 0 Forming Partnerships large warning signs(e.g.,cautioning against fishing or Operators of regulated small MS4s are encouraged to enter swimming)near storm sewer outfalls are methods that can be into partnerships with other governmental entities to fulfill used to reach audiences less likely to read standard materials. this minimum control measure's requirements. It is generally Directing materials or outreach programs toward specific groups more cost-effective to use an existing program,or to develop a of commercial,industrial,and institutional entities likely to new regional or state-wide education program,than to have have significant storm water impacts is also recommended. For numerous operators developing their own local programs. example,information could be provided to restaurants on the Operators also are encouraged to seek assistance from non- effects of grease clogging storm drains and to auto garages on governmental or a the effects of dumping used oil into storm drains. organizations( .g.,environmental,civic,and industrial organizations),since many already have educational materials and perform outreach activities. What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? easurable goals,which are required for each minimum ® Using Educational Materials and Strategies Mcontrol measure,are intended to gauge permit compliance Operators of regulated small MS4s may use storm water and program effectiveness. The measurable goals,as well as educational information provided by their State,Tribe,EPA the BMPs,should reflect the needs and characteristics of the Region,or environmental,public interest,or trade organizations operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore, instead of developing their own materials. Operators should they should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully strive to make their materials and activities relevant to local addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control situations and issues,and incorporate a variety of strategies to measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure ensure maximum coverage. Some examples include: could include the following measurable goals: • Brochures or fact sheets for general public and specific Target Date Activity audiences; 1 year.......... Brochures developed(bilingual,if appropriate) ) • Recreational guides to educate groups such as golfers, and distributed in water utility bills;a storm hikers,paddlers,climbers,fishermen,and campers; water hotline in place;volunteer educators • Alternative information sources, such as web sites, trained. bumper stickers,refrigerator magnets,posters for bus 2 years......... A web site created;school curricula developed; and subway stops,and restaurant placemats; storm drains stenciled. • A library of educational materials for community and 3 years......... A certain percentage of restaurants no longer school groups; dumping grease and other pollutants down storm • Volunteer citizen educators to staff a public education sewer drains. task force; 4 years......... A certain percentage reduction in litter or animal • Event participation with educational displays at home waste detected in discharges. shows and community festivals; • Educational programs for school-age children; For Additional Information • Storm drain stenciling of storm drains with messages such as"Do Not Dump-Drains Directly to Lake;" Contact • Storm water hotlines for information and for citizen ow U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management reporting of polluters; • Phone: 202 260-5816 • Economic incentives to citizens and businesses E-mail: SW2@epa.gov (e.g.,rebates to homeowners purchasing mulching Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 lawnmowers or biodegradable lawn products);and • Tributary signage to increase public awareness of local Reference Documents water resources. ow Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 ® Reaching Diverse Audiences The public education program should use a mix of appropriate ow Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) local strategies to address the viewpoints and concerns of a Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 variety of audiences and communities,including minority and Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center disadvantaged communities,as well as children. Printing — Phone: 202 260-7786 posters and brochures in more than one language or posting — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-006 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.4 O,m Storm Water Phase II ��-CEPA Final Rule Public Participation/lnvolvemEk,nt Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II Final Rule This fact sheet profiles the Public Participation/Involvement minimum control measure,one Fact Sheet Series of six measures the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system(MS4)is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the Overview conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of Rule: An Overview flexibility in determining how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. Small MS4 Program 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water Why Is Public Participation and Involvement Necessary? Program Overview 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation PA believes that the public can provide valuable input and assistance to a regulated small and Waivers of Regulated Small EMS4's municipal storm water management program and,therefore,suggests that the public MS4s be given opportunities to play an active role in both the development and implementation of the 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition program. An active and involved community is crucial to the success of a storm water I2. nd Description management program because it allows for: Minimum Control Measures Broaderpublic support since citizens who participate in the development and decision 3-Public Education and making process are partially responsible for the program and,therefore,may be less likely Outreach to raise legal challenges to the program and more likely to take an active role in 2.4-Public Participation/ its implementation; Involvement • Shorter implementation schedules due to fewer obstacles in the form of public and legal 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination challenges and increased sources in the form of citizen volunteers; 2.6-Construction Site Runoff • A broader base of expertise and economic benefits since the community can be a Control valuable,and free,intellectual resource;and 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure . A conduit to other programs as citizens involved in the storm water program 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good development process provide important cross-connections and relationships with other Housekeeping community and government programs. This benefit is particularly valuable when trying to implement a storm water program on a watershed basis,as encouraged by EPA. 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements What Is Required? 2.10-Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementationr�-�o satisfy this minimum control measure,the operator of a regulated small MS4 must: Construction Program 1 3.0-Construction Program Comply with applicable State,Tribal,and local public notice requirements;and Overview ❑ Determine the appropriate best management practices(BMPs)and measurable goals 3.1-Construction Rainfall for this minimum control measure. Possible implementation approaches,BMPs Erosivity Waiver (i.e.,the program actions and activities),and measurable goals are described below. Industrial"No Exposure" .0-Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.4—Public Participation/Involvement Minimum Control Measure Page 2 What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and • Storm drain stenciling is an important and simple activity Implementing This Measure? that concerned citizens,especially students,can do; • Community clean-ups along local waterways,beaches, Operators of regulated small MS4s should include the public and around storm drains; in developing,implementing,and reviewing their storm • Citizen watch groups can aid local enforcement water management programs. The public participation process authorities in the identification of polluters;and should make every effort to reach out and engage all economic • "Adopt A Storm Drain"programs encourage individuals and ethnic groups. EPA recognizes that there are challenges or groups to keep storm drains free of debris and to associated with public involvement. Nevertheless,EPA strongly monitor what is entering local waterways through storm believes that these challenges can be addressed through an drains. aggressive and inclusive program. Challenges and example practices that can help ensure successful participation are What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? discussed below. /� easurable goals,which are required for each minimum Implementation Challenges Mcontrol measure,are intended to gauge permit compliance The best way to handle common notification and recruitment and program effectiveness. The measurable goals,as well as the challenges is to know the audience and think creatively about BMPs,greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of the how to gain its attention and interest. Traditional methods of operator and the area served by the small MS4. Furthermore, soliciting public input are not always successful in generating they should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully interest,and subsequent involvement,in all sectors of the addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control community. For example,municipalities often rely solely on measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure advertising in local newspapers to announce public meetings could include the following measurable goals: and other opportunities for public involvement. Since there may be large sectors of the population who do not read the Target Date Activity local press,the audience reached may be limited. Therefore, 1 year............ Notice of a public meeting in several different alternative advertising methods should be used whenever print media and bilingual flyers;citizen panel possible,including radio or television spots,postings at bus or established;volunteers organized to locate subway stops,announcements in neighborhood newsletters, outfalls/illicit discharges and stencil drains. announcements at civic organization meetings,distribution 2 years.......... Final recommendations of the citizen panel; of flyers,mass mailings,door-to-door visits,telephone radio spots promoting program and notifications,and multilingual announcements. These efforts, participation. of course,are tied closely to the efforts for the public education 3 years.......... A certain percentage of the community and outreach minimum control measure(see Fact Sheet 2.3). participating in community clean-ups. 4 years.......... Citizen watch groups established in a certain In addition,advertising and soliciting for help should be targeted percentage of neighborhoods;outreach to every at specific population sectors,including ethnic,minority,and different population sector completed. low-income communities;academia and educational institutions; neighborhood and community groups;outdoor recreation groups; For Additional Information and business and industry. The goal is to involve a diverse cross-section of people who can offer a multitude of concerns, Contact ideas,and connections during the program development process. cs U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 Possible Practices(BMPs) E-mail: SW2@epa.gov There are a variety of practices that could be incorporated into • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 a public participation and involvement program,such as: • Public meetings/citizen panels allow citizens to discuss Reference Documents various viewpoints and provide input concerning ow Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series appropriate storm water management policies and BMPs; • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 • Volunteer water quality monitoring gives citizens first- ow Storm Water Phase 11 Final Rule(64 FR 68722) hand knowledge of the quality of local water bodies and . Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 provides a cost-effective means of collecting water • Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center quality data; • Volunteer educatorslspeakers who can conduct — Phone: cen 260-7786 - workshops,encourage public participation,and staff — E-mail: enter.water-resource@epa.gov special events; United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-007 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.5 ���EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase 11This fact sheet profiles the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination minimum control Final Rule 1 measure,one of six measures the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate Fact Sheet Series storm sewer system(MS4)is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit. Overview This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure Rule: An Overview requirements. Small MS4 Program 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water What Is An "Illicit Discharge"? Program Overview 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation Federal regulations define an illicit discharge 'Table 1 and Waivers of Regulated Small as"...any discharge to an MS4 that is not MS4s composed entirely of storm water..."with some Sources of 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition exceptions. These exceptions include discharges Illicit Discharges end Description from NPDES-permitted industrial sources and discharges from fire-fighting activities. Illicit Sanitary wastewater Minimum Control Measures discharges(see Table 1)are considered"illicit' Effluent from septic tanks 2.3-Public Education and because MS4s are not designed to accept,process, Outreach or discharge such non-storm water wastes. Car wash wastewaters 2.4-Public Participation/ Improper oil disposal Involvement Why Are Illicit Discharge Detection and Radiator flushing disposal 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection Elimination Efforts Necessary? Laundry wastewaters and Elimination 2.6-Construction Site Runoff ischarges from MS4s often include wastes and Spills from roadway accidents Control wastewater from non-storm water sources. A Improper disposal of auto and study conducted in 1987 in Sacramento,California, household toxics 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff found that almost one-half of the water discharged Control g from a local MS4 was not directly attributable to 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good precipitation runoff. A significant portion of Housekeeping these dry weather flows were from illicit and/or 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: inappropriate discharges and connections to the MS4. The Process and Requirements Illicit discharges enter the system through either direct connections(e.g.,wastewater piping 2.10-Federal and State-Operated either mistakenly or deliberately connected to the storm drains)or indirect connections MS4s: Program Implementation (e.g.,infiltration into the MS4 from cracked sanitary systems,spills collected by drain outlets, Construction Program or paint or used oil dumped directly into a drain). The result is untreated discharges that 3.0-Construction Program contribute high levels of pollutants,including heavy metals,toxics,oil and grease,solvents, Overview nutrients,viruses,and bacteria to receiving waterbodies. Pollutant levels from these illicit discharges have been shown in EPA studies to be high enough to significantly degrade 3.1 si Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver receiving water qualityand threaten aquatic,wildlife,and human health. Industrial"No Exposure" 1.0-Conditional No Exposure xclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.5—Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 2 What Is Required? • Footing drains; • Lawn watering; Recognizing the adverse effects illicit discharges can have • Individual residential car washing; on receiving waters,the final rule requires an operator of • Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands; a regulated small MS4 to develop,implement and enforce an • Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges;and illicit discharge detection and elimination program. This • Street wash water. program must include the following: What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and ❑ A storm sewer system map,showing the location of all Implementing This Measure? outfalls and the names and location of all waters of the United States that receive discharges from those he objective of the illicit discharge detection and outfalls; elimination minimum control measure is to have ❑ Through an ordinance,or other regulatory mechanism, regulated small MS4 operators gain a thorough awareness of a prohibition(to the extent allowable under State, their systems. This awareness allows them to determine the types and sources of illicit discharges entering their system; Tribal,or local law)on non-storm water discharges and establish the legal,technical,and educational means into the MS4,and appropriate enforcement procedures needed to eliminate these discharges. Permittees could meet and actions; these objectives in a variety of ways depending on their ❑ A plan to detect and address non-storm water individual needs and abilities,but some general guidance for discharges,including illegal dumping,into the MS4; each requirement is provided below. ❑ The education of public employees,businesses,and The Man the general public about the hazards associated with The storm sewer system map is meant to demonstrate a basic illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste;and awareness of the intake and discharge areas of the system. It is needed to help determine the extent of discharged dry ❑ The determination of appropriate best management weather flows,the possible sources of the dry weather flows, practices(BMPs)and measurable goals for this and the particular waterbodies these flows may be affecting. minimum control measure. Some program An existing map,such as a topographical map,on which the _ implementation approaches,BMPs(i.e.,the program location of major pipes and outfalls can be clearly presented actions/activities),and measurable goals are suggested demonstrates such awareness. below. EPA recommends collecting all existing information on Does This Measure Need to Address All Illicit outfall locations(e.g.,review city records,drainage maps, storm drain maps),and then conducting field surveys to Discharges? verify locations. It probably will be necessary to walk (i.e.,wade through small receiving waters or use a boat for No. The illicit discharge detection and elimination larger waters)the streambanks and shorelines for visual program does not need to address the following observation. More than one trip may be needed to locate all categories of non-storm water discharges or flows unless the outfalls. operator of the regulated small MS4 identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to its MS4: Legal Prohibition and En orcement • Water line flushing; EPA recognizes that some permittees may have limited • Landscape irrigation; authority under State,Tribal or local law to establish and • Diverted stream flows; enforce an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism • Rising ground waters; prohibiting illicit discharges. In such a case,the permittee is • Uncontaminated ground water infiltration; encouraged to obtain the necessary authority,if possible. • Uncontaminated pumped ground water; The Plan • Discharges from potable water sources; • Foundation drains; The plan to detect and address illicit discharges is the central • Air conditioning condensation; component of this minimum control measure. The plan is • Irrigation water; dependant upon several factors,including the permittee's • Springs; available resources,size of staff,and degree and character of • Water from crawl space pumps; its illicit discharges. EPA envisions a plan similar to the one Michigan recommends for use in meeting their NPDES storm Fact Sheet 2.5—Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 3 water general permit for small MS4s. As guidance only,the permittee's storm water program. Suggested educational four steps of a recommended plan are outlined below: outreach efforts include: * Locate Problem Areas • Developing informative brochures,and guidances EPA recommends that priority areas be identified for for specific audiences(e.g.,carpet cleaning P h' businesses)and school curricula; detailed screening of the system based on the likelihood of illicit connections(e.g.,areas with older sanitary sewer • Designing a program to publicize and facilitate public lines). Methods that can locate problem areas include: reporting of illicit discharges; public complaints;visual screening;water sampling from • Coordinating volunteers for locating,and visually manholes and outfalls during dry weather;and use of inspecting,outfalls or to stencil storm drains;and infrared and thermal photography. • Initiating recycling programs for commonly dumped ® Find the Source wastes,such as motor oil,antifreeze,and pesticides. Once a problem area or discharge is found,additional what Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? efforts usually are necessary to determine the source of the problem. Methods that can find the source of the illicit easurable goals,which are required for each minimum discharge include:dye-testing buildings in problem areas; Mcontrol measure,are intended to gauge permit dye-or smoke-testing buildings at the time of sale;tracing compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable the discharge upstream in the storm sewer;employing a goals,as well as the BMPs,should reflect the needs and certification program that shows that buildings have characteristics of the operator and the area served by its been checked for illicit connections;implementing an small MS4. Furthermore,they should be chosen using an inspection program of existing septic systems;and using video to inspect the storm sewers. integrated approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated 0 Remove/Correct Illicit Connections approach for this minimum measure could include the Once the source is identified,the offending discharger following measurable goals: should be notified and directed to correct the problem. Tar¢et Date Activity Education efforts and working with the discharger can be 1 year............ Sewer system map completed;recycling effective in resolving the problem before taking legal program for household hazardous waste in action. place. 2 years.......... Ordinance in place;training for public ® Document Actions Taken employees completed;a certain percentage As a final step,all actions taken under the plan should of sources of illicit discharges determined. be documented. This illustrates that progress is being 3 years.......... A certain percentage of illicit discharges made to eliminate illicit connections and discharges. detected;illicit discharges eliminated;and Documented actions should be included in annual reports households participating in quarterly and include information such as:the number of outfalls household hazardous waste special screened;any complaints received and corrected;the collection days. number of discharges and quantities of flow eliminated; 4 years.......... Most illicit discharge sources detected and and the number of dye or smoke tests conducted. eliminated. Educational Outreach The educational outreach measurable goals for this minimum Outreach to public employees,businesses,property owners, control measure could be combined with the measurable the general community,and elected officials regarding ways goals for the Public Education and Outreach minimum to detect and eliminate illicit discharges is an integral part of control measure(see Fact Sheet 2.3). this minimum measure that will help gain support for the Fact Sheet 2.5—Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 4 For Additional Information Contact aw U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 • E-mail: SW2@epa.gov • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 Reference Documents aW Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 9w Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 • Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202260-7786 — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov Sources J Maryland Department of the Environment,Water Management Administration. 1997. Dry Weather Flow and Illicit Discharges in Maryland Storm Drain Systems. Baltimore,Maryland. U.S.EPA Office of Water. 1993.Investigation of Inappropriate Pollutant Entries into Storm Drainage Systems: A User's Guide.EPA/600/R-92/238. Washington,D.C. Wayne County Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. 1997. Guidance for Preparing a Program for the Elimination of Illicit Discharges. Wayne County,Michigan. United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-008 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.6 Storm Water Phase II .-CEPA Final Rule Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II Final Rule 'This fact sheet profiles the Construction Site Runoff Control minimum control measure,one Fact Sheet Series 1 of six measures that the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate;storm sewer system(MS4)is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the Overview conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase 11 Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance;on how to 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of Rule:An Overview flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. Small MS4 Program 2.0-Small MS4 Storm water Why Is The Control of Construction Site Runoff Necessary? Program Overview 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation polluted storm water runoff from construction sites often Table 1 and Waivers of Regulated Small 1 flows to MS4s and ultimately is discharged into local MS4s rivers and streams. Of the pollutants listed in Table 1, Pollutants 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition sediment is usually the main pollutant of concern. Sediment Commonly Discharged and Description runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10 to 20 From Construction Sites times greater than those of agricultural lands,and 1,000 to Sediment Minimum Control Measures 2,000 times greater than those of forest lands. During a 2.3-Public Education and short period of time,construction sites can contribute Solid and sanitary wastes Outreach more sediment to streams than can be deposited naturally Phosphorous(fertilizer) during several decades. The resulting siltation,and the Nitrogen(fertilizer) 2.4 l Public Participation) contribution of other pollutants from construction sites Involvement p Pesticides can cause physical,chemical,and biological harm to our Oil and grease 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection nation's waters. For example,excess sediment can quickly and Elimination Concrete truck washout fill rivers and lakes,requiring dredging and destroying 2.6-Construction Site Runoff aquatic habitats. Construction chemicals Control Construction debris 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff What Is Required? Control 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good he Phase 11 Final Rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop.,implement, Housekeeping Tand enforce a program to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to their MS4 from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one;acre. 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: The small MS4 operator is required to: The Process and Requirements 2.10-Federal and State-Operated ❑ Have an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism requiring the implementation of MS4s:Program Implementation proper erosion and sediment controls,and controls for other wastes,on applicable Construction Program construction sites; 3.0-Construction Program ❑ Have procedures for site plan review of construction plans that consider potential Overview water quality impacts; 3.1-Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver ❑ Have procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures; Industrial"No Exposure" 4.0-Conditional No Exposure ❑ Have sanctions to ensure compliance(established in the ordinance or other regulatory Exclusion for Industrial AC6vity mechanism); Fact Sheet 2.6—Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure Page 2 ❑ Establish procedures for the receipt and consideration the construction activity,topography,and the characteristics of of information submitted by the public;and soils and receiving water quality. Inspections give the MS4 operator an opportunity to provide additional guidance and ❑ Determine the appropriate best management practices education,issue warnings,or assess penalties. To conserve (BMPs)and measurable goals for this minimum staff resources,one possible option for small MS4 operators is control measure. Suggested BMPs(i.e.,the program to have these inspections performed by the same inspector that actions/activities)and measurable goals are presented visits the sites to check compliance with health and safety below. building codes. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Information Submitted by the Public Implementing This Measure? A final requirement of the small MS4 program for construction activity is the development of procedures for the Further explanation and guidance for each component of a receipt and consideration of public inquiries,concerns,and regulated small MS4's construction program is provided information submitted regarding local construction activities. below. This provision is intended to further reinforce the public participation component of the regulated small MS4 storm Regulatory Mechanism water program(see Fact Sheet 2.4)and to recognize the Through the development of an ordinance or other regulatory crucial role that the public can play in identifying instances mechanism,the small MS4 operator must establish a of noncompliance. construction program that controls polluted runoff from construction sites with a land disturbance of greater than The small MS4 operator is required only to consider the or equal to one acre. Because there maybe limitations on information submitted,and may not need to follow-up and regulatory legal authority,the small MS4 operator is required respond to every complaint or concern. Although some form to satisfy this minimum control measure only to the maximum of enforcement action or reply is not required,the small MS4 extent practicable and allowable under State,Tribal,or local operator is required to demonstrate acknowledgment and law consideration of the information submitted. A simple tracking process in which submitted public information,both written Site Plan Review and verbal,is recorded and then given to the construction site The small MS4 operator must include in its construction inspector for possible follow-up will suffice. program requirements for the implementation of appropriate BMPs on construction sites to control erosion and sediment What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? and other waste at the site. To determine if a construction site is in compliance with such provisions,the small MS4 operatorMeasurable goals,which are required for each minimum should review the site plans submitted by the construction site control measure,are intended to gauge permit operator before ground is broken. compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals,as well as the BMPs,should reflect the needs and Site plan review aids in compliance and enforcement efforts characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small since it alerts the small MS4 operator early in the process to MS4. Furthermore,they should be chosen using an integrated the planned use or non-use of proper BMPs and provides a approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of way to track new construction activities. The tracking of sites the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for is useful not only for the small MS4 operator's recordkeeping this minimum measure could include the following measurable and reporting purposes,which are required under their goals: NPDES storm water permit(see Fact Sheet 2.9),but also for members of the public interested in ensuring that the sites are Target Date Activity in compliance. 1 year............ Ordinance or other regulatory mechanism in place;procedures for information submitted Inspections and Penalties by the public in place. Once construction commences,BMPs should be in place and 2 years.......... Procedures for site inspections implemented; the small MS4 operator's enforcement activities should begin. a certain percentage rate of compliance To ensure that the BMPs are properly installed,the small MS4 achieved by construction operators. operator is required to develop procedures for site inspection 3 years.......... Maximum compliance with ordinance; and enforcement of control measures to deter infractions. improved clarity and reduced sedimentation Procedures could include steps to identify priority sites for of local waterbodies. inspection and enforcement based on the nature and extent of 4 years.......... Increased numbers of sensitive aquatic organisms in local waterbodies. Fact Sheet 2.6—Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure Page 3 Are Construction Sites Already Covered Under national regulatory coverage of the construction site. The the NPDES Storm Water Program? provision allowing NPDES permitting authorities to reference other programs has no impact on,or direct relation to,the Yes. EPA's Phase I NPDES storm water program requires small MS4 operator's responsibilities under the construction operators of construction activities that disturb five or site runoff control minimum measure profiled here. more acres to obtain a NPDES construction storm water permit. General permit requirements include the submission Is a Small MS4 Required to Regulate of a Notice of Intent and the development of a storm water Construction Sites that the Permitting Authority pollution prevention plan(SWPPP). The SWPPP must has Waived from the NPDES Construction include a site description and measures and controls to prevent Program? r or minimize pollutants in storm water discharges. The Phase II Final Rule similarly regulates discharges from smaller construction sites disturbing equal to or greater than one acre No. If the NPDES permitting authority waives and less than five acres(see Fact Sheet 3.0 for information on 1 �requirements for storm water discharges associated with the Phase II construction program). small construction activity(see 122.26(b)(1 5)(i)),the small MS4 operator is not required to develop,implement,and/or Even though all construction sites that disturb more than one enforce a program to reduce pollutant discharges from such acre are covered nationally by an NPDES storm water permit, construction sites. the construction site runoff control minimum measure for the small MS4 program is needed to induce more localized site regulation and enforcement efforts,and to enable operators of regulated small MS4s to more effectively control construction For Additional Information site discharges into their MS4s. Contact To aid operators of regulated construction sites in their efforts aW U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management to comply with both local requirements and their NPDES Phone: 202 260-5816 permit,the Phase II Final Rule includes a provision that allows E-mail: SW2@epa.gov the NPDES permitting authority to reference a"qualifying Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 State,Tribal or local program"in the NPDES general permit for construction. This means that if a construction site is located in an area covered by a qualifying local program,then Reference Documents the construction site operator's compliance with the local °W Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series program constitutes compliance with their NPDES permit. A Internet: www.epa.gov/owni/sw/phase2 regulated small MS4's storm water program for construction could be a"qualifying program"if the MS4 operator requires Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) a SWPPP,in addition to the requirements summarized in this Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 fact sheet. Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202 260-7786 The ability to reference other programs in the NPDES permit — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov is intended to reduce confusion between overlapping and similar requirements,while still providing for both local and United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-009 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.7 �-CEPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Post-Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II Final Rule his fact sheet profiles the Post-Construction Runoff Control minimum control measure,one Fact Sheet Series Tof six measures that the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate:storm sewer system(MS4)is required to include in its storm water management program in order to Overview meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements for post-construction runoff 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final control and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy those requirements. It is important Rule:An Overview to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing;exactly Small MS4 Program how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview Why Is The Control of Post-Construction Runoff Necessary? 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small Post-construction storm water management in areas undergoing new development or MS4s redevelopment is necessary because runoff from these areas has been shown to significantly 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition effect receiving waterbodies. Many studies indicate that prior planning and design for the ^nd Description minimization of pollutants in post-construction storm water discharges is the most cast-effective approach to storm water quality management. Minimum Contra/Measures 2.3-Public Education and There are generally two forms of substantial impacts of post-construction runoff. The first is Outreach caused by an increase in the type and quantity of pollutants in storm water runoff. As runoff 2.4-Public Participation/ flows over areas altered by development,it picks up harmful sediment and chemicals such as Involvement oil and grease,pesticides,heavy metals,and nutrients(e.g.,nitrogen and phosphorus). These pollutants often become suspended in runoff and are carried to receiving waters,such as lakes, 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ponds,and streams. Once deposited,these pollutants can enter the food chain through small aquatic life,eventually entering the tissues of fish and humans. The second kind of post- 2.6-Construction Site Runoff construction runoff impact occurs by increasing the quantity of water delivered to the Control waterbody during storms. Increased impervious surfaces interrupt the natural cycle of gradual 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff percolation of water through vegetation and soil. Instead,water is collected from surfaces such Control as asphalt and concrete and routed to drainage systems where large volumes of runoff quickly 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good flow to the nearest receiving water. The effects of this process include strearrtbank scouring Housekeeping and downstream flooding,which often lead to a loss of aquatic life and damage to property. 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: What Is Required? The Process and Requirements 2.10-Federal and State-Operatedr�-�he Phase II Final Rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement, MS4s: Program Implementation 1 and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in post-construction runoff to their MS4 from Construction Program new development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance of greater than 3.0-Construction Program or equal to 1 acre. The small MS4 operator is required to: Overview ❑ Develop and implement strategies which include a combination of structural and/or non- 3.1-Construction Rainfall structural best management practices BMPs , Erosivity Waiver g p ( )� Industrial"No Exposure" ❑ Have an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism requiring the implementation of post- 1.0-Conditional No Exposure construction runoff controls to the extent allowable under State,Tribal or local law, _xclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.7—Post-Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure Page 2 ❑ Ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance Infiltration Practices. Infiltration BMPs are designed - of controls; to facilitate the percolation of runoff through the soil to ground water,and,thereby,result in reduced storm -- ❑ Determine the appropriate best management practices water quantity and reduced mobilization of pollutants. (BMPs)and measurable goals for this minimum control Examples include infiltration basins/trenches,dry wells, measure. and porous pavement. What Is Considered a"Redevelopment"Project? Vegetative Practices. Vegetative BMPs are landscaping features that,with optimal design and The term"redevelopment"refers to alterations of a property good soil conditions,enhance pollutant removal, that change the"footprint'of a site or building in such a maintain/improve natural site hydrology,promote way that there is a disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 acre healthier habitats,and increase aesthetic appeal. of land. The term does not include such activities as exterior Examples include grassy swales,filter strips,artificial remodeling. Because redevelopment projects may have site wetlands,and rain gardens. constraints not found on new development sites,the rule provides flexibility for implementing post-construction controls What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? on redevelopment sites that consider these constraints. Measurable goals,which are required for each minimum What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and control measure,are intended to gauge permit compliance Implementing This Measure? and program effectiveness. The measurable goals,as well as the BMPs,should reflect needs and characteristics of the This section includes some sample non-structural operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore, and structural BMPs that could be used to satisfy the the measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated requirements of the post-construction runoff control minimum approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of measure. It is important to recognize that many BMPs are the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for climate-specific,and not all BMPs are appropriate in every this minimum measure could include the following goals: geographic area.Because the requirements of this measure are closely tied to the requirements of the construction site Tareet Date Activity runoff control minimum measure(see Fact Sheet 2.6),EPA 1 year............. Strategies developed that include structural recommends that small MS4 operators develop and implement and/or non-structural BMPs. these two measures in tandem. Sample BMPs follow. 2 years........... Strategies codified by use of ordinance or other regulatory mechanism. ❑ Non-Structural BMPs 3 years........... Reduced percent of new impervious surfaces associated with new development projects. • Planning and Procedures. Runoff problems can be 4 years........... Improved clarity and reduced sedimentation addressed efficiently with sound planning procedures. of local waterbodies. Master Plans,Comprehensive Plans,and zoning ordinances can promote improved water quality For Additional Information by guiding the growth of a community away from sensitive areas and by restricting certain types of Contact growth(industrial,for example)to areas that can support it without compromising water quality. U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 • Site-Based Local Controls. These controls can E-mail: SW2@epa.gov include buffer strip and riparian zone preservation, Internet: www.epa.gov/ownVsw/phase2 minimization of disturbance and imperviousness,and maximization of open space. Reference Documents ow Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series ❑ Structural BMPs • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 • Storage Practices. Storage or detention BMPs control °w Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) storm water by gathering runoff in wet ponds,dry • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 basins,or multichamber catch basins and slowly • Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center releasing it to receiving waters or drainage systems. — Phone: 202 260-7786 These practices both control storm water volume and — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov settle out particulates for pollutant removal. United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-010 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.8 Storm Water Phase II -CEPA Final Rule . Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II his fact sheet profiles the Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Final Rule Operations minimum control measure,one of six measures the operator of a Phase II Fact Sheet Series regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system(MS4)is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Overview Elimination System(NPDES)permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is impon:ant to keep Rule:An Overview in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to Small MS4 Program satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water Why Is Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Necessary? Program Overview 2.1-Who's Covered?Desi nation he Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for municipal operations minimum control and Waivers of Regulated mall measure is a key element of the small MS4 storm water management program. This MS4s measure requires the small MS4 operator to examine and subsequently alter their own actions 2.2-Urbanized Areas:Definition to help ensure a reduction in the amount and type of pollution that: (1)collects on streets, and Description parking lots,open spaces,and storage and vehicle maintenance areas and is discharged into local waterways;and(2)results from actions such as environmentally damaging land Minimum Control Measures development and flood management practices or poor maintenance of storm sewer systems. 2.3-Public Education and Outreach While this measure is meant primarily to improve or protect receiving water quality by altering 2.4-Public Participation/ municipal or facility operations,it also can result in a cost savings for the small M S4 operator, Involvement since proper and timely maintenance of storm sewer systems can help avoid repair costs from 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection damage caused by age and neglect. and Elimination 2.6-Construction Site Runoff What Is Required? Control 2.7-Post Construction Runoff cognizing the benefits of pollution prevention practices,the rule requires an operator of a Control FUegulated small MS4 to: 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping ❑ Develop and implement an operation and maintenance program with the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations into the 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: storm sewer system; The Process and Requirements ❑ Include employee training on how to incorporate pollution prevention/good 2.10-Federal and State-Operated housekeeping techniques into municipal operations such as park and open MS4s: Program Implementation space maintenance,fleet and building maintenance,new construction and land Construction Program disturbances,and storm water system maintenance. To minimize duplication of 3.0-Construction Program effort and conserve resources,the MS4 operator can use training materials that are Overview available from EPA,their State or Tribe,or relevant organizations; 3.1 si Construction Rainfall ❑ Determine theappropriate best mana management practices BMPs and measurable goals Erosivity Waiverg P ( ) for this minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, Industrial"NO Exposure" BMPs(i.e.,the program actions/activities),and measurable goals are suggested 4.0-Conditional No Exposure below. Exclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.8—Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Minimum Control Measure Page 2 What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? Implementing This Measure? /� easurable goals,which are required for each minimum The intent of this control measure is to ensure that existing Mcontrol measure,are meant to gauge permit compliance municipal,State or Federal operations are performed and program effectiveness. The measurable ggals,as well in ways that will minimize contamination of storm water as the BMPs,should consider the needs and characteristics discharges. EPA encourages the small MS4 operator to of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. The consider the following components when developing their measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated program for this measure: approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for • this minimum measure could include the following Maintenance activities,maintenance schedules, measurable goals: and long-term inspection procedures for structural and non-structural controls to reduce floatables and Target Date Activity other pollutants discharged from the separate storm 1 year........... Pollution prevention plan(the new BMPs sewers; and revised procedures)completed; employee training materials gathered or • Controls for reducing or eliminating the discharge developed;procedures in place for catch of pollutants from areas such as roads and parking basin cleaning after each storm and regular lots,maintenance and storage yards(including street sweeping. salt/sand storage and snow disposal areas),and waste 2 years......... Training for appropriate employees transfer stations. These controls could include completed;recycling program fully programs that promote recycling(to reduce litter), implemented. minimize pesticide use,and ensure the proper 3 years......... Some pollution prevention BMPs disposal of animal waste; incorporated into master plan;a certain percentage reduction in pesticide and • Procedures for the proper disposal of waste sand/salt use;maintenance schedule for BMPs established. removed from separate storm sewer systems and 4 years......... A certain percentage reduction in floatables areas listed in the bullet above,including dredge discharged;a certain compliance rate with spoil,accumulated sediments,floatables,and other maintenance schedules for BMPs;controls debris;and in place for all areas of concern. • Ways to ensure that new,/lood management projects assess the impacts on water quality and For Additional Information examine existing projects for incorporation of additional water quality protection devices or Contact practices. EPA encourages coordination with flood sw U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management control managers for the purpose of identifying and Phone: 202 260-5816 addressing environmental impacts from such E-mail: SW2@epa.gov projects. Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 The effective performance of this control measure hinges on Reference Documents the proper maintenance of the BMPs used,particularly for oW Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series the first two bullets above. For example,structural controls, Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 such as grates on outfalls to capture floatables,typically need regular cleaning,while non-structural controls,such as uw Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) training materials and recycling programs,need periodic updating. Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 • Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202 260-7786 — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-011 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.9 �-CEPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Permitting and Reporting : The Process and Requirements Storm Water Phase II Final Rule he Storm Water Phase II Final Rule requires operators of certain small municipal separate storm Fact Sheet Series Tsewer systems(MS4s)to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit coverage because their storm water discharges are considered"point sources"of pollution. Overview All point source discharges,unlike nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff,are required under the Clean Water Act(CWA)to be covered by federally enforceable NPDES permits. Those 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final Rule:An Overview systems already permitted under the NPDES Phase I storm water program,even systems serving less Small MS4 Program than 100,000 people,are not required to be permitted under the Phase II storm water program. 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water NPDES storm water permits are issued by an NPDES permitting authority,which may be a NPDES- Program Overview authorized State or a U.S.EPA Region in non-authorized States(see the For Additional Information 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation section for a list of U.S.EPA regional contacts). Once a permit application is submitted by the and Waivers of Regulated Small operator of a regulated small MS4 and a permit is obtained,the conditions of the permit must be MS4s satisfied(i.e.,development and implementation of a storm water management program)and periodic 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition reports must be submitted on the status and effectiveness of the program. mnd Description This fact sheet explains the various permit options that are available for operators of regulated MbdnwmConwlMeasures small MS4s and details the permit application and reporting requirements. Important compliance 2.3-Public Education and deadlines also are highlighted. Program coverage and requirements for regulated small MS4s are Outreach explained in Fact Sheets 2.0 through 2.8. 2.4-Public Participation/ Involvement What Permitting Options Are Available to Operators of Regulated Small 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection MS4s? and Elimination 2.6-Construction Site RunoffT Tnlike the Phase I program that primarily utilizes individual permits for medium and large MS4s, Control V the Phase II approach allows operators of regulated small MS4s to choose from as many as three permitting options as listed below. The NPDES permitting authority reserves ithe authority 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff to determine,however,which options are available to the regulated small MS4s. Control p � 2.8-Pollution PreventionlGood ❑ General Permits Housekeeping 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: General permits are strongly encouraged by EPA. The Phase II program has been designed The Process and Requirements specifically to accommodate a general permit approach. 2.10-Federal and State-Operated General permits prescribe one set of requirements for all applicable permittees. General MS4s:Program Implementation permits are drafted by the NPDES permitting authority,then published for public comment Construction Program before being finalized and issued. 3.0-Construction Program Overview A Notice of Intent(NOI)serves as the application for the general permit. The permittee 3.1-Construction Rainfall complies with the permit requirements by submitting an NOI to the NPDES permitting Erosivity Waiver authority that describes the storm water management plan,including best management practices(BMPs)and measurable goals. A Phase 11 permittee has the flexibility to develop Industrial"No Exposure" an individualized storm water program that addresses the particular characteristics and 4.0-Conditional No Exposure needs of its system,provided the basic requirements of the general permit are satisfied. Exclusion for Industrial Activity 7 Fact Sheet 2.9—Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements Page 2 • Permittees also can choose to share responsibilities for program must follow the permit application meeting the Phase II program requirements. Those requirements detailed at§122.26(d). entities choosing to do so may submit jointly with the other municipalities or governmental entities an NOI The NPDES permitting authority may allow more than that identifies who will implement which minimum one regulated entity to jointly apply for an individual measures within the area served by the MS4. permit. • The permittee then follows the Phase II permit The NPDES permitting authority could incorporate application requirements(see discussion in next in the individual permit either of the two permitting question below). options explained above in the Minimize Duplication of Effort section. Minimize Duplication of Effort Two permitting options tailored to minimize duplication of ❑ Modification of a Phase I Individual Permit— effort can be incorporated into the general permit by the A Co-Permittee Option NPDES permitting authority. First,the permitting authority can recognize in the permit that another governmental entity is The operator of a regulated small MS4 could responsible under an NPDES permit for implementing any or participate as a limited co-permittee in a neighboring all minimum measures. Responsibility for implementation Phase I MS4's storm water management program of the measure(s)would rest with the other governmental by seeking a modification of the existing Phase I entity,thereby relieving the permittee of its responsibility to individual permit. A list of Phase I medium and large implement that particular measure(s). For example,the MS4s can be obtained from the EPA Office of NPDES permitting authority could recognize a county erosion Wastewater Management(OWM)or downloaded and sediment control program for construction sites that was from the OWM web site. developed to comply with a Phase I permit. As long as the Phase II MS4s in the county comply with the county's The permittee must follow Phase I permit application construction program,they would not need to develop and requirements(with some exclusions). implement their own construction programs because such activity would already be addressed by the county. The permittee must comply with the applicable terms of the Phase I individual permit rather than the Second,the NPDES permitting authority can include minimum control measures in the Phase II Final Rule. conditions in a general permit that direct a permittee to follow the requirements of an existing qualifying local program rather what Does the Permit Application Require? than the requirements of a minimum measure. A qualifying local program is defined as a local,State or Tribal municipal Operators of regulated small MS4s are required to submit in storm water program that imposes requirements that are their NOI or individual permit application the following equivalent to those of the Phase II MS4 minimum measures. information: The permittee remains responsible for the implementation of the minimum measure through compliance with the qualifying ❑ Best management practices(BMPs)are required for local program. each of the six minimum control measures: ❑ Individual Permits O Public education and outreach on storm water impacts • Individual permits are required for Phase I"medium" ® Public participation/involvement and"large"MS4s,but not recommended by EPA for ® Illicit discharge detection and elimination Phase II program implementation. © Construction site storm water runoff control • The permittee can either submit an individual ® Post-construction storm water management in application for coverage by the Phase II MS4 program new development/redevelopment (see§122.34)or the Phase I MS4 program(see 0 Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for §122.26(d)). municipal operations • For individual coverage under Phase 11,the permittee (See Fact Sheets 2.3 through 2.8 for full descriptions must follow Phase II permit application requirements of each measure,including examples of BMPs and and provide an estimate of square mileage served by measurable goals) the system and any additional information requested ❑ Measurable goals for each minimum control measure by the NPDES permitting authority. A permittee (i.e,narrative or numeric standards used to gauge electing to apply for coverage under the Phase I program effectiveness); Fact Sheet 2.9—Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements Page 3 ❑ Estimated months and years in which actions to implementation of their storm water management programs. implement each measure will be undertaken,including The NPDES permitting authority is required to provide this interim milestones and frequency;and menu as an aid for those operators that are unsure of the most appropriate and effective BMPs to use. Since the menu is ❑ The person or persons responsible for implementing intended to serve as guidance only,the operators can either or coordinating the storm water program. select from the menu or identify other BMPs to meet the permit requirements. EPA is scheduled to develop a menu of BMPs Relying on Another Entity by October 27,2000. The Phase II permittee has the option of relying on other entities already performing one or more of the minimum What Standards Apply? control measures,provided that the existing control measure, or component thereof,is at least as stringent as the Phase II /� Phase II small MS4 operator is required to design its rule requirements. For example,a county already may have an Aprogram so that it: illicit discharge detection and elimination program in place and may allow an operator of a regulated small MS4 within the ❑ Reduces the discharge of pollutants to the"maximum county's jurisdiction to rely on the county program instead of extent practicable"(MEP); formulating and implementing a new program. In such a case, the permittee would not need to implement the particular ❑ Protects water quality;and measure,but would still be ultimately responsible for its effective implementation. For this reason, EPA recommends ❑ Satisfies the appropriate water quality requirements of that the permittee enter into a legally binding agreement with the Clean Water Act. the other entity. If the permittee chooses to rely on another entity,they must note this in their permit application and Compliance with the technical standard of MEP requires the subsequent reports. A Phase II permittee may even rely on successful implementation of approved BMPs. The Phase II another governmental entity regulated under the NPDES Final Rule considers narrative effluent limitations that require storm water program to satisfy all of the permittee's permit the implementation of BMPs and the achievement of obligations. Should this option be chosen,the permittee must measurable goals as the most appropriate form of effluent note this in its NOI,but does not need to file periodic reports. limitations to achieve the protection of water quality,rather than requiring that storm water discharges meet numeric What Does the Permit Require? effluent limitations. The operator of a regulated small MS4 has the flexibility EPA intends to issue Phase II NPDES permits consistent to determine the BMPs and measurable goals,for each with its August 1, 1996,Interim Permitting Approach policy, minimum control measure,that are most appropriate for the which calls for BMPs in first-round storm water permits and system. The chosen BMPs and measurable goals,submitted expanded or better tailored BMPs in subsequent permits, in the permit application,become the required storm water where necessary,to provide for the attainment of water management program;however,the NPDES permitting quality standards. In cases where information exists to authority can require changes in the mix of chosen BMPs develop more specific conditions or limitations to meet water and measurable goals if all or some of them are found to be quality standards,these conditions or limitations should be inconsistent with the provisions of the Phase II Final Rule. incorporated into the storm water permit. Monitoring is not Likewise,the permittee can change its mix of BMPs if it required under the Phase II Rule,but the NPDES permitting determines that the program is not as effective as it could authority has the discretion to require monitoring if deemed be Fact Sheets 2.3 through 2.8 further describe each of the necessary. minimum control measures,while the permit requirements for evaluation/assessment and recordkeeping activities are What Evaluation/Reporting Efforts Are described in separate sections below. Required? Menu of BMPs Frequency of Reports The BMPs for minimum measures 3 through 6(as listed in Reports must be submitted annually during the first permit the permit application requirements section,above)are not term. For subsequent permit terms,reports must be submitted enforceable until the NPDES permitting authority provides a in years 2 and 4 only,unless the NPDES permitting authority list,or"menu,"of BMPs to assist permittees in the design and requests more frequent reports. Fact Sheet 2.9—Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements Page 4 Required Report Content What Are the Deadlines for Compliance? The reports must include the following: ❑ The NPDES permitting authority issues general ❑ The status of compliance with permit conditions, permits for regulated small MS4s by December 9, including an assessment of the appropriateness of the 2002. selected BMPs and progress toward achieving the selected measurable goals for each minimum measure; ❑ Operators of"automatically designated"regulated small MS4s in urbanized areas submit their permit ❑ Results of any information collected and analyzed, applications within 90 days of permit issuance,no including monitoring data,if any; later than March 10,2003. ❑ A summary of the storm water activities planned for ❑ Operators of regulated small MS4s designated by the the next reporting cycle; permitting authority submit their permit applications within 180 days of notice. ❑ A change in any identified best management practices or measurable goals for any minimum measure;and ❑ Regulated small MS4 storm water management programs fully developed and implemented by the end ❑ Notice of relying on another governmental entity to of the first permit term,typically a 5-year period satisfy some of the permit obligations(if applicable). What are the Penalties for Noncompliance? A Change in Selected BMPs If,upon evaluation of the program,improved controls are he NPDES permit that the operator of a regulated small identified as necessary,permittees should revise their mix of 1 TMS4 is required to obtain is federally enforceable,thus BMPs to provide for a more effective program. Such a change, subjecting the permittee to potential enforcement actions and and an explanation of the change,must be noted in a report to penalties by the NPDES permitting authority if the permittee the NPDES permitting authority. does not fully comply with application or permit requirements. This federal enforceability also includes the right for interested What are the Recordkeeping Requirements? parties to sue under the citizen suit provision(section 405)of the CWA. ecords required by the NPDES permitting authority must e kept for at least 3 years and made accessible to the public at reasonable times during regular business hours. Records need not be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority unless the permittee is requested to do so. For Additional Information Contacts B' U.S.EPA Regional Storm Water Coordinators' Region 1 {MEZ,NH,VT,MA2,RI,CT}: Thelma Murphy 617 918-1615 Region 2 {NY,NJ,PR`,VI}: Karen O'Brien 212 637-3717 Region 3 {PA,DE,DCZ,MD,VA,WV}: Mary Letzkus 215 814-2087 Region 4 {KY,TN,NC,SC,MS,AL,GA,FL}: Michael Mitchell 404 562-9303 Region 5 {MN,WI,IL,MI,IN,OH}: Peter Swenson 312 886-0236 Region 6 {NM',TX,OK,AR,LA}: Brent Larsen 214 665-7523 Region 7 {NE,KS,IA,MO}: Ralph Summers 913 551-7416 Region 8 {MT,ND,WY,SD,UT,CO}: Vernon Berry 303 312-6234 Region 9 {CA,NV,AV,HI}: Eugene Bromley 415 744-1906 Region 10{WA,OR,ID',AV): Bob Robichaud 206 553-1448 ' The U.S.EPA is the NPDES permitting authority for all federally recognized Indian Country Lands,and for Federal facilities in AK, American Samoa,AZ,CO,DE,DC,FL,Guam,ID,Johnston Atoll,ME,MA,Midway&Wake Islands,NH,NM,PR,VT,Vl,and WA. z Denotes a non-authorized State for the NPDES storm water program. For these States only,the U.S.EPA Region is the NPDES permitting authority. All other States serve as NPDES permitting authorities for the storm water program. U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 E-mail: SW2@epa.gov Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-011 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.9 EPA Storm Water Phase II Vol Final Rule Permitting and Reporting : The Process and Requirements Storm Water Phase 11 Final Rule he Storm Water Phase II Final Rule requires operators of certain small municipal separate storm Fact Sheet Series Tsewer systems(MS4s)to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit coverage because their storm water discharges are considered"point sources"of pollution. Overview All point source discharges,unlike nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff,are required under the Clean Water Act(CWA)to be covered by federally enforceable NPDES permits. Those 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final Rule:An Overview systems already permitted under the NPDES Phase I storm water program,even systems serving less Small MS4 Program than 100,000 people,are not required to be permitted under the Phase II storm water program. 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water NPDES storm water permits are issued by an NPDES permitting authority,which may be a NPDES- Program Overview authorized State or a U.S.EPA Region in non-authorized States(see the For Additional Information 2.1-Who's Covered?Desi nation section for a list of U.S.EPA regional contacts). Once a permit application is submitted by the and Waivers of Regulated mall operator of a regulated small MS4 and a permit is obtained,the conditions of the permit must be MS4s satisfied(i.e.,development and implementation of a stone water management program)and periodic 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition reports must be submitted on the status and effectiveness of the program. id Description This fact sheet explains the various permit options that are available for operators of regulated MtinnnnControl Measures small MS4s and details the permit application and reporting requirements. Important compliance 2.3-Public Education and deadlines also are highlighted. Program coverage and requirements for regulated small MS4s are Outreach explained in Fact Sheets 2.0 through 2.8. 2.4-Public Participation) Involvement What Permitting Options Are Available to Operators of Regulated Small 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection MS4s? and Elimination 2.6-Construction Site RunoffT Tnlike the Phase I program that primarily utilizes individual permits for medium and large MS4s, Control V the Phase II approach allows operators of regulated small MS4s to choose from as many as three permitting options as listed below. The NPDES permitting authority reserves the authority Control Post-Construction Runoff to determine,however,which options are available to the regulated small MS4s. 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good ❑ General Permits Housekeeping 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: • General permits are strongly encouraged by EPA. The Phase II program has been designed specifically to accommodate a p pp The Process and Requirements P Y general permit approach. 2.10-Federal and State-Operated General permits prescribe one set of requirements for all applicable permittees. General MS4s:Program Implementation permits are drafted by the NPDES permitting authority,then published for public comment Construction Program before being fmalized and issued. 3.0-Construction Program Overview A Notice of Intent(NOI)serves as the application for the general permit. The permittee 3.1-Construction Rainfall complies with the permit requirements by submitting an NOI to the NPDES permitting Erosivity Waiver authority that describes the storm water management plan,including best management practices(BMPs)and measurable goals. A Phase II permittee has the flexibility to develop �dustrial"No Exposure" an individualized storm water program that addresses the particular characteristics and .0-Conditional No Exposure needs of its system,provided the basic requirements of the general permit are satisfied. Exclusion for Industrial Activity Fact Sheet 2.9—Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements Page 3 ❑ Estimated months and years in which actions to implementation of their storm water management programs. implement each measure will be undertaken,including The NPDES permitting authority is required to provide this interim milestones and frequency;and menu as an aid for those operators that are unsure of the most appropriate and effective BMPs to use. Since the menu is ❑ The person or persons responsible for implementing intended to serve as guidance only,the operators can either or coordinating the storm water program. select from the menu or identify other BMPs to meet the permit requirements. EPA is scheduled to develop a `menu of BMPs Relying on Another Entity by October 27,2000. The Phase II permittee has the option of relying on other entities already performing one or more of the minimum What Standards Apply? control measures,provided that the existing control measure, or component thereof,is at least as stringent as the Phase II /� Phase II small MS4 operator is required to design its rule requirements. For example,a county already may have an Aprogram so that it: illicit discharge detection and elimination program in place and may allow an operator of a regulated small MS4 within the ❑ Reduces the discharge of pollutants to the"maximum county's jurisdiction to rely on the county program instead of extent practicable"(MEP); formulating and implementing a new program. In such a case, the permittee would not need to implement the particular ❑ Protects water quality;and measure,but would still be ultimately responsible for its effective implementation. For this reason, EPA recommends ❑ Satisfies the appropriate water quality requirements of that the permittee enter into a legally binding agreement with the Clean Water Act. the other entity. If the permittee chooses to rely on another entity,they must note this in their permit application and Compliance with the technical standard of MEP requires the subsequent reports. A Phase II permittee may even rely on successful implementation of approved BMPs. The Phase 11 another governmental entity regulated under the NPDES Final Rule considers narrative effluent limitations that require storm water program to satisfy all of the permittee's permit the implementation of BMPs and the achievement of obligations. Should this option be chosen,the permittee must measurable goals as the most appropriate form of effluent note this in its NOI,but does not need to file periodic reports. limitations to achieve the protection of water quality,rather than requiring that storm water discharges meet numeric What Does the Permit Require? effluent limitations. The operator of a regulated small MS4 has the flexibility EPA intends to issue Phase II NPDES permits consistent to determine the BMPs and measurable goals,for each with its August 1, 1996,Interim Permitting Approach policy, minimum control measure,that are most appropriate for the which calls for BMPs in first-round storm water permits and system. The chosen BMPs and measurable goals,submitted expanded or better tailored BMPs in subsequent permits, in the permit application,become the required storm water where necessary,to provide for the attainment of water management program;however,the NPDES permitting quality standards. In cases where information exists to authority can require changes in the mix of chosen BMPs develop more specific conditions or limitations to meet water and measurable goals if all or some of them are found to be quality standards,these conditions or limitations should be inconsistent with the provisions of the Phase II Final Rule. incorporated into the storm water permit. Monitoring is not Likewise,the permittee can change its mix of BMPs if it required under the Phase II Rule,but the NPDES permitting determines that the program is not as effective as it could authority has the discretion to require monitoring if deemed be Fact Sheets 2.3 through 2.8 further describe each of the necessary. minimum control measures,while the permit requirements for evaluation/assessment and recordkeeping activities are What Evaluation/Reporting Efforts Are described in separate sections below. Required? Menu of BMPs Freguency of Reports The BMPs for minimum measures 3 through 6(as listed in Reports must be submitted annually during the first permit the permit application requirements section,above)are not term. For subsequent permit terms,reports must be submitted enforceable until the NPDES permitting authority provides a in years 2 and 4 only,unless the NPDES permitting authority list,or"menu,"of BMPs to assist permittees in the design and requests more frequent reports. Fact Sheet 2.9—Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements Page 4 teauired Report Content What Are the Deadlines for Compliance? he reports must include the following: ❑ The NPDES permitting authority issues general ❑ The status of compliance with permit conditions, permits for regulated small MS4s by December 9, including an assessment of the appropriateness of the 2002. selected BMPs and progress toward achieving the selected measurable goals for each minimum measure; ❑ Operators of"automatically designated"regulated small MS4s in urbanized areas submit their permit ❑ Results of any information collected and analyzed, applications within 90 days of permit issuance,no including monitoring data,if any; later than March 10,2003. ❑ A summary of the storm water activities planned for ❑ Operators of regulated small MS4s designated by the the next reporting cycle; permitting authority submit their permit applications within 180 days of notice. ❑ A change in any identified best management practices or measurable goals for any minimum measure;and ❑ Regulated small MS4 storm water management programs fully developed and implemented by the end ❑ Notice of relying on another governmental entity to of the first permit term,typically a 5-year period satisfy some of the permit obligations(if applicable). A Change in Selected BMPs What are the Penalties for Noncompliance? If,upon evaluation of the program,improved controls are he NPDES permit that the operator of a regulated small identified as necessary,permittees should revise their mix of TMS4 is required to obtain is federally enforceable,thus 13MPs to provide for a more effective program. Such a change, subjecting the permittee to potential enforcement actions and and an explanation of the change,must be noted in a report to penalties by the NPDES permitting authority if the permittee the NPDES permitting authority. does not fully comply with application or permit requirements. This federal enforceability also includes the right for interested What are the Recordkeeping Requirements? parties to sue under the citizen suit provision(section 405)of the CWA. D ecords required by the NPDES permitting authority must JLXbe kept for at least 3 years and made accessible to the public at reasonable times during regular business hours. Records need not be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority unless the permittee is requested to do so. For Additional Information Contacts U.S.EPA Regional Storm Water Coordinators' Region 1 (ME 2,NH 2,VT,MAz,RI,CT}: Thelma Murphy 617 918-1615 Region 2 {NY,NJ,PR,VI}: Karen O'Brien 212 637-3717 Region 3 {PA,DE,DC',MD,VA,WV}: MaryLetzkus 215 814-2087 Region 4 {KY,TN,NC,SC,MS,AL,GA,FL}: Michael Mitchell 404 562-9303 Region 5 {MN,WI,IL,MI,IN,OH}: Peter Swenson 312 886-0236 Region 6 {NMZ,TX,OK,AR,LA}: Brent Larsen 214 665-7523 Region 7 {NE,KS,IA,MO}: Ralph Summers 913 551-7416 Region 8 {MT,ND,WY,SD,UT,CO}: Vernon Berry 303 312-6234 Region 9 {CA,NV,AV,HI}: Eugene Bromley 415 744-1906 Region 10(WA,OR,ID',AK?): Bob Robichaud 206 553-1448 ' The U.S.EPA is the NPDES permitting authority for all federally recognized Indian Country Lands,and for Federal facilities in AK, American Samoa,AZ,CO,DE,DC,FL,Guam,ID,Johnston Atoll,ME,MA,Midway&Wake Islands,NH,NM,PR,VT,VI,and WA. z Denotes a non-authorized State for the NPDES storm water program. For these States only,the U.S.EPA Region is the NPDES permitting authority. All other States serve as NPDES permitting authorities for the storm water program. aw U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 • E-mail: SW2@epa.gov Internet: www.epa.gov/owni/sw/Phase2 Fact Sheet 2.10—Federal and State Operated Small MS4s: Program Implementation Page 2 For example,a State DOT that is responsible for the portions reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. For of its roads running through urbanized areas may not have example,employees could be advised against the legal authority to impose restrictions on,and penalties carelessly discarding trash on the ground or allowing against,illicit(i.e.,non-storm water)discharges into its MS4 their cars to leak oil/fluids in the parking lot. if the source of the discharge is outside the DOT's right-of- way or jurisdiction. As in the case of local governments that ❑ Public Participation/Involvement. Provide notice lack such authority,State and Federal MS4s are expected to of storm water management plan development and utilize the authority they do possess and to seek cooperative hold meetings at which employees of a Federal office arrangements. complex are encouraged to voice their ideas and opinions about the effort. Request volunteers to help How Can the Program Be Implemented in Areas develop the plan. Where There Are Multiple Regulated Entities? ❑ Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination. Since the final rule provides automatic coverage of all small Develop a map of the storm sewer system on a MS4s within an urbanized area,regardless of political military base. Perform visual dry weather monitoring boundaries,coverage of multiple governments and agencies of any outfalls to determine whether the storm sewer in a single area is likely. For example,a city government that system is receiving any non-storm water discharges operates a small MS4 within an urbanized area must obtain from the base. If a dry weather flow is found,trace permit coverage alongside the county,State,and Federal it back to the source and stop the discharge. Should DOTs if they all operate a portion of the roads(i.e.,MS4s) a Federal military base identify an illicit discharge, in the city. All four entities are responsible for developing a the source of which is traced to the boundary of storm water management program for their MS4s(or portions its system,the Federal operator should refer the thereof)within the urbanized area. EPA encourages State discharge to the adjoining regulated MS4 for further and Federal small MS4 operators to establish cooperative action. agreements with cities and counties in implementing their ❑ Construction Site Runoff Control. Require the storm water programs. implementation of erosion and sediment controls,and control of waste,for any Federal or State DOT road Are There Implementation Strategies that Help construction. The DOT would review site plans for Facilitate Program Implementation? proper controls,perform inspections,and establish penalties in the construction contract if controls are his section offers two hypothetical strategies for resolving not implemented. If construction is done directly by Tthe implementation issues raised above. The best the regulated DOT instead of a private contractor,the solution may include a creative combination of strategies. DOT could be penalized by the NPDES permitting authority for non-compliance with its small MS4 STRATEGY#1 permit in the event that controls are not properly A Focus on Choosing Appropriate A ro riate BMPs implemented. ❑ Post-Construction Runoff Control. Require the The final rule requires the permittee to choose appropriate implementation of post-construction storm water best management practices(BMPs)for each minimum control controls for any new construction on the grounds of a measure. In other words,EPA expects Phase I1 permittees to prison. This can be required as part of a construction tailor their storm water management plans and their BMPs to contract,instituted as internal policy,and considered fit the particular characteristics and needs of the permittee during site plan review. and the area served by its MS4. Therefore,the Federal or State operator of a regulated storm sewer system can take ❑ Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for advantage of the flexibility provided by the rule to utilize the Municipal Operations. Train maintenance staff at most suitable minimum control measures for its MS4. Below a State university to employ pollution prevention is an example of tailored activities and BMPs that Federal or techniques whenever possible. For example, State operators can implement for each measure: routinely pick up trash/litter from the university grounds,use less salt on the parking lots and access ❑ Public Education and Outreach. Distribute roads in the winter,perform any maintenance of brochures and post fliers to educate employees of a university vehicles under shelter only,limit pesticide Federal hospital about the problems associated with use to the minimum needed,use vegetative buffer storm water runoff and the steps they can take to strips in the parking lots to filter runoff,and keep dumpster lids closed. Fact Sheet 2.10—Federal and State Operated Small MS4s: Program Implementation Page 3 STRATEGY#2 Suggested Steps for Working with Other Entities Working with Other Entities (1) Identify the boundaries of the urbanized area(see There may be instances when the Federal or State permittee Fact Sheet 2.2 for more information on urbanized has limited capabilities to satisfy one or more of the minimum areas) control measures. As discussed above,the permittee may lack the proper legal authority to enforce controls(although (2) Identify the operators of storm sewer systems or it should try to obtain the necessary legal authority if at all portions of the systems within the urbanized area possible). such as local,State,Tribal or Federal governments or other entities. In the case of limited capabilities,the permittee can work with neighboring operators of regulated small MS4s, (3) In seeking permit coverage: preferably on a watershed basis,to form a shared storm water management program in which each permittee is responsible (A) Identify where another entity's program may for activities that are within individual legal authorities and satisfy one or more minimum control measure. abilities. The final rule allows the permittee to rely on other If a program has requirements that are entities,with their permission,to implement those minimum equivalent to a minimum control measure's measures that the permittee is otherwise unable to implement. required elements,the operator of the regulated Three examples are: small MS4 may reference the program in its permit application,provided the other entity ❑ A State DOT with limited regulatory legal authority gives it permission to do so. While such can reference a local sewer district's illicit detection an arrangement relieves the operator from and elimination program in its permit application, performing the minimum measure itself,the provided the program sufficiently addresses illicit operator remains ultimately responsible for the discharges into the DOT's storm sewer system. measure's effective implementation(see Fact Sheet 2.9 for more information on this option) ❑ The permittee or NPDES permitting authority OR can reference such programs as coastal nonpoint pollution control programs,State or local watershed (B) Team with an operator of a Phase I MS4 and programs,State or local construction programs,and become a co-permittee on its existing Phase I environmental education efforts by public or private individual permit(see Fact Sheet 2.9 for more entities. information on this option) ❑ The permittee can become a co-permittee with a neighboring Phase I MS4 through a modification of the Phase I MS4's individual permit. This may be the For Additional Information most logical and preferable option for those Federal and State entities located in close proximity to Phase I Contact MS4s. 94' U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 Choosing to work with other governmental entities as a co- E-mail: SW2@epa.gov permittee,or referencing parts of each other's plans,can Internet: www.epa.gov/owni/sw/phase2 help resolve issues that may arise where multiple regulated jurisdictions exist in the same area. Permittees can avoid Reference Documents duplicative efforts,as well as territorial or regulatory sw Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series disputes,by working together to implement the storm water Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 program. See Fact Sheet 2.9 for more information on aw Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) permitting options for regulated small MS4s. Intemet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 • Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202 260-7786 — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-013 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 3.0 .-CEPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Small Construction Program Overview Storm Water Phase II Final Rule The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,later referred to as the Clean Water Act(CWA),prohibit the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters of the Fact Sheet Series United States from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit. Efforts to improve water quality under the Overview NPDES program traditionally have focused on reducing pollutants in industrial process 1.0-Storm Water Phase II wastewater and municipal sewage treatment plant discharges. Over time,it has become evident Proposed Rule: An Overview that more diffuse sources of water pollution,such as storm water runoff from construction sites, Small MS4 Program are also significant contributors to water quality problems. 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water Sediment runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than those Program Overview from agricultural lands,and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forest lands. During a 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation short period of time,construction activity can contribute more sediment to streams than can be and Waivers of Regulated Small deposited over several decades,causing physical and biological harm to our Nation's waters. MS4s 2.2-Urbanized Areas: Definition In 1990,EPA promulgated rules establishing Phase I of the NPDES storm water program. 'ind Description Phase I addresses,among other discharges,discharges from large construction activities disturbing 5 acres or more of land. Phase 11 of the NPDES storm water program covers small Minimum Control Measures construction activities disturbing between 1 and 5 acres. Phase II became final on December 8, 2.3-Public Education and 1999 with small construction permit applications due by March 10,2003(specific compliance Outreach dates will be set by the NPDES permitting authority in each State). This fact sheet outlines the 2.4-Public Participation/ construction activities covered by Phase I and Phase II,including possible waiver options from Involvement Phase II coverage,and the Phase II construction program requirements. 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Who Is Covered Under the Phase I Rule? 2.6-Construction Site Runoff Control Sites Five Acres and Greater 2.7-Post-Construction Runoff The Phase I NPDES storm water rule identifies eleven categories of industrial activity in the Control definition of"storm water discharges associated with industrial activity"that must obtain an 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Good NPDES permit. Category(x)of this definition is construction activity,commonly referred to Housekeeping as"large"construction activity. Under category(x),the Phase I rule requires all operators of construction activity disturbing S acres or greater of land to apply for an NPDES storm water 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: permit. Operators of sites disturbing less than 5 acres are also required to obtain a permit The Process and Requirements if their activity is part of a"larger common plan of development or sale"with a planned 2.10-Federal and State-Operated disturbance of 5 acres or greater. "Disturbance"refers to exposed soil resulting from activities MS4s:Program Implementation such as clearing,grading,and excavating. Construction activities can include road building, Construction Program construction of residential houses,office buildings,industrial sites,or demolition. 3.0-Construction Program What Is Meant by a"Larger Common Plan of Development or Sale"? Overview 3.1-Construction Rainfalls defined in EPA's NPDES storm water general permit for large construction activity,a Erosivity Waiver x"larger common plan of development or sale"means a contiguous area where multiple Industrial"No Exposure" separate and distinct construction activities are occurring under one plan(e.g.,the operator is 4.0-Conditional No Exposure building on three half-acre lots in a 6-acre development). The"plan"in a common plan of Exclusion for Industrial Activity development or sale is broadly defined as any announcement or piece of documentation Fact Sheet 3.0—Construction Program Overview Page 2 (including a sign,public notice or hearing,sales pitch, Who Is Covered Under the Phase H advertisement,drawing,permit application,zoning request, Construction Rule? computer design,etc.)or physical demarcation(including boundary signs,lot stakes,surveyor markings,etc.)indicating that construction activities may occur on a specific plot. Sites Between One and Five Acres The Storm Water Phase II Rule automatically designates,as What Is the Definition of an"Operator"of a small construction activity under the NPDES storm water permitting program,all operators of construction site Construction Site? activities that result in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 and less than S acres. As defined in EPA's storm water general permit for large construction activity,an"operator"is the party or parties Sites Less Than One Acre that has: Site activities disturbing less than 1 acre are also regulated as small construction activity if they are part of a larger common ❑ Operational control of construction project plans plan of development or sale with a planned disturbance of and specifications,including the ability to make equal to or greater than 1 acre and less than 5 acres,or if they modifications to those plans and specifications;or are designated by the NPDES permitting authority. The NPDES permitting authority or EPA Region may designate ❑ Day-to-day operational control of those activities construction activities disturbing less than 1 acre based on that are necessary to ensure compliance with a the potential for contribution to a violation of a water quality storm water pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)for standard or for significant contribution of pollutants to waters the site or other permit conditions(e.g.,they are of the United States. authorized to direct workers at a site to cant'out activities required by the SWPPP or comply with Are Waivers Available for Operators of other permit conditions). Regulated Construction Activity. There may be more than one party at a site performing the tasks related to"operational control"as defined above. ves,but only for small,not large,construction activity. Depending on the site and the relationship between the 1 Under the Phase II Rule,NPDES permitting authorities have the option of providing a waiver from the requirements parties(e.g.,owner,developer,contractor),there can either be a single party acting as site operator and consequently be operators small construction activity who certifv to either t responsible for obtaining permit coverage,or there can be ether one of two conditions: two or more operators,all obligated to seek permit coverage. It is important to note that NPDES-authorized States may use 0 Low predicted rainfall potential(i.e.,activity occurs a different definition of"operator"than the one above. during a negligible rainfall period),where the rainfall erosivity factor("R"in the Revised How Is the Phase H Construction Rule Related Universal Soil Loss Equation[RUSLE])is less than to the Phase I Construction Rule? 5 during the period of construction activity;or n 1992,the Ninth Circuit court remanded for further 8 A determination that storm water controls are not Iproceedings portions of EPA's existing Phase I storm water necessary based on either: regulation related to the category(x)discharges from large construction activity(NRDC v.EPA,966 F.2d at 1292). (A) a «total maximum daily load" that address the pollutant(s)of concern rn for for EPA responded to the court's decision by designating under construction activities;OR Phase II storm water discharges from construction activity disturbing less than 5 acres as sources that should be (g) An equivalent analysis that determines regulated to protect water quality. The Phase II Rule allocations are not needed to protect water designates these sources as"storm water discharges quality based on consideration of instream associated with small construction activity,"rather than concentrations,expected growth in pollutant as another category under"storm water associated with concentrations from all sources,and a margin industrial activity." of safety. Fact Sheet 3.0—Construction Program Overview Page 3 A TMDL assessment determines the source or sources of a Pollutants of concern include sediment or a pollutant of concern,considers the maximum allowable level parameter that addresses sediment(such as total of that pollutant for the waterbody,then allocates to each suspended solids,turbidity,or siltation)and any source or category of sources a set level of the pollutant that other pollutant that has been identified as a cause of it is allowed to discharge into the waterbody. Allocations to point sources are called wasteload allocations. The intent of the waiver provision is to waive only those sites How Would an Operator Qualify for, and Certify that are highly unlikely to have a negative effect on water to, Waiver @? quality. Therefore,before applying for a waiver,operators of small construction activity are encouraged to consider the EPA expects that when TMDLs,or equivalent analyses potential water quality impacts that may result from their are completed,there may be a determination that certain project and to carefully examine such factors as proximity to classes of sources,such as small construction activity,would water resources and sensitivity of receiving waters. not have to control their contribution of pollutants of concern to the waterbody in order for the waterbody to be in a. What is the Rainfall Erosivity Factor in attainment with water quality standards(i.e.,these sources were not assigned wasteload allocations). In such a case,to Waiver�? qualify for waiver A,the operator of the construction site would need to certify that its construction activity will take Waiver O uses the Rainfall Erosivity Factor to determine place,and the storm water discharges will occur,within the whether the potential for polluted discharge is low area covered either by the TNIDLs or equivalent analysis. A enough to justify a waiver from the requirements. It is one certification form would likely be provided by the NPDES of six variables used by the Revised Universal Soil Loss permitting authority for this purpose. Equation(RUSLE)—a predictive tool originally used to measure soil loss from agricultural lands at various times What Does the Phase II Construction Program of the year on a regional basis—to predict soil loss from construction sites. The Rainfall Erosivity Factor waiver is Require? time-sensitive and is dependent on when during the year a construction activity takes place,how long it lasts,and '1"�he Phase II Final Rule requires operators of Phase II the expected rainfall and intensity during that time. For 1 small construction sites,nationally,to obtain an NPDES information about the rainfall erosivity waiver,see Fact Sheet permit and implement practices to minimize pollutant runoff. 3.1. Charts detailing the value of the Rainfall Erosivity It is important to note that,locally,these same sites also may Factor by particular regions can be found in Chapter 2 of be covered by State,Tribal,or local construction runoff the RUSLE user's guide,which can be downloaded at: control programs(see Fact Sheets 2.6 and 2.7 for information http://www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2. on the Phase II small MS4's construction program). For the Phase II small construction program,EPA has taken an b. What is a "TMDL"in Waiver @? approach similar to Phase I where the program requirements are not fully defined in the rule but rather in the NPDES or impaired waters where technology-based controls permit issued by the NPDES permitting authority. Frequired by NPDES permits are not achieving State water EPA recommends that the NPDES permitting authorities use quality standards,the CWA requires implementation of the their existing Phase I large construction general permits as a TMDL process. The TMDL process establishes the guide to developing their Phase II small construction permits. maximum amount of pollutants a waterbody can assimilate In doing so,the Phase II requirements would be similar to the before water quality is impaired,then requires that this three general Phase I requirements summarized below. maximum level not be exceeded. A TMDL is done for each pollutant that is found to be ❑ Submission of a Notice of Intent(NOI)that contributing to the impairment of a waterbody or a segment includes general information and a certification of a waterbody. To allow a waiver for construction activities, that the activity will not impact endangered or a TMDL would need to address sediment,or a parameter threatened species.This certification is unique to that addresses sediment such as total suspended solids, EPA's NOI and is not a requirement of most turbidity,or siltation. Additional TMDLs addressing NPDES-delegated State's NOIs; common pollutants from construction sites such as nitrogen, ❑ The development and implementation of a Storm phosphorus,and oil and grease also may be necessary to Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)with ensure water quality protection and allow a waiver from the appropriate BMPs to minimize the discharge of NPDES storm water program. pollutants from the site;and Fact Sheet 3.0—Construction Program Overview Page 4 ❑ Submission of a Notice of Termination(NOT) What are Some Recommended BMPs for Small when final stabilization of the site has been Construction Sites? achieved as defined in the permit or when another operator has assumed control of the site. he approach and BMPs used for controlling pollutants in Tstorm water discharges from small construction sites may Can the Permitting Authority Reference a vary from those used for large sites since their characteristics Qualifying Erosion and Sediment Control can differ in many ways. For example,operators of small Program in NPDES Construction Permits? sites may have more limited access to qualified design personnel and technical information. Also,small sites may es. The Phase II Rule allows the NPDES permitting have less space for installing and maintaining certain BMPs. Yauthority to include in its NPDES permits for large and for small construction activity conditions that incorporate by As is the case with all construction sites,erosion and reference qualifying State,Tribal,or local erosion and sediment control at small construction sites is best q � g accomplished with proper planning,installation,and sediment control program requirements. A qualifying program must include the following requirements: maintenance of controls. The following practices have shown to be efficient,cost effective,and versatile for small construction site operators to implement. The practices are ❑ Requirements for construction site operators to divided into two categories:non-structural and structural. implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices; ❑ Non-Structural BMPs ❑ Requirements for construction site operators to Minimizing Disturbance control waste such as discarded building materials, Preserving Natural Vegetation concrete truck washout,chemicals,litter,and Good Housekeeping sanitary waste that may cause adverse impacts to water quality; ❑ Structural BMPs ❑ Requirements for construction site operators to Erosion Controls develop and implement a storm water pollution Mulch prevention plan;and Grass • Stockpile Covers ❑ Requirements to submit a site plan for review that Sediment Controls incorporates consideration of potential water quality Silt Fence impacts. Inlet Protection • Check Dams In addition to the four elements above,a qualifying program Stabilized Construction Entrances for large construction activities must also include any Sediment Traps additional requirements necessary to achieve the applicable technology-based standards of"Best Available Technology" Most erosion and sediment controls require regular (BAT)and"Best Conventional Technology"(BCT)based maintenance to operate correctly. Accumulated sediments on the best professional judgment of the permit writer. should be removed frequently and materials should be checked periodically for wear. Regular inspections by Should a State,Tribal,or local program include one or more, qualified personnel,which can allow problem areas to be but not all,of the elements listed above,the permitting addressed,should be performed after major rain events. authority can reference the program in the permit,provided it also lists the missing element(s)as a condition in the permit. Fact Sheet 3.0—Construction Program Overview Page 5 For Additional Information Contact U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 • E-mail: SW2@epa.gov • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 ow Your local soil conservation district office. They can provide assistance with RUSLE and other conservation related issues. • A list of conservation district contacts is available at:www.naednet.org/resources/cdsonweb.htrnl Reference Documents Bw Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 • Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202 260-7786 — E-mail:center.water-resource@epa.gov Agricultural Handbook Number 703,Predicting Soil Erosion by Water:A Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE),Chapter 2,pp.21-64,January 1997. • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 or Guidance for Water Quality Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. April 1991. U.S.EPA Office of Water. EPA 440/4-91-001. • Internet: www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl aw NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities(63 FR 7857). • Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw • Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center — Phone: 202 260-7786 — E-mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-015 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 4.0 80EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Why Is the Phase I No Exposure Exclusion Addressed in the Phase II Final Fact Sheet Series Rule? Overview ►�+he 1990 storm water regulations for Phase I of the federal storm water program identify 1.0-Storm Water Phase II Final 1 eleven categories of industrial activities that must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Rule:An Overview Elimination System(NPDES)permit. Operators of certain facilities within category eleven (xi),commonly referred to as "light industry,"were exempted from the definition of "storm Small MS4 Program water discharge associated with industrial activity,"and the subsequent requirement to obtain 2.0-Small MS4 Storm Water an NPDES permit,provided their industrial materials or activities were not"exposed"to storm Program Overview water. This Phase I exemption from permitting was limited to those facilities identified in 2.1-Who's Covered?Designation category(xi),and did not require category(xi)facility operators to submit any information and Waivers of Regulated Small supporting their no exposure claim. MS4s 2.2-Urbanized Areas:Definition In 1992,the Ninth Circuit court remanded to EPA for further rulemaking the no exposure id Description exemption for light industry after making a determination that the exemption was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. First,the court found that EPA had not established a record Minimum Control Measures to support its assumption that light industrial activity that is not exposed to storm water(as 2.3-Public Education and opposed to all other regulated industrial activity not exposed)is not a"storm water discharge Outreach associated with industrial activity." Second,the court concluded that the exemption impermissibly relied on the unsubstantiated judgment of the light industrial facility operator to 2.4 l Public Participation/ determine the applicability of the exemption. This fact sheet describes the revised conditional Involvement pp ty P 2.5-Illicit Discharge Detection no exposure exclusion as presented in the Phase II Final Rule. and Elimination 2.6-Construction Site Runoff Who is Eligible to Claim No Exposure? Control s revised in the Phase 11 Final Rule,the conditional no exposure exclusion applies to ALL Controlost ConsWction Runoff Aindustrial categories listed in the 1990 storm water regulations,except for construction 2.8-Pollution Prevention/Goodactivities disturbing 5 or more acres(category(x)). Housekeeping What Is The Regulatory Definition of"No Exposure"? 2.9-Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements ►7�he intent of the no exposure provision is to provide facilities with industrial materials and 2.10-Federal and State-Operated 1 activities that are entirely sheltered from storm water a simplified way of complying with the MS4s:Program Implementation storm water permitting provisions of the Clean Water Act(CWA). This includes facilities that Construction Program are located within a larger office building,or facilities at which the only items permanently exposed to precipitation are roofs,parking lots,vegetated areas,and other non-industrial areas 3.0-Construction Program or activities. The Phase II regulatory definition of "no exposure"follows. Overview Eros Cy Waiver Rainfall No exposure means all industrial materials and activities are protected b a Erosivity Waiver P p y storm resistant shelter to prevent exposure to rain,snow,snowmelt,and/or 'ndustrial"No Exposure" runoff. Industrial materials or activities include,but are not limited to,material 1.0-Conditional No Exposure handling equipment or activities,industrial machinery,raw materials, Exclusion for Industrial Activity intermediate products,by-products,final products,or waste products. Fact Sheet 4.0—Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Page 2 A storm resistant shelter is not required for the following onsite. General refuse and trash,not of an industrial nature, industrial materials and activities: is not considered exposed as long as the container is completely covered and nothing can drain out holes in the ❑ Drums,barrels,tanks,and similar containers that are bottom,or is lost in loading onto a garbage truck. Industrial tightly sealed,provided those containers are not refuse and trash that is left uncovered,however,is considered deteriorated and do not leak. "Sealed"means banded exposed. or otherwise secured and without operational taps or valves; What is Required Under the No Exposure ❑ Adequately maintained vehicles used in materials Provision? handling;and he Phase II Final Rule represents a significant expansion El Final products,other than products that would be Tin the scope of the original no exposure provision in mobilized in storm water discharges(e.g.,rock salt). terms of eligibility(as noted above)and responsibilities for facilities claiming the exclusion. Under the original no The term"storm-resistant shelter,"as used in the no exposure exposure provision,a light industry operator was expected definition,includes completely roofed and walled buildings to make an independent determination of whether there was or structures,as well as structures with only a top cover but "exposure"of industrial materials and activities to storm no side coverings,provided material under the structure is not Fater and,if not,simply not submit a permit application. otherwise subject to any run-on and subsequent runoff of An operator seeking to qualify for the revised conditional storm water. While the intent of the no exposure provision is no exposure exclusion,including light industry operators to promote a condition of permanent no exposure,EPA (i.e.,category(xi)facilities),must: understands certain vehicles could become temporarily exposed to rain and snow while passing between buildings. � Submit written certification that the facility meets the Adequately maintained mobile equipment(e.g.,trucks, definition "no exposure"to the NPDES permitting automobiles,forklifts,trailers,or other such general purpose authority once every 5 years. vehicles found at the industrial site that are not industrial The Phase II Final Rule includes a four-page machinery,and that are not leaking contaminants or are not No Exposure Certification form that uses a series otherwise a source of industrial pollutants)can be exposed to of yes/no questions to aid facility operators in precipitation or runoff. Such activities alone would not prevent a facility from certifying to no exposure. Similarly, determining whether they have a condition of trucks or other vehicles awaiting maintenance at vehicle no exposure. It also serves as the necessary maintenance facilities that are not leaking contaminants or are certification exposure provided the operator not otherwise a source of industrial pollutants,are not is able to answer all the questions in the negative. considered otherwise EPA's Certification is for use only by operators of industrial activity located in areas where EPA is the In addition,EPA recognizes that there are circumstances NPDES permitting authority. where permanent no exposure of industrial activities or A copy of the Certification can be obtained from materials is not possible and,therefore,under such the U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management conditions,materials and activities can be sheltered with (OWM)web site,the Storm Water Phase II Final temporary covers(e.g.,tarps)between periods of permanent enclosure. The no exposure provision does not specify every Rule published in the Federal Register(Appendix such situation,but NPDES permitting authorities can address 4),or by contacting OWM. this issue on a case-by-case basis. ❑ Submit a copy,upon request,of the Certification to the The Phase II Final Rule also addresses particulate matter municipality in which the facility is located. emissions from roof stacks/vents that are regulated by,and in ❑ Allow the NPDES permitting authority or,if compliance with,other environmental protection programs (i.e.,air quality control programs)and that do not cause storm discharging into a municipal separate storm sewer water contamination are considered not exposed. Particulate system,the operator of the system,to:(1)inspect the matter or visible deposits of residuals from roof stacks and/or facility;and(2)make such inspection reports publicly vents not otherwise regulated(i.e.,under an air quality available upon request. control program)and evident in storm water outflow are Regulated industrial operators need to either apply for a considered exposed. Likewise,visible"track out"(i.e., pollutants carried on the tires of vehicles)or windblown raw Permit or submit a no exposure certification form in order to materials is considered exposed. Leaking pipes containing be in compliance with the NPDES storm water regulations. contaminants exposed to storm water are deemed exposed, Any permit held becomes null and void once a certification is s form s sub as are past sources of storm water contamination that remain submitted. Fact Sheet 4.0—Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Page 3 Even when an industrial operator certifies to no exposure, What Happens if the Condition of No Exposure the NPDES permitting authority still retains the authority to Is Not Maintained? require the operator to apply for an individual or general permit if the NPDES permitting authority has determined that nder the Phase II Final Rule,the no exposure exclusion the discharge is contributing to the violation of,or interfering Us conditional and not an outright exemption. Therefore, with the attainment or maintenance of,water quality if there is a change in circumstances that causes.exposure of standards,including designated uses. industrial activities or materials to storm water,the operator is required to comply immediately with all the requirements of Are There Any Concerns Related to Water the NPDES Storm Water Program,including applying for and Quality Standards? obtaining a permit. Yes. An operator certifying that its facility qualifies for Failure to maintain the condition of no exposure or obtain the conditional no exposure exclusion may,nonetheless, coverage under an NPDES storm water permit can lead to be required by the NPDES permitting authority to obtain the unauthorized discharge of pollutants to waters of the permit authorization. Such a requirement would follow United States,resulting in penalties under the CWA. Where the permitting authority's determination that the discharge a facility operator determines that exposure is likely to occur causes,has a reasonable potential to cause,or contributes to in the future due to some anticipated change at the facility, a violation of an applicable water quality standard,including the operator should submit an application and acquire storm designated uses.Designated uses can include use as a water permit coverage prior to the exposed discharge to avoid drinking water supply or for recreational purposes. such penalties. Many efforts to achieve no exposure can employ simple good housekeeping and contaminant cleanup activities such as moving materials and activities indoors into existing buildings or structures. In limited cases,however,industrial For Additional Information operators may make major changes at a site to achieve no exposure. These efforts may include constructing a new Contact building or cover to eliminate exposure or constructing Bw U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management structures to prevent run-on and storm water contact with Phone: 202 260-5816 industrial materials and activities. Major changes undertaken E-mail: SW2@epa.gov to achieve no exposure,however,can increase the impervious Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 area of the site,such as when a building with a smooth roof is placed in a formerly vegetated area. Increased impervious 9W Your NPDES Permitting Authority.(A list of names area can lead to an increase in the volume and velocity of and phone numbers for each U.S.EPA Region is storm water runoff,which,in turn,can result in a higher included in Fact Sheet 2.9. Additional contact concentration of pollutants in the discharge,since fewer names,addresses,and numbers for each State can be pollutants are naturally filtered out. obtained from the U.S.EPA Office of Wastewater Management) The concern of increased impervious area is addressed in one of the questions on the Certification form,which asks,"Have Reference Documents you paved or roofed over a formerly exposed,pervious area ow Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series in order to qualify for the no exposure exclusion? If yes, Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/phase2 please indicate approximately how much area was paved or roofed over." This question has no affect on an operator's uw Storm Water Phase II Final Rule(64 FR 68722) eligibility for the exclusion. It is intended only to aid the NPDES permitting authority in assessing the likelihood Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/sw/Phase2 Water Resource 2 of such actions interfering with water quality standards. Contact the U.S.EPA Water Resource Center Where this is a concern,the facility operator and its NPDES — Phone: 260-7786 permitting authority should take appropriate actions to ensure — E-mail: cenenter.water-resource@epa.gov that water quality standards can be achieved. GOLF COURSES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GOLF COURSES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GOLF COURSES IN THE WAC 4 STUD YAREA Part or all of 12 golf courses exist in the WAC 4 study area. These golf course are Hickory Pine at Purchase Golf Club, Old Oaks Country Club, Brae Burn Country Club, and Century Country Club in Harrison; Ridgeway Country Club, Westchester Hills Golf Club, and Maple Moor Golf Course in White Plains; Fenway Golf Club, Quaker Ridge Golf Club, and Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course in Scarsdale; Winged Foot Country Club and Bonnie Briar Country Club in Mamaroneck Town. The size of these properties totals 2,147 acres. Most of this acreage is devoted to golf, but a portion it used for passive recreation and other uses (e.g., a sizeable portion of Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course is woodlands and a large swimming pool and parking lot). A major environmental concern of these and all golf courses is the degradation of water quality as a result of the use of high rates of fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides on the managed turf that makes up the courses. The use of these chemicals is often shown to be incompatible with management strategies for both ground and surface waters. Other concerns are the loss of riparian vegetation needed to filter pollutants, stabilize stream banks, shade stream channels, and provide shelter for wildlife which may use streams as migratory corridors. Some studies have shown that golf courses are not major sources of pollution from nitrates and phosphate. A study at Pennsylvania State University, for example, concluded that managed turf grasses do not display a high potential for movement of pesticides and fertilizers by stormwater runoff or percolation. However, some of these studies compared golf courses to agricultural uses, concluding only that surface runoff, sediment loss and total nitrogen and phosphate movement were significantly lower for golf courses than for agricultural activities, which are traditionally the most significant source of nonpoint source pollution. Other studies confirmed that the application of best management practices, such as the use of slow-release fertilizers, will reduce the level of pollutants and nutrients in ground and surface waters. Nevertheless, most golf courses require substantial land disturbance during construction and maintenance afterwards. Although many courses in Westchester County, including those operated by the County, have developed programs to minimize the application of chemicals and properly manage stormwater, environmental degradation as a result of golf course construction and maintenance is a very real concern. Therefore, it is important for golf course managers in the area to develop or improve their stormwater management and maintenance programs. Successful programs will result in better water quality not only for the tributaries which flow through or near golf courses, but also for the primary receiving water body - Long Island Sound. WAC 4 recommends that, because they are publicly-owned, Saxon Woods County Park and Golf Course and Maple Moor Golf Course serve as models for water quality protection on golf II-9 courses throughout the WAC 4 study area. State and federal funding, as well as other funding sources, should be sought to develop or improve and then implement environmentally-sound stormwater management and maintenance programs at these golf courses. In the meantime, the managers of privately-owned golf courses in the area should be asked to work with the committee, municipalities, County Soil and Water Conservation District, and other appropriate entities to develop and implement programs of their own. Once the County's golf course programs have been developed and implemented, the managers of privately-owned courses may use its programs for guidance - in effect, the County-owned golf courses will serve as outdoor classrooms or models for endeavors on privately-owned courses. PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING, SITING, DESIGNING, CONSTRUCTING, AND MANA GING GOLF COURSES WAC 4 recommends that turf and stormwater management strategies be re-examined at the study area's eight existing golf courses, as well as any new golf courses in the future. Tees, greens, fairways and roughs should be maintained not only from a golfer's perspective but also from that of a natural resources steward. Golf course managers should anticipate potential impacts to natural resources as a result of golf course construction and maintenance before these impacts degrade water quality and other environmental features. This can best be achieved by first avoiding any impacts, then minimizing impacts that cannot reasonably be avoided, and finally mitigating any unavoidable impacts that have been fully minimized. For example, irrigation should be avoided to the fullest practicable extent to avoid hydrologic impacts to nearby water resources, particularly pollutant filtering wetlands. Because irrigation is needed to keep most golf courses "green" and is, in most cases, unavoidable, irrigation should be minimized by lessening the volume of water used for irrigation. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, such as restricting watering to times of the day and year when the effects of evapotranspiration and evaporation are lowest, planting turf grasses that are tolerant of drought, shrinking the size of managed fairways, and establishing proper drainage and soil conditions for optimum plant growth. Potential impacts may be mitigated by properly sited, designed, and constructed stormwater management systems, such as infiltration basins and trenches, porous pavement and grassed swales. The following recommendations should be applied to any new golf course construction as well as alterations to existing golf courses in the WAC 4 study area: Planning and Siting 1. Developers, designers and others involved in golf course development should work closely with local community groups and regulatory/permitting bodies during planning and siting and throughout the development process. 2. Site selection is a critical determinant of the environmental impact of golf courses. A thorough analysis of the site or sites under consideration should be completed to evaluate environmental suitability. Both the designer and a team of qualified golf and environmental professionals should be involved in this process. II-10 3. Based on the site analysis and/or regulatory review process, it may be determined that some sites are of such environmental value or sensitivity that they should be avoided. Other less environmentally sensitive or valuable sites may be more suitable or even improved by the development of a golf course if careful design and construction are used to avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts. 4. There may be opportunities to restore or enhance environmentally sensitive areas through golf course development by establishing buffer zones or by setting unmaintained or low maintenance areas aside within the site. 5. Golf course development can be an excellent means of restoring or rehabilitating previously degraded sites (e.g., landfills, quarries and mines). Golf courses are also excellent treatment systems for effluent water and use of effluent irrigation is encouraged when it is available, economically feasible, and agronomically and environmentally acceptable. Deg&i 1. When designing a golf course, it is important to identify existing ecosystems. Utilizing what nature has provided is both environmentally and economically wise. A site analysis and feasibility study should be conducted by experienced professionals. The identification of environmentally sensitive areas and other natural resources is important so that a design can be achieved that carefully balances environmental factors, playability, and aesthetics. 2. Cooperative planning and informational sessions with community representatives, environmental groups and regulatory agencies should be part of the initial design phase. Early input from these groups is very important to the development and approval process. This dialogue and exchange of information should continue even after the course is completed. 3. Native and/or naturalized vegetation should be retained or replanted when appropriate in areas that are not in play. In play areas, designers should select grasses that are best adapted to the local environmental conditions to provide the necessary characteristics of playability yet permit the use of environmentally sustainable maintenance techniques. 4. Emphasis should be placed on the design of irrigation, drainage and retention systems that provide for efficient use of water and the protection of water quality. Drainage and stormwater retention systems should, when possible, be incorporated in the design as features of the course to help provide for both the short- and long-term irrigation needs of the maintained turf and unmaintained areas. 5. Water reuse for irrigation should be practiced when economically feasible and environmentally and agronomically acceptable. It is important that recycled water meets applicable health and environmental standards and that special consideration be given to water quality issues and adequate buffer zones. Water reuse may not be feasible on some sites that drain into high quality wetlands or sensitive surface waters. Suitable soils, II-11 climatic conditions, groundwater hydrology, vegetative cover, adequate storage for treated effluent and other factors will all influence the feasibility of water reuse. 6. Buffer zones or other protective measures should be maintained and/or created, if appropriate, to protect high quality surface water resources or environmentally sensitive areas. The design and placement of buffer zones will vary based on the water quality classifications of the surface waters being incorporated into the course. Regulatory agencies and environmental groups can assist in the planning of buffer zones. 7. The course should be designed with sustainable maintenance in mind. The design should incorporate integrated plant management and resource conservation strategies that are environmentally responsible, efficient, and cost-effective. Integrated plant management includes Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and emphasizes plant nutrition and overall plant health. 8. The course design should enhance and protect special environmental resource areas and improve or revive previously degraded areas, if any, within the site through the use of plants that are well adapted to the region. Construction 1. Best management practices for construction include the following: a. use only qualified contractors who are experienced in the special requirements of golf course construction. b. develop and implement strategies to effectively control sediment, minimize the loss of topsoil, protect water resources, and reduce disruption to wildlife, plant species and designated environmental resource areas. c. schedule construction and turf establishment to allow for the most efficient progress of the work while optimizing environmental conservation and resource management. d. retain a qualified golf course superintendent/project manager early in the design and construction process(es) to integrate sustainable maintenance practices in the development, maintenance and operation of the course. Maintenance 1. Plant protection and nutrition include the following: a. the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) should be employed. IPM is a system that relies on a combination of common sense practices of preventing and controlling pests (e.g., weeds, diseases, insects) in which monitoring is utilized to identify pests, damage thresholds are considered, all possible management options are evaluated and selected controls) are implemented. IPM involves a series of steps in the decision-making process: • Through regular monitoring and record keeping, identify the pest problem, II-12 analyze the conditions causing it, and determine the damage threshold level below which the pest can be tolerated. • Devise ways to change conditions to prevent or discourage recurrence of the problem. Examples include: utilizing improved (e.g., drought resistant, pest resistant) turfgrass varieties, modifying microclimate conditions, or changing cultural practice management programs. • If damage thresholds are met, select the combination of control strategies to suppress the pest populations with minimal environmental impact, to avoid surpassing threshold limits. Control measures include biological, cultural, physical, mechanical, and chemical methods. Biological control methods must be environmentally sound and should be properly screened and tested before implementation. • Non-chemical control measures should focus on practices such as the introduction of natural pest enemies (e.g., parasites and predators). Utilizing syringing techniques, improving air movement, soil verification techniques, and mechanical traps. The selection of chemical control strategies should be utilized only when other strategies are inadequate. b. When chemical and nutrient products need to be applied, the following practices should be used: • Always read and follow label directions when using any plant protectant products. Strive to treat problems at the proper time and under the proper conditions to maximize effectiveness with minimal environmental impact. Spot treatments may provide early, effective control of problems before damage thresholds are reached. • Store and handle all pest control and nutrient products in a manner that minimizes worker exposure and/or the potential for point and nonpoint source pollution. Employ proper chemical storage practices and use suitable personal protective equipment and handling techniques. • Use nutrient products and practices that reduce the potential for contamination of ground and surface water. Strategies include: use of slow-release fertilizers, selected organic products, and/or soluble fertilizers applied during irrigation. • Test and monitor soil conditions regularly and modify practices accordingly. Choose nutrient products and time applications to meet, not exceed, the needs of the turfgrass. • All plant protectant products should only be applied by or under supervision of a trained, licensed applicator or as dictated by law. II-13 • Maintain excellence in the continuing education of applicators (including state licensing, professional association training and IPM certification). Training for non-English speaking applicators should be provided in the worker's native language. • Facilities should inform golfers and guests about golf course chemical applications. Common methods include permanent signs on the first and tenth tees and/or notices posted in golf shops and locker rooms. c. To minimize water use, the following practices should be used: • Use native, naturalized or specialized drought-tolerant plant materials wherever possible. For areas in play (greens, tees and fairways), use plant materials that are well-adapted to local environmental conditions and can be efficiently managed, as well as provide the desired playing characteristics. • Plan irrigation patterns and/or program irrigation control systems to meet the needs of the plant materials in order to minimize overwatering. When feasible, use modern irrigation technologies that provide highly efficient water usage. Inspect systems regularly for leaks and monitor water usage. • Water at appropriate times (usually during the morning) to minimize evaporation and reduce the potential for disease. • Consider converting to effluent irrigation systems when available, economically feasible and agronomically and environmentally acceptable. • Manage water use effectively to prevent unnecessary depletion of local water resources. d. For waste management, the following practices should be used: • Leave grass clippings and other organic materials in place whenever agronomically possible. If clippings are removed, compost and, if possible, recycle them. • Dispose of chemicals in a manner that will not increase the potential for point or nonpoint source pollution. Methods include rinsate recycling or "spraying out" diluted compound in previously untreated areas. • Dispose of chemical packaging according to label directions (e.g., triple rinsing, recycling or returning to manufacturer). • Other waste products, such as used motor oil, electric batteries and unused solvents, should be recycled or disposed of according to the law and available community disposal techniques. II-14 • Seek to reduce waste by purchasing products that minimize unnecessary packaging. e. To manage wildlife, the following practices should be used: • Habitat for wildlife species (e.g., bats, bluebirds, purple martins, etc.)that help control pests should be protected. Additional habitat for these beneficial species should be created whenever feasible and environmentally desirable. • Manage habitat to maintain healthy populations of wildlife and aquatic species. • Species, such as skunks, non-migratory Canada geese and deer, that become damaging should be managed through non-harmful means whenever possible. Non-harmful control methods could include dogs, noisemakers, repellents, and trapping and removal. f. The operation of facilities (golf courses) should include the following practices: • An environmental assessment to develop and implement an overall environmental policy and/or long-range plan that reflects or expands upon these principles. • Ongoing records to measure and document progress toward environmental improvement. • The environmentally responsible practices adopted for golf course maintenance should extend to all other areas of the facility, including those not directly related to golf, such as parking lots, maintenance and storage facilities, and unmanaged natural areas. • Facilities should adopt practices and technologies that conserve natural resources, including water and energy. • Facilities should develop and initiate comprehensive programs for reducing waste, including recycling and reusing. • Facilities should properly store and dispose of solvents, cleaning materials, paints and other potentially hazardous substances. • Facilities should take active steps to educate golfers, neighbors and the general public about their environmental policies and practices. • Recycling Program II-15 OUTREACH AND EDUCATION OUTREACH AND EDUCATION GENERAL ED UCA TION AND O UTREA CH STRA TEGIES Watershed management programs, especially those whose goal is to reduce nonpoint source pollution, should implement education strategies to inform residents about their role in controlling nonpoint source pollution. The people who live and work in the villages, towns and cities that make up the watershed should be targeted. Part of WAC 4's strategy to control nonpoint source pollution is to educate the public about this form of pollution and how residents could help reduce it. WAC 4 recommends that public education initiatives teach residents about the issues and problems of nonpoint source pollution and involve them in the solutions. The Long Island Sound watershed in Westchester County is diverse in the character of its landscape and development and of the people who live and work here. This diversity should be carefully assessed when developing an information dissemination and education strategy. An initial step in developing a public awareness program is to frame the message, determine what information about nonpoint source pollution is to be conveyed, and stress the message at every opportunity. The tone and level of complexity of the message depend on the community's composition and sophistication. The program should include concrete information about using and disposing of toxic substances in homes yards, farms, and work places. Nonpoint source pollution affects everyone in the community. On the issue of control, business people, developers and homeowners each have an individual agenda. A public awareness program should consider these individual needs and interests. Messages and presentations should be tailored to specific groups, for example, school faculty, city employees, developers, public and private organizations, and youth groups. The following groups should be involved in the public awareness strategy: • local government and community leaders • residential property owners and tenants • civic, environmental and other public and private organizations • business and industry leaders • grade school and college students and faculty The table on the following page indicates the most effective use of various public education techniques. II-17 PUBLIC EDUCATION TECHNIQUES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT METHOD MOST EFFECTIVE USE RESULTS Newsletters Announce meeting times and dates, update Public awareness information, list issues to be discussed at upcoming meeting Newspaper Articles (same as newsletter) —Provide additional detail Public awareness about local stories, photos of citizen activities, feature articles provide information about problems and solutions Demonstration Sites Exhibit innovative technology, and should be Public awareness, accompanied by signs, brochures or permanent knowledge, on-site interpretive staff understanding Printed and Taped Explain new technology, describe case studies, Public awareness, Material (e.g., fact provide training information for new employees, knowledge, sheets, videos) outline facts to stakeholders understanding Signs Mark watershed boundaries, identify critical Public awareness, areas, promote specific behaviors in specific knowledge, places, identify cooperators in project, explain understanding adjacent project and its best management practices (BMPs), provide interpretive natural resources information Meetings Share information, plan actions, evaluate process Public awareness, knowledge, understanding, desire/ability to act Field trips Observe the natural resources to be protected, Public awareness, view installed and functioning best management knowledge, practices (BMPs), learn how BMPs operate, understanding, monitor BMPs for assessment or compliance desire/ability to act On-site Inspections Identify problems, recommend corrective actions, Action evaluate effectiveness of pollution controls, identify noncompliant stakeholders, educate individuals Training Provide new skills to stakeholders Action Technical Assistance Identify problems, recommend solutions, assist Understanding, with installation of BMPs, educate individuals, desire/ability to act, evaluate effectiveness of solutions action Source: Terrene Institute, Clean Water In Your Watershed: A Citizen's Guide to Watershed Protection, 1991 II-18 COMMUNITYEDUCATIONAND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Because nonpoint source pollution is a continuing issue related to development and individual lifestyles, a water quality program must be established and embraced to succeed. Organization and ordinances mean nothing without community support. The community must buy in and accept the program,just as it does a sewage treatment system. To gain support, you must understand your community. Is your community small or large? Are residents primarily retired or parents with young children? Are residents commuters or do they earn their living in the community? Do most residents stay in the community all year or seasonally? How much do residents know about nonpoint source pollution? How will they be affected by a nonpoint source management plan? How can they be expected to react to the proposed plan? A public opinion survey or series of well-publicized public hearings throughout the watershed and in your immediate community will help you get to know the community and give you a basis for measuring public opinion. • Public awareness. Public information and education are important ways to curb nonpoint source pollution, since the solution lies largely in changing individual behavior and lifestyle. An information program must educate citizens about the problem and make citizen involvement part of the solution. • Framing the message. An initial step in developing a public awareness program is to frame your message. Determine what information about nonpoint source pollution you wish to convey, and stress this message at every opportunity. The tone and level of complexity of your message depend on the community's composition and sophistication. The program should include concrete information about using and disposing of toxic substances in homes, yards, farms, and workplaces. • Targeting the audience. Nonpoint source pollution affects everyone in the community. On the issue of control, business people, developers, and homeowners each have an individual agenda. Make sure your public awareness program considers these individual needs and interest. Tailor your messages and presentations to specific groups - for example, college faculty, city employees, developers, civic organizations, or youth groups. Involve environmental groups such as the Izaak Walton League, state associations of conservation districts, and other public or private organizations. • Reaching your audience. A targeted public awareness campaign uses a variety of tools to convey your message and attain your goals. Some of the tools include: II-19 • Media. Techniques include press releases, articles, photos with captions, talk shows, news programs, public service announcements, newsletters, and public notices to publicize your message. • Awards. Broaden your visibility, recognize good work, and gain a variety of advocates for your program through conservation awards for young people, public service awards, and participation and sponsorship awards. • Meetings. Use public gatherings, club meetings, special conferences, and workshops to explain your program; customize your message to the needs and interests of your audience. • Speakers' Bureau. Face-to-face communication to a specialized audience provides a powerful opportunity to deliver your message, answer questions, and clarify ambiguities. • Educational Materials. Brochures and posters obtained from EPA, the state water authority, or other groups can be distributed to schools, civic groups, and businesses to further support your message. • Using a variety of information/education tools. The numerous techniques available to make your community aware of the nonpoint source problem and its solutions are limited only by your imagination and budget. See the following list for ideas to ensure support from the community: • publicize your program in all possible ways - use fact sheets inserted into utility statements, as well as flyers, radio, television, newspapers, public hearings, group meetings; develop personal contacts with reporters — always offer story and photo opportunities. • form communities to work on specific aspects of the program; include representatives from all interest groups. • offer field trips to groups. Seeing the watershed's problem has much more impact than reading about it. • distribute drafts of the plan to interested groups for review. • set up meetings using existing organizations such as 4-H or Extension Service and organize community informational watershed workshop. • involve schools - make presentations to classes or conduct field trips. • set up nonpoint source pollution displays at every opportunity - county fairs, local Earth Day events, conferences, school events. • Citizen monitoring. Environmentally conscious citizens have made great contributions to local programs nationwide. Groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Watch and the Streamwalk Committee in Seattle, Washington, have become integral parts of the water quality program. Citizen groups can collect valuable information on basic parameters - they can monitor and identify problems, collect surface water samples, and measure turbidity. Local officials see two advantages to citizen monitoring. First, these activities are an economical way to gather high quality data. Second, citizen monitoring is a valuable tool to build grassroots interest in water quality issues. In addition to helping officials identify and avert potential water problems, citizen groups build public support for nonpoint source programs and remedial II-20 actions, when necessary. Despite these benefits, a volunteer program needs careful handling. Everyone is not suited to be a volunteer monitor. Groups and individuals may have difficulty staying motivated throughout an entire sampling project. Inappropriate training or procedures can result in useless data. Sampling also involves a slight risk of injury; local governments must have sufficient liability insurance to cover such situations. Consider the following recommendations concerning volunteer monitoring programs: • Citizen monitoring projects should not stand alone but should be integrated into a total water quality management program. • A qualified water quality specialist should develop the sampling design, analyze the data, and prepare the final report. • A qualified water quality specialist should train and supervise volunteers in the field, review data frequently, and work closely with the state water quality agency. • The sample design should be relatively simple and not dependent on precise measurement. • Volunteers should be carefully recruited and trained; periodic training may be necessary to replace dropouts and refresh monitoring skills of current volunteers. • The water quality specialist should encourage frequent reports, personal presentations at roup meetings, and media coverage to keep the group motivated. THE MISSING LINK- COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP The optimum situation - informed watershed planning to identify and correct existing problems and prevent future problems - will achieve the best environment possible. But all planning, no matter how complete, must be done with your community, not for it. The advantages of the prevention/restoration ethic are impressive and would tempt any community - clean, usable water bodies attract business and recreational dollars and measurably improve the economic health of the community. Remedial measures, designed to address current environmental conditions, can return water resources to an acceptable purity level. However, billions of dollars are lost on public works projects, declining property values, and missed revenues from tourism, recreation, and other uses because of the missing link - community partnerships. Without community buy-ins by educated citizens who understand their individual responsibility and the community's needs, remediation will need to be repeated in each generation, if not more often. Planning and prevention within the total community and watershed area comprise a vital permanent solution to water quality issues. In some cases, eliminating the cause of pollution may not be enough - the water body will still need rehabilitation. In other cases, communities must restore the quality of a water body even as they prevent further harm. Therefore, plan for the optimum, seeking guidance and cooperation from your community along the way. When the community agrees to implement the plan you know will work, you will have served them - and the environment - well. II-21 MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY TOOLS MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY TOOLS Health regulations, zoning ordinances, land acquisition and voluntary controls are some of the options available to local governments in their mission to manage the water resources that protect the public health, safety and welfare. Health regulations can address both proposed and existing development and their impacts on water quality. Zoning controls are limited in that they are prospective--they typically apply only to future development and not to existing activities which are exempt or "grandfathered." General police powers are available under a community's home rule powers to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Non-regulatory options may include educational efforts, monitoring, the adoption of certain best management practices, and land acquisition. The type of control that a community may consider also will help determine who should be involved in the local community. For example, if boat sanitary waste dumping is considered a threat, the local harbormaster should be involved in drafting regulatory measures. It also would be valuable to gather support from local marinas that may be affected by new mooring and pumpout regulations. Many of the tools listed in this chapter are designed for protection of surface and ground waters, focusing on preventative action for coastal waters because polluted ground water can be a significant source of contamination in surface waters. For both surface and ground waters, pollution prevention is much cheaper than clean-up after the fact. REGULATORY TOOLS Zoning Revelations Zoning techniques offer powerful tools to protect water quality. These are often overlooked. The use of floor area ratios (FAR), and maximum building and lot coverages limit the conversion of land to impervious surfaces (lot coverage differs from building coverage because it includes all impervious surfaces, such as paved areas, in addition to buildings). This allows for greater infiltration of stormwater and minimizes the potential for pollutant-carrying runoff. These criteria could be enhanced by excluding land areas unsuitable for building, such as wetlands, steep slopes, etc. Zoning regulations have been used throughout the country, in coastal and inland areas, to segregate different and possibly conflicting activities into different areas of a community. The following are important zoning techniques that can be used to protect coastal resources. II-2 Overlay Water Resource Protection Districts One technique designed to update regulations for protection of a surface or groundwater resource is the creation and adoption of overlay water resource protection districts by law. The law, which may vary by municipality in its approach toward resource protection (i.e., prohibition of various uses versus special permitting and/or performance criteria), defines the resource by mapping watershed boundaries and enacting specific legislation for land uses and development within these boundaries. Watershed Zoning A new zoning technique that has been instituted in a few communities (but not yet tested extensively) is watershed zoning. This is simply the idea of extending zoning districts onto water bodies. Under traditional zoning, specific areas of a community are set aside for various land uses. Under zoning, certain areas of the water body are set aside for such water- dependent uses as navigation channels, mooring areas, water-skiing, and so on. Prohibitions of T arious Land Uses Virtually every community that has adopted zoning prohibits certain land uses from specific sections of the community, although the rationale behind such prohibition may or may not be related to water resource protection. While not the most creative or effective approach toward resource protection, prohibition of land uses such as gas stations, sewage treatment plants, landfills, or others involving the use, storage and disposal of toxic and/or hazardous materials is a first step toward the development of a comprehensive water resource protection strategy. Special Permitting If applied strictly, the special permitting process can be used effectively to regulate uses and structures that may potentially degrade water quality. For example, many communities use the special permitting process to regulate underground storage tanks or limit lawn fertilizer use within critical areas. Lame Lot Zoning Large lot zoning, as the title implies, seeks to limit water resource degradation by reducing the number of buildings and, therefore, septic systems within a protection area. Large lot zoning is sometimes difficult to enact depending on circumstances, such as existing zoning and growth characteristics. Nevertheless, when used as part of an overall protection strategy, large lot zoning within resource-contributing areas can be an effective tool against water contamination. There is no definition of "large lot" zoning, although case law has upheld different variations on local government's use of minimum lot size. II-24 Transfer ofDevelopment Rights The idea of"transfer of development rights" (TDR) is based on the concept that a parcel of land has a bundle of different "rights" associated with it. A TDR program allows a landowner to separate his or her right to develop the land, as permitted by zoning, from other rights associated with the land, and sell those development rights. To implement a TDR program, a governmental entity such as the town would prepare a plan designating the parcels or districts from which development rights could be transferred (a "sending" or "donor" parcel), and the parcels or districts which would receive those development rights and be developed at a higher density than allowed by the underlying zoning district (a"receiving agent"). Typically, a sending parcel or district might be within a contributing area to an estuary or other water resource. A receiving parcel is able, both from a physical standpoint and in terms of the community's growth program, to accommodate additional development beyond that allowed as-of-right by zoning. In selling his or her development rights, a landowner would gain the cash value of whatever development rights the market associates with the land, and yet would keep the land in a less intensive use and help protect the resource in question. A perpetual easement or some other development restriction would be recorded with the deed of the sending or donor parcel. The purchaser of the development rights gains the ability to develop the receiving parcel at a higher density than allowed "as-of-right" and can recapture the cost of the purchased development rights through the more intensive use of the receiving parcel. Cluster Development Cluster zoning is an alternative to the standard grid-style subdivision. It allows buildings to be "clustered" more densely on a portion of the site most suitable for development, in exchange for preserving the rest of the site, including any sensitive coastal areas, as contiguous open space. In a cluster development, smaller building lots are allowed, with resulting land savings set aside in contiguous areas of open space. Subdivision or zoning regulations should contain provisions that enable a developer to modify minimum lot size and other dimensional requirements as part of the subdivision approval process. This "clustering" technique allows for a grouping of dwelling units on one or more portions of the site with the remainder set aside as common open space. This process encourages diversity in housing design, preserves open space and allows development to account variations in the natural environment. Clustering also is a way for developers to minimize expenses for development, with shorter sewer and utility lines and a smaller road system. Clustering provides tremendous flexibility for both the developer and municipality, and often allows for greater creativity in the division of large land parcels. II-25 Growth Controls/Timing Growth controls are techniques that are used to slow or guide a community's growth, ideally in concert with its ability to "support" growth. The term "support" has been broadly defined, and can include issues ranging from a city or town's physical and financial ability to provide public facilities (roads, water, sewer, schools and public safety) to its ability to retain its once rural, historic character. Growth controls vary in their application and have included outright moratoria to limitations on numbers of building permits issued in any twelve-month period. One of the most widely referenced examples of growth control is the 1969 Ramapo, New York ordinance that limited growth and development in the community to a rate commensurate with the town's ability to provide services to new (an existing) residents. Falmouth, Massachusetts used growth controls to limit land subdivision within the rapidly developing watersheds to its coastal ponds. In 1985, the town adopted a subdivision phasing regulation designed to slow development within these sensitive resource areas. The idea was to "buy time" for the town to implement other management controls such as rezoning, land acquisition and monitoring to protect the coastal water resources. Performance Standards Performance standards are based on the assumption that any given resource has a threshold, beyond which the resource's ability to function deteriorates to unacceptable levels. Performance controls assume that most uses are allowable within a designated area provided that the uses do not and will not overload the resources. A good example of a performance standard is one designed to protect surface water quality by setting a critical threshold for contaminants. Those land uses which will cause the threshold to be exceeded in the water body are not allowed. Approximately one year before Falmouth, Massachusetts adopted the growth controls noted above, the town instituted a unique and precedent-setting approach to manage development in watersheds to the town's coastal resources. All development within defined, mapped areas (mapped as an overlay zoning district) was required to adhere to strict performance standards. In effect, these standards were designed to ensure that all development within watersheds to coastal ponds, when analyzed cumulatively, would not exceed the assimilative capacity of the resources. Health Regulations The development of health regulations is an extremely effective method of rounding out a community's regulatory protection program. The following are examples of well-accepted techniques using health regulations to protect coastal and water resources. Underground Storage Tanks Leaking underground storage tanks may be the single largest source of groundwater contamination in the nation. The larger underground gasoline storage tanks associated with automotive service stations have caused numerous groundwater contamination incidents. As II-26 noted earlier, if compounds from these tanks enter estuaries, they may be accumulated by shellfish, presenting a health risk to consumers. Potential components of tank regulations are: leak testing and construction standards for new, large tanks such as those at automotive service stations; prohibition of new residential underground storage tanks if they cannot be adequately monitored; removal of existing residential underground storage tanks; and prohibition of all new underground tank installation (except for replacements) within watersheds. Privately-Owned Small Sewage Treatment Plants Privately-owned small sewage treatment plants (SSTPs) have been utilized as a technological solution to prevent overloading of the natural capabilities of land and associated water resources to assimilate wastewater discharges. The use of these small treatment plants has, in some cases, allowed development of land beyond the development that would be possible using conventional, individual septic systems. The effectiveness of SSTPs is dependent upon the proper functioning of more components than that associated with a standard septic system. SSTPs also require supervised operation and maintenance. Consequently, they are more likely to malfunction and their use may be a risk in critical resource areas. To eliminate these risks in critical water resource areas, some communities have entirely banned the use of SSTPs. Septic System Maintenance The maintenance of on-site septic systems is frequently overlooked. The result is typically an overloading of solids moving to the leaching facility and subsequent clogging. When this occurs, the system needs to be rehabilitated. This is commonly done with the use of strong acids or organic solvents. However, these chemicals are contaminants and can degrade ground and surface water quality. To minimize this danger and to ensure proper maintenance of septic systems, many communities have developed a voluntary septic system maintenance program. The key component of such a program is pumping every two to three years for residential septic systems. Boat Pump-out Facilities and Head Use Limitations Since near-shore dumping of human wastes from boats can cause contamination of shellfish beds and swimming areas as well as nutrient enrichment, some communities have enacted limitations on dumping and taken action to provide pumpout facilities. For example, Kent County, Maryland requires all new or expanding marinas to install pumpout facilities and to provide signs notifying boaters of the facility. In Prince William County, Virginia, the county supplements state requirements to ensure that at least one pumpout facility is available on any tidal creek with a marina. Subdivision Rules and Regulations Subdivision regulations fine-tune zoning ordinances in that they focus less on land use and more II-27 on engineering concerns, such as road construction, utilities and site plan layout of individual subdivisions. Protecting coastal water resources via subdivision control is, therefore, less effective than via zoning, but can still be used to ensure that drainage and landscaping designs fit with the goal of resource protection. Following are some important techniques to consider. Stormwater Marra eement A key component of nonpoint source pollution is stormwater runoff (see Chapter ---- for additional information). As lands become more developed and more urbanized, less precipitation reaches the earth where it can be absorbed and naturally filtered. In addition to flooding and stream channel erosion, the increased runoff carries with it pollutants from developed areas, which accumulates and finally discharges into natural waterways. While many municipalities recognize the important of controlling water quality to prevent downstream flooding, few municipal regulations actually provide volume standards; fewer still provide standards to protect stormwater runoff water quality. The usual approach of extrapolating stormwater management authority from existing ordinances, such as subdivision, zoning or flood controls, was found inadequate for two reasons: 1) ordinances for other purposes are not easily adapted, and 2) enforcement is difficult because courts have been reluctant to rule in favor of ambiguous regulatory authority and against well-established private property rights. This strongly suggests the need for specific local stormwater management ordinances. As understanding of pollutant contributions from runoff grows, guidelines are developed to effectively treat runoff for water quality. These include: - NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (Effective August 1, 1993-1998) - NYSDEC Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series 5.1.8: Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development (1990) - NYSDEC Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992) - Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Runoff Control (1984) Guidelines recommend the capture and treatment of the "first flush" (the first half inch of runoff) from impervious surfaces. It also identifies the order, or hierarchy, in which a control measure is selected; infiltration is most preferred, then retention, and, lastly, extended detention (refer to stormwater section for complete discussion). Currently, only Mamaroneck Town has developed a special ordinance covering stormwater management. Most of the other municipalities in the WAC 4 study area contain references to stormwater management in other existing ordinances, such as subdivisions and building regulations, but they are very generalized, focus mainly on quantity, and do not provide the specificity needed to ensure consistent implementation of effective control measures. All municipalities have adopted Floodplain Damage Prevention ordinances, but these are based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for flood insurance and refer generally to the prevention of downstream flooding so as to minimize life endangerment and property damage. ii-28 Drainage Requirements Overland runoff from subdivisions often contributes nutrients, metals, and other contaminants to surface waters. To help control this problem, drainage requirements may be established by local planning commissions and boards as part of subdivision review processes. (Drainage best management practices are also applicable for other types of developments.) The table below shows costs and benefits from seven drainage management options: Comparative Costs of Stormwater Management Techniques Technique Construction Costs Maintenance Costs Water Quality Benefits Grassed swale Low Moderate Moderate Infiltration basin Moderate-high High Moderate-high Infiltration trench Low-moderate Moderate-high Moderate Porous pavement High High Moderate Detention pond Low-moderate Moderate-high Moderate-high Retention pond High Moderate-high High Constructed wetland High Low High Effective drainage management should minimize the volume of runoff generated as well as enhance filtration. Steepness of constructed slopes should be minimized, and bare surfaces re-vegetated as quickly as possible. Environmental Impact Assessments Proposed subdivisions which exceed a certain number of proposed lots may be required to prepare environmental impact assessments or statements. These environmental analyses may require varied information depending on community needs and water resource protection goals. Possible requirements are: identification of sensitive water receptors downgradient on- and off-site; information on the existing condition of these resources; and potential impacts from the proposed development on coastal areas or other nearby sensitive areas. Performance Standards Subdivisions may be regulated on the degree of impact the full development could have on water resources. Performance standards, such as nitrogen and phosphorus loading limitations, may thus be specified to keep contamination from the subdivision below assimilation capacity of the downgradient water resource. The developer can be required to determine impacts, perhaps through the EIA process (above). II-29 Site DesWi,,Landscap= Water quality protection may be enhanced via requirements for vegetated buffer zones, natural landscaping in key areas, and the reduction of impervious areas through stringent coverage standards and alternative roadway designs. The Center for Watershed Protection (www.stormwatercenter.net) has compiled summary sheets for 22 model development principles that redirects past precepts where "more" considered better to standards that reflect a balanced approach to development and water quality protection. In establishing landscaping requirements, communities should encourage xeriscaping techniques under appropriate conditions. Xeriscaping focuses on the use of native plant materials having lower water and nutrient requirements than standard landscape species. Use of highly demanding exotics should be discouraged. Steffi Slopes Sloping topography typically has greater potential to erode. This has led some municipalities to create special ordinances regulating development on steep slopes. While the definition of steep slopes can vary, slopes of 15 percent (that is, 1.5 feet of vertical rise for every 10 feet of horizontal run) or greater have been identified as the threshold for special controls. In the WAC 4 study area, there are a modest number of steep slopes. According to the County's Environmental Planning Atlas, which is based on USGS topographic maps, most of the steep slopes are around the headwaters of the Mamaroneck River in north Harrison and White Plains. Other steep slopes exist along the Mamaroneck River, from Spring Lake in Harrison south to the Mamaroneck Reservoir in Mamaroneck Town. Additional steep slopes can be found along the West Branch of the Mamaroneck River in White Plains. A few pockets of steep slopes also exist along the Sheldrake River in north Scarsdale. Other steep slopes exist in the study area, but these have not been mapped, probably because of their relatively small area. Wetland Regulations It is a well-documented fact that wetlands are a critical component in the protection of both surface and groundwater quality. Wetlands absorb and contain floodwaters and have been shown to remove significant quantities of pollutants through a,combination of physical, chemical and biological processes. The necessity of local ordinances is clearly evident. There are both federal and state laws that regulate impacts to freshwater wetlands. However, under the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law), regulated wetlands are generally limited to those which are 12.4 acres or larger in size. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS) regulated disturbance to virtually any wetland or water body under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Tidal wetlands also are both federally and state regulated. The ACOE regulates tidal wetlands under Section 404 as well. The State regulates tidal wetlands under the Tidal Wetlands Act (Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations 6 NYCRR Part 661. The State tidal wetlands regulations generally are more comprehensive, including a 300-foot-wide regulated adjacent area under many circumstances. However, there are 11-30 limitations. The adjacent area goes no further than the seaward side of an existing man-made structure, such as a bulkhead or seawall, and it calls for only a 75-foot-wide buffer instead of 100 feet. Co-regulation would be beneficial in allowing more stringent controls or providing a venue for arranging compensation for wetland losses as is being done in the City of Rye. All of the six municipalities in the WAC 4 study area have a local freshwater wetland ordinance. The existing freshwater wetlands ordinances were reviewed in comparison with A Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection 1988), prepared by the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). Other guidance used include: Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development (1990), prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (these guidelines are also known as Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series 5.1.8); the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, prepared jointly by the ACOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service; a Memorandum of Agreement (dated February 1990) between the ACOE and the U.S. EPA; and the NYSDEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (1992). No model ordinance currently exists for tidal wetlands. In Westchester County, only the City of Rye has adopted a local tidal wetlands ordinance, although one is being considered for adoption by the Town of Mamaroneck. While most municipalities with a wetland ordinance also regulate activities within an adjacent area of up to 100 feet, these "adjacent areas" do not carry with it the same weight as a true "buffer." A buffer is a protected area adjacent to a resource where certain activities or encroachment is prohibited. In the current ordinances, activities to be conducted within an adjacent area are merely brought under regulation; there are no prohibitions or standards to preserve adjoining areas as buffers to the wetland resource. Other features that are advocated in the model ordinance or guidance documents, but are missing or unclear in the existing ordinances, include: a scientifically-based methodology for delineating wetlands; specific standards for basing permit decisions; the requirement that wetlands only be used for final polishing if part of a stormwater management plan; mitigation sequencing requirements, which calls for wetland permit applicants to first demonstrate that wetland impacts cannot be entirely avoided, then to demonstrate that unavoidable impacts have been minimized, and finally to compensate for any remaining impacts; and a no-net-loss objective. It is recommended that every municipality create or improve upon their existing freshwater wetlands ordinance by incorporating the SWCD model ordinance standards and the state and federal guidelines. Clearly, the first step in protecting water quality is to protect the wetlands themselves, both by enforcing applicable state regulations to their fullest extent and, where authorized by statute, by adopting local laws to protect wetlands and wetland functions. Following are some techniques for protecting wetlands. Natural [Vegetated Buffers Natural vegetated buffers have tremendous value in protecting wetland sand surface waters from a variety of impacts. Buffer strips aid in reducing direct stormwater runoff discharge to surface waters, stabilize shoreline areas and provide wildlife habitat corridors. Buffer strip widths may II-31 vary depending on the resource in question. For example, Queen Anne's County, Maryland, requires a 300-foot buffer around tidal wetlands and waters, 50 percent of which must be forested. If not currently wooded, trees must be planted. The non-wooded portion is maintained as natural ground cover. Surface Water Discharges Land development frequently results in increased discharges of surface runoff to wetlands and watercourses which may cause downstream flooding, severe alterations to wetlands hydrology, and degradation of water quality. To prevent this, direct discharge of surface runoff from roads and other paved areas to wetlands and watercourses can be prohibited by local ordinances. Developers can be encouraged to minimize the extent of paving within buffer zones and to use permeable paving materials where possible. Surface runoff should be recharged on site, using a combination of vegetated swales, detention basins and similar techniques (see also stormwater management and drainage controls under Subdivision Regulations, above). Erosion and Sediment Control The discharge of sediments to wetlands and waterways often has severe consequences, ranging from direct sedimentation of wetland flora and fauna to reduction in water quality. Therefore, strict erosion and sedimentation controls for construction activities should be enacted. Different types of erosion controls will clearly be required for different slopes, soil conditions and construction activities. Subsequent revegetation requirements can also be specified, to insure long-term stability. Many guidelines have been developed which offer technical guidance, including the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Erosion and Sedimefft Control (199 1) and NYSDEC Division of Water's "Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for New Development" (Technical and Operational Guidance Series 5.1.10). In addition, the Soil and Water Conservation District produced A Model Ordinance,for Erosion and Sedimefrt Control (1986), which provides guidance for developing an effective local ordinance for controlling erosion and sediment. Harrison, Mamaroneck Village and Mamaroneck Town have distinct ordinances for erosion and sediment control. These regulations include some of the features recommended in the aforementioned model ordinance, but not all. It is recommended that all municipalities adopt separate erosion and sediment control ordinances to ensure that all types of land development are required to implement proper controls. Those with such ordinances need only amend their existing regulations to incorporate some additional standards that would further strengthen these ordinances. Restrictions on Pesticides and Fertilizers Fertilized lawns often contribute substantial levels of nutrients, pesticides and herbicides to surface waters directly, via surface water runoff, and indirectly, via leaching to groundwater. Therefore, limiting the extent and controlling the location of lawns in any buffer adjacent to wetlands, streams, ponds and the Sound is recommended. II-32 NON-REGULATORY TOOLS Many communities have recognized that over-reliance upon regulatory tools merely programs a municipality for development and allows little flexibility if the original program was inaccurate, of if better information has been made available since the program was devised. Consequently, an effective resource program should also utilize non-regulatory tools. Although many non-regulatory water resource programs are available to cities and towns, they have traditionally focused on the categories noted below: Land acquisitions, land donations, and conservation easements (the following three techniques) are all management techniques that may be more efficiently conducted by non-profit land conservation organizations than by municipalities. These organizations are frequently created as land trusts for particular towns, counties, or watersheds, and often have names such as "Smith County Land Trust," "Friends of Pleasant Lake," or "Jonesville Conservation Trust." These organizations are tax-exempt, no-for-profit corporations. Therefore, donations and bargain sales to the conservation trust are usually considered charitable donations and may have positive federal and state tax consequences. These organizations can provide expertise in arranging land transfers, drafting conservation easements, and explaining advantages and disadvantages of real estate transfers to both land purchasers and sellers; coordinate with and solicit aid from various foundations; and, in some cases, have the capacity to provide funds for acquisition or to serve as landowners and stewards. Some of these organizations can only serve as temporary landowners while others may hold lands permanently. Land Acquisition One obvious way for a community to protect a resource is to buy the land outright. Acquisition priorities may include wetlands and stream banks within coastal watersheds, often for access opportunities as well as for resource protection. Outright purchase of land can take four variations: a) Purchase at fair market value: The buyer (community or conservation group) pays the seller the fair market value for the property. b) Bargain purchase: The purchase of property below fair market value by a conservation organization or municipality. The difference between fair market value and the reduced price may qualify as a charitable deduction from income taxes for the seller. c) Installment purchase: The property is purchased over a period of years. Installment purchases allow the town to spread the purchase costs over a number of years. d) Purchase with a reserved life estate: The property is transferred to the town upon the death of the individual landowner. This option allows landowners to sell now, but to continue to use their property during their lifetime and/or the lifetimes of other members of their immediate family. Because of the continued use, the purchase price may be lower than fair market value. II-33 An innovative technique for land acquisition is the land bank. Land banks receive a percentage of fees generated by real estate transfers, and use this money to fund land acquisition. Land banks are usually created by the state legislature and may apply to specific regions or statewide. A more traditional, frequently controversial, form of land acquisition is through eminent domain. If a community can demonstrate the value of a given parcel for the public good, it can take ownership of that parcel. However, due compensation must be given to the previous owner, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Public approval is usually required for eminent domain action, since public money is spent to compensate the previous owner. Eminent domain takings are frequently contested by the previous owner, who may believe the land to be worth more than is offered by the community. Eminent domain takings should not be confused with a "takings" claim, where a landowner challenges a town that a zoning bylaw or other regulation prohibits him from all uses of his land, i.e., his land has effectively been taken without any compensation. Land Donation Landowners are often in the position of being able to donate a piece of land either to the community or a non-profit organization such as local land trusts. If so, they will find that giving the land for preservation costs them far less than they might think, particularly when a variety of tax savings are taken into account. The initial benefit to the person donating the land comes in the elimination of estate of capital gains taxes. In addition, real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance costs are avoided. And, the entire value of the donation can be deducted, over time, from federal, and, in many cases, state income tax obligations. Donations of ecologically significant land with coastal watersheds can be a particularly important technique for resource protection. Donations which provide access to water often help fulfill community goals of increased public access to waterways. Conservation Easements An easement is a limited right to use or restrict land owned by someone else. Easements are either positive (rights-of-way) or negative (conservation, scenic) and may take a variety of forms. Easements can effectively assist a community in protecting land from development by restricting all or a portion of the property to open space or limited development uses. The granting of a conservation easement does not involve the transfer of ownership of the land; instead, it means giving up certain development rights of the property. For example, a conservation easement may restrict the number of houses to be built upon a parcel; restrict the types of development allowed on the parcel, or specify that portions of the parcel remain undeveloped in perpetuity. 11-34 Water Quality Monitoring Water quality monitoring is becoming a very important aspect of a non-regulatory approach to water protection. Local governments have developed programs to identify problem areas in their community where contamination has already affected water quality. In addition, monitoring can be used to measure the effectiveness of the water protection program or as an early warning of threats. Monitoring can be conducted by state and local governments and water utilities, or industry and commercial entities may wish to develop their own water quality monitoring programs. Frequently, volunteers, particularly retired citizens and high school or university classes, can serve as effective resource quality observers. For example, in Rhode Island, the volunteer Salt Pond Watchers monitor water temperature, clarity, nutrient, chlorophyll, and bacterial levels in coastal lagoons. The state Department of Environmental Management has used the Watchers Program data to determine shellfish and beach closures. In Chesapeake Bay, approximately 130 stations are monitored by volunteers for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, water depth and temperature, air temperature, weather conditions, and rainfall. Hazardous Waste Collection Another non-regulatory protection tool is the collection of household hazardous waste. Although these materials are generated in small amounts, they can represent large threats to surface and groundwater quality. Motor oil allowed to drain onto the land surface when automobile oil is changed, excess paint discarded in the gutter, fungicides and herbicides left in a shed that is flooded during a hurricane are possible routes from contaminant container to water. To avoid these scenarios, many communities, including Westchester County, have implemented hazardous waste collection days. In other areas, these wastes are collected continuously. For example, in Arlington County, Virginia, the Water Pollution Control Plant accepts household hazardous wastes from residents. The Plant chemist classifies and stores the wastes and periodically ships them to a licenses hazardous waste facility. II-35 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT THE NATURE OF STORM WATER R UNOFF Stormwater runoff is that part of the total precipitation that flows over the ground. Under natural conditions, during and following precipitation, stormwater within a watershed flows to lower elevations where it is either recharged to groundwater or drains as runoff to streams, ponds, bays, and other surface waters. The amount of runoff from an undeveloped watershed area depends upon: • storm characteristics • type and amount of vegetative cover • soils and soil permeability • slope characteristics • type and capacity of natural drainage systems Storms are characterized by their: • duration (period of rainfall) • total precipitation • intensity • frequency • number of antecedent dry days The number of antecedent dry days is one of the most important variables determining the amount of runoff and concentration of contaminants in stormwater due to its impact on the water storage capacity of soil and buildup of contaminants. A portion of stormwater runoff also evaporates during overland flow and from surface waters. Recharge water (infiltration water) is that portion of stormwater that infiltrates the soil and moves downward to recharge the aquifers. A portion of the infiltration water is taken up by plants and lost to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. Due to the gradual percolation of much of the rainfall into the soil in relatively undisturbed watersheds, both the volume of runoff and rate of overland flow are reduced, thus maximizing aquifer replenishment in some areas and minimizing erosion. In developed watersheds, the amount of runoff also depends upon: • amount of impervious surface area • existing stormwater control measures • other factors The presence of impervious surfaces and of stormwater drainage systems that conduct runoff II-37 from the site may increase the volume, accelerate the flow, and in some cases, contribute to soil and streambank erosion. In areas where stormwater drainage systems have been installed, stormwater flows to stormwater management basins or other drainage structures for detention, extended detention, retention, or infiltration. In coastal areas, stormwater is sometimes discharged directly into surface water bodies or streams; in other cases, the overflow of drainage structures is directed into surface waters. Stormwater as runoff or infiltration water is the vehicle by which pollutants move across land and through the soils to ground or surface waters. Contaminants will accumulate or be disposed of on natural and urban land surfaces. Sources of contaminants include: • animal wastes • highway deicing materials • decay products of vegetation and animal matter • fertilizers • pesticides • airborne contaminants deposited by gravity, wind or rainfall • general urban refuse • by-products of industry and urban development • improper storage and disposal of toxic and hazardous material The contaminants associated with and carried in stormwater runoff include the following major categories: • Metals • Organic Chemicals • - Base Neutral Compounds - Acid Compounds - Volatiles - Pesticides • Organic Chemicals - Phosphates - Nitrates - Chlorides • Bacteria and Viruses • Oxygen Demanding Substances Raindrops dislodge soil particles and contaminants from land surfaces. This material is then carried in solution or suspension and travels with the runoff. Suspended particles are deposited en route if/when the velocity of stormwater decreases. Contaminants carried in stormwater solution enter the soil through the larger pores at the soil surface and move downward and horizontally through the pore network. Water diffuses into the smaller pores by capillary or soil moisture tension. The rate of movement through the soils and surficial materials depends on the size, shape, continuity and arrangement of the pore network system. The most soluble II-38 constituents such as nitrates and chlorides and many organic chemicals continue to move downward through the aquifer system or t the bays. Soils with a high clay, fine sand, or silt content or with the presence of interspersed clay lenses retard the rate of movement of water and some contaminants through the soil; contaminants may adsorb to soil particles. A portion of the nutrients and pollutants also may be used by plants and soil bacteria. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BASINS Two major types of stormwater systems exist in Westchester: nonstructural and structural. Nonstructural Nonstructural systems attempt to deal with stormwater problems at their source. A variety of techniques are used to minimize stormwater runoff and erosion, maximize recharge and to maintain natural stormwater receiving areas. These include the use of: • ecological and land use planning • conservation easements • zoning ordinances (establishment of the amount of site development and coverage) • maintenance of natural vegetation • the use of swales, depressions and other grading and planting techniques Vegetative controls provide contact between stormwater runoff and vegetated areas and accomplish pollutant removal by a combination of filtration, sedimentation and biological uptake that reduce pollutant concentrations, and/or by a reduction in runoff volume due to infiltration and evapotranspiration. Structural Structural controls use built systems such as: • stormwater sewerage systems • detention basins • extended detention basins • retention basins • infiltration basins • sedimentation basins • dry wells • other systems The treated water from these systems may be discharged into a stream or other surface waters. Most of the runoff into stormwater management basins comes from impervious surfaces. Occasionally pervious surfaces are a source of runoff when the infiltration rate and water holding capacity are exceeded due to periods of high intensity rainfall. The so-called "first flush," or first half-inch of runoff from land which has been made impervious, delivers a disproportionately II-39 large load of pollutants during the early part of storms due to the rapid runoff of accumulated nutrients and pollutants. From 70 to 90 percent of the contaminants in stormwater can be removed by detaining the first flush of runoff. Stormwater management basins can be classified into the following three categories: • Dry Basins - These are basins with the outlet located at the bottom. They are almost always dry, except for relatively short periods following larger storm events. The outlet size is restricted to limit the maximum flow rate. Dry ponds are often used for flood and erosion control and are not as effective as extended detention and retention basins for water quality purposes. They may, however, be retrofitted to achieve water quality control. • Extended Detention Basins - These basins employ an outlet structure that will cause stormwater runoff from most storms to pond in the basin. Following a storm, these basins drain in about 24 hours or more and will be dry at all other times. The outlet structures may be either perforated risers or subsurface drains. They provide a practical technique for retrofitting dry ponds to obtain water quality benefits, and can provide particulate (and the associated pollutant) removal efficiency nearly equivalent to that of wet ponds. • Wet Basins - These basins employ outlet structures designed to maintain a permanent pool of water, which is not released except by means of evaporation, infiltration, or attenuated release when runoff volume exceeds the present storage capacity of the permanent pool. They can provide high removal efficiencies for particulates, and have been observed to effectively reduce soluble nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations by means of biological activity. DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT BASINS Proper management of stormwater requires informed judgment in order to interpret data and evaluate empirical runoff projections. Knowledge of the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of rainfall and the watershed is needed to permit the prediction of rates of runoff. Since there is considerable variation in the frequency, intensity and duration of rainfall, the designer must rely upon data derived from observations over long periods of time. Rain gauges have been used for almost a century to measure the intensity, duration and amounts of rainfall from specific storms. Historical records can be used to identify future probabilities. Storm Characteristics Several general conclusions can be drawn concerning storms in Westchester: • Intense storms usually cover small areas and are of short duration; storms of lower intensity tend to cover larger areas and are of longer duration • Storms of high intensity and/or high total rainfall tend to have relatively lower frequencies of occurrence • Storms of high intensity often cause flooding and damage due to erosion and sedimentation II-40 Dego of Closed Stormwater Drainage Ssty ems The most important consideration in designing stormwater control systems is to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak rate of runoff. It is also necessary to determine the total amount of runoff for a given time period to insure adequate storage capacity of runoff. Stormwater drainage and stormwater systems are sometimes underdesigned due to high costs. The "rational method" is generally used as a first step for computing stormwater runoff for the design of closed stormwater drainage systems when the contributing area is less than 200 acres. This calculation method is based on selecting a design storm event that is characterized by its duration, average intensity and frequency of occurrence. This technique provides the average peak rate of runoff from a storm, but it does not provide a description of the actual storm. The formula for the Rational Method is Q = CiA where: • Q equals the amount of discharge (peak runoff rate) in cubic feet per second (SFS) • C equals the runoff coefficient(s) of the drainage area • I equals the intensity of rainfall inches per hour • A equals the area of the watershed (acres) Also considered i the design of stormwater management basins is the basin volume needed to store the required number of inches of rainfall. For instance, the volume of rainfall from a 5-inch storm for a 100-acre watershed area would be determined as follows: 5" 12"/ft x 100 acres x 43,560 ft.2/acre x the runoff coefficient (0.30) = 554,500 ft.3 The storage area of the basin is then calculated. Soil and surficial permeability rates are used to determine the capacity of stormwater management basins. The USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service has classified soils into hydrologic soil groups ranging from hydrologic soil group A, which has a low runoff potential and a high infiltration rate, to soil group D, which has a very low infiltration rate. Soil storage capacity is dependent upon other soil characteristics in addition to the infiltration rate. For instance, a fine sandy loam may have the highest storage capacity but will have a lower percentage of large pores than a sand or loamy sand. A find sandy loam has a high storage capacity because of soil moisture tension. It should be noted that once the recharge basin is in operation, the permeability rates may decrease due to sediment clogging of the soil pores or they may increase due to the establishment of vegetation and associated increased soil porosity. Test drilling should be performed at each proposed recharge basin site to determine whether there is a clay lens beneath the site. Runoff Coefficients Runoff coefficients refers to the percentage of ratio of runoff to the total amount of rainfall that will reach a stormwater management basin. A watershed that is completely forested and located II-41 on gentle slopes will have minimum runoff following a storm of relatively high intensity and duration due to the high retention capacity and low runoff coefficients associated with natural groundcover. A watershed that is primarily developed with extensive impervious surface areas has limited storage capacity and high runoff coefficients. The amount of runoff is a function of the amount of rainfall, amount of evaporation and plant evapotranspiration (seasonally variable), soil permeability, slope, and possibly texture of the surface area. Runoff from impervious surfaces usually varies from 80 percent to more than 90 percent. Therefore, the runoff coefficient as a ratio is 0.80 or 0.90 accordingly. The runoff ratios from pervious surfaces usually vary from 0.10 (natural vegetation) to 0.60 (compacted bare soils) or higher. The runoff ratio for a lawn or golf course is approximately 0.20 to 0.35. The coefficients used to calculate runoff from pervious surfaces may be low in some cases, particularly during a storm that occurs when the ground is frozen. If snow is present, runoff is further increased due to snow melt. Kev Problems In the past, stormwater runoff systems were designed to get stormwater off the site and into stormwater drainage systems or onto roadways as fast as possible, sometimes at the expense of neighbors and downstream communities. Although a portion of the inland runoff was directed toward stormwater management systems, most of the stormwater and associated contaminants from areas adjacent to coastal waters were discharged untreated through drainage system outfalls and from roadways into surface waters and wetlands with impervious and modified pervious surfaces. Individual sites were developed without providing land for the recharge or treatment of stormwater and erosion control measures. Over time, this resulted in increased volumes and rates of runoff. Accelerated erosion and sedimentation were associated with the higher rates of runoff. An increase in runoff(and sedimentation) created the need for more extensive drainage systems to prevent the accumulation of water in streets and flood-prone areas. Since stormwater runoff is a transport vehicle for contaminants deposited on impermeable or relatively impermeable surfaces, it is often an important contributor to surface water degradation. To compound the problem, many coastal and inland wetlands were filled and developed, further reducing the storage area for stormwater, sediments and contaminants associated with the sediments. These conditions resulted in the following major effects: • increased local expenditures for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage systems and roadway maintenance • increased outlays for channel maintenance • increased flooding of roads and of lowland areas resulting in hazardous driving conditions, dangerous flash floods and property damage • loss of viable wetlands due to sedimentation • increased concentrations of contaminants in groundwater • the closing of a large portion of the area's shellfishing grounds due to high coliform concentrations introduced by stormwater • changes in the values of aquatic and estuarine water quality parameters with possible adverse affects on aquatic and marine species I1-42 Health Related Problems Stormwater runoff and stream base flow are important sources of pollutant loadings to Westchester streams, ponds and bays. Two categories of runoff to estuarine waters have been observed: upland runoff entering the freshwater portions of streams and conveyed thereby to the Sound, and overland runoff that enters the Sound (or the tidal portions of the streams) usually by direct overland flow or storm drainage systems. Impervious surfaces constitute the major source of stormwater runoff to streams and bays, but some runoff from pervious surfaces also occurs. Stormwater runoff has been associated with high concentrations of bacteria in estuarine water and the closing of shellfishing areas due to high indicator bacteria counts. A study on Long Island involved monitoring bacterial counts following storms in freshwater storm events. It was calculated that stormwater runoff accounted for at least 93 percent of the total and fecal coliform discharge. Sedimentation rather than bacteriological die-off appears to be the mechanism for the attenuation of bacteria in stormwater runoff from ponds before discharge into marine water. Nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers and other sources enter fresh and marine waters by stormwater runoff, stream flow and groundwater flow. Elevated nitrogen levels can result in a phytoplankton bloom and rooted aquatic growth (e.g., eelgrass), since nitrogen is a limiting growth factor in estuarine waters. Impacts On Fresh Surface Waters Biological monitoring has been used to measure the impact of stormwater upon aquatic communities. Increased pollution in urban ponds and streams has resulted in marked changes in the type and number of species present. High concentrations of phosphorus from fertilizers applied to landscaped areas and phosphorus from other sources in the immediate watershed area can result in algal blooms and other eutrophic conditions. The depletion of oxygen as measured by high biological oxygen demand (BOD) values in receiving waters is one of the most important impacts on freshwater systems. When high BOD loadings are discharged to surface waters, the resultant depressed oxygen levels eliminate those species that cannot survive at low oxygen levels. Aquatic life changes over time as high oxygen demanding species are replaced by those that can tolerate lower dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. This is an especially important problem in lakes and ponds. A pond that once had species indicative of good water quality such as mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies may now have large numbers of worms such as Tubifex and Limnodrilus udekamianus. Other types of worms may be present that have special types of blood or breathing mechanisms that allow them to adapt to waters with low DO levels. Grease and oil products are sometimes disposed of on the land, into storm sewers, or directly into surface waters. If sufficient concentrations of these products are found in the water column or accumulate on aquatic plants, they can harm or kill aquatic biota. High concentrations of salts from highway deicing practices also may impact aquatic vegetation and aquatic ecosystems. Basin Bank Stabilization II-43 One of the most important features to include in basin designs and bank stabilization is to establish a vegetative buffer around stormwater management basins. The establishment of a vegetative buffer, utilizing a diversity of native plant species, is the most practical and cost- efficient alternative to protect and prevent degradation of detention ponds. Vegetative buffers should be established at or near the shoreline and continue landward for a desired distance ranging in size from 20 to 30 feet for most urban basins to 100 feet or more depending on the management objectives. Aquatic plant species also may be established in shallow water areas, or benches, along the shoreline. A vegetative buffer around the perimeter of a detention, extended detention or retention basin serves to: • reduce stormwater runoff from adjacent lawns, roads, and rooftops by encouraging infiltration • stabilize the banks and shoreline of the basin to prevent soil and bank erosion • filter nutrients and contaminants from runoff to prevent water quality degradation • provide shade for aquatic species and reduce the effects of thermal pollution • provide fish and wildlife habitat for feeding, breeding, avoiding predators, and shelter • maintain a diversity of native plant species, including grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees • discourage large nuisance flocks of Canada geese and gulls, who do not like habitat with taller grasses, shrubs or trees Existitianagement Practices: Local and State Controls Stormwater runoff management in Westchester generally consists of local laws and ordinances, standards and guidelines for stormwater collection systems that are predominantly structural in nature. These standards and guidelines are based on the premise that watershed characteristics and various types of development will produce specific quantities of runoff. Collection systems are based on design standards and engineering practices that include the use of empirical formulas (such as the "rational method"), the construction and use of stormwater management systems according to a specified storage capacity (number of inches of rainfall), or the use of leaching systems, catch basins, dry wells or other structures deemed appropriate. The use of these standard structural systems has generally been successful. However, they have not always proved to be the best in respect to long-term environmental impacts, are implemented too infrequently, and are not the most cost beneficial in terms of maintenance costs. A comprehensive approach to stormwater runoff management, in which performance standards and site development techniques are used to protect a site's natural resources and downstream watershed, is becoming more widely accepted. Drainage designs are increasingly based on individual site characteristics and watershed management goals. This type of approach implements certain stormwater management objectives, such as preserving the integrity of natural drainage patterns to prevent flooding and damage to stream channels or other surface waters. It also requires adherence to standards that will insure the attainment of these objectives. The requirement that stormwater runoff from a developed site not exceed that generated under natural or undisturbed conditions is an example of such a standard. In this instance, developers are not required to install a specified type of drainage facility but are given the flexibility to choose the stormwater management system best suited to the needs of each development, subject to the requirements of a performance standard. The type of system that should be installed will II-44 be determined by the system's effectiveness given the variations of: • slope • lot size • vegetation • water resources • soils • type of development under consideration The State Environmental Review Act (SEQRA) review process can be used on a local level to incorporate environmental concerns, including stormwater management, into the planning and decision-making processes for development. According to SEQR, each municipality can, under its own local law, provide a list of those critical environmental areas (CEAs), such as existing natural drainage systems, flood prone areas, wetlands and watercourses (and associated uplands), and/or steep slopes or areas prone to erosive forces where potentially hazardous or harmful environmental impacts may occur. Following CEA designation, the potential impact of any Type I or Unlisted Action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA is a relevant area of environmental concern and must be evaluated in the determination of significance of adverse environmental impact. This local law procedure can become a tool for the protection of the environment from the adverse impacts of inadequate or improperly designed stormwater controls. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Regulations and Administration The following recommendations comprise preventive measures that can be used to minimize stormwater contamination of surface waters and groundwater resulting from site development and future land use activities as well as suggestions for reducing or eliminating existing impacts. For specific recommendations for municipalities in the WAC 5 study area, see Section 1 of this plan. Criteria are also provided for the selection and installation of appropriate stormwater control measures including both nonstructural and structural techniques. This section also describes a number of management practices, erosion and sediment control measures and the suitability of these measures for various types of site conditions. Municipalities, County and State • On publicly-owned lands adjacent to surface waters and wetlands, limit development and the establishment of impermeable paving. • Prohibit any new direct discharge of stormwater runoff into surface waters of freshwater or tidal wetlands. • Evaluate existing stormwater systems that currently discharge into surface waters to determine whether the systems can be modified to include additional control measures to minimize impacts on surface waters and adjacent areas: - Inventory direct discharges and assign remediation priority ratings based upon environmental impacts. II-45 - Determine if there is sufficient land area to develop cost-effective energy dissipation areas and sediment basins as well as extended detention or retention basins to eliminate or reduce direct discharge and accompanying nutrient, pollutant and sediment loadings to surface waters and wetlands. • Local governments need to develop more complex design requirements for stormwater management basins and wetlands. The frequent practice of specifying a fixed treatment volume may not be sufficient to assure reliable pollutant removal. Local governments may wish to develop additional design criteria to improve pond and wetland performance. These might include requirements for sediment forebays, minimum length to width ratios, redundant treatment techniques, and greater structural complexity for wetlands. • Ensure adequate long-term maintenance of stormwater management basins through public acquisition, easements or permit/approval conditions. The retention and maintenance of these areas will facilitate the recharge and treatment of runoff, thus reducing the amount of stream flow following a storm and the subsequent associated high coliform loadings that would otherwise reach the bays. A reduction in coliform loadings to the Sound can be achieved through the use of basins to retain sediments thus allowing for the die-off of most coliform bacteria. • Do not mow or remove vegetation in or adjacent to stormwater management basins unless such removal is part of a prescribed maintenance program because plant growth generally enhances infiltration and nutrient/pollutant removal. • Incorporate the erosion and sediment control recommendations into municipal law (see separate municipal laws section). • Require adherence to the following performance standards for all new site development: - Protect and maintain the natural functions of the site by maintaining the absorptive, purifying and retentive functions that existed on the site before construction began. - Limit the post-construction volume and rate of runoff leaving the site to that calculated on the basis of natural or predevelopment conditions. The peak release rate of stormwater from all developments where retention is required should not exceed the peak stormwater runoff from the area in its undeveloped state for a storm of any intensity up to and including the 100-year frequency, and for rainfall of any duration. Calculations of the rate should be based upon an assumed runoff coefficient of 0.20, 0.25, and 0.35 for average slopes of 2 percent, 2 to 7 percent, and more than 7 percent, respectively. - Design the site stormwater system so that the runoff release rate from natural drainage channels will not exceed the natural carrying capacity of the channel. - Limit the release rate for stormwater systems serving new development. The volume and velocity of runoff discharged should not exceed the safe capacity of the existing drainage systems into which the discharge flows. • Require a stormwater management plan for any property when - a plat is to be recorded - land is to be subdivided - an existing drainage system may require alteration Site Planning Recommendations Success in the reduction of stormwater related impacts and the costs of installing stormwater systems depends, in large measure, on proper site analysis and the selection and placement of development suited to the site. II-46 • Undertake a careful site analysis to identify any developmental constraints affecting the design of a stormwater control system that may be imposed by the location of existing on-site and off-site features. The site analysis process should include the following steps: - Prepare a key map locating the site within the watershed - Prepare a watershed analysis map showing the site drainage system in relation to the watershed. Locate all natural drainage swales, depressions, steep slopes, high points, low points, flood prone areas, areas with depth to seasonal high water table less than six feet, areas of existing vegetation, sensitive wildlife habitats, and soil constraints. Stormwater impacts can be minimized by avoiding soil conditions with severe or moderate constraints - a slight constraint indicates no limitations or a few that can be overcome with relatively little cost - a moderate constraint indicates limitations that are more difficult and expensive to correct - a severe constraint indicates the soil is very poor and will require replacement filling or modification if used (filling is not recommended) • Locate on-site areas suitable for the treatment of stormwater • Locate on-site areas suitable for development. Site building and paved areas only where the presence of the environmental conditions are favorable. The following soil and slope conditions may indicate soil suitability for development: - nearly level or moderately sloped terrain (less than 15 percent gradient) - moderately to rapidly drained soils (moderate to high permeability rate) - a coarse or medium textured soil - a seasonal high water table more than six feet below the surface - other soil listed under slight constraints in the USDA-MRCS Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties (1994) Use proper site design, including the following: • Minimize grade changes and site clearing • Retain native vegetation on steep slopes, in swales, on soils with a high content of silts, fine sands and clays, and in areas with a high water table or adjacent to surface waters • Avoid the use of paved surfaces such as parking lots and roadways where the presence of the following conditions indicate potential problems: - severely sloped terrain - floodplains - existing swales - depressions or lowlands - soil constraints listed as severe or moderate 11-47 • Incorporate the following general stormwater controls checklist into the site design as needed to meet the performance standards listed- - Reduce the extent of impermeable surfaces insofar as possible - Use swales and shallow depressions to collect stormwater on-site, wherever possible - Preserve swales in their natural state; avoid disturbance of existing grades, vegetation (particularly ground cover) or soils and the alteration of surface hydrology - Provide temporary on-site areas to receive stormwater runoff flows that are generated by construction and other site development activities - Do not allow increased sediment resulting from the construction or operational phase of site development to leave the site or to be discharged into stream corridors or tidal or freshwater wetlands - Minimize the amount of soil area exposed to rainfall and the period of exposure. Cover or plant exposed soils as soon as possible - Do not allow the dumping or filling of excess soil or other materials generated from site development into swales and surface waters - Detain runoff on-site and direct stormwater from road surfaces to sediment basins before discharge to a sump wherever topography limits or precludes on-site detention or retention. At sites where vertical drainage is not feasible, all runoff from a 25-year frequency, 24- hour storm from unstabilized soil areas should be collected, desilted, and released into stable channels at an acceptable design velocity appropriate for channel characteristics Once the site plan has been partially completed, undertake the following steps: • Calculate the amount of stormwater entering the site • Calculate the amount of natural runoff from the site • Calculate the additional amount of runoff due to the proposed installation of impermeable paving and other surfaces • Locate areas on-site for the storage and recharge of stormwater • Re-evaluate the site plan if the storage and recharge area capacity is not sufficient Combine Development and Stormwater Controls • Use cluster development as a viable alternative to conventional subdivision layout to preserve environmentally sensitive qualities of wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, swales and woodlands • Reduce the length of roadways, thereby reducing the extent of cut and fill and stormwater runoff volumes and minimizing the possibility of erosion/sedimentation • Reduce the area of other impermeable surfaces such as walkways, patios and recreational facilities • Allocate open space for recreation and water quality protection Natural P egetatiorz • Use natural vegetation as an important nonstructural alternative in the control of stormwater runoff and erosion/sedimentation. Natural vegetation includes woodland, free-standing trees, old fields, unmowed grasses, and wetlands. When left undisturbed, vegetation stabilizes steep 1i-48 slopes, streambanks, and drainageways by: - reducing stormwater velocity, allowing for absorption of water by soils to occur, thus recharging the aquifer below and allowing for greater filtration of nutrient-rich and contaminated water; - acting as a filter by trapping sediment particles - holding soil particles in place. • Identify site locations where existing vegetation will not be disturbed by grading, filling or removal; removal exposes valuable topsoil, making it highly susceptible to erosion/sedimentation • Stabilize exposed slopes during and after construction, by using temporary and/or permanent, structural or nonstructural stabilization measures. All areas not to be covered with an impervious surface should be temporarily stabilized immediately following disturbance. Permanent stabilization measures should be installed as soon as possible. Natural Depressions • Use natural depressions to collect runoff from the surrounding devilment and slow its velocity, allowing for recharge. Natural depressions consist of gently sloping land, vegetated with grasses, understory vegetation, and/or trees. Depressions also function as runoff holding areas, allowing sediment particles and debris to settle out before discharge to nearby surface waters. Except during storm events, depressions also may serve as recreational open space. Wetlands • Do not discharge untreated stormwater runoff directly into tidal or freshwater wetlands, and do not construct stormwater management basins in naturally-existing wetlands. Stormwater Detention • Use stormwater extended detention (temporary detainment of stormwater runoff, with gradual release to surface or groundwaters) to main the same volume and rate of site runoff after development as that which existed prior to the development. Extended detention basins are designed to drain completely 24 hours or more after a storm. An emergency spillway should be provided to allow release of runoff during storms that exceed the design capacity of the retention area. Except during storm event, detention areas also may serve as open space and should be as visually attractive as possible. • Maintenance of the control facility should be provided to insure sustained flow rates and visual attractiveness. Stormwater Retention Ponds • Stormwater retention should be used to permanently hold stormwater runoff on the site or for long-term detention to allow for the die-off of coliform bacteria. Retention basins can provide recreational and aesthetic benefits for development by supporting certain native plants and aquatic life. They also can provide a habitat for wildlife when the pond is planted with upland and aquatic vegetation. The retention pond should be sized to contain both the II-49 normal dry weather water volume and expected runoff flows. It is recommended that the retention pond be designed to accommodate a 100-year, 24-hour storm. In areas where heavy sediment loads are anticipated, the aesthetic value of the permanent ponds and its surroundings will be severely reduced by deposited sediment and debris. Therefore, maintenance will be required or a more easily maintained sediment basin should be constructed immediately upstream from the basin. Drainage Channels • Naturally-vegetated swales or other types of drainage channels should be used to carry stormwater. Use grassed or vegetated waterways in areas where design velocities are low and soils have a low erosion potential. Stabilized vegetation also reduces the energy of flow, allowing for infiltration of runoff. Vegetative waterways are usually preferred over structurally-lined channels for reasons of aesthetic value. • Bare channels should be used only as a temporary measure for construction sites in areas where the slope is minimal, and the runoff velocity is low. Do not install bare drainage channels in areas with highly erodible soils. The permanent use of bare channels should be avoid. • Structurally-lined channels should be used only as necessary in drainage areas where the slope is high or runoff velocities and concentrations are erosive, particularly in areas of highly erodible soils that preclude the establishment of vegetative cover. The most common structural linings include stone riprap. • Shallow detention and recharge areas should be used upgradient of natural swales as required so that the existing volume and velocity of runoff into the swales is not exceeded. If this is not possible due to lack of land area or the presence of a high water table, etc., then vegetative and/or structural stabilization measures will be required to provide the swale with the capability to carry and/or recharge runoff without risk of erosion/sedimentation. • Protect the channel until a uniform vegetative cover has been obtained, eliminating the risk of erosion and/or sedimentation damage. Common channel stabilization methods include the use of seeding, mulches, and sod. Jute netting and other mulching techniques are frequently used to protect channels until vegetation is established. Diversion Control Measures • Use diversion control measures to direct stormwater away from an area where it could cause damage from flooding erosion and/or sedimentation. A surface drainageway is one type of a diversion control measure. It is a natural or constructed channel or waterway used to divert stormwater runoff. A berm is another type of diversion control measure. Surface drainageways and berms should be used to divert stormwater away from natural slopes where slopes or soils were exposed during construction and newly constructed fill slopes. Channels and waterways should have the capacity to provide a path for flow to move at non-erosive velocities to a stable outlet. Diversion control measures should not direct stormwater runoff to an adjacent property. Energy Dissipation 11-s0 • Use energy dissipation devices to slow the velocity of stormwater runoff to a non-erosive rate. This can be done by establishing a control area immediately adjacent to an outfall or other discharge point. Usually a pile of rocks, stones, gravel/crushed stone or boulders is used to reduce the velocity of the stormwater as it moves through the area. Energy dissipaters may also serve as sediment filters, trapping suspended particles and debris. Sediment Basins • Use sediment basins to protect surface waters from increased sediment loads by trapping the suspended solids before the runoff is released. • Remove accumulated sediment and debris periodically, so that the basin will function properly and its visual attractiveness will remain. Wherever possible, retain vegetation because the roots can increase soil permeability. Biofiltration Systems • Use a biofiltration system to detain runoff and reduce contaminant loadings. Biofiltration by a combination of physical and biological processes can minimize concentrations of coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and nutrients carried in stormwater runoff. A biofiltration system is essentially a man-made pond or wetland. The system includes an energy dissipater, located below the inlet pipe, to reduce water velocity and trap suspended solids (sediment and debris). The entire basin is lined with an impermeable vinyl sheet or clay layer to prevent leaching of trapped containment's to groundwaters. The vinyl or clay is covered with clean sand and loam, and planted with indigenous aquatic plant species, such as Typha angustifolia, or cattails. All above-water areas are stabilized by plantings of rye grass,Lolium multiflorum, or Tall Fescue, Festuca arundivacea, or Red Fescue, Festuca rubra, to name a few. Removal of pollutants is accomplished as the runoff moves across the plants. After a detention time of several days, during which the contaminants are absorbed by the plants, significant reductions in contaminant levels occur. The treated runoff is then released to adjoining surface waters. The overflow chamber, located at the pond outlet (equipped with backflow and adjustable weir) controls the storage capacity. Maintenance involves the periodic cleaning of the surge tank and overflow chamber of floating debris and sediments, and biannual harvesting of aerial portions of aquatic plants. Permeable Paving • Use permeable or "porous" paving for patios, walkways and parking lots to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff by increasing infiltration to the ground below, thus allowing for recharge of the aquifer. Permeable paving may be used in areas where permeability of the soil is sufficient to allow rapid drainage and where a seasonally high water table is not anticipated. II-51 .......... A comparative assessment of the effectiveness of current urban best inatiityetnent practices [ RELIABILITY FOR POLLUTANT APPLICABLE TO WILDLIFE URBAN BMP REMOVAL MOST HABITAT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARATIVE SPECIAL LONGEVITY* DEVELOPMENTS POTENTIAL CONCERNS COST CONSIDERATIONS s'I'mNINN.kTER Moderate to high, 20+years Applicable to most I ligh Stream X%arnririg,natural Marginally higher than Recommended with WETLANDS depending on design sites if land is available wetland alteration wet ponds design improvements and the use of micropools and wetlands ----------- EXTENDED Moderate,but not 20+years,but Widely applicable.but %lodorate Possible stream warming Lowest cost alternative Recommended with DETENTION always reliable frequent clogging and requires at least 10 and habitat destruction to size range design improvements and PONDS short detention acres of drainage area the use of micropools and common wetlands 20+years Widely applicable,but Moderate to high Possible stream warming, Moderate to high WET 9' Moderate to high Recommended,with requires drainage area trophic shifts,habitat compared to careftil site evaluation conventional ........ greater at___ _ .......... MULTIPLE POND Moderate to high; 20 years Widely applicable Moderate to high Selection of appropriate Most expensive pond Recommended SYSTEMS redundancy in-creases pond option minimized option reliability overall environmental impact INFILTRATION Presumed moderate 50"o failure rate Highly restricted(soils, Low Slight risk of Cost-effective on Recommended with TRENCHES within five years groundwater,slope, groundwater smaller sites;rehab pretreatment and area,sediment input) contamination costs can be geotechnical evaluation considerable INFILTRATION Presumed moderate if 60-100%failure Highly restricted(see Low to moderate Slight risk of Construction cost Not widely recommended BASINS working within 5 years infiltration trench) groundwater moderate,but rehab until longevity is improved contamination cost hr POROUS High(if working) 75%failure within 5 Extremely restricted Low Possible groundwater Cost-effective Recommended in highly PAVEMENT years (traffic,soils, contamination compared to restricted applications with groundwater,slope, conventional asphalt careftil construction and area,sediment input) when working properly eftective maintenance SAND FILTERS loderate to high 20+years Applicable for smaller Low Minor Comparatively high Recommended,with local developments construction costs and demonstration frequent maintenance GRASSED SWALES Low to moderate,but 20+years Low density Low Minor Low compared to curb Recommended,with unreliable development and roads and gutter checkdams as one element of a BMP system FILTER STRIPS Unreliable in urban t Jnknowii.but may Restricted to low- Moderate if forested Minor Low Recommended as one settings be limited density areas element of a BMP system WATER QUALITY Presumed low 20+years Small,highly Low Resuspension of High,compared to Not currently INLETS impervious catchments hydrocarbon loadings-, trenches and sand recommended as a primary (<2 acres) disposal of hydrocarbon filters BMP option and toxic residuals Based on current designs and prevailing maintenance practices.Source:Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 1992. 11-52 WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS NATURAL WATER FILTERS A relatively simple way to reduce or eliminate impacts to aquatic resources from adjacent land uses is to maintain buffers around the resources. Buffers are vegetated zones located between natural resources and adjacent areas subject to human alteration. In some locations, a buffer may be referred to as a vegetated filter strip. The emphasis on the filtering functions of buffers is derived from their widespread use to remove sediments and other waterborne nutrients and pollutants from surface runoff. In general, riparian and wetland buffers do the following: • moderate runoff and stream temperatures (runoff from pavement is significantly warmer than runoff that passes through soil and vegetation, and trees provide shade for streams); • control the velocity, quantity and quality of stream flows; • enhance wildlife habitat diversity; • stabilize streambanks and reduce channel erosion; • regulate channel shape and size, reducing potential future impacts on adjacent properties; • provide principal energy source for the base of the food chain (detritus/leaf litter); • enhance food web and species richness, • reduce potential formation of fish migration barriers (shallow areas and accumulated sediment); • enhance recreational opportunities, • attenuate nitrogen from shallow groundwater flows to streams; • mitigate the effects of watershed imperviousness; • increase property values; • allow for future restoration/reforestation of stream corridors. Recent research has shown that stream and wetland buffers can improve the quality of water resources by removing or ameliorating the effects of pollutants in runoff and increase the biological diversity and productivity of stream and wetland communities by improving habitat and adding to the organic food base. Forest buffers can function, often simultaneously, as filters, sources, transformers and sinks. Forest buffers filter sediment and other suspended solids from surface runoff. Sediment is probably the most common and most easily recognized of the nonpoint source pollutants. Sediment suspended in the water can reduce or block sunlight penetration, adversely affecting the growth and reproduction of beneficial aquatic plants. Sediment deposited on stream bottoms can interfere with the feeding and reproduction of bottom dwelling fish and aquatic insects, weakening the food chain. Large deposits of sediment can overfill stream channels and floodplains, greatly increasing the potential for flooding. Furthermore, nutrient and pollutants adsorb to sediment particles. When sediment is transported via erosion, these nutrients and II-54 pollutants also are transported. Several mechanisms of sediment removal work in the streamside forest. Some sediment settles out as the water flow speed is reduced by the many obstructions encountered in forest litter. Additional sediment is filtered out by the porous soil structure, vegetation and organic litter as the runoff flows over and into the floor of the forest buffer. Phosphorus also is reduced by the filtering action of the forest buffer because about 85 percent of available phosphorus is attached to the small soil particles comprising the sediment. Approximately 4 percent of the phosphorus is bonded to the small soil particles comprising the sediment. Approximately 4 percent of the phosphorus is attached to soil particles too small to be filtered by these processes resulting in a removal of about 80 percent of phosphorus by the forest filter. The minor amount of ammonium which is bound to sediment can be filtered out in the same way. Nitrogen, too, is filtered out in large amounts by the buffer. However, dissolved phosphorus and nitrate must be removed by either microbial or biochemical transformation processes. The forest buffer also acts as a transformer when chemical and biological processes within it change the chemical makeup of compounds. For example, under oxygenated soil conditions, bacteria and fungi in the forest buffer convert nitrogen in runoff and decaying organic debris into mineral forms. These forms can then be synthesized into proteins by plants or bacteria. When soil moisture is high enough to create anaerobic conditions in the litter and surface soil layers, denitrifying bacteria convert dissolved nitrogen into various nitrogen gasses, returning it to the atmosphere. Studies have shown that the amount of nitrogen in runoff and shallow groundwater can be reduced by as much as 80 percent after passing through a forest buffer. The forest buffer further acts as a transformer when toxic chemicals such as pesticides are converted to non-toxic forms. Because of continued improvements in the formulation and management of pesticides, only very small amounts manage to leave the area of application. These residues, borne by runoff, are converted to non-toxic compounds by microbial decomposition, oxidation, reduction, hydrolysis, solar radiation and other biodegrading forces at work in the soil and litter of the buffer. The forest buffer also functions as a sink when nutrients are taken up by plants and sequestered in plant tissue. Some estimates indicate that 25 percent of the nitrogen removed by the forest buffer is assimilated in tree growth which may be stored for long periods of time in woody tissue and possibly removed as logs or other forest products. Nitrogen and other nutrients also may be passed up the food chain when litter can be stored for longer periods as peat. Sediments filtered out by the buffer remain to become incorporated into the forest soil. Four criteria have been identified for determining adequate buffer sizes for aquatic resources: (i) resource functional value, (ii) intensity of adjacent land use, (iii) buffer characteristics, and (iv) specific buffer functions required. Generally, smaller buffers are adequate when the buffer is in good condition (e.g., dense native vegetation, undisturbed soils), the wetland or stream is of relatively low functional value (e.g., high disturbance regime, dominated by non-native plants), and the adjacent land use has low impact potential (e.g., parkland, low density residences). Larger buffers are necessary for high value wetlands and streams that are buffered from intense II-55 adjacent land uses by buffers in poor condition. BUFFER SIZE REQ UIREMENTS The range of generally appropriate buffer widths for several buffer functions is variable depending on the biological, chemical, and physical characteristics of the buffer. Figure 1 provides a schematic presentation of buffer widths in relation to specific pollutant reduction goals. The results illustrate that buffer sizes may vary widely, depending on specific desired functions and buffer characteristics. RyW,e of buffer widths providing specific buffer functiot water temperature moderation sediment removal nutrient removal species diversity 35 (ft) 100 (ft) 165 (ft) 230 (ft) 295 (ft) SEDIMENT REMOVAL AND EROSION CONTROL Vegetated buffers control erosion by blocking the flow of sediment and debris, by stabilizing streambank and wetland edges, and by promoting infiltration (Shisler et al., 1987). Buffer vegetation forms a physical barrier that slows surface flow rates and mechanically traps sediment and debris. Roots maintain soil structure and physically restrain otherwise erodible soil. Because flow rates are generally lower for sheet flow than for channelized flow, vegetation resists the formation of channels (water will flow more slowly over vegetation, allowing more time for settling of sediments and infiltration). Wong and McCuen (1982) derived an equation to determine effective buffer widths, based on sediment particle size, slope, surface roughness, and runoff characteristics. While small buffers were found to remove small amounts of sediments, the relationship between buffer width and percent sediment removal was nonlinear; disproportionately wider buffers were required for incrementally greater sediment removal. For example, if the design criteria for sediment removal were increased from 90 to 95 percent on a 2 percent slope, then the buffer widths would have to be doubled from 100 to 200 feet. II-56 Young et al. (1980) found that an 80-foot-wide vegetated buffer reduced the suspended sediment in feedlot runoff by 92 percent, but Schellinger and Clausen (1992) determined that a 75-foot- wide buffer removed just 33 percent of the suspended solids from dairy farm runoff. Horner and Mar (1982) reported that a 200-foot-wide grassy swale removed 80 percent of the suspended solids and total recoverable lead; Broderson (1973) also found that 200-foot-wide buffers effectively control sedimentation, even on steep slopes. According to Lynch et al. (1985), a 98- foot-wide buffer between logging activity and water resources removed an average of approximately 75 to 80 percent of the suspended sediment in stormwater. Greater sedimentation resulted from forested areas that had been commercially clear-cut and then denuded with an herbicide because of channelization, which developed following these activities. Ghaffarzadeh et al. (1992) examined sediment removal by grass vegetated filter strips ranging from 0 to 60 feet on 7 and 12 percent slopes. They found no different in vegetated filter strip performance on either slope beyond 30 feet, where 85 percent of the sediment was removed. EXCESS NUTRIENT AND POLL UTA NT REMO VAL Buffers remove pollutants and excess nutrients from runoff, but the rate of removal appears to be a function of the length, slope and soil permeability of the buffer, the size of the contributing buffer area, and the runoff velocity. Therefore, recommended buffer widths for nutrient and pollutant attenuation vary widely. In general, the recommended width is 100 feet or more. However, few opportunities exist in the WAC 5 study area to establish 100-foot-wide buffers. Fortunately, some research indicates that lesser buffers may contribute significantly to the reduction of nonpoint source pollutants. Madison et al. (1992) examined the ability of grass vegetated filter strips (VFSs) to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus during two simulated storm events (the equivalents of the 1-year and 10-year events). Grass VFSs which were 30 feet wide had trapping efficiencies of between 96 and 99.9 percent. Vegetated filter strips wider than 30 feet did not result in further improved trapping efficiencies, according to Madison. Dillaha et al. (1989) reported that 30-foot-wide and 15-foot-wide VFSs removed an average of 84 and 70 percent of suspended solids, 79 and 61 percent of phosphorus, and 73 and 54 percent of nitrogen, respectively. Xu et al. (1992) found that nitrogen concentrations were reduced from 764 mg to approximately 0.5 mg in a 30-foot-wide mixed herbaceous and forested buffer strip in the North Carolina Piedmont. Wooded riparian buffers in the Maryland coastal region were found to remove as much as 80 percent of excess phosphorus and 89 percent of excess nitrogen, most of it in the first 62.3 feet (Shisler et al. 1987). Schueler (1987) suggested that, as an "absolute minimum," an unmanaged/unmowed grass strip should be at least 20 feet wide, but better performance is achieved if the strip is 50 to 75 feet wide, plus an additional 4 feet per each 1 percent of the site's slope. MODERA TION OF STORMWA TER R UNOFF AND WATER TEMPERATURE Wetland stream buffers affect the quantity as well as the quality of stormwater runoff A vegetated buffer zone that resists channelization is effective in decreasing the rate of water flow and, in turn, increasing the rate of infiltration (Broderson, 1973). Bertulli (1981) concluded that adjacent forest vegetation and litter lowered stream water elevations from 32.3 feet to 17.3 feet for a 100-year flood. II-57 Forested buffers adjacent to wetlands provide cover, thereby helping to maintain lower water temperatures in summer and lessen temperature decreases in winter. Broderson (1973) found that 50-foot-wide buffers provided adequate shade for small streams; further, buffer widths along slopes can decrease with increasing tree height with no significant loss of shading. Lynch et al. (1985) determined that a 100-foot-wide buffer from logging operations maintained water temperatures within 2 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit of their former average temperature. I1-58 MODEL ORDINANCES WETLAND PROTECTION MODEL ORDINANCE FOR WETLAND PROTECTION WESTCHESTER COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Januaq•]998 ]I61 WESTCHESTER COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District was created in 1967 by act of the County Board of Supervisors (now Board of Legislators) pursuant to the New York Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law. Unlike its more than 50 agricultural counterparts statewide, the District has developed a program with a distinct suburban/urban conservation orientation. Originally established to address issues of flooding in the county, over the past 20 years the District has broadened its focus to consider a range of soil, water and ecological conservation and protection concerns, including the protection and management of streams, water bodies, flood plains and wetlands, and management of land disturbance to minimize, stormwater pollution and impacts to surface water quality. In 1989, the New York State Legislature officially expanded the stated objectives of districts to include nonpoint source pollution programming and remediation. The District consists of a five-member citizen Board of Directors appointed by the County Executive. Administrative and technical assistance to the Board is provided by staff of the county Department of Planning. Through written cooperative agreements, the District provides natural resource planning and policy assistance to 38 Westchester County municipalities and other governmental agencies. For further information about wetlands management and protection or to review National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, New York State Freshwater Wetlands and Tidal Wetlands maps, and USDA-NRCS "Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties," New York (1994), please contact: Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District 148 Martine Avenue, Room 432 White Plains, New York 10601 (914)285-4422 II-62 MODEL ORDINANCE FOR WETLAND PROTECTION WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE Andrew J. Spano WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Joyce M. Lannert, AICP, Commissioner Gerard E. Mulligan, AICP, Deputy Commissioner Gina T. D'Agrosa, AICP, Director of Environmental Planning PROJECT STAFF Robert E. Doscher, PWS, Associate Environmental Planner, Project Manager Linda Dillon, Secretary II SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Carol Coggeshall, Chair Peter Van de Water, Vice Chair Nancy Jane Woolley, Secretary Edith Silberstein, Treasurer Carl Pratt May 1997, revised January 1998 The Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District also wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals during the comment phase of document preparation: Ms. Diane Goetke, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Ms. Jeanne Richman, Westchester County Planning Board Mr. Walter E. Andrews and Mr. Patrick Pergola, United States Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Stephen Coleman, Town of New Castle II-63 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION I SECTION 1: FINDINGS OF FACT 6 1.l Findings of Fact 1.2 Intent SECTION 2: APPLICABILITY AND NON-CONFORMING ACTIVITIES 8 2.1 Wetlands and Buffers: New Projects 2.2 Rules for Establishing and Interpreting Wetland Boundaries 2.3 Grandfathered Projects 2.4 Current Projects and Non-Conforming Activities SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS 9 SECTION 4: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 14 4.1 Permitted Uses 4.2 Regulated Activities SECTION 5: STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS 16 5.1 Procedures for Permits 5.2 Permit Applications 5.3 Public Hearings 5.4 Standards for Permit Decisions 5.5 Mitigation Policy; Plan Requirements 5.6 Permit Conditions 5.7 Performance Bond 5.8 Other Laws and Regulations 5.9 Suspension or Revocation of Permits SECTION 6: GENERAL POWERS OF THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY 27 SECTION 7: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES 28 7.1 Administrative Sanctions 7.2 Criminal Sanctions SECTION 8: ENFORCEMENT 29 SECTION 9: APPEALS 30 II-64 SECTION 10: SEVERABILITY 30 SECTION 11: AMENDMENTS 30 SECTION 12: ASSESSMENT RELIEF 30 SECTION 13: EFFECTIVE DATE 31 APPENDIX A: REGULATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 24 AUTHORITY 32 Required Modifications to the District Model Ordinance REFERENCES 35 II-65 INTRODUCTION The District's Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection In the early 1980s, municipal governments and other groups began asking the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District for technical and policy guidance in identifying, delineating, evaluating, managing, and regulating wetlands. In 1985, in response to continued interest in the topic, the District began a wetlands assistance program composed of three major components: (1) public training workshops; (2) assistance in reviewing development and other projects and activities, including wetland boundary verification and delineation, wetland functional analysis, impact assessment, and site development plan review; and (3) assistance in revising and developing municipal ordinances to regulate wetlands. The District continues to provide these services today. In the course of reviewing and commenting on dozens of proposed local laws governing wetland protection, the District noted significant variations in regulatory approach, definition, scope of applicability, and degree of protection afforded wetlands among a host of municipal regulations. In 1988, the District published its first "Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection." The model ordinance was intended to encourage municipalities throughout Westchester County to seriously consider the issue of wetland protection and standardize their approaches to wetland management, both in terms of criteria used to define these ecosystems and regulatory philosophy. The 1988 model has assisted municipalities with the protection of wetlands and watercourses within their boundaries. To date, 16 municipalities in Westchester County have incorporated, in whole or in part, the essential components of the model ordinance into their existing or pending wetland protection ordinances. Model ordinances in other counties also have been patterned after the District's model. However, much has changed in wetland management and regulation since 1988. New state and federal manuals for delineating wetlands have been developed, the science of wetland restoration and creation has matured, and state and federal guidelines, policies and laws have changed over the years to reflect a greater understanding of wetlands and their relationship to humans. To reflect current wetland management techniques, guidelines and laws, the District has revised its model ordinance, incorporating applicable comments from reviews by local, state and federal agencies into this updated model. The District's model ordinance allows for a more streamlined process of regulating wetlands. Many of the provisions in this model, such as impact avoidance, minimization and mitigation, satisfy the requirements of state and federal agencies. Therefore, it is assumed that applicants who comply with the requirements of this model ordinance also will comply with many, if not most, of the wetland protection requirements of state and federal agencies. However, this does not alleviate the obligation of applicants to acquire permits from appropriate local, state and federal agencies. TYPES OF WETLAND REGULATION II-66 Federal Regulations The principal federal laws that regulate activities in wetlands are Sections 404 and 401 of the Clca.. Water Act, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Other federal laws include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Swampbuster provision of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. The federal wetland protection law most commonly applied in Westchester County is the Clean Water Act. Under this law, applicants who want to conduct a regulated activity, such as excavating or filling a wetland, must demonstrate that the wetland impacts will be avoided and minimized to the fullest practicable extent and that unavoidable adverse impacts will be mitigated. According to recent revisions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must be notified by applicants proposing to impact one-third of an acre to three acres of wetland before conducting the activity under Nationwide Permit No. 26. Any activity impacting more than three acres requires the applicant to first acquire an Individual Permit from the Army Corps; applications under this permit are reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Any activity impacting less than one-third of an acre does not require a federal permit but requires that the Army Corps be notified of the activity. The law does not regulate any upland (non-wetland) buffer adjacent to wetlands. State Regulations The principal New York State regulations affecting development activities in and near wetlands include the Freshwater Wetlands Act, the Tidal Wetlands Act, and the Adirondack Park Agency Act. Administration of the Tidal Wetlands Act [Article 25 of the State Environmental Conservation L (ECL)] rests solely with the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The Freshw, Wetlands Act (Article 24 of the ECL) is administered by the DEC in all of New York State outside of Adirondack Park. Inside Adirondack Park, the Adirondack Park Agency administers both the Freshwater Wetlands Act and the APA Act. The Freshwater Wetlands Act regulates only wetlands which are equal to or greater than 12.4 acres in size or which are of"unusual local importance" and have been so designated. It also regulates a 100-foot-wide buffer adjacent to these wetlands. Other state laws that may apply to activities in or near wetlands include the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act, the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, and the Use and Protection of Waters Program. In addition, the New York Uniform Procedures Act applies to procedural aspects of the review and permitting process. Also, the DEC administers the Water Quality Certification program pertaining to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which requires state certification that federal permits meet state water quality standards. Local Regulations Z'ariabihu of Local Ordinances Many local governments in New York have their own wetland protection ordinances or provisions in their other ordinances that regulate activities proposed in or near wetlands. In Westchester County, 30 of the county's 43 municipalities regulate freshwater wetlands at the local level (for more information on municipal wetland ordinances, see the District's "Wetland Protection in Westchester County: A Sur of Municipal Wetland Ordinances," revised May 1997). All of these regulate under Municipal Hc...., Rule authority. But because there is considerable variation in the provisions of these local regulations, it II-67 is necessary to contact the appropriate local government agency to determine the local provisions that affect a particular wetland. In some cases, local regulations may cover wetlands not covered by state and federal regulations, and may be more restrictive than those of state or federal regulations. If local laws are less restrictive, projects must still comply with state and federal laws Wetlands also may be indirectly regulated by additional ordinances, such as sensitive areas or clearing and grading ordinances. Special analysis and review may be required for projects affecting wetlands covered by local sensitive areas ordinances. Such policies and regulations may regulate wetlands and/or activities that are not covered under state and federal laws. Other local mechanisms that may be used to regulate development affecting wetlands include comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and flood plain management regulations. Local planning and public works agencies can assist project sponsors in determining local requirements. Local Adoption_f State Regulations As of 1975, the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law) allows local governments to assume jurisdiction for regulating wetlands wholly or partially within their boundaries. Local wetland protection laws or ordinances may simply adopt the state law, or may strengthen the law (for example, by protecting smaller wetland areas). However, no local law or ordinance that is adopted pursuant to the act can be less protective of wetlands than the act. To date, three local governments, all outside of Westchester County, have taken over the state program. MODEL ORDINANCE Municipal Home Rule Authority The District's model ordinance recommends that municipalities regulate all wetlands within their jurisdiction pursuant to Municipal Home Rule authority rather than Article 24 of the ECL (Freshwater Wetlands Act). This approach maximizes the effectiveness of local wetland protection by giving municipalities more control over how wetlands are regulated within their boundaries, including their authority over wetlands not regulated by the state. It also allows municipalities and the State to both regulate activities in state-designated wetlands. However, municipalities may elect not to regulate activities within state-designated wetlands and may do so by drafting a wetlands definition that specifically excludes the definition used under Article 24 of the ECL; in this case, the review of activities within or near state-designated wetlands would be under the sole jurisdiction of the New York State DEC (and federal laws, as applicable). On the other hand, municipalities may assume regulatory authority over State-designated wetlands from the DEC pursuant to Article 24 of the ECL by adopting local laws which incorporate specific provisions set by the State (see Appendix A). To assume this authority, local governments must demonstrate to the State adequate technical, administrative and enforcement capabilities to carry out the state program. To date, no local government in Westchester County has assumed this authority. In general, the criteria and standards set forth in this ordinance are more stringent than those set forth by the state, and these standards should result in a local decision acceptable to the latter authority. Furthermore, by continuing to regulate pursuant to Municipal Home Rule authority, municipalities are not required to adopt the Classification System and Minimum Land Use Regulations set by the state. II-68 These requirements, while useful and appropriate for regional wetland management whose perspective is broad, do not adequately reflect local issues and concerns as well as the diminishing wetland base wit] Westchester's suburban and urban areas. Wetland Definition The technical definition of wetlands presented in this document is based on a methodology developed by four federal agencies - Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. The methodology is contained in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989). It requires consideration of three parameters in establishing wetland boundaries: vegetation, soils, and hydrology. It also addresses certain conditions which may warrant the consideration of only two parameters. The District believes that this method of defining wetlands will result in the most objective and comprehensive delineation of these systems, and therefore maximize the potential for effective regulation. Structure of Model Ordinance This document is arranged in two sections. In the first, the text of the "model ordinance" is presented on right-hand pages and is accompanied by "explanatory notes" on each left-hand page. Of special note is the presentation on mitigation policy (Section 5.5), which outlines mitigation plan requirements in an effort to standardize mitigation proposals. Also, Section 5.4 sets specific standards for permit decisions to guide regulatory boards in reviewing and ruling on permit applications. The second section, Appendix A, outlines the changes to be made to the model ordinance if municipalities decide to regulate pursuant `- Article 24 of the ECL rather than Municipal Home Rule. This section also lists the major references u: in drafting this model municipal ordinance. SECTION 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND INTENT 1.1 Findings of Fact In their natural state, wetlands serve multiple functions, including: 1. removing pollutants from surface waters by trapping sediment, removing nutrients and detoxifying chemicals; 2. recharging ground water, including aquifers, and surface waters, thereby maintaining stream flows needed by plants and animals to survive; 3. controlling flooding by storing and then slowly releasing stormwater runoff, 4. stabilizing shorelines by protecting against erosion caused by stream currents and waves; 5. providing unique or essential habitat for diverse fish and wildlife species, including many of those on the New York State and federal lists of special concern, threatened, rare and endangered species; 6. supporting unique vegetative associations specifically adapted for survival in low oxyb,_.. environments and/or brackish or salt water, II-69 7. providing areas of unusually high plant productivity which support wildlife diversity and abundance; 8. providing open space and visual relief from intense development in urbanized and growing areas; 9. providing recreational opportunities, including fishing, hunting, nature study, hiking and wildlife watching; and 10. serving as outdoor laboratories and living classrooms for the study and application of biological, natural and physical sciences. Considerable acreage of these important natural resources has been lost or impaired by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, building, polluting, and other acts inconsistent with the natural uses of such areas. Wetland losses in New York State and Westchester County are estimated to be greater than 60 percent of the total original wetland acreage. Remaining wetlands are in jeopardy of being lost, despoiled, or impaired by such acts, contrary to public safety and welfare. It is therefore the policy of the Municipality to protect its citizens, including generations yet unborn, by preventing the despoliation and destruction of wetlands and watercourses while taking into account varying ecological, water quality, economic, recreational, and aesthetic values. Activities that may damage the functions or cause the loss of wetlands and watercourses should be avoided and, where avoidance is not practicable, minimized to the fullest practicable extent. Any remaining impact to the functions and benefits of wetlands and watercourses and any loss of wetlands should then be compensated by restoring or creating wetlands. 1.2 Intent It is the intent of the Municipality that activities in and around wetlands and watercourses conform with all applicable building codes, sediment control regulations, and other regulations, and that such activities not threaten public safety, the natural environment, or cause nuisances by: 1. impeding flood flows, reducing flood storage areas or destroying storm barriers, thereby resulting in increased flood heights, frequencies, or velocities on other lands; 2. increasing water pollution through location of domestic waste disposal systems in wet soils; inappropriate siting of stormwater control facilities; unauthorized application of fertilizers; pesticides; herbicides and algicides; disposal of solid wastes at inappropriate sites; creation of unstabilized fills; or the destruction of wetland soils and vegetation serving pollution and sediment control functions; 3. increasing erosion; 4. decreasing breeding, nesting, and feeding areas for many species of waterfowl and shorebirds, including those rare and endangered; 5. interfering with the exchange of nutrients needed by fish and other forms of wildlife; 6. decreasing habitat for fish and other forms of wildlife; II-70 7. adversely altering the recharge or discharge functions of wetlands, thereby impacting groi water or surface water supplies; 8. significantly altering the wetland hydroperiod and thereby causing either short- or long-term changes in vegetational composition, soils characteristics, nutrient recycling, or water chemistry, 9. destroying sites needed for education and scientific research, such as outdoor biophysical laboratories, living classrooms, and training areas; 10. interfering with public rights in navigable waters and the recreation opportunities provided by wetlands for fishing, boating, hiking, bird watching, photography, camping, and other passive uses; or 11. destroying or damaging aesthetic and property values, including significant public vistas. SECTION 2: APPLICABILITY AND NON-CONFORMING ACTIVITIES 2.1 Wetlands and Wetland Buffers: New Projects This ordinance shall apply to all land defined as Wetland, Watercourse or Wetland/Watercourse Buffer in Section 3 and to any proposed regulated activity as defined in Section 4.2 except any land use, improvement or development for which final approval shall have been obtained prior to the effective date of this ordinance from the local governmental authority or authorities having jurisdiction over such land use and as further defined in Section 2.3. 2.2 Rules for Establishing and Interpreting Wetland Boundaries The boundaries of a wetland or watercourse ordinarily shall be determined by field investigation, flagging, and subsequent survey by a licensed land surveyor unless the last is waived by the Approval Authority. The Approval Authority may consult, and/or may require the Applicant to consult with wetland scientists, biologists, hydrologists, soil scientists, ecologists/botanists, or other experts as necessary to make this determination. 2.3 Grandfathered Projects The provisions of this local law shall not apply to any land use, improvement or development for which final approval shall have been obtained prior to the effective date of this ordinance from the local governmental authority or authorities having jurisdiction over such land use. As used in this section, the term "final approval" shall mean: 1. in the case of the subdivision of land, conditional approval of a final plat; 2. in the case of a site plan not involving the subdivision of land, approval by the appropriate body or office of a village, town or city of the site plan; and 3. in those cases not covered by subdivision (1) or (2) above, the issuance of a building permit or other authorization for the commencement of the use, improvement or development for which such permit or authorization was issued or in those local governments which do not require such permits or authorizations, the actual commencement of the use, improvement or II-71 development of the land. 2.4 Current Projects and Non-conforming Activities A regulated activity that was approved prior to passage of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following: 1. All such activities shall continue to be governed by the present laws of the Municipality. 2. No such activity shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in such a way that increases its non-conformity without a permit. 3. If a non-conforming activity is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive months, any resumption of the activity shall conform to this ordinance. 4. If any non-conforming use or activity is destroyed by human activities or a natural catastrophe, it shall not be resumed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. 5. Activities or adjuncts thereof that are or become nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as non-conforming activities. SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS Words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted as defined below, and where ambiguity exists, words or phrases shall be interpreted so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application in carrying out the regulatory goals stated in Section L ADJACENT AREA: See "Wetland/Watercourse Buffer." AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY: The activity of an individual farmer or other landowner in: grazing and watering livestock; making reasonable use of water resources for agricultural purposes; harvesting the natural products of wetlands, excluding peat mining and timber harvesting; and selective cutting of trees. Agricultural activity does not mean clear cutting of trees; filling or deposition of spoil; mining; or draining for growing agricultural products or for other purposes. APPLICANT: A person who files an application for permit under this local law and who is either the owner of the land on which the proposed regulated activity would be located, a contract vendee, a lessee of the land, the person who would actually control and direct the proposed activity, or the authorized agent of such person. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: The municipal or administrative board or public official or municipal employee empowered to grant or deny permits under this local law, to require the posting of bonds as necessary, and to revoke or suspend a permit where lack of compliance to the permit is established. The Approval Authority for II-72 the Municipality is AQUICULTURE: Cultivating and harvesting products, including fish and vegetation, that are produced naturally in freshwater wetlands, and installing cribs, racks, and other in-water structures for cultivating these products; but does not include filling, dredging, peat mining, clear cutting, or the construction of any buildings or any water-regulating structures such as dams. BOUNDARY OF A WETLAND: The outer limit of the soils and/or vegetation as defined under "Wetland/Freshwater Wetland." 4. CLEAR CUTTING: Any cutting of more than 30 percent of trees six (6) inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh) over any 10-year cutting cycle as determined on the basis of wetland area per lot or group of lots under single ownership, including any cutting of trees which results in the total removal of one or more naturally occurring species, whether or not the cut meets or exceeds the 30 percent threshold. COMMISSIONER: The Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York. CREATION: To construct a new wetland, often by excavating and/or flooding land not previously occupied by a wetland. DAMS AND WATER CONTROL MEASURES: Barriers used, or intended to, or which, even though not intended in fact do, obstruct the flow of water or raise, lower, or maintain the level of water. DATE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION BY APPROVAL AUTHORITY: An application shall be deemed "Received" by the Approval Authority on the date of the first regular meeting of the Approval Authority following the filling of the application and supporting plans pursuant to the provisions of this law. DEPOSIT: To fill grade, discharge, emit, dump, or place any material or the act thereof. DISCHARGE: The emission of any water, substance, or material into a wetland or wetland buffer whether to not such substance causes pollution. DOMINANT(S) or DOMINANCE: A dominant species is either the predominant plant species (i.e. the only species dominating a vegetative unit) or a co-dominant species (i.e. when two or more species dominate a vegetative unit). Dominant species are considered to be those with 20 percent or more areal coverage in the plant community. The measures of spatial extent are percent areal cover for all vegetation units other than trees, and basal area for trees. In this ordinance, dominance refers to the spatial extent of a vegetative species because spatial extent is directly discernible or measurable in the field. II-73 DRAIN: To deplete or empty of water by drawing off by degrees or in increments. DREDGE: To excavate or remove sediment, soil, mud, sand, shells, gravel, or other aggregate. EXCAVATE: To dig out and remove any material from a wetland, watercourse or wetland/watercourse buffer. FACULTATIVE SPECIES: Vegetative species that can occur in both upland and wetland systems. There are three subcategories of facultative species: facultative wetland, straight facultative, facultative upland. Under natural conditions, a facultative wetland species is usually (estimated probability of 67 percent to 99 percent) found in wetlands, but occasionally in uplands; a straight facultative species has basically a similar likelihood (estimated probability of 34 percent to 66 percent) of occurring in both wetlands and uplands; a facultative upland species is usually (estimated probability of 67 percent to 99 percent) found in uplands, but occasionally in wetlands. FERROUS IRON: The reduced form of iron found in waterlogged soils. FILL: See"Deposit." FRESHWATER WETLANDS MAP: The final freshwater wetlands maps for Westchester county promulgated by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to subdivision 24-0301.5 of the New York State Freshwater Wetland Act, or such map as has been amended or adjusted, and on which are indicated the approximate locations of the actual boundaries of wetlands regulated pursuant to Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law. GRADING: To adjust the degree of inclination of the natural contours of the land, including leveling, smoothing, and other modification of the natural land surface. GROWING SEASON: The portion of the year when soil temperatures are above biologic zero (5 degrees C); the growing season for Westchester County is March through October. HISTOSOLS/ORGANIC SOILS: A taxonomic order composed or organic soils (mostly peats and mucks) that have organic materials in over half the upper 32 inches unless the depth to rock or to fragmented rock materials is less than 32 inches (a rare condition), or the bulk density is very low, and as further defined under"Wetland." HYDRIC SOIL: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part and as further defined under"Wetland." II-74 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: Macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. LONG DURATION: A duration class referring to flooding or inundation in which inundation for a single event ranges from 7 days to 1 month. MATERIAL: Liquid, solid, or gaseous substances including but not limited to soil, silt, gravel, rock, clay, peat, mud, debris, and refuse; any organic or inorganic compound, chemical agent or matter; sewage sludge or effluent; or industrial or municipal solid waste. MICROSITE: A small site supporting facultative or obligate vegetation anomalous within the context of the larger vegetative unit. Microsites may be drier or wetter than surrounding areas as a result of altered drainage, incidental topographic variation or a related characteristic. MINERAL SOIL: A soil consisting predominantly of, and having its properties determined predominantly by, mineral matter. Mineral soils usually contain less than 20 percent organic matter by weight. MITIGATION PLAN: The plan prepared by the Applicant pursuant to Section 5.5 when the Applicant has demonstrated that either losses or impacts to the wetland or wetland buffer are necessary and unavoidable as defined in Section 5.4.4 and have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. MUNICIPALITY: The (Town/Village/City) of MUNSELL SOIL COLOR CHARTS: A soil color designation system that specifies the relative degree of the three simple variables of color: hue, value, and chroma, produced by the Kollmorgen Corporation, 1992, or as amended or updated from time to time. OBLIGATE UPLAND SPECIES: Plant species that, under natural conditions, always occur in uplands (i.e. greater than 99 percent of the time). The less than 1 percent difference allows for anomalous upland occurrences (i.e. occurrences that are the result of human-induced disturbances and transplants). Obligate wetland species for New York State are listed in "Wetland Plants of the State of New York 1986" published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the National and Regional Wetland Plant List Review Panels and as updated from time to time. PERMIT: That form of written Municipal approval required by this law for the conduct of a regulated activity within a wetland, watercourse or wetland/watercourse buffer. II-75 PERSON: See "Applicant." POLLUTION: Any harmful thermal effect or the contamination or rendering unclean or impure of any wetland or waters by reason of erosion, or by any waste or other materials discharged or deposited therein. PROJECT: Any proposed or ongoing action which may result in direct or indirect physical or chemical impact on a wetland, including but not limited to any regulated activity. REMOVE: To dig, dredge, suck, bulldoze. dragline, blast, or otherwise excavate or grade, or the act thereof. RENDERING UNCLEAN OR IMPURE: Any alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of any wetland or waters including but not limited to change in odor, color, turbidity, or taste. RESTORATION: To reclaim a disturbed or degraded wetland to bring back one or more functions that have been partially or completely lost by such actions as draining or filling. SELECTIVE CUTTING: Any cutting of trees within the boundaries of a wetland or wetland/watercourse buffer that is not "Clear Cutting" as defined in this Section. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA): The law pursuant to Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law providing for environmental quality review of actions which may have a significant effect on the environment. STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on or in the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground, including but not limited to buildings, tennis courts, and swimming pools. SUBDIVISION: Any division of land into two or more lots, parcels or sites, whether adjoining or not, for the purpose of sale, lease, license or any form of separate ownership or occupancy, including any grading, road construction, installation of utilities, or other modifications or any other land use and development preparatory or incidental to any such division, by any person or by any other person controlled by, under common control with, or controlling such person, or by any group of persons acting in concert as part of a common scheme or plan. "Subdivision" of land shall include any map, plat or other plan of division of land, whether or not previously filed. "Subdivision' of land shall not include the lease of land for open space recreational use and shall not include the division of land by bona fide gift, devise or inheritance. "Subdivision' shall include the creation of units in the condominium form of ownership and the creation of leaseholds in a cooperative. II-76 VERY LONG DURATION: A duration class referring to flooding or inundation in which inundation for a single event is greater than 1 month. WATER TABLE: The zone of saturation at the highest average depth during the wettest season. WATERCOURSE: Any natural or artificial, intermittent, seasonal or permanent, and public or private water body or watercourse. A water body is intermittently, seasonally or permanently inundated with water and contains a discernible shoreline and includes ponds, lakes and reservoirs. A watercourse includes rivulets, brooks, creeks, streams, rivers and other waterways flowing in a definite channel with bed and banks and usually in a particular direction. WETLAND/FRESHWATER WETLAND: Any area which meets one or more of the following criteria: Lands and waters of the State that meet the definition provided in subdivision 24- 0107.1 of the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24 and title 23 of Article 71 of the Environmental Conservation Law) and have an area of at least 12.4 acres or, if smaller, have unusual local importance as determined by the Commissioner pursuant to subdivision 24-0301.1 of the Act. The approximate boundaries of such lands and waters are indicated on the official freshwater wetlands map promulgated by the Commissioner pursuant to subdivision 24-0301.5 of the Act, or such a map that has been amended or adjusted pursuant to section 24- 0301.6 of this Title. All areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation as defined by the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (January 1989) prepared by the Federal Interagency Committee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. WETLAND/WATERCOURSE BUFFER: The wetland/watercourse buffer is a specified area surrounding a wetland or watercourse that is intended to provide some degree of protection to the wetland or watercourse from human activity and other encroachment associated with development. The wetland buffer shall be subject to the regulations for wetlands as defined in this ordinance and shall be determined to be the area extending 100 feet horizontally away from and paralleling the outermost boundary of a wetland and/or point of mean high water of a watercourse, or greater than 100 feet where designated by either the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or the local Approval Authority. WETLAND HYDROLOGY: The sum total of wetness characteristics in areas that II-77 are inundated or have saturated soils for a sufficient duration to support hydrophytic vegetation. WETLAND PLANTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: In the National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands: Northeast (1988), the list of facultative and obligate upland and wetland plant species with appropriate indicator status developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, for the National Wetland Inventory, as amended and updated from time to time. WETLAND SCIENTIST: A person having special knowledge by reason of education and work experience in natural, physical and biological sciences related to the identification, assessment and management of wetlands to a degree acceptable to the Approval Authority. SECTION 4: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS No regulated activity shall be conducted in a wetland or wetland buffer without a written permit from the Approval Authority and full compliance with the terms of this ordinance or other applicable regulations. All activities that are not permitted as-of-right or by permit shall be prohibited. 4.1 Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted as-of-right within a wetland or wetland buffer to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other ordinance, and to the extent that they do not constitute a pollution or erosion hazard or interfere with proper drainage; and provided they do not require structures, grading, fill, draining, or dredging except as authorized by permit: 1. normal ground maintenance including mowing, trimming of vegetation and removal of dead or diseased vegetation around a residence; 2. selective cutting as defined in Section 3; 3. repair of walkways and walls, 4. decorative landscaping and planting in wetland buffers, excluding those activities regulated in Sections 4.2(11) and 4.2(12)l- 5. .2(12);5. public health activities, orders, and regulations of the Westchester County Department of Health and/or the New York State Department of Health for emergencies only; 6. deposition or removal of natural products of wetlands in the process of recreational or commercial fishing, shellfishing, aquiculture, hunting or trapping, but excluding excavation and removal of peat or timber, except as provided in Section 4.1.2; 7. agricultural activities as defined in Section 3, but shall not include grazing or watering of livestock used only for recreational activities (e.g., horseback riding) or livestock not directly associated with farm-related activities. 4.2 Regulated Activities 11-78 Regulated activities include all activities within a wetland, watercourse or wetland/watercourse buffer, other than those specified in Section 4.1, and may be permitted upon written application to the Approval Authority. Regulated activities include, but are not limited to: 1. placement or construction of any structure; 2. any form of drainage, dredging, excavation, or removal of material either directly or indirectly; 3. any form of dumping, filling, or depositing of material either directly or indirectly; 4. installation of any service lines or cable conduits; 5. introduction of any form of pollution, including but not limited to the installation of a septic tank, the running of a sewer outfall, or the discharging of sewage treatment effluent or other liquid wastes into or so as to drain into a wetland; 6. alteration or modification of natural features and contours; 7. alteration or modification of natural drainage patterns; 8. construction of dams, docks, or other water control devices, pilings or bridges, whether or not they change the natural drainage characteristics, 9. installation of any pipes or wells; 10. clear cutting of any area of trees; 11. removal or cutting of any vegetation except as permitted in Section 4.1.2; 12. deposition or introduction of organic or inorganic chemicals within a wetland or watercourse, including herbicides and pesticides regulated pursuant to Article 33 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law and Section 608 of the New York Public Health Law; 13. grazing or watering of livestock used for recreational activities or livestock not directly associated with farm-related activities, and any agricultural activity which involves filling, draining or excavation of a wetland, except as permitted in Section 4.1.7; 14. any other activity that may impair the natural function(s) of a wetland as described in Section 1 of this ordinance. SECTION 5: STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS 5.1 Procedures for Permits 1. No regulated activity shall be conducted without an issuance of a written permit from the Approval Authority. Application for a permit shall be made in duplicate to the Approval Authority on forms furnished by the Municipal Clerk. 2. The Approval Authority shall establish a mailing list of all interested persons and agencies who wish to be notified of such applications. Upon receipt of the completed application, the Approval Authority shall notify the individuals and agencies, including Federal, State, and local agencies having jurisdiction over or an interest in the subject matter, to provide such individuals and agencies with an opportunity to comment. II-79 3. An application shall not be deemed complete until and unless an Applicant has complied fully with the procedures of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law). 4. All permits shall expire on completion of the acts specified and, unless otherwise indicated, shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issue. An extension of an original permit may be granted upon written request to the Approval Authority by the original permit holder or his/her legal agent at least 90 days prior to the expiration date of the original permit. The Approval Authority may require new hearings if, in its judgment, the original intent of the permit is altered or extended by the renewal, or if the Applicant has failed to abide by the terms of the original permit in any way. The request for renewal of a permit shall follow the same form and procedure as the original application except that the Approval Authority shall have the option of not holding a hearing if the original intent of the permit is not altered or extended in any significant way. 5. Within five (5) days of its receipt of a completed application for a permit, the Approval Authority shall provide the Applicant with a Notice of Application which the Applicant shall publish at his or her own expense at least once in each of at least two newspapers having a general circulation in the Municipality. Said Notice of Application shall be in a form prescribed by the Approval Authority and shall: a. specify that persons wishing to object to the application should file a notice of objection by a specified date, together with a statement of the grounds of objection to the application, with the Approval Authority; b. specify that the application, including all documents and maps therewith, is available for public inspection at the office of the Clerk of the Municipality. 5.2 Permit Applications 1. Prior to any person proposing to conduct or causing to be conducted a regulated activity ad defined in Section 4.2, shall file an application for a permit with the Approval Authority together with a filing fee. All permit applications must include the following information: a. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant and/or owner (if the applicant is not the owner, the written consent of the owner must be attached), b. Street address and tax map designation of the property; C. Statement of proposed work and purpose thereof, and an explanation why the proposed activity cannot be located at another site, including an explanation of how the proposed activity is dependent on wetlands or other water resource(s); d. A list of the names of the owners of record of lands adjacent to the wetland or watercourse and wetland/watercourse buffer in which the project is to be undertaken, and the names of known claimants of water rights, of whom the applicant has notice, which I1-80 relate to any land within or within one hundred (100) feet of the boundary of the property on which the proposed regulated activity would be located; f. Complete plans and estimates for the proposed site improvements, which shall be certified by an engineer, architect, land surveyor, or landscape architect licensed in the State of New York, drawn to a scale no less detailed than one inch equals forty (40) feet, and showing the following: (1) the boundaries of all wetlands as defined herein and as determined by a qualified wetland scientist no longer than 12 months prior to the date of filing the application; (2) a description of the vegetative cover of the regulated area, including dominant species; (3) a description of the on-site soil types, including ground water table elevations showing depth to water table and direction of flow and hydrologic connections with surface water features; (4) location of the construction area or area proposed to be disturbed, and its relation to property lines, roads, buildings, and watercourses within 250 feet of the proposed activity; (5) the exact locations and specifications for all proposed draining, filling, grading, dredging, and vegetation removal, including the amount computed from cross-sections, and the procedures to be used; (6) location of any well(s) and depth(s) thereof, and any disposal system within 50 feet of area(s) to be disturbed, (7) existing and proposed contours at two (2)-foot intervals in all proposed areas to be disturbed areas and to a distance of 50 feet beyond; at the discretion of the Approval Authority, the existing contours of the remaining portion of the site owned or controlled by the applicant or owner at contour intervals of no greater than 5 feet; (8) details of any drainage system proposed both for the conduct of work, and after completion thereof, including locations at any point discharges, artificial inlets, or other human-made conveyances which would discharge into the wetland or wetland buffer, and measures proposed to control erosion both during and after the work; (9) where creation of a lake or pond is proposed, details of the construction of any dams, embankments, outlets or other water control devices; and analysis of the wetland hydrologic system, including seasonal water fluctuation, inflow/outflow calculations, and subsurface soil, geology, and groundwater conditions; (10) where creation of a detention basin is proposed, with or without excavation, details of the construction of any dams, berms, embankments, outlets, or other water control devices, and an analysis of the wetland hydrologic system, including seasonal water II-81 fluctuation, inflow/outflow calculations, and subsurface soil, geology, and groundwater conditions; (11) details of erosion and sediment control practices, including a diagram showing what and where erosion and sediment controls practices will be implemented and a schedule for their installation and maintenance; (12) a completed Environmental Assessment Form as required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. 2. The Approval Authority may require additional information as needed such as the study of flood, erosion, or other hazards at the site and the effect of any protective measures that might be taken to reduce such hazards; and other information deemed necessary to evaluate the proposed use in terms of the goals and standards of this ordinance. 3. An application fee shall be charged according to the following schedule and shall be presented at the time the application is filed: a. Residential Uses $XXX b. Commercial Uses $XXX C. All Other Uses $XXX In the event that an application requires the Municipality to incur additional expenses for technical assistance in the review of an application, the applicant shall pay the reasonable expenses incurred by the Municipality. The applicant shall be notified of the expenses and shall deposit said necessary funds prior to the cost being incurred. 4. All information relating to a permit application, including but not limited to the application itself, additional required materials or information, notices, record of hearings, written comments, and findings shall be maintained on file in the office of the Clerk of the Municipality. 5. The Approval Authority, its agents or employees, may enter upon any lands or waters for good cause shown for the purpose of undertaking any investigations, examination, survey, or other activity for the purposes of this ordinance. 5.3 Public Hearings The Approval Authority shall hold a public hearing on the application at such time as it deems appropriate, in order to give the public at least fifteen days notice thereof. It shall publish notice thereof in each of at least two newspapers having a general circulation in the Municipality, and give at least fifteen (15) days notice to each of the persons named in the application pursuant to Item (e) of Subsection 5.2(1) of the information required therein. Insofar as possible, any public hearing on the application shall be integrated with any public hearing required or otherwise held pursuant to any other law, including the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Any hearing may be held by the Approval Authority or by a hearing officer designated by the Approval Authority. 11-82 All hearings shall be open to the public and a full and complete record of each hearing shall be made. The record of any hearing shall become part of the permanent record of a permit application as specified in Section 5.2.4. Any party may present evidence and testimony at the hearing. At the hearing, the Applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed activity will be in accord with the goals and policies of this ordinance and the standards set forth below. 5.4 Standards for Permit Decisions 1. In granting, denying, or conditioning any permit, the Approval Authority shall evaluate wetland functions and the role of the wetland in the hydrologic and ecological system in which it is part, and shall determine the impact of the proposed activity upon public health, safety and welfare, flora and fauna, water quality, and additional wetland functions listed in Section 1 of this ordinance. In this determination, it shall consider the following factors, and shall issue written findings with respect to: a. the direct and indirect impact(s) of the proposed activity, and existing and reasonably anticipated similar activities, upon neighboring land uses and wetland functions as set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance, including but not limited to the: (1) infilling of a wetland or other modification of natural topographic contours; (2) disturbance or destruction of natural flora and fauna; (3) influx of sediments or other materials causing increased water turbidity or substrate aggradation; (4) removal or disturbance of wetland soils; (5) reduction in wetland ground or surface water supply; (6) interference with wetland water circulation; (7) damaging reduction or increase in wetland nutrients; (8) influx of toxic chemicals and/or heavy metals; (9) damaging thermal changes in the wetland water supply; and (10) destruction of natural aesthetic values. b. any existing wetland impact(s) and the cumulative effect of reasonably anticipated future activities in or adjacent to the wetland subject to the application; c. the impact of the proposed activity and reasonably anticipated similar activities upon flood flows, flood storage, shoreline protection, and water quality; d. the safety of the proposed activity from flooding, erosion, hurricane winds, soil limitations, and other hazards, and possible losses to the Applicant and subsequent purchasers of the land; e. the adequacy of water supply and waste disposal for the proposed use, f. consistence with Federal, State, County and municipal comprehensive land II-83 use plans, and regulations; g. the availability of preferable alternative locations on the subject parcel or, in the case of an activity which cannot be undertaken on the property without disturbance to wetlands, the availability of other reasonable locations for the activity whether or not such locations are under the ownership or control of the Applicant; and h. the demonstration by the applicant that any direct and indirect impact(s) has/ have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable and that any remaining unavoidable direct and indirect impact(s) has/have been minimized to the extent practicable. 2. The Approval Authority shall deny a permit if: a. the proposed activity may threaten public health, safety or welfare, result in fraud, cause nuisances, impair public rights to the enjoyment and use of public lands and waters, threaten a rare or endangered plant or animal species, violate pollution control standards, or violate any other local, State or Federal regulations or laws; or b. it finds that the detriment to the public, measured by the factors listed in this Section, that would occur on issuance of the permit outweighs the non-monetary public benefits associated with the activity; or c. both the affected landowner and the local government have been notified by a duly filed notice in writing that the State or any agency or political subdivision of the State is in the process of acquiring any freshwater wetland by negotiation or condemnation with the following provisions: (1) The written notice must include an indication that the acquisition process has commenced, such as that an appraisal of the property has been prepared or is in the process of being prepared. (2) If the landowner receives no offer for the property within one year of the permit denial, this ban to the permit lapses. If its negotiations with the applicant are broken off, the State or any agency or political subdivision must, within six months of the end of negotiation, either issue its findings and determination to acquire the property pursuant to Section 204 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law or issue a determination to acquire the property without public hearing pursuant to Section 206 of the General Domain Procedure Law, or this ban to permit lapses. 3. Preference will be given to activities that must have a shoreline or wetland location to function and that will have as little impact as possible upon the wetland, watercourse and/or wetland/watercourse buffer. In general, permission will not be granted for dredging or ditching solely for the purpose of draining wetlands, controlling mosquitoes, creating ponds, providing spoil and dump sites, or building roads or structures that may be located elsewhere. The regulated activity must, to the extent feasible, be confined to the portion of a lot outside of a wetland and wetland buffer. All reasonable measures must be taken to minimize direct and indirect impacts upon the wetland. II-84 4. The Approval Authority shall require preparation of a mitigation plan by the applicant pursuant to Section 5.5 when the Applicant has demonstrated that wetland and wetland buffer impacts are necessary and unavoidable and have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. In the evaluation of the least environmentally-damaging, practicable alternatives, mitigation may not be used as a means of reducing environmental impacts; a mitigation wetland is designed to replace lost wetland acreage and functions. For the purposes of this ordinance, wetland impacts are necessary and unavoidable only if all of the following criteria are satisfied: a. the proposed activity is compatible with the public health and welfare; b. there is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed activity, including reduction in density, change in use, revision of road and lot layout, relocation, elimination or consolidation of proposed structures, and/or related site planning considerations that could accomplish the Applicant's objectives; and c. there is no feasible alternative to the proposed activity on another site that is not a wetland or wetland/watercourse buffer. 5.5 Mitigation Policy, Plan Requirements 1. After it has been determined by the Approval Authority pursuant to Section 5.4.4 that impacts to wetland or wetland/watercourse buffer are necessary and unavoidable and have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable, the Applicant shall develop a mitigation plan which shall specify mitigation measures that provide for replacement wetland that recreates as nearly as possible the original wetland in terms of type, functions, geographic location and setting, and that is larger, by a ratio of at least 1.5 to 1.0, than the original wetland. On-site mitigation shall be the preferred approach. Off-site mitigation shall be permitted only in cases where on-site alternatives are not possible; in these instances, emphasis should be placed on mitigation within the same general watershed as the original wetland. 2. Mitigation may take the following forms, either singularly or in combination, for disturbances in wetland/watercourse buffers and wetlands: For disturbance in a uwland'watercourse buffer: a. implementation of preventative practices to protect the natural condition and functions of the wetland; and/or b. restoration or enhancement (e.g., improving the density and diversity of native woody plant species) of remaining or other upland buffer to offset the impacts to the original buffer. For disturbance in a vvetlan a. restoration of areas of significantly disturbed or degraded wetlands at a ratio of at least 1.5 (restored wetland) to 1.0 (impacted wetland) by reclaiming significantly II-85 disturbed or degraded wetland to bring back one or more of the functions that have been partially or completely lost by such actions as draining or filling, provided the area of proposed mitigation occurs in a confirmed disturbed or degraded wetland having significantly lesser functional values as a result of disturbance or degradation; and/or b. the in-kind replacement of impacted wetland by the construction of new wetland, usually by flooding or excavating lands that were not previously occupied by a wetland, that recreates as nearly as possible the original wetland in terms of type, functions, geographic location and setting, and that is larger than, by a ratio of at least 1.5 to 1.0, the original wetland. 3. The Approval Authority shall monitor, or shall cause to have monitored, projects, according to the specifications set forth in the permit, to determine whether the elements of the mitigation plan and permit conditions have been satisfied and whether the restored or created wetland function(s) and acreage mitigate the impacted function(s) and acreage. To this end, the Approval Authority may contract with an academic institution, an independent research group, or other qualified professionals at the expense of the Applicant, or may use its own staff expertise. An annual monitoring report prepared by the appropriate monitor shall be submitted to the Approval Authority. Mitigation projects shall be monitored for an appropriate period of time, as determined by the Approval Authority, on a case-by-case basis. Long-term monitoring is generally needed to assure the continued viability of mitigation wetlands. In general, the monitoring period shall be from three to five years. The requirements for monitoring shall be specified in the mitigation plan and shall include, but not be limited to: a. the time period over which compliance monitoring shall occur; b. field measurements to verify the size and location of the impacted wetland area and the mitigation (restored or replacement) wetland area; c. the date of completion of the restoration and/or replacement; and d. field verification of the vegetative, hydrologic, and soils criteria as specified in the mitigation plan and permit. 4. If the Approval Authority requires a mitigation plan pursuant to 5.5(1) hereof, the following shall apply: (1) All mitigation measures shall balance the benefits of regaining new wetland area(s) with the loss to upland (non-wetland) area(s) caused by wetland creation. On-site mitigation shall be the preferred approach; off-site mitigation shall be permitted only in cases where an on-site alternative is not possible and shall emphasize mitigation within the same general watershed. (2) Mitigation plans developed to compensate for the loss of wetland or wetland/watercourse buffer shall include base line data as needed to adequately review the effectiveness of this plan. II-86 (3) Any mitigation plan prepared pursuant to this section and accepted by the Approval Authority shall become part of the permit for the application to conduct a regulated activity. 5. All mitigation plans shall include: (a) A map with sufficient detail and at a scale to be able to determine where the wetland is located and its size, boundaries and topographic features. (b) A narrative which describes goals and specific objectives for the mitigation wetland or wetland/watercourse buffer, including the functions and benefits to be provided and clear performance standards and criteria for assessing project success. (c) A description of the physical, hydrological and ecological characteristics of the impacted wetland and/or wetland/watercourse buffer and proposed restored and/or created wetland and/or buffer in sufficient detail to enable the Approval Authority to determine whether wetland and/or buffer impacts will be permanently mitigated. (d) Details on construction, including- 0 diking, excavation, or other means by which the wetland will be restored or created, including existing and proposed topographic contours, o construction schedule; o measures to control erosion and sedimentation during construction; o plantings: source of stock, procedures for transplanting/seeding the stock, area(s) to be planted, and planting schedule. If vegetation from the wild is to be used, identify the source and measures to prevent introduction of undesirable exotics. o chemicals: if applicable, explain why chemicals will be used and precautions to be taken to minimize their application and protect the wetland and/or watercourse from excessive chemicals. (e) Details on management of the mitigation site, including: o measures to assure persistence of the wetland (e.g., protection against predation by, birds and other animals); o vegetative management; o sediment and erosion control; II-87 o plans for monitoring site during and after construction, including methods and schedule for data collection and provisions for mid-course corrections; o provisions for long-term protection of the site (e.g., permanent conservation easement; o provision for bonding or other financial guarantees. ( A description of the periodic reporting, including at the end of construction, during the monitoring period and at the end of the monitoring period. (g) Idents the name, qualifications and experience of the person(s) implementing the mitigation plan (i.e., contractor who will restore or construct the wetland). 5.6 Permit Conditions 1. Any permit issued pursuant to this ordinance may be issued with conditions. Such conditions may be attached as the Approval Authority deems necessary, and pursuant to Section 5.4.4, to assure the preservation and protection of affected wetlands and to assure compliance with the policy and provisions of this ordinance and the provisions of the Approval Authority's rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this ordinance. 2. Every permit issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be in written form and shall contain the following conditions: a. Work conducted under a permit shall be open to inspection at any time, including weekends and holidays, by the Approval Authority, or their designated representative(s). b. The permit shall expire on a specified date; unless otherwise indicated, the permit shall be valid for one (1)year. c. The permit holder shall notify the Approval Authority, in writing, of the date on which the regulated activity is to begin at least five (5) days in advance of such date. d. The Approval Authority's permit shall be prominently displayed at the project site while the regulated activity authorized by the permit are being undertaken. e. The boundaries of the regulated activity and wetlands and watercourses shall be staked and appropriately marked in the field so as to be clearly visible to those at the project site. 3. The Approval Authority shall set forth in writing in the file it maintains regarding a permit application, its findings and reasons for all conditions attached to any permit. Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited to: I1-88 a. limitations on lot size for any activity; b. limitations on the total portion of any lot or the portion of the wetland on the lot that may be cleared, regraded, filled, drained, excavated or otherwise modified; c. modification of waste disposal and water supply facilities, d. imposition of operation controls, sureties, and deed restrictions concerning future use and subdivision of lands such as preservation of undeveloped areas in open space use, and limitation of vegetation removal; e. dedication of easements to protect wetlands; f. erosion control measures; g. setbacks for structures, fill, excavation, deposit of spoil, and other activities from the wetland; h. modifications in project design to ensure continued ground and surface water supply to the wetland and circulation of waters; and/or i. replanting of wetland vegetation or construction of new wetland areas to replace damaged or destroyed areas. 4. The Approval Authority shall include in the file it maintains regarding a permit application a copy of any mitigation plan prepared pursuant to Section 5.5.4, all comments received pursuant to Section 5.1.5, and a record of any hearing held pursuant to Section 5.3 5, The Approval Authority shall cause notice of its denial, issuance, or conditional issuance of a permit to be published in a daily newspaper having a broad circulation in the area wherein the wetland lies. 5.7 Performance Bond 1. The Approval Authority may require that, prior to commencement of work under any permit issued pursuant to this ordinance, the Applicant or permittee shall post a bond in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to secure compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth in the permit. The particular amount and the conditions of the bond shall be consistent whit the purposes of this ordinance. The bond shall remain in effect until the Approval Authority or its designated agent certifies that the work has been completed in compliance with the terms of the permit and the bond is released by the Approval Authority or a substitute bond is provided. In the vent of a breach of any condition of any such bond, the Approval Authority may institute an action in the Courts upon such bond and prosecute the same to judgment and execution. 2. The Approval Authority shall set forth in writing in the file it keeps regarding a II-89 permit application its findings and reasons for imposing a bond pursuant to this Section. 5.8 Other Laws and Reyulations No permit granted pursuant to this ordinance shall remove an Applicant's obligation to comply in all respects with the applicable provisions of any other Federal, State, or local law or regulation, including but not limited to the acquisition of nay other required permit or approval. 5.9 Suspension or Revocation of Permits 1. The Approval Authority may suspend or revoke a permit in the form of a Stop work Order if it finds that the Applicant or permittee has not complied with any or all of the terms of such permit, has exceeded the authority granted in the permit, or has failed to undertake the project in the manner set forth in the approved application. 2. The Approval Authority shall set forth in writing in the file it keeps regarding a permit application its findings and reasons for revoking or suspending a permit pursuant to this Section. SECTION 6: GENERAL POWERS OF THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY In order to carry out the purposes and provisions of this ordinance, and in addition to the powers specified elsewhere in this law, the Approval Authority shall have the following powers: to adopt, amend, and repeal, after public hearing (except in the case of rules and regulations that relate to the organization or internal management of the Approval Authority) such rules and regulations consistent with this ordinance as it deems necessary to administer this ordinance, and to do any and all things necessary or convenient to carry out the policy and intent of this law; to consult or contract with expert persons or agencies in reviewing a permit application; to hold hearings and subpoena witnesses in the exercise of its powers, functions, and duties provided for by this ordinance. SECTION 7: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES 7.1 Administrative Sanctions 1. Damages Any person who undertakes any wetland activity without a permit issued hereunder, or who violates, disobeys, or disregards any provision of this law or any rule or regulation adopted by the Approval Authority pursuant to this law, shall be liable to the Municipality for civil damages caused by such violation for every such violation. Each consecutive day of the violation will be considered a separate offense. Such civil damages may be recovered in an action brought by the Municipality at the request and in the name of the Approval Authority in any court of competent jurisdiction. II-90 2. Restitution The Municipality shall have the authority, following a hearing before the Approval Authority and on notice to the violator, to direct the violator to restore the affected wetland to its condition prior to violation, insofar as that is possible, within a reasonable time and under the supervision of the Approval Authority or its designate. Further, the Approval Authority shall be able to require an adequate bond in a form and amount approved by the Approval Authority to ensure the restitution of the affected wetland. Any such order of the Approval Authority shall be enforceable in an action brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. Any order issued by the Approval Authority pursuant to this subdivision shall be reviewable in a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the State Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Approval Authority may attach any order issued pursuant to this subdivision to the land records of the Municipality for the property on which the violation occurred. This order shall remain attached to the land records for the duration of the violation; the Approval Authority shall, upon satisfactory removal of the violation, remove the order from the land records. 3. Stop Work Order- Revocation of Permit In the event any person holding a wetlands permit pursuant to this ordinance violates the terms of the permit, fails to comply with any of the conditions or limitations set forth on the permit, exceeds the scope of the activity as set forth in the application, or operates so as to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to wetlands or watercourses, the Approval Authority may suspend or revoke the wetlands permit, as follows: (a) Suspension of a permit shall be by a written Stop Work Order issued by the Approval Authority and delivered to the permittee or his agent, or the person performing the work. The Stop Work Order shall be effective immediately, shall state the specific violations cited, and shall state the conditions under which work may be resumed. A Stop Work Order shall have the effect of suspending all authorizations and permits granted by the town or any agency thereof. The Stop Work Order shall remain in effect until the Approval Authority is satisfied that the permittee has complied with all terms of the subject permit or until a final determination is made by the town board as provided in section (b) contained herein below. (b) No site development permit shall be permanently suspended or revoked until a public hearing is held by the Approval Authority. Written notice of such hearing shall be served on the permittee, either personally or by registered mail, and shall state: i) grounds for complaint or reasons for suspension of revocation in clear and concise language. ii) the time and place of the hearing to be held Such notice shall be served on the permittee at least one week prior to the date set for the public hearing unless the Stop Work Order is issued for a violation occurring less than one week before the next regularly scheduled public meeting of the Approval Authority. At such hearing, the permittee shall be given an opportunity to be heard and may call witnesses and present evidence II-91 on his behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Approval Authority shall determine whether the permit shall be reinstated, suspended or revoked. The term "Person," as used herein, shall mean a natural person or a corporate person. Any offender also may be ordered by the Approval Authority to restore the affected freshwater wetland to its condition prior to the offense, insofar as possible. The Approval Authority shall specify a reasonable time for the completion of such restoration, which shall be effected under the supervision of the Municipality. 7.2 Criminal Sanctions Any person convicted of having violated or disobeyed any provision of this chapter, any order of the Approval Authority or any condition duly imposed by the Approval Authority in a Permit granted pursuant to this Chapter, shall, for the first offense, be punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000,00). For each subsequent offense, such person shall be punishable by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), nor more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00), and/or a term of imprisonment of not more than fifteen (15) days. Each consecutive day of the violation may be considered a separate offense. SECTION 8: ENFORCEMENT The Municipality is specifically empowered to seek injunctive relief restraining any violation or threatened violation of any provisions of this ordinance and/or compel the restoration of the affected wetland or wetland/watercourse buffer to its condition prior to the violation of the provisions of this law. SECTION 9: APPEALS A. Any determination, decision or order of the Approval Authority may be judicially reviewed by the applicant or any other aggrieved party by the commencement of an action pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules within thirty (30) days after the date of the filing of the determination, decision or order of such Approval Authority with the Clerk of the Municipality and/or County. B. In the case of an application decided by an authorized individual or municipal entity other than the Approval Authority, the applicant or any other party aggrieved by such determination may seek review by appealing to the Approval Authority, in which case the Approval Authority shall become the approving authority for such application. Such review shall be requested not later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the subject decision by the said authorized individual or municipal entity. SECTION 10: SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or judgment shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in which it was rendered and shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any part thereof to any other II-92 person or circumstances and to this end the provisions of each section of this law are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 11: AMENDMENTS This ordinance may from time to time be amended in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the general statutes and as new information concerning soils, hydrology, flooding, or botanical species peculiar to wetlands becomes available. Any person may submit in writing in a form prescribed by the Approval Authority a request for a change in the regulations. The request shall be considered at a public hearing held in accordance with the provisions of the general statutes not less than ninety days after receipt of the written request. SECTION 12: ASSESSMENT RELIEF Assessors and boards of assessors shall consider wetland regulations in determining the fair market value of land. Any owner of an undeveloped wetland who has dedicated an easement or entered into a perpetual conservation restriction with the Approval Authority or a nonprofit organization to permanently control some or all regulated activities in the wetland and/or wetland/watercourse buffer shall be assessed consistent with those restrictions. Such landowner also shall be exempted from special assessment on the controlled wetland to defray the cost of municipal improvements such as sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water mains. SECTION 13: EFFECTIVE DATE This law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the office of the Secretary of the State of New York in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law. II-93 APPENDIX A REGULATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 24 AUTHORITY: REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS TO THE DISTRICT MODEL ORDINANCE Municipalities choosing to regulate their freshwater wetlands pursuant to New York State Article 24 authority rather than pursuant to Home Rule Authority as recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation District, should consult the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation "Local Government Implementation of the Wetlands Act" for guidance. This document contains the suggested material content for the technical and administrative capability statement that must be prepared and submitted by the local government, and approved by the State, before Article 24 regulatory authority is granted. To adapt the District's "Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection" for regulation pursuant to Article 24 of the ECL, the following changes must be made to the ordinance: SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS The following definition of"Agricultural Activity" must replace the definition provided in the Model Ordinance (please note that this results in the exemption from regulation of a broad range of activities if they are performed for purposes of agricultural operations); AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY: The activity of an individual farmer or other landowner in: (i) grazing and watering livestock; (ii) making reasonable use of water resources for agricultural purposes; (iii) harvesting the natural products of wetlands; (iv) the selective cutting of trees; (v) the clear-cutting of vegetation, other than trees, for growing agricultural products; (vi) constructing winter truck roads of less than five meters (approximately 16 feet) in width for removing timber cut in accordance with subparagraph (iv) of this paragraph, where construction is limited to cutting vegetation and compacting ice and does not alter water flows; (vii) operating motor vehicles for agricultural purposes; (viii) draining for growing agricultural products; (ix) erecting structures, including fences, required to enhance or maintain the agricultural productivity of the land; (x) using chemicals and fertilizers according to normally accepted agricultural practices, in order to grow crops for human and animal consumption or use, in or adjacent to wetlands, where authorized by other State, Federal, or local laws, including application of stabilized sludge as fertilizer when applied at agronomic loading rates in accordance with a valid 6 NYCRR Part 360 or Part 364 landspreading permit; or (xi) otherwise engaging in the use of wetlands for growing agricultural products such as crops, vegetables, fiuits or flowers; BUT does NOT mean: (a) clear-cutting trees; (b) constructing roads that require moving earth or other aggregate or that alter water flow or in any way deviates from subparagraph (vi) or this paragraph; (c) filling or deposition of spoil, even for agricultural purposes; (d) mining; or (e) erecting structures not required to enhance or maintain the agricultural productivity of the land. SECTION 4: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS A new Section 4.1, "Exempted Uses," must be added, and the existing Sections 4.1 and 4.2 must be changed to 4.2 and 4.3, respectively, and modified as follows: II-94 4.1 Exempted Uses (New Section 4.1) Agricultural activities as defined in Section 3 are not regulated under this ordinance. However, land altered by an agricultural activity after its original designation as a wetland on the official New York State Wetland Maps is still protected under this ordinance and under the New York State Wetlands Act, so that any other activities on that land subsequent to the original designation are subject to the provisions of the Act and this local ordinance. 4.2 Permitted Uses (Revision of original Section 4.1) Delete Item No. 7 which is now covered under 4.1 (Exempted Uses). 4.3 Regulated Activities (Revision of original Section 4.2) Add "and Section 4.2" after "...other than those specified in Section 4.1... Reword Item No. 11 to read "removal or cutting of any vegetation except as permitted in Sections 4.1 and 4.2." Delete Item No. 13 from the existing subsection on "Regulated Activities." SECTION 5: STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PERMITS Add the following as subsection 5.4.5: 5. For regulatory authority of State-designated wetlands pursuant to Article 24, in granting, denying, or modifying permit, the Approval Authority shall apply the standards for permit issuance contained in Section 665.7(e) and (g) of Part 665 of Title 6 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. SECTION 7: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES The following wording should replace the current Sections 7.1 and 7.2: 7.1 Administrative Sanctions (Replaces the original Section 7.1) Any person who violates, disobeys or disregards any provision of Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), including Title 5 and Section 24-0507 thereof or any rule or regulation, local law or ordinance, permit or order issued pursuant thereto, shall be liable to the State for a civil penalty of not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) for every such violation, to be assessed, after a hearing or opportunity to be heard upon due notice and with the rights to specification of the charges and representation by counsel at such hearing, by the Commissioner or Municipality. Such penalty may be recovered in an action brought by the Attorney General at the request and in the name of the Commissioner or Municipality in any court of competent jurisdiction. Such civil penalty may be released or compromised by the Commissioner or Municipality before the matter has been referred to the Attorney General; and II-95 where such matter has been referred to the Attorney General, any such penalty may be released or compromised and any action commenced to recover the same may be settled and discontinued by the Attorney General with the consent of the Commissioner or Municipality. In addition, the Commissioner or Municipality shall have power, following a hearing held in conformance with the procedures set forth in Section 71-1709, to direct the violator to cease his violation of the act and to restore the affected freshwater wetland to its condition prior to the violation, insofar as possible within a reasonable time and under the supervision of the Commissioner or Municipality. Any such order of the Commissioner or Municipality shall be enforceable in an action brought by the Attorney General at the request and in the name of the Commissioner or Municipality in any court of competent jurisdiction. Any civil penalty or order issued by the Commissioner or Municipality pursuant to this subdivision shall be reviewable in a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. 7.2 Criminal Sanctions (Replaces original Section 7.2) Any person who violates any provision of Article 24 of the ECL, including any rules or regulation, local law or ordinance, permit or order issued pursuant thereto, shall, in addition, for the first offense, be guilty of a violation punishable by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000); for a second and each subsequent offense he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or a term of imprisonment of not less than fifteen (15) days nor more than six (6) months or both. Instead of these punishments, any offender may be punishable by being ordered by the court to restore the affected freshwater wetland to its condition prior to the offense, insofar as possible. The court shall specify a reasonable time for the completion of such restoration, which shall be effected under the supervision of the Commissioner or Municipality. Each offense shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense and, in the case of a continuing offense, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. Any ordinance drafted for local government assumption of Article 24 regulatory authority should be submitted for preliminary review to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233. Any such ordinance approved by the municipality must be submitted to the NYS DEC for approval (see 6NYCRR Part 665.4). II-96 REFERENCES Kusler, J.A. 1983. Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guidebook. The Environmental Law Institute, 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC, pp. 131-147. Veneman, P.L. 1986. Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in the northeastern United States: Soils. In, Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: an Assessment of the Science Base (J.S. Larson, C. Neill, eds.), The Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, pp. 115-121. Niering, W.A. and M.L. Kraus. 1986. Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in the northeastern United States: Vegetation. In, Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: an Assessment of the Science Base (J.S. Larson, C. Neill, eds.), The Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, pp. 122-130. Hollands, G.G., G.E. Hollis, and J.S. Larson. 1986. Science base for freshwater wetland mitigation in the glaciated northeastern United States: Hydrology. In, Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern United States: an Assessment of the Science Base (J.S. Larson, C. Neill, eds.), The Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, pp. 130-141. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative Technical Publication. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1993. Freshwater Wetlands Regulation: Guidelines on Compensatory Mitigation. Albany, NY. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1995. Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual. Albany, NY. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. 1993. Wetlands Regulation Guidebook for New York State. Water Management Division, Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch. New York, NY. II-97 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL A MODEL ORDINANCE for EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL Prepared and Published by The Westchester County Soil & Water Conservation District August 1986 II-99 The Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District, created in 1967, is charged with providing for "the prevention of soil erosion, and for the prevention of flood-water and sediment damages and for furthering the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water and thereby to preserve natural resources, assist in the control of floods, assist in the drainage and irrigation of agricultural lands, prevent impairment of dams and reservoirs, assist in the drainage and irrigation of agricultural lands, prevent impairment of dams and reservoirs, assist in maintaining the navigability of rivers and harbors, preserve wildlife, protect the tax base, protect public lands, and protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state." Over the past several years, Westchester County has experienced rapid growth and development. The land disturbing activities associated with construction have caused erosion and sedimentation of wetlands and surface waters due to inadequate environmental controls and monitoring. The consequences of these impacts include pollution of rivers, streams, harbors, and reservoirs; reduced channel capacities of watercourses hence increased flooding; costly repair of gullies, washed out fill, and embankments; and more frequent, more expensive maintenance of bridge abutments, culverts, and channels. The "Model Ordinance for Erosion and Sediment Control' has been developed by the District to provide a tool for use by Westchester municipalities to prevent the potential adverse impacts due to construction. May 1986 I1-100 ARTICLE I TITLE This local law shall be known and cited as the Erosion and Sediment Control Law of the (municipality). ARTICLE II STATUTORY AUTHORITY This local law is enacted pursuant to the authority of the (municipality) to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry under New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, Section 10, and New York Environmental Conservation Law, Article 36, and other applicable provisions of State and Federal law. ARTICLE III FINDINGS AND PURPOSE A. FINDINGS The (Board of Trustees) of the (municipality) hereby finds that.. 1. excessive quantities of soil may erode from areas undergoing development for certain uses, including, but not limited to, the construction of dwelling units, commercial buildings, and industrial plants, the building of roads and highways, and the creation of recreation facilities; 2. the washing, blowing, and deposition of eroded soil across and upon roadways endangers the health and safety of users thereof by decreasing visibility and reducing traction of road vehicles; 3. soil erosion necessitates the costly repair of gullies, washed-out fills, and embankments; 4. sediment from soil erosion clogs sewers and ditches and pollutes and silts rivers, streams, lakes, harbors, and reservoirs; 5. sediment limits the use of water and watercourses for beneficial purposes, promotes the growth of undesirable aquatic weeds, destroys fish and other desirable aquatic life, and is costly and difficult to remove; and 6. sediment reduced the channel capacity of water courses and increases the likelihood of flooding. B. PURPOSE The (Board of Trustees) therefore declares that the purpose of this local law is to safeguard persons, protect property, prevent damage to the environment, and promote the public welfare by guiding, regulating, and controlling the design, construction, use, and maintenance of any development or other activity which disturbs or breaks the topsoil or 1I-101 results in the movement of earth on land situated in the (municipality). ARTICLE IV DEFINITIONS Unless specifically defined below, words and phrases used in this local law shall be interpreted to have the meaning they have in common English usage, to give effect to the purpose set forth in Article IIIB, and to provide reasonable application of this local law. "Addition" means any work on an existing structure which changes the external dimensions of such structure. "Agent" means the (municipal officer) who is designated to administer this local law. "Appeal" means a request for a review of the Agent's interpretation of any provision of this local law or a request for a variance. "Best Management Practices" are procedures and measures pertaining to construction activities, which are intended to minimize water pollution, retain valuable topsoil, and prevent erosion and sedimentation, and include, but are not limited to, those practices contained in the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual series. "Best Management Practices Manual" (BMP) is a series of manuals, prepared, published, and occasionally amended by Westchester County, consisting of various volumes on best management practices for certain described activities, and, specifically, the volume for "Construction Related Activities," "Building Permit" means a permit issued by the municipality for the construction, erection, and alteration of a structure or building. "Certification" means formal attestation that the specific inspections and tests, where required, have been performed, and that such tests comply with the applicable requirements of this local law. "Cubic Yards" means the amount of material in excavation and/or fill measured by the method of"average and areas." "Development" means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, removal of vegetation, excavation, blasting, or drilling operations. "Development Permit" means any permits, grants, or licenses issued by the municipality including, but not limited to, building grading, clearing, demolition, wetlands, and excavation permits, and subdivision and site plan approvals. "Erosion & Sediment Control Plan" means a set of plans prepared by a New York State licensed engineer indicating the specific measures and sequencing to be used in controlling sediment and erosion on a development site both during, and after, II-102 construction. "Excavation" means any act by which organic matter, earth, sand, gravel, rock, or any other similar material is cut into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced, or bulldozed, and shall include the conditions resulting therefrom. "Existing Grade" means the vertical location of the existing ground surface prior to excavation or filling. "Fill" means any act by which earth, sand, gravel, rock, or any other material is deposited, placed, replaced, pushed, dumped, pulled, transported, or moved by man to a new location and shall include the conditions resulting therefrom. "Final Grade" means the vertical location of the ground or pavement surface after the grading work is completed and in accordance with the site development plan. "Grading" means excavation or fill or any combination thereof and shall include the conditions resulting from any excavation or fill. "Land-Disturbing Activity" means any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of soil into waters or onto lands, or increased runoff of waters including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting, and filling of land. "Natural Drainage" means channels formed in the existing surface topography of the earth prior to changes made by unnatural causes. "Parcel" means all contiguous land under one ownership. "Permanent Vegetation" means ground cover mature enough to control soil erosion satisfactorily and to survive severe weather conditions. "Permittee" means any person to whom a site development permit is issued. "Person" means any individual, firm, or corporation, public or private, the State of New York and its agencies or political subdivisions, and the United States of America, its agencies and instrumentality's, and any agent, servant, officer, or employee of any of the foregoing. "Removal" means cutting vegetation to the ground or leaving it as stumpage, complete extraction, or killing by spraying. "Site" means a lot or parcel of lank or a contiguous combination thereof, where grading work is performed as a single unified operation. "Site Development" means altering terrain and/or vegetation and constructing improvements. II-103 "Site Plan" means the map or drawn representation of a proposed development, which is submitted to the municipal Planning Board of consideration and approval. "Site Development Permit" means a permit issued by the municipality for the construction or alteration of ground improvements and structures for the control of erosion, turnoff, and grading. "Soil Stabilization" means measures which protect soil from the erosive forces of raindrop impact and flowing water and include, but are not limited to, vegetative establishment, mulching, and the early application of gravel base on areas to be paved. "Start of Construction" means the first land-disturbing activity associated with a development, including land preparation such as clearing, grading, and filling; installation of streets and walkways, excavation for basements, footings, piers, or foundations; erection of temporary forms; and installation of accessory buildings such as garages. "Stripping" means any activity which removes the vegetative surface cover including tree removal, clearing, and storage or removal of topsoil. "Subdivision" means any tract of land which is divided into two or more habitable building sites, or parcels on any site along an existing or proposed street, highway, easement, or right-of-way, or other means or proposed means of access, road, or street, for sale, lease, or rent, regardless of whether the sites are to be sold or offered for sale or leased for any period of time, are described by metes and bounds, or by reference to a map or survey of the property or by any other method of description. Subdivision also has any meaning it presently has under the laws of the (municipality). "Temporary Stream Crossing" means a temporary structural span installed across a flowing watercourse for use by construction traffic. Structures may include bridges, round pipes, or pipe arches. "Variance" means a grant of relief from the requirements of this local law, which permits a person to undertake construction in a manner otherwise prohibited by this local law where specific enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. "Watercourse" means any body of water, including, but not limited to, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, intermittent streams, and bodies of water which are classified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation under Part 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and/or delineated on the Hydrologic Features Map of the Westchester County Environmental Planning Atlas, and/or delineated on the USGS 7.5- Minute Quadrangle Sheet(s) for the (municipality). ARTICLE V GENERAL PRINCIPLES The objective of this local law is to control soil erosion and sedimentation caused by development activities in the (municipality). Measures taken to control erosion and II-10.1 sedimentation shall be adequate to ensure that sediment is not transported from the site by a storm event of ten-year frequency or less. The following principles shall apply to all development activities within the (municipality) and to the preparation of the submissions required under Article VI of this local law: 1. Selection of Control Measures The selection of erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be based on assessment of the probably frequency of climatic and other events likely to contribute to erosion, and on an evaluation of the risks, costs, and benefits involved. 2. Protection of Adjacent Properties Properties adjacent to the site of a land disturbance shall be protected from sediment deposition. This may be accomplished by preserving a well-vegetated buffer strip around the lower perimeter of the land disturbance, by installing perimeter controls such as sediment barriers, filters, dikes, or sediment basins, or by a combination of such measures. Vegetated buffer strips may be used alone only where runoff in sheet flow is expected. Buffer strips should be at least 20 feet in width. If, at any time, it is found that a vegetated buffer strip alone is ineffective in preventing sediment movement onto adjacent property, additional perimeter controls must be provided. 3. Cut and Fill Slopes Development shall reflect the topography and soils of the site so as to create the least potential for erosion. Areas of steep slopes were high cuts and fills may be required shall be avoided wherever possible, and natural contours shall be followed as closely as possible. 4. Vegetation Natural vegetation shall be retained and protected wherever possible. A permanent vegetative cover shall be established on denuded areas not otherwise permanently stabilized. Permanent vegetation and related structures shall be installed as soon as practical, or within the time specified in the permit. Permanent vegetation shall not be considered established until a groundcover is achieved which, in the opinion of the (permitting authority) or designated agent, is mature enough to control soil erosion satisfactorily and to survive severe weather conditions. 5. Stabilization of Denuded Areas and Soil Stockpiles Permanent or temporary soil stabilization must be applied to denuded areas within 15 days after final grade is reached on any portion of the site. Soil stabilization must also be applied within 15 days to denuded areas which may not be at final grade but will remain dormant (undisturbed) for longer than 60 days. II-105 Soil stabilization refers to measures which protect soil from the erosive forces of raindrop impact and flowing water. Applicable practices include vegetative establishment, mulching, and the early application of gravel base on areas to be paved. 6. Sediment Basins Sediment basins, debris basins, silt traps or filters shall be installed and maintained to remove sediment from runoff waters from land undergoing development. 7. Timing and Stabilization of Sediment Trapping Measures Sediment basins and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers and other measures intended to trap sediment on-site must be constructed as a first step in grading and must be made functional before upslope land disturbance takes place. Earthen structures such as dams, dikes, and diversions must be seeded and mulched within 15 days of installation. 8. Stabilization of Waterways and Outlets All on-site stormwater conveyance channels shall be designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity of flow from a 10-year frequency storm without erosion. Stabilization adequate to prevent erosion must also be provided at the outlets of all pipes and paved channel. 9. Storm Sewer Inlet Protection All storm sewer inlets which are made operable during construction shall be protected so that sediment-laden water will not enter the conveyance system without first being filtered or otherwise treated to remove sediment. 10. Working In or Crossing Watercourses Construction vehicles should be kept out of watercourses to the greatest extent possible. Where in-channel work is necessary, precautions must be taken to stabilize the work area during construction to minimize erosion. The channel (including bed and banks) must be restabilized immediately after in-channel work is completed. Where a live (wet) watercourse must be crossed by construction vehicles regularly during construction, a TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING must be provided. 11. Stormwater Management Criteria for Controlling Off-Site Erosion Provision shall be made to accommodate the increased runoff caused by changed 11-106 soil and surface conditions during and after development. Drainageways shall be designed so that the final gradients and the resultant velocities of discharges will not create additional erosion. Stormwater management design will follow the procedures and methodology set forth in the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Stormwater Runoff unless a comprehensive stormwater management plan and model has been adopted by the municipalities which compose the watershed in which the development is located. 12. Underground Utility Construction The construction of underground utility lines involving installation, maintenance or repair which disturbs more than 10,000 square feet shall be subject to the following criteria: a. No more than 500 feet of trench are to be opened at one time. b. Where consistent with safety and space considerations, excavated material is to be placed on the uphill side of trenches. C. Trench dewatering devices shall discharge in a manner which will not adversely affect flowing streams, drainage systems, or off-site property. Individual service connections, telephone and electric lines, and underground public utility lines under existing hard-surfaced roads, streets, or sidewalks, provided such land-disturbing activity is confined to the area which is hard-surfaced, are exempt from the above requirements. 13. Construction Access Routes Wherever construction vehicle access routes intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicle tracking onto the paved surface. Where sediment is transported onto a public road surface, the roads shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. Sediment shall be removed form roads by shoveling or sweeping and transported to a sediment control area. Street washing shall be allowed only after sediment is removed in this manner. 14. Disposition of Temporary Measures All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be disposed of within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary measures are no longer needed, unless otherwise authorized by the (permitting authority). Trapped sediment and other disturbed soil areas resulting from the disposition of temporary measures shall a permanently stabilized to prevent further erosion and sedimentation. 15. Maintenance II-107 All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. 16. Aesthetics In the design of erosion control facilities and practices, aesthetics and the requirements of continuing maintenance shall be considered. 17. Review by the Westchester County Soil & Water Conservation District The Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District shall be consulted for review and recommendations for all erosion and sediment control plans for proposed developments submitted to the (municipality). ARTICLE VI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT A. PERMIT REQUIRED 1. Except as otherwise provided in this local law, no person shall commence or perform any land-disturbing activity, including, but not limited to, grading stripping, excavating, or filling, without first obtaining a site development permit from the (permitting authority) upon approval by the Municipal Engineer in consultation with the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District, all other necessary local, state, and federal permits, and thereafter comply with the requirements of this local law. 2. An application for a site development permit shall be made in the same manner as prescribed for a building permit except that such application shall be made to the Municipal Engineer. B. EXCEPTIONS A permit shall not be required for any of the following activities: 1. Normal lawn and landscaping maintenance. 2. Existing nursery and agricultural operations conducted as either a permitted main, or accessory, use. 3. Grading of land in a uniform manner, provided the elevation of land is not altered by more than three (3) inches, the normal flow of surface water at the property lines is not altered and, upon completion of the grading, the exposed surfaces are permanently stabilized with vegetation. 4. Alteration of the exterior of a building and alteration of the exterior of a building, provided such exterior alteration does not increase land coverage. II-108 5. Installation, renovation, or replacement of a septic system to serve an existing dwelling or structure. 6. Any emergency activity which is immediately necessary to the protection of life, property, or natural resources. C. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT An application for a site development permit shall be made by the owner of the property or his authorized agent to the (permitting authority) on a form furnished for that purpose. Each application shall bear the name(s) and address(es) of the owner or developer of the site, and of any consulting firm retained by the applicant together with the name of the applicant's principal contact at such firm, and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of$ . Each application shall include a certification that any land clearing, construction, or development involving the movement of earth shall be in accordance with the plans approved upon issuance of the permit. D. SUBMISSIONS Each application for a site development permit shall be accompanied by the following information: 1. A vicinity map in sufficient detail to easily locate, in the field, the site for which the permit is sought, including the boundary line and approximate acreage for the site, existing zoning, and a legend and scale. 2. A development plan of the site showing: a. Existing topography of the site and adjacent land within approximately 100 feet of the boundaries, drawn at no greater than two-foot contour intervals and clearly portraying the conformation and drainage pattern of the area. b. The location of existing buildings, structures, utilities, waterbodies, floodplains, drainage facilities, vegetative cover, paved areas, watershed divides, and other significant natural or man-made features on the site, and adjacent land within approximately 100 feet of the boundary. C. A description of the predominant soil types on the site, their location, and their limitations for the proposed use. d. Proposed use of the site, including both present development and planned utilization; areas of excavation, grading, and filling; proposed contours, finished grades, and street profiles; provisions for storm drainage, including the control of accelerated runoff, with a drainage area map and computations; kinds and locations of utilities; and areas and acreages proposed to be paved, covered, sodded or seeded, vegetatively stabilized, or left undisturbed. II-109 3. An erosion and sediment control plan, or plans, showing: a. All erosion and sediment control measures necessary to meet the objectives of this local law throughout all phases of construction and permanently, after completion of development of the site. Depending upon the complexity of the project, the drafting of intermediate erosion and sediment control plans also may be required. b. Seeding mixtures and rates, types of sod, method of seedbed preparation, expected seeding dates, type and rate of lime and fertilizer application, and kind and quantity of mulching for both temporary and permanent vegetative control measures. C. Provisions for maintenance of control facilities, including easements and estimates of the cost of maintenance. d. Identification of the person(s) or entity which will have legal responsibility for maintenance of erosion control structures and measures after development is completed. 4. The proposed phasing of development of the site, including stripping and clearing, rough grading and construction, and final grading and landscaping. Phasing shall identify the expected date on which clearing will begin, the estimated duration of exposure of cleared areas, and the sequence of clearing, installation of temporary sediment control measures, installation of storm drainage, paving of streets and parking areas, and establishment of permanent vegetative cover. These submissions shall be prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements contained in the Westchester County best Management Practices Manuals prepared by the County of Westchester, which standards and requirements are hereby incorporated into this local law by reference. The (permitting authority) may waive specific requirements for the content of submissions upon finding that the information submitted is sufficient to show that the work will comply with the objectives and principles of this local law. E. BONDS The application may be required to file with the (municipality) a faithful performance bond or bonds, letter of credit, or other improvement security satisfactory to the Municipal Attorney in an amount deemed sufficient by the (permitting authority) to cover all costs of improvements, landscaping, maintenance of improvements, and landscaping for such period as specified by the (municipality), and engineering and inspection costs to cover the cost of failure or repair of improvements installed on the site. F. REVIEW AND APPROVAL 11-110 Each application for a site development permit shall be reviewed and acted upon according to the following procedures: 1. The (permitting authority) will review each application for a site development permit to determine its conformance with the provisions of this local law. The (permitting authority) will also refer any application to the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District and/or any other local government or public agency within whose jurisdiction the site is located, for review and comment. Within thirty (30 days after receiving an application, the (permitting authority) shall, in writing, (a) approve the permit application if it is found to be in conformance with the provisions of this local law, and issue the permit; (b) approve the permit application subject to such reasonable conditions as may be necessary to secure substantially the objectives of this local law, and issue the permit subject to these conditions, or (c) disapprove the permit application, indicating the deficiencies and the procedure for submitting a revised application an/or submission. 2. No site development permit shall be issued for an intended development site unless: a. The development has been approved by the (municipality) where applicable, or b. Such permit is accompanied by or combined with a valid building permit issued by the (municipality), or C. The proposed earth moving is coordinated with any overall development program previously approved by the (municipality) for the area in which the site is situated. 3. Failure of the (permitting authority) to act on original or revised applications within thirty (30) days of receipt shall authorize the applicant to proceed in accordance with the plans as filed unless such time is extended by agreement between the applicant and the (permitting authority). Pending preparation and approval of a revised plan, development activities shall be allowed to proceed in accordance with conditions established by the (permitting authority). G. APPEALS The applicant, or any person or agency which received notice of the filing of the application, may appeal the decision of the (permitting authority) as provided in paragraph F(3) of this Article VI, to the (Board of Appeals). Upon receipt of an appeal, the (Board) shall schedule and hold a public hearing, after giving 15 days notice thereof. The (Board) shall render a decision within thirty (30) days after the hearing. Factors to be considered on review shall include, but not be limited to, the effects of the proposed I1-111 development activities on the surface water flow to tributaries and downstream lands; any comprehensive watershed management plans, or the use of any retention facilities; possible saturation of fill and unsupported cuts by water, both natural and domestic; runoff surface waters that produce erosion and silting of drainageways; nature and type of soil or rock which, when disturbed by the proposed development activities, may create earth movement and produce slopes that cannot be landscaped; and excessive and unnecessary scarring of the natural landscape through grading or removal of vegetation. H. RETENTION OF PLANS Plans, specifications, and reports of all site developments shall be retained in original form or on microfilm by the (permitting authority). ARTICLE VII OPERATION STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS A. APPLICABILITY All grading, stripping, excavating, and filling which is subject to the permit requirements of this ordinance, and any grading, stripping, excavating, and filling which is exempted from the permit requirements by paragraph B of Article VI, shall be subject to the applicable standards and requirements set forth in this Article VII. B. RESPONSIBILITY The permittee shall not be relieved of responsibility for damage to persons or property otherwise imposed by law, and the (municipality) or its officers will not be made liable for such damage, by (1) the issuance of a permit under this local law, (2) compliance with the provisions of that permit or with conditions attached to it, (3) failure of municipal officials to observe or recognize hazardous or unsightly conditions, (4) failure of municipal officials to recommend denial of, or to deny a permit, or (5) exemptions from the permit requirements of this local law. C. MANUAL ADOPTED BY REFERENCE The standards and specifications contained in the Westchester Coutnty Best Management Practices Manuals cited in paragraph D of Article VI, are hereby incorporated into this Article VII and made a part thereof by reference for the purpose of delineating procedures and methods of operation under site development and erosion and sedimentation control plans approved under Article VI. In the event of conflict between provisions of said manual and local law, the local law shall govern. D. INSPECTION 1. The (permitting authority) or designated agent shall make inspections as hereinafter required and shall either approve that portion of the work completed or shall notify the permittee wherein the work fails to comply with the site development or erosion and sediment control plan as approved. Plans for grading, 1I-112 stripping, excavating, and filling work bearing the stamp of approval of the (permitting authority) shall be maintained at the site during progress of the work. In order to obtain inspections, the permittee shall notify the (permitting authority) or designated agent at least two (2)working days before the completion of: 1. Stripping and clearing 2. Rough grading 3. Final grading 4. Final landscaping If stripping, clearing, grading, and/or landscaping are to be done in phases or areas, the permittee shall give notice and request inspection at the completion of each of the above work stages in each phase or area. If an inspection is not made and notification of the results given within five (5) working days after notice is received by the municipality from the permittee, the permittee may continue work at this own risk, without presuming acceptance by the municipality. Notification of the results of the inspection shall be given in writing at the site. 2. The permittee or his agent shall make regular inspections of all control measures in accordance with the inspection schedule outlined on the approved erosion and sediment control plan(s). The purpose of such inspections will be to determine the condition and need for replacement or repair of in-place control measures, the overall effectiveness of the control plan, and the need for additional control measures. All inspections shall be documented in written form and submitted to the (permitting authority) at the time interval specified in the approved permit. E. SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS 1. If at any stage of the grading of any development site the (permitting authority) or designated agent determines by inspection that the nature of the site is such that further work authorized by an existing permit is likely to imperil any property, public way, watercourse, or drainage structure, the (permitting authority) may require, as a condition of allowing the work to be done, that such reasonable special precautions be taken as are considered advisable to avoid the likelihood of such peril. "Special precautions" may include, but shall not be limited to, a more level exposed slope, construction of additional drainage facilities, berms, terracing, compaction, or cribbing. Installation of plant materials for erosion control, and recommendations of a registered soils engineer and/or engineering geologist which may be made requirements for further work. 2. Where it appears that storm damage may result from incomplete grading on any development site, work may be stopped and the permittee required to install temporary structures or take such other measures as may be necessary to protect adjoining property or the public safety. On large developments, or where unusual site conditions prevail, the (permitting authority) may specify the time of start of grading and time of completion or may require that the operations be conducted in specific stages to ensure completion of protective measures or devices prior to the II-113 advent of seasonal rains. F. AMENDMENT OF PLANS Major amendments of the site development or erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the (permitting authority) and shall be processed and approved, or disapproved, in the same manner as the original plans. Field modifications of a minor nature may be authorized by the (permitting authority) by written authorization to the permittee. G. EXPIRATION OF PERMIT Every site development permit shall expire and become null and void if the work authorized by such permit has not begun within one hundred and eighty (180) days, or is not completed by a date which shall be specified in the permit, except that the (permitting authority) may, if the permittee presents satisfactory evidence that unusual difficulties have prevented the start of work or completion of same within the specified time limits, grant a reasonable extension of time if written application is made before the expiration date of the permit. ARTICLE VIII ENFORCEMENT A. EXCEPTIONS The (Board of Appeals) may, in accordance with the following procedures, authorize exceptions to any of the requirements and regulations set forth in this local law: 1. Application for any exception shall be made by a verified petition of the applicant for a site development permit, stating fully the grounds of the petition and the facts relied upon by the applicant. Such petition shall be filed with the site development permit application. IN order for the petition to be granted, it shall be necessary that the (Board) find all of the following facts with respect to the land referred to in the petition: a. That the land is of such shape or size or is affected by such physical conditions or is subject to such title limitations of record that it is impossible or impractical for the applicant to comply with all of the requirements of this ordinance. b. That the exception is necessary to prevent unreasonable and unnecessary hardship; and C. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property. 2. Each application for an exception shall be referred to the (permitting authority) for review. The (permitting authority) shall transmit its recommendations to the (Board) which shall review such recommendations prior to granting or denying the II-114 exception. 3. The (Board) shall hold a public hearing on each application for exception, within 30 days after receiving application, in the manner provided with respect to appeals. After public hearing, the (Board) may approve the site development permit application with the exceptions and conditions it deems necessary, or it may disapprove such site development permit application and exception application, or it may take such other action as appropriate. B. STOP-WORK ORDER; REVOCATION OF PERMIT In the event any person holding a site development permit pursuant to this ordinance violates the terms of the permit, or implements site development in such a manner as to materially adversely affect the health, welfare, or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the development site or so as to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, the (permitting authority) may suspend or revoke the site development permit. I. Suspension of a permit shall be by a written stop-work order issued by the (permitting authority) and delivered to the permittee or his agent or the person performing the work. The stop-work order shall be effective immediately, shall state the specific violations cited, and shall state the conditions under which work may be resumed. A stop-work order shall have the affect of suspending all authorizations and permits granted by the Town or any agency thereof, and shall remain in effect until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the (Board) at which the conditions of sub-paragraph 2 below can be met. 2. No site development permit shall be permanently suspended on revoked until a hearing is held by the (Board). Written notice of such hearing shall be served on the permittee, either personally or by registered mail, and shall state: a. grounds for complaint or reasons for suspension or revocation, in clear or concise language; b. the time and place of the hearing to be held. Such notice shall be served on the permittee at least five (5) days prior to the date set for the hearing. At such hearing, the permittee shall be given an opportunity to be heard and may call witnesses and present evidence on his behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the (Board) shall determine whether the permit shall be suspended or revoked. C. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES No person shall construct, enlarge, alter, repair, or maintain any grading, excavation, or fill, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any terms of this II-115 ordinance. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each day during which any violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted, shall constitute a separate offense. Upon conviction of any such violation, such person, partnership, or corporation shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000) for each offense. In addition to any other penalty authorized by this section, any person, partnership, or corporation convicted of violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be required to restore the site to the condition existing prior to commission of the violation, or to bear the expense of such restoration. D. SEPARABILITY The provisions and sections of this ordinance shall be deemed to be separable, and the invalidity of any portion of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remainder. Prepared by: THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 148 Martine Avenue, Room 432 Michaelian Office Building White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 285-4422 II-116 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL STORMWATER NVIANA GEMENT ORDINANCE (Prepared By NYS DEC/Adirondack Park Agency) SECTION 1 - SHORT TITLE. This ordinance shall be known as the "Stormwater Management Ordinance." SECTION 2 - FINDINGS OF FACT. The municipality finds that uncontrolled drainage and runoff associated with land development has a significant impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the community for the following reasons: • Stormwater can carry pollutants into receiving water bodies and degrade water quality. • The increase in nutrients in stormwater runoff accelerates the eutrophication of receiving waters. • Improper design and construction of drainage facilities can increase the velocity of runoff thereby increasing stream bank erosion and sedimentation. • Construction requiring land clearing and the alteration of natural topography tends to increase erosion. • Siltation of water bodies resulting from increased erosion decreases the capacity of the water bodies to hold and transport water, interferes with navigation, and harms flora and fauna. • Impervious surfaces increase the volume and rate of stormwater runoff and allow less water to percolate into the soil, thereby decreasing groundwater recharge and stream base flow. • Improperly managed stormwater runoff can increase the incidence of flooding and the level of floods which occur, endangering property and human life. • Substantial economic losses can result from these adverse impacts on the waters of the municipality. • Many problems can be avoided if sound stormwater runoff management practices are in effect. SECTION 3 - EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be SECTION 4 - STATUTORY AUTHORITY. [Note: Statutory authority would be: Article 9 of the Town Law and/or Article 4 or 20 of the Village Law and/or Section 20 of the General City Law and Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law.] SECTION 5 - PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect and safeguard the general health, safety, and welfare of the public residing in or visiting the municipality by preserving and protecting the quality of the ground and surface waters. This Ordinance has the following specific objectives: • prevent any increase in stormwater runoff from any development in order to reduce flooding, siltation, and stream bank erosion, II-118 • prevent any increase in pollution caused by stormwater runoff from development which would otherwise degrade the quality of water in Long Island Sound and its tributaries and render these watercourses and water bodies unfit for human consumption, interfere with water-based recreation or adversely affect aquatic life, and • prevent any increase in the total annual volume of surface water runoff which flows from any specific site during and following development over that which prevailed prior to development. SECTION 6 - DEFINITIONS. The terms used in this Ordinance or in documents prepared or reviewed under this Ordinance shall have the meanings set forth in Schedule A of this Ordinance. SECTION 7 - JURISDICTION. General Applicability: This Ordinance shall apply to all building, construction, land clearing and subdivision of land within the municipality both public and private except development which is expressly exempt pursuant to Section 8H of this Ordinance. Permits and approvals required by this Ordinance may be incorporated into the site plan, land use or zoning approvals issued under separate provisions of the municipality's land use program. SECTION 8 - PROHIBITIONS. A. Except for the activities exempted in paragraph H of this section, no person shall build, construct, erect, expand, or enlarge any building or structure or place or construct any impervious surface such as pavement, blacktop, macadam, packed earth and crushed stone without first receiving a stormwater management permit from the municipality unless otherwise exempted herein. B. No person shall create a subdivision of land subject to approval by the municipality until first receiving a stormwater management permit from the municipality for all buildings, structures and impervious surfaces proposed to be created except that the terms of this Ordinance shall not apply to persons engaged in activities for which required municipal permits and approvals were issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. C. No owner of real property shall maintain a condition, which due to a human disturbance of land, vegetative cover or soil, results in the erosion of soil into any water body. The municipality shall notify a property owner of such condition on his property and shall afford a reasonable time period to correct any such condition before a violation shall be deemed to exist. D. Except for the activities exempted in paragraph H of this section, no person shall operate a land clearing machine such as a back hoe, grader or plow or similar device so as to clear or grade land or otherwise remove vegetative cover or soil or to overlay natural vegetative cover with soil or other materials when such activities involves an area of land greater than 5,000 square feet without first having received a permit under this Ordinance. E. No person shall fail to comply with any provision or requirement of any permit issued II-119 pursuant to this Ordinance. F. No person shall create a condition of flooding, erosion, siltation or ponding resulting from failure to maintain previously approved stormwater control measures where such condition is injurious to the health, welfare or safety of individuals residing in the Municipality or injurious to any land or waters within the Long Island Sound watershed. The Municipality shall notify a property owner of such condition on his property and prescribe measures necessary to reestablish effective performance of the approved stormwater control measures. The Municipality shall afford such property owner a reasonable time period in which to correct any such condition, before a violation is deemed to exist. G. No person shall build, alter or modify a stormwater control measure without first receiving a permit from the Municipality. Such building, alteration and/or modification does not include the ordinary maintenance, cleaning and/or repair of stormwater control measures. H. The following activities are exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance: (1)Emergency repairs to any stormwater control measure. (2) Development involving land disturbance and land clearing of less than 5,000 square feet which does not result in the creation of any new impervious surfaces of more than 2,000 square feet. (3) Any agricultural activity which is consistent with a soil conservation plan approved by the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District. (4) Activities of an individual engaging in home gardening by growing flowers, vegetables and other plants primarily for use by that person and his or her family. (5) Construction of an approved wastewater treatment system and construction of a wharf, dock, boathouse, and mooring. SECTION 9 - PROJECT CLASSIFICATION FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. A. Minor Projects. The following development activities shall be considered to be minor projects. (1) Any building, land clearing or development activity affecting less than 15,000 square feet. (2) Creation of a two-lot, three-lot or four-lot subdivision which may result in the construction of no more than one single-family residential structure and related accessory structures per lot, and will require land clearing or alteration activities of less than 15,000 square feet per lot and less than 15,000 square feet total for any subdivision road. (3) Any building, alteration, or modification of a stormwater control measure, excluding maintenance, cleaning or repair of such stormwater control measure. B. Major Projects. Any project not expressly exempted from regulation or defined as a minor project shall be a major project. (1) The following may be considered to be major projects: (a) Any part of the activity listed in Section 9. A. (1),(2) or (3) which occurs on (i) soils of high potential for overland or through-soil pollutant transport; (ii) an area with a slope of fifteen percent (15%) or greater when measured in any direction over a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the center of the proposed building site; (iii) or an area with a soil II-120 percolation rate slower than sixty (60) minutes per inch. (b) Any minor project may be treated as a major project if such treatment is desirable due to specific site limitations or constraints, anticipated environmental impacts, or the need or advisability of additional public notice and comment. When determining whether to treat a minor project as a major project, the criteria to be considered shall include, but shall not be limited to, whether the site lies within or substantially contiguous to any of the following: (i) a Critical Environmental Area established pursuant to SEQR; (ii) a wetland; (iii) a stream corridor; (iv) an area of significant habitat for any wildlife or plant species; (v) or an area of particular scenic, historic or natural significance. The project sponsor of a minor project that will be treated as a major project shall be given a written statement of the reasons for such a determination. SECTION 10 - DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. Minor Projects. The following requirements shall apply to minor projects: (1) Stormwater shall be managed on-site using stormwater control measures designed to afford optimum protection of ground and surface waters. Stormwater control measures shall be selected by giving preference to the best management practices for pollutant removal and flow attenuation as specified in the NYS DEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater R11noff from New Development. Stormwater may be calculated in accordance with the methodology for determining stormwater volume and flow rates for major projects found in Schedule B, Part III or, in the alternative, at a flat rate of 1.5 gallons of stormwater for every square foot net increase in impervious area. Net increase is the difference between pre-development and post-development conditions. All water from newly created impervious areas which would otherwise run off the parcel shall be directed to an infiltration device. Location of the infiltration devices shall be determined based upon soil test results. (2) Stormwater control measures may include, but shall not be limited to, dry wells of pre-cast concrete, pits of crushed rock lined with geotextile fabric, and infiltration trenches. Such measures may also include natural and human made landscape features such as depressions, blind ditches, retention ponds, swales and others. Inlets to infiltration devices shall be protected from sediment at all times in order to maintain their capacity. (3) Infiltration devices shall not be installed up gradient within twenty (20) feet of the subsurface treatment system of a wastewater treatment system. Infiltration devices for roadways, parking lots, and other areas subject to vehicle traffic shall not be installed within 100 feet of any water well, wetland or water body. (4) Infiltration devices and buildings shall be designed to maintain maximum attainable horizontal distance separation from wells, water bodies and wetlands. Pumping stormwater shall not be permitted. (5) The bottom of any infiltration device shall be a minimum of two feet above seasonal high ground water mark and two feet above bedrock. (6) Temporary erosion controls shall be required to prevent siltation of water bodies during construction. (7) Stormwater control measures proposed to be installed at locations with slope > 15% before grading, soil percolation rate slower than 60 minuets per inch or which require placement of fill to meet horizontal distance separations specified in this subpart shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer, architect or exempt land surveyor. II-121 B. Major Projects. The following requirements shall apply to major projects: (1) Stormwater volumes and rates of flow shall be calculated using the methods specified in Schedule B Part III. (2) Design Requirements for Stormwater Control Measures. (a) Stormwater control measures shall be designed so that there will be no increase in runoff volume from a ten-year frequency/twenty-four hour duration storm event following development over the pre-development volume. (b) For storm events exceeding the 10-year design storm, the stormwater control measures shall function to attenuate peak runoff flow rates for a 25-year frequency storm to be equal to or less than predevelopment flow rates. For development greater than five (5) acres, consistent with New York State Guidelines, stormwater control measures shall function to attenuate peak runoff flow rates for a 100-year storm to be equal to or less than predevelopment flow rates. Attenuation of the 100-year storm is intended to reduce the rate of runoff from development to prevent expansion of the 100-year flood plain so as to alleviate flooding of improved properties and roadways. The minimum requirement for peak flow attenuation can be waived for the 100-year storm event where it can be proven that downstream flooding is not a concern, such as where excess stormwater runoff is discharged to Long Island Sound or its tributaries or to a regional stormwater facility designed to handle additional volume and peak discharge. The cumulative effect of all proposed development projects within the watershed should be considered in making this determination. Rainfall intensity curves for Westchester County, New York shall be used in the design of the stormwater control measures. These curves are annexed to this Ordinance as Schedule D entitled Rainfall Intensity Curves. Additionally, for development greater than five (5) acres, coverage is required under a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Stormwater Permit administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation. (c) Infiltration devices shall be designed such that the bottom of the system will be a minimum of two feet above the seasonal high groundwater level to be realized following development. Where compliance with this requirement would prevent compliance with subparagraph (e) of this Section, compliance with this requirement may be waived. This provision shall not apply to wet ponds and similar stormwater control measures which are designed to be built in the saturated soil zone. (d) Infiltration devices for major projects shall be located a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from Long Island Sound and any watercourse having a NYS DEC classification of C or more stringent and any downgradient drinking water supply, lake, river, protected stream, water well, pond, wetland; a separation of more than one hundred (100) feet may be required in cases where contamination of the water supply is possible due to highly permeable soils, shallow groundwater and similar situations. The separation distance shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet from upgradient water supplies. Designs shall mitigate adverse effects that groundwater recharge will have on adjacent wells, water supplies, wastewater treatment systems, buildings, roadways, properties, and stormwater control measures. Stormwater recharge areas shall be located a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from the subsurface treatment system of a wastewater treatment system unless it is demonstrated that a lesser separation will not adversely affect the functioning of such leach fields. (e) Infiltration devices shall be designed to extend a minimum of ten percent of the II-122 infiltration surface area below the prevailing frost depth or four feet (whichever is greater) in order to provide infiltration during winter months. (f) Infiltration devices shall be designed based on the infiltration capacity of the soils present at the project site. Soil evaluation methods shall be in accordance with Schedule B, Part IV, Soil Evaluation Methods. (3) Additional Requirements for Major Projects. (a) Stormwater control measures shall be used in the following order of preference: (i) infiltration devices; (ii) artificial wetlands and acceptable natural treatment systems; (iii) flow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and depressions, (iv) stormwater detention. Stormwater control measures shall be selected by giving preference to the best management practice for pollutant removal and flow attenuation as indicated in Schedule C. (b) All stormwater control measures shall be designed to completely drain to return to design levels in accordance with the following: infiltration basin 5 days; infiltration trench 15 days, dry well 15 days; porous pavement 2 days; vegetation depression 1 day. (c) Pretreatment devices such as sediment traps, detention/stilling basins, filter strips, grassy swales, or oil/water separators shall be provided for runoff from paved areas or other areas subject to human-induced pollution including grease and oils, fertilizers, chemicals, road salt, sediments, organic materials and solids capable of being settled out of solution, which shall be sufficient to remove pollutants from the runoff. (d) Stormwater control measures shall, at a minimum, incorporate the best available pollutant removal technology, which shall mean that which constitutes appropriate and cost effective means for removing pollutants from runoff so that the resulting treated stormwater will not degrade the water quality of any water body. (e) Stormwater control measures shall be designed to preserve and maintain the base flow in all streams passing through, adjoining or receiving runoff from the site. (f) For development or redevelopment occurring on a site where development has previously occurred, the applicant shall be required to prepare concept plans and to develop construction estimates for stormwater control measures to control existing stormwater discharges from the site in accordance with the standards of this Ordinance to the maximum extent practicable. At a minimum the control measures shall include those reasonable and necessary to infiltrate the runoff from the first one-half inch of precipitation from any storm event for all areas within the site which have been previously developed. The phased implementation of such stormwater control measures for previously developed areas may be authorized. C. General Requirements For Major and Minor Projects. The following requirements shall apply to major and minor projects: (1) Stormwater control measures shall include such other measures as are deemed necessary to prevent any increase in pollution caused by stormwater runoff from development which would otherwise degrade the quality of water in Long Island Sound and its tributaries, render them unfit for human use, interfere with water-based recreation, or adversely affect aquatic life. (2) Emergency overflow provisions shall be made as necessary to prevent erosion, flooding, and damage to structures, roads and stormwater control measures. (3) Stormwater control measures shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts to water bodies, minimize disturbance of water bodies, minimize land clearing, minimize the creation II-123 of impervious surfaces, and to maximize preservation of natural vegetation and existing contours. (4) Development which involves the creation of areas subject to intensive landscape maintenance such as: golf courses, public parks and botanical gardens, shall require that a pest control and fertilizer management plan shall be prepared and included with the permit application. SECTION 11 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. A. Temporary erosion control shall be provided for all disturbed areas in accordance with the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control and New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. The temporary erosion control measures shall be maintained continuously until permanent control measures are in service. Infiltration devices shall be protected from siltation during the period of construction and until the site is successfully re-vegetated by use of silt screens, inlet protection devices, sediment detention ponds or other suitable erosion control measures. B. Staging of construction to facilitate erosion control shall be required. Only those areas where construction is actively occurring shall remain open and unvegetated. All areas that are not within an active construction area shall be mulched and stabilized or shall be mulched and re- vegetated. An active construction area is defined as one that has seen substantial construction within the past seven (7) calendar days. Mulching or re-vegetation for erosion control shall be completed within ten (10) days following the last substantial construction activity. C. Compliance with the following restrictions shall be required. (1) No vegetation shall be felled into any lake, pond, river, stream or intermittent stream and if inadvertently felled into one of these water bodies, shall be removed immediately from the water body. The removal of dead, or dying, diseased trees or trees presenting a health or safety hazard shall not be exempt from this requirement. (2) Within five hundred feet of the mean high water mark of any lake, pond, river, stream, or wetland, no land area, including areas stockpiled with earthen materials, which has been cleared may be made or left devoid of growing vegetation for more than twenty-four (24) hours without a protective covering securely placed over the entire area and/or erosion control measures properly installed to prevent sediments from entering the water body. Acceptable protective coverings include natural mulch of a depth of two inches, rock rip-rap, nondegradable materials such as plastic or canvas coverings, and impervious structures. (3) Any area of land from which the natural vegetative cover has been either partially or wholly cleared or removed by development activities shall be revegetated within ten (10) days from the substantial completion of such clearing and construction. Acceptable re- vegetation shall consist of the following: (a) Re-seeding with an annual or perennial cover crop accompanied by placement of straw mulch or its equivalent of sufficient coverage, but not less than fifty percent (50%) of the total disturbed area, to control erosion until such time as the cover crop is established over ninety percent (90%)of the seeded area. (b) Replanting with native woody and herbaceous vegetation accompanied by placement of straw mulch or its equivalent of sufficient coverage to control erosion until the plantings are established and are capable of controlling erosion. II-124 (c) Any other recognized method which has been reviewed and approved by the municipality as satisfying the intent of this requirement. (4) Any area of re-vegetation must exhibit survival of a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the cover crop throughout the year immediately following re-vegetation. Re- vegetation must be repeated in successive years until the minimum seventy-five percent (75%) survival for one (1) year is achieved. (5) Ground clearing or grading activities which occur during the period October 15 to April 15, during which germination of vegetation typically will not take place, shall be required to incorporate extra measures during re-vegetation to reduce erosion and maintain water quality. These extra measures include, but are not limited to, the use of screen mesh, netting, extra mulch, and siltation fences. SECTION 12 - MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES REQUIRED. A stormwater permit shall include, at a minimum, provisions for the future maintenance of the site, consistent with the following: A. Applicability. Prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for any major project, or any minor project where it is deemed necessary, the project sponsor shall provide for arrangements for the future maintenance of stormwater control measures subject to the approval of the municipality. This may include, but not be limited to, the following: approval of the by-laws and/or certificate of incorporation of a transportation corporation or Home Owners Association; posting of a performance bond; placing of funds on deposit; and a stormwater management maintenance agreement between the owner(s) of the site and the municipality. B. Purpose. Stormwater management maintenance arrangements shall be those necessary to ensure that stormwater control measures are maintained in working condition throughout the life of the project. C. Notice. The stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk or its terms shall be incorporated into covenants appearing in the deed, declarations of covenants and restrictions or other such documents to ensure that record notice of its terms is provided to future owners of the site. It shall also be included in the offering plan, if any, for the project. D. Initial Maintenance Security. The project owner(s) or sponsor shall establish a maintenance security in the form of a bond, letter of credit, escrow account, or other acceptable security, for the purpose of rebuilding, maintaining or repairing the stormwater control facilities during the first two years following the approved completion of construction. SECTION 13 - PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES. A. Plan Review. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide a detailed plot plan showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures and impervious surfaces, water courses, water bodies, wetlands, wells, septic systems, and stormwater control II-125 measures on the site and within 100 feet of the site, and a location map of the site. Applications shall be submitted on forms prescribed by the municipality and shall require an application fee, tax map number of affected parcels, a completed Part 1 Environmental Assessment Form, if required, and names and addresses of adjacent parcel owners as required. B. Minor Projects. The zoning/land use office of the municipality shall have primary responsibility for the review, approval and issuance of stormwater management permits for minor projects. The zoning/land use office may request technical assistance from the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District. (1) Prior to permit decisions a test pit may need to be witnessed. (2) The zoning/land use officer shall determine whether notice to adjacent owners is warranted by public interest or other considerations. (3) Prior to the issuance of a permit for any project, the zoning/land use officer shall determine that the project as proposed is in accordance with the design standards of this Ordinance. C. Major Projects. Major projects shall require site plan review in accordance with Municipality's Land Use Ordinances. (1) Preparation of a Stormwater Control Report in accordance with Schedule B Part II is required. Preparation of a Stormwater Concept Plan in accordance with Schedule B, Part I may be required if deemed necessary by the municipality. The SCP and SCR shall be prepared by an engineer or architect or exempt land surveyor licensed to practice under the laws of the State of New York, who shall be employed by the applicant or developer to design and supervise the installation of all stormwater management facilities. Stormwater management shall be within the area of expertise of the particular individual or firm performing the design and construction supervision, and if requested, that individual or firm shall furnish a listing and description of all stormwater management projects designed or supervised by them within the past five (5) years. (2) Approval of the Stormwater Concept Plan and stormwater control report may require a public hearing if the Municipal Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances require such a hearing. (3) The Final Subdivision Plat shall contain stormwater control measures for all commonly owned roads, buildings, parking areas and impervious areas. Approved stormwater design plans shall be filed together with the Final Subdivision Plat with the County Clerk. (4) Prior to the approval of the Final Subdivision Plat or commonly owned facilities, it shall be first determined that there is sufficient information to support a finding that the stormwater measures subject to future approval can be designed and constructed in accordance with this Ordinance. SECTION 14 - CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF STORMWATER CONTROL PERMITS. A. An application for a stormwater control permit may be approved, denied, or approved with modifications or conditions, including modifications to non-stormwater aspects of the development necessary to achieve the required level of stormwater management. B. No stormwater management permit shall be issued unless the municipality makes the following findings which shall be supported by substantial evidence. The facts supporting II-126 such findings shall be set forth in the decision document or permit. The issued permits shall set forth all required conditions and incorporate all necessary documents and maps. The findings are as follows: (1) That the project meets the design requirements and performance standards set forth in this Ordinance. (2) That the project will not have an undue adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of the public or on the resources of Long Island Sound or its tributaries and will not lead to a diminution of water quality, an increase in erosion, or an increase in stormwater runoff from the site either during or following construction. (3) That the stormwater control measures proposed for the proposed project will function as designed and that such measures represent the best possible methods and procedures for controlling stormwater runoff that is feasible and practicable at the particular project site. (4) That adequate and sufficient measures have been taken to ensure accountability and responsibility over the life of the project should the stormwater control measures not function as intended, fail, or suffer from inadequate maintenance to ensure its proper functioning. The municipality may require formation of a homeowner's association registered pursuant to Section 352-E of the New York State General Business Law and execution of a maintenance agreement consistent with Schedule E. (5) That the proposed project will not contribute to flooding, siltation or streambank erosion and will not result in any increase, directly or indirectly, in pollution to Long Island Sound or its tributaries from stormwater runoff. SECTION 15 - VARIANCES. A. If during the review of an application it is determined that the application of any design or dimensional requirement contained in this Ordinance will result in the denial of the project, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to modify the project plans or in the alternative to make application for a variance. Upon denial of any permit application for a project for failure to conform with specific provisions of this Ordinance, the applicant may make an application for a variance. B. If the applicant determines that any aspect of the project cannot meet any design or dimensional requirement contained in this Ordinance, the applicant may make direct application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals. C. Variance applications shall be on such forms as may be prescribed and shall conform with and contain the permit application requirements set forth in this Ordinance. D. The granting of any variance shall be done in accordance with the New York State Town Law, the New York Village Law or the New York General City Law and any amendments. E. No variance shall be granted by a municipality until first providing notice a minimum of fifteen (15) days in advance. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation shall be deemed a party to the proceeding for all purposes with the right to initiate or intervene in any action or proceeding in which the grant or denial of a variance is an issue or in any proceeding involving an interpretation of the municipality's Plan or Program. II-127 SECTION 16 - ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES. Violations. Any development activity that is commenced or is conducted contrary to this Ordinance, may be restrained by injunction or otherwise abated in a manner provided by law. A. Civil and Criminal Penalties. In addition to or as an alternative to any penalty provided herein or by law, any person who violates the provisions of this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each day during which the violation occurs or continues. B. Any violator may be required to restore land to its undisturbed condition. In the event that restoration is not undertaken within a reasonable time after notice, the municipality may take necessary corrective action, the cost of which shall become a lien upon the property until paid. C. Notice of Violation. When the municipality determines that an activity is not being carried out in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance, it shall issue a written notice of violation to the owner of the property. The notice of violation shall contain: (1)the name and address of the owner or applicant; (2) the street address when available or a description of the building, structure or land upon which the violation is occurring; (3) a statement specifying the nature of the violation; (4) a description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the development activity into compliance with this Ordinance and a time schedule for the completion of such remedial action; (5) a statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation is directed; (6) a statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the municipality by filing a written notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days of service of notice of violation. The notice of violation shall be served upon the person(s) to whom it is directed either personally, in a manner provided for personal services of notices by the court of local jurisdiction, or by mailing a copy of the notice of violation by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested to such person at his or her last-known address. A notice of violation issued pursuant to this section constitutes a determination from which an administrative appeal may be taken to the municipality. SECTION 17 - SEVERABILITY. Each separate provision of this Ordinance is deemed independent of all other provisions herein so that if any provision or provisions of this Ordinance be declared invalid, all other provisions shall remain valid and enforceable. SCHEDULE A DEFINITIONS II-128 The following terms shall have the stated meanings when used in this Ordinance or in documents prepared or reviewed under this Ordinance: (1) Agricultural activities means the activities of an active farm including grazing and watering livestock, irrigating crops, harvesting crops, using land for growing agricultural products, and cutting timber for sale, but shall not include the operation of a dude ranch or similar operation, or the construction of new structures associated with agricultural activities. (2) Base flow means the stream discharge from groundwater runoff. (3) Blind drain means a drain consisting of an excavated trench refilled with pervious materials, such as coarse sand gravel or crushed stone through which water percolates and flows toward an outlet, often referred to as a French drain. (4) Building footprint means that two-dimensional plane area of a building or structure which results when the height dimension is removed and which shows an aerial view of said building or structure including garages, sheds, porches, eaves, covered breezeways, entryways and other similar attached appurtenances. (5) Catch basin means an inlet structure for the collection of stormwater from impervious surfaces designed with a sump to trap sediment. (6) Department means the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York. (7) Detention means the practice and procedures associated with the delayed release of stormwater so as to reduce peak flow, maintain base flow, increase opportunity for recharge to groundwater, and reduce opportunity for surface runoff and soil erosion. (8) Detention structure means a permanent structure for the temporary storage of runoff which is designed so as not to create a permanent pool of water. (9) Develop land means to change the runoff characteristics of a parcel of land in conjunction with residential, commercial, industrial or institutional construction or alteration. (10) Development means any building, construction, expansion, alteration, modification, demolition or other activity, including land clearing, land disturbance, grading, roadway construction or expansion, mining or mineral extraction which materially changes the use or appearance of land or a structure, or the intensity of the use of land, or the creation of a subdivision which may result in such activity, but not including interior renovations to a structure, a change in use of a structure which results in no land disturbance, or the construction or modification of a dock, wharf or mooring. (11) Development area or site means any parcel of property or lot or combination of contiguous lots which (a) are in common ownership, or (b) are in diverse ownership where development is to occur in common. For the purposes of this Ordinance contiguous lands shall include those separated by a public highway. (12) Disturbed area means that part of a development site area where actual land disturbance, vegetation removal, or construction of buildings, structures or utilities will occur or has occurred. (13) Drainage area means all of the area of land contributing runoff flow to a single point. (14) Erosion means the wearing away of the land surface by water, wind, or ice or the detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice or gravity. (15) Filter strip means a strip of permanent vegetation above ponds, diversion terraces and other structures to retard flow of runoff, causing deposition of transported material, thereby reducing sediment flow. (16) Flow attenuation means prolonging the flow time of runoff to reduce the peak discharge. (17) Hydrograph means a graph showing variation in stage (depth) or discharge of a stream of water over a period of time. II-129 (18) Impervious area means an area covered by pavement, rooftops, and/or other structures or materials, which is either impervious to water or which substantially prevents the infiltration of water into the soil at that location. (19) Infiltration means the downward movement of water from the surface to the subsoil. Infiltration rate is typically expressed as inches per hour. (20) Infiltration device means a stormwater recharge area, dry well, recharge basin, retention basin or any other engineered structure designed to infiltrate stormwater. (21) Infiltration rate means a soil characteristic determining or describing the maximum rate at which water can enter the soil under specified conditions, including the presence of an excess of water. (22) Land disturbance or land clearing means grading, digging, cutting, scraping, excavating, removing of soil, placement of fill, paving or otherwise covering, construction, substantial removal of natural or human-made vegetation, replacement of natural vegetation with lawn or other human-made vegetation, demolition or other removal of human-made features, or any activity which bares soil or rock. For the purposes of calculating the square footage affected by any development in order to determine a project's classification, all affected areas of the development site shall be considered in aggregate whether or not the affected areas are contiguous. (23) Mulch means a natural or artificial layer of plant residue or other materials, such as sand or paper, on the soil surface which reduces erosion, maintains soil moisture and facilitates seed germination. (24) Municipality means the Town of, Village of, or City of. (25)Nonpoint source means any source from which pollutants are or may be discharged which is not a point source. (26) Offering plan means a prospectus as required by §352-e of the General Business Law. (27) Peak flow means the maximum instantaneous flow of water from a given condition at a specific location. (28) Person means any individual, firm, partnership, club, trust, company, association, cooperative, corporation (including a government corporation), municipality, the State or Federal government and any agency thereof. (29) Pollution means the condition caused by the presence in the environment of substances of such character and in such quantities that the quality of the environment is impaired or rendered offensive to life. (30) Pollution source controls means the structures and practices used in reducing contaminants from point and/or nonpoint sources. (3 1)Porous pavement means a paving material that allows water to pass through it. (32) Predevelopment means those site conditions which legally existed prior to the commencement of any activity regulated by this Ordinance. (33) Project means any land use or development activity proposed by an applicant which is subject to this Subpart. (34) Project life means the anticipated or actual time a project will be used, utilized or remain in functional existence. (35) Rainfall intensity means the rate at which rain is falling at any given instant, usually expressed in inches per hour. (36) Rational method means a widely accepted method for calculating stormwater runoff, volume and rates of flow for stormwater shed areas up to twenty acres. (37)Redevelopment means any activity which alters a previously developed site. II-130 (38) Retention means the practice of holding or directing stormwater except that portion evaporated or bypassed in an emergency, in or to a given area so that all the stormwater will be infiltrated into the subsoil. (39) Retention pond means a recharge basin which is designed to infiltrate all of the stormwater it receives and which normally has no outflow. (40) Revegetation means the natural or artificial replacement of vegetation on a project site to reduce erosion, decrease runoff, improve water quality and improve aesthetic qualities of exposed soils. (41) Runoff controls means those structures and/or devices, including, but not limited to, dry wells, porous pavements, ditches, wetlands, holding ponds, recharge areas, and retention/detention basins which recharge groundwater and provide for peak flow attenuation. (42) Significant habitat means that area or region important in fulfilling the daily or seasonal habitat requirements of any species of plant or animal designated as endangered, threatened, rare, or of special concern by the Department pursuant to ECL Sections 11-0535 and 9-1503 and the Department's regulations thereunder, or by any individual species or any group or natural community of nonlisted plants and animals of significant economic, recreational, aesthetic, ecological or scientific importance. (43) Siltation trap means a structure designed to trap sand and silt sized particulate matter from stormwater. (44) Site - (See Development Area) (45) Stormwater means water produced by precipitation including snow melt which does not evaporate and which flows over a natural or human-made surface or into a natural or human- made channel. (46) Stormwater Concept Plan or SCP means a report prepared in accordance with Schedule B of this Ordinance or on behalf of a project sponsor which includes analysis of a site's environmental characteristics, potential impacts of the development on water resources and the effectiveness and acceptability of the proposed stormwater management system in order to determine the types of stormwater measures necessary for the proposed development. (47) Stormwater control measures means all those natural and man-made structures, infiltration devices, erosion controls, systems, facilities, agreements, institutional arrangements, and financial provisions to manage stormwater including, but not limited to, any of the following: dry wells, pits of crushed rock, infiltration trenches, retention ponds, detention ponds, blind ditches, swales, pipes, culverts, natural depressions, porous paving, recharge areas, and basins. (48) Stormwater Control Report or SCR means a report prepared in accordance with Schedule B of this Ordinance or on behalf of a project sponsor which evaluates the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff resulting from the proposed project. The report shall include a set of drawings and other documents to provide all the necessary information and specifications pertaining to stormwater management and associated pollution control for a particular site. The SCR is intended to implement the SCP. (49) Stormwater design plan means the written narrative, maps, and diagrams prepared for the purpose of runoff control on a specific development site, based upon survey and analysis of the site. (50) Stormwater management means: (1) for quantitative control, a system of vegetative and structural measures that control the increased volume and rate of surface runoff caused by human-made changes to the land; and (2) for qualitative control, a system of vegetative, structural and other measures that reduce or eliminate pollutants that might otherwise be carried by surface runoff. II-131 (5 1) Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement means an agreement between the project sponsor and some other entity to ensure adequate maintenance and repair of the stormwater management system over the life of the project. (52) Stormwater Management Plan or Plan means a local stormwater management plan adopted by a municipality pursuant to this Subpart and ECL Section 43-0112. (53) Stormwater recharge area means an area of land used for the purpose of infiltrating stormwater. (54) Stormwater Regulatory Program or Program means a local stormwater regulatory control program adopted by a municipality pursuant to 6NYCRR 646-4 and ECL Section 43-0112. (55) Stormwater runoff means any surface water runoff or runoff in channels which results directly either from a rainstorm or from the melting of snowpack. (56) Stream shall include any permanent or intermittent watercourse. (57) Stream corridor means that area within one hundred (100) feet of the high water mark of any stream or river protected and/or regulated by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, or wetlands adjacent thereto. (58) Subcatchment means an identifiable drainage area contained within a larger watershed or drainage area. (59) Subdivision means a division of any land into two or more lots, parcels or sites, whether the new lots are adjoining or not, for the purpose of sale, lease, license or any form of separate ownership or occupancy by any person, including the conveyance of lands in common ownership which are divided only by a road or utility right-of-way. Creation of a condominium or townhouse project shall be considered a subdivision. This definition shall not apply to conveyances of small parcels of land to correct a boundary of a lot, so long as such conveyance does not create additional lots. (60) Surface water runoff means water which flows over the land and does not percolate into the soil, and which may run off as a sheet, rill or stream flow. (61) Time of concentration means the time required for water to flow from the most remote point of a watershed, in a hydraulic sense, to the outlet. (62) Water body means any lake, pond, river, stream, intermittent stream or wetland. (63) Water table means the upper surface or top of the saturated portion of the soil or bedrock layer, indicating the upper extent of groundwater. (64) Watershed means the total drainage area contributing runoff to a single point. SCHEDULE B ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS PART I CONTENT OF STORMWATER CONCEPT PLAN. (1) A Stormwater Concept Plan (SCP), if required, shall include sufficient information to evaluate the environmental characteristics of the project site, the potential impacts of the proposed development on water resources and the effectiveness and acceptability of measures proposed for managing stormwater runoff. Sufficient engineering analysis shall be performed and provided to show that the stormwater control measures in the Plan are viable and capable of managing runoff from the site in compliance with these regulations and the municipality's Stormwater Management Plan and Regulatory Program. All anticipated development of the site and phases of the project, both present and future, shall be addressed in the SCP. The intent of II-132 this conceptual planning process is to determine the type of stormwater measures necessary for the proposed project. The SCP shall include any modifications to the proposed project necessary to achieve the required level of stormwater management. In order to ensure adequate planning for management of runoff from future development, a municipality may also require any SCP to consider the maximum development potential of a site under existing zoning, regardless of whether the applicant presently intends to develop the site to its maximum potential. (2) For development or redevelopment occurring on a site where development has previously occurred, an applicant shall be required to include within the stormwater concept plan measures for controlling existing stormwater runoff discharges from the site in accordance with the standards of this Ordinance to the maximum extent practicable. Such measures shall also include those measures reasonable and necessary to, at a minimum, infiltrate the runoff from the first one-half inch of precipitation from any storm event for all areas within the site which have previously been developed. PART H CONTENT OF THE STORMWATER CONTROL REPORT A Stormwater Control Report (SCR) shall be submitted which evaluates the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff resulting from the proposed project for all phases, both present and future, and if required, for the maximum potential runoff from the site if it were to be developed to its maximum potential under existing zoning. The Stormwater Control Report shall be consistent with, and shall be reviewed on the basis of the approved SCP. Contents of Stormwater Control Report (SCR). A SCR shall contain, at the minimum, the following information: (1) A description of the project site and surrounding area within five hundred (500) feet as it exists prior to the commencement of the project; a location map; description of the watershed of the subcatchment and its relation to the project site; soil types and descriptions on the site and surrounding area; topography of the project site and surrounding area; surface characteristics including percent cover by asphalt, concrete, crushed stone, grasses, brush, and trees; current land use including all structures, and characteristics of the shoreline and its development, if applicable; drainage patterns including streams, ponds, culverts, ditches, and wetlands; and locations of utilities, roads, and easements. (2) A detailed description of the proposed project including surface characteristics; proposed land use with tabulation of the percentage of surface area to be adapted to various uses; drainage patterns; locations of utilities, roads and easements; the limits of clearing and grading; and construction cost estimates of stormwater management structures. (3) Hydrologic and hydraulic computations of stormwater volume and flow for existing and proposed conditions shall be performed. Such computations shall include (i) description of the design storm frequency, intensity and duration, (ii) time of concentration, (iii) soil curve numbers or runoff coefficients, (iv) peak runoff rates and total runoff volumes for each watershed area or subcatchment area, (v) infiltration rates, (vi) culvert capacities, (vi) flow velocities, (viii) data on the increase and volume of runoff for the 10-year storm and on the change in the rate of runoff for the 2-, 10-, 50- and 100-year storms, (ix) documentation of sources for all computation methods and field test results, and (x) sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development, with its necessary stormwater controls, has been designed to preserve and maintain the base flow in all streams passing through, adjoining or receiving runoff from the site. (4) A description of how the stormwater control measures for the project will provide the best available pollutant removal technology. (5) A detailed description of and plans of, stormwater and erosion control measures including (i) II-133 proposed containment facilities and structures, (ii) calculations of infiltration area required, (iii) calculation of retention and/or detention/retention storage requirements and storage volume provided, (iv) calculation or documentation of infiltration rate, (v) calculation for release rate controls (orifice or pipe size), (vi) description of pollution control measures such as filter strips, sand filters, infiltration, (vii) provision for emergency overflow, and (viii) measures taken to obviate or reduce the need for runoff control such as use of porous pavement or crushed stone, or the minimization of land clearing or paving. (6) Drainage maps at a scale specified by the municipality showing existing and proposed conditions and contours, including the watershed area and subcatchment boundaries, acreage, inlet and outlet points of streams, culverts and drainage ditches, surface features, existing and proposed structures, buildings, pavement, flow directions, existing and proposed storm sewers, streams and other drainage channels, water quantity and quality control structure including retention basins and infiltration trenches, and a location map at a scale specified by the municipality showing the entire watershed area and indicating the project site. (7) A certification that the stormwater control measures as designed and presented in the SCR will function adequately, will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream waters or properties, and has been designed in accordance with this Ordinance. The report and plans shall bear the stamp and signature of the licensed professional engineer or architect or exempt land surveyor executing the above certification. (8) A project schedule which shall indicate the proposed starting and completion dates for all major work phases including but not limited to clearing and grading, road construction, utility placement, septic systems, stormwater control measures, wharf construction, pouring or laying of footings and foundations, building construction, and interim and permanent revegetation. Particular emphasis shall be placed on those elements of the schedule relating to stormwater runoff and erosion control. In general, the control facilities shall be installed first in the construction stages of a project to minimize the impacts associated with construction. Further, the project schedule shall take into account appropriate seasonal limitations for temperature and weather sensitive operations. Special measures or procedures may be required to undertake land disturbance activities occurring between October 15 and April 15. (9) A maintenance schedule which includes (i) the construction costs related to stormwater control, (ii) the proposed stormwater control maintenance program and annual costs of implementing such, (iii) identification of the party or parties responsible for maintenance of the system over the life of the project, (iv) a copy of any maintenance agreement, (v) identification of the party or parties responsible for correcting failures or inadequate function of stormwater control measures and responsible for assuming control of the systems in the event of failure to properly maintain the system. (10) Application Inspections. Each application shall contain the written consent of the landowner that the municipality may conduct site inspections, tests, and evaluations as are deemed necessary by it to verify site data contained in the application. Such data shall include, but are not limited to, soil type, topography, depth to seasonal high groundwater, depth to bedrock and distance to surface bodies of water. During the site inspection one or more deep test holes and percolation tests may be required by the municipality to be performed by the applicant. PART III METHODOLOGIES FOR DETERMINING RUNOFF VOLUMES Methodologies for determining runoff volume. Stormwater volumes and rates of flow shall be calculated using the following methods: (i) for small watershed areas (up to 20 acres), the II-134 Rational Method may be used, and (ii) for larger watershed areas (up to 2,000 acres), and as the overall preferred method, the United States Department of Agriculture method shall be used, ( this method is described in "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds-Technical Release 55") or (iii) any other equivalent and widely accepted method may be used. PART IV SOIL EVALUATION METHODS The design infiltration rate shall be based on the results of hydrogeologic studies performed by the applicant during preparation of the Stormwater Control Report. The studies shall include test pits or borings located to present a clear picture of geologic and hydrologic conditions existing at the site and the areas, both on and off the site, affecting, or to be affected by, the development. A minimum of three subsurface excavations shall be conducted and the results shall be included in the SCR. Interpretive logs of all excavations shall be submitted with the report. Hydrogeologic interpretations and conclusions shall be developed by qualified persons only. Following design of infiltration devices, additional subsurface investigations to confirm soil and groundwater conditions will be required in the areas proposed for infiltration devices. The design of any project or development shall ensure that the ability to manage stormwater is not affected by the placement of structures on those soils or locations best suited for stormwater management purposes. II-135 WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS Model Wetland/Stream Buffers Ordinance (Prepared By State of Rhode Island) Section I. Background. Buffers next to stream systems and coastal areas provide numerous environmental protection and resource management benefits which can include the following: • restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the water resources • removing pollutants delivered in urban stormwater • reducing erosion and controlling sedimentation • stabilizing stream banks • providing infiltration of stormwater runoff • maintaining base flow of streams • contributing the organic matter that is a source of food and energy for the aquatic ecosystem • providing tree canopy to shade streams and promote desirable aquatic organism. • providing riparian wildlife habitat • furnishing scenic value and recreational opportunity It is the desire of the (Municipality) to protect and maintain the native vegetation in riparian and wetland areas by implementing specifications for the establishment, protection and maintenance of vegetated along all stream systems and/or coastal zones within our jurisdictional authority. Section II.Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish minimal acceptable requirements for the design of buffers to protect the streams, wetlands and floodplains of (Jurisdiction), to protect the water quality of watercourses, reservoirs, lakes, and other significant water resources within (Municipality), to protect Is (Municipality's) riparian and aquatic ecosystems; and to provide for the environmentally sound use of Is (Municipality's) land resources. Section III. Definitions. Active Channel: the area of the stream channel that is subject to frequent flows (approximately once per one and a half years), and that includes the portion of the channel below where the floodplain flattens. II-137 Best Management conservation practices or management measures which control soil loss and Practices (BMPs): reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal wastes, toxics, sediment, and runoff. Buffer: a vegetated area, including trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, which exists or is established to protect a stream system, lake, reservoir or coastal estuarine area. Alteration of this natural area is strictly limited. Development: 1) the improvement of property for any purpose involving building subdivision, or the division of a tract or parcel of land in to 2 or more parcels; 2) the combination of any two or more lots, tracts, or parcels of property for any purpose, 3) the preparation of land for any of the above purposes. Non-Tidal Wetland: those areas not influenced by tidal fluctuations that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Nonpoint Source Pollution: pollution which is generated by various land use activities rather than from an identifiable or discrete source, and is conveyed to waterways through natural processes, such as rainfall, storm runoff, or ground water seepage rather than direct discharge. One Hundred Year Floodplain: the area of land adjacent to a stream that is subject to inundation during a storm event that has a recurrence interval of one hundred (100) years. Pollution: any contamination or alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of any waters that will render the waters harmful or detrimental to: 1) public health, safety or welfare 2) domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses 3) livestock, wild animals, or birds 4) fish or other aquatic life Stream Channel: part of a water course either naturally or artificially created which contains an intermittent or perennial base flow of groundwater origin. Base flows of groundwater origin can be distinguished by any of the following physical indicators: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil or other hydrologic indicators in the area(s) where groundwater enters the stream channel, in the vicinity of the stream headwaters, channel bed or channel banks II-138 2) flowing water not directly related to a storm event 3) historical records of a local high groundwater table, such as well and stream gauge records. Stream Order: a classification system for streams based on stream hierarchy. The smaller the stream, the lower its numerical classification. For example, a first order stream does not have tributaries and normally originates from springs and/or seeps. At the confluence of two first order streams, a second order stream begins, and so on. (See Figure 1) Stream System: a stream channel together with one or both of the following: • 100-year floodplain and/or • hydrologically-related non-tidal wetlands Streams: perennial and intermittent watercourses identified through site inspection and USGS maps. Perennial streams are those which are depicted on a USGS map with a solid blue line. Intermittent streams are those which are depicted on a USGS map with a dotted blue line. Water Pollution Hazard: a land use or activity that causes a relatively high risk of potential water pollution. Section IV. Applications. 1) This ordinance shall apply to all proposed development except for that development which meets waiver or variance criteria as outlined in Section IX of this regulation. 2) This ordinance shall apply to all timber harvesting activities, except those timber harvesting operations which are implementing a forest management plan which has been deemed to be in compliance with the regulations of the buffer ordinance and has received approval from (State Forestry Agency). 3) This ordinance shall apply to all surface mining operations except that the design standards shall not apply to active surface mining operations which are operating in compliance with an approved (State or Federal Agency) surface mining permit. 4) This ordinance shall not apply to agricultural operations that are covered by a conservation plan approved by an appropriate agency that includes the application of best management practices. [Note: Communities should carefully consider whether or not to exempt agricultural operations from the buffer ordinance, because buffer regulations may take land out of production and impose a inancial burden on family farms. Many communities exempt agricultural operations if the have an approved conservation pTan. In some regions, agricultural buffers may be funded through the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). II-139 [Note: Livestock operations near and around streams may be regulated by communities. Livestock can significantly degrade the stream system, and accelerate streambank erosion. For more information, contact the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District at'(91-1)285-4422.] 5) Except as provided in Section IX, this ordinance shall apply to all parcels of land, structures and activities which are causing or contributing to: • pollution, including nonpoint source pollution, of the waters of the jurisdiction adopting this ordinance. • erosion or sedimentation of stream channels • degradation of aquatic or riparian habitat Section V.Plan Requirements. In accordance with Section IV of this ordinance, a plan approved by the appropriate agency is required for all development, forest harvesting operations, surface mining operations, and agricultural operations. 1) The plan shall set forth an informative, conceptual and schematic representation of the proposed activity by means of maps, graphs, charts, or other written or drawn documents so as to enable the agency an opportunity to make a reasonably informed decision regarding the proposed activity. 2) The plan shall contain the following information: • a location or vicinity map • field delineated and surveyed streams, springs, seeps, bodies of water, and wetlands (include a minimum of two hundred (200) feet into adjacent properties). • field delineated and surveyed forested buffers • limits of the one hundred (100) year floodplain • hydric soils mapped in accordance with the USDA-MRCS Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties, New, York • steep slopes greater than fifteen (15) percent for areas adjacent to and within two hundred (200) feet of streams, wetlands, or other water bodies. • a narrative of the species and distribution of existing vegetation within the buffer 3) The buffer plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the required grading plan for any development, and the forest buffer should be clearly delineated on the final grading plan. 4) Permanent boundary markers, in the form of signage approved by (Municipality), shall be installed prior to final approval of the required clearing and grading plan. Signs shall be placed at the edge of the Middle Zone (See Section VI.E). Section VI. Design Standards for Forest Buffers. 1) A forest buffer for a stream system shall consist of a forested strip of land extending along both sides of a stream and its adjacent wetlands, floodplains or slopes. The forest buffer width shall be adjusted to include contiguous sensitive areas, such as steep slopes II-140 or erodible soils, where development or disturbance may adversely affect water quality, streams, wetlands, or other water bodies. 2) The forest buffer shall begin at the edge of the stream bank of the active channel. 3) The required width for all forest buffers (i.e., the base width) shall be a minimum of one hundred feet, with the requirement to expand the buffer depending on: a)stream order; b) percent slope; c) 100-year floodplain; and d) wetlands or other critical natural resource(s). • in third order and higher streams, add twenty five feet to the base width. • forest buffer width shall be modified if there are steep slopes which are within close proximity to the stream and drain into the stream system. In those cases, the forest buffer width can be adjusted. [Note: Several method maybe used to adjust buffer width for steep slopes. Two examples include.-] Method A Percent Buffer Width Slope 15%-17% add 10 feet 18%-20% add 30 feet 21%-23% add 50 feet 24%-25% add 60 feet Method B Type of Stream Use Percent Slope water Contact Sensitive Recreational Stream Use Habitat 0 to 14% no change add 50 feet 1.5 to 25% add 25 feet add 75 feet Greater than add 50 feet add 100 feet 25% • forest buffers shall be extended to encompass the entire 100-year floodplain and a zone with a minimum width of 25 feet beyond the edge of the floodplain. • when wetland or critical areas extend beyond the edge of the required buffer width, the buffer shall be adjusted so that the buffer consists of the extent of the wetland plus a 25-foot-wide zone extending beyond the wetland edge. II-141 A) Water Pollution Hazards The following land uses and/or activities are designated as potential water pollution hazards, and must be setback from any stream or water body by the distance indicated below: 1) storage of hazardous substances (150 feet) 2) above or below ground petroleum storage facilities (150 feet) 3) drain fields from on-site sewage disposal and treatment system (i.e., septic systems--100 feet) 4) raised septic systems (250 feet) 5) solid waste landfills or junkyards (300 feet) 6) confined animal feedlot operations (250 feet) 7) subsurface discharges from a wastewater treatment plant (100 feet) 8) land application ofbiosolids (100 feet) [Note: For surface water supplies, the setbacks should be doubled] B) The forest buffer shall be composed of three distinct zones, with each zone having its own set of allowable uses and vegetative targets as specified in this ordinance. (See Figure 2). [Note: Although a three zone buffer system is highly, recommended, the widths and specific uses allowed in each zone may vary between jurisdictions.] 1) Zone 1 Streamside Zone 1) The function of the streamside zone is to protect the physical and ecological integrity of the stream ecosystem. 2) The streamside zone will begin at the edge of the stream bank of the active channel and extend a minimum of 25 feet from the top of the bank. 3) Allowable uses within this zone are highly restricted to: • flood control structures • utility rights of way • footpaths • road crossings, where permitted. 4) The vegetative target for the streamside zone is undisturbed native vegetation. 2) Zone 2 Middle Zone 1) The function of the middle zone is to protect key components of the stream and to provide distance between upland development and the streamside zone. 2) The middle zone will begin at the outer edge of the streamside zone and extend a minimum of 50 plus any additional buffer width as specified in Section VI C. II-142 3) Allowable uses within the middle zone are restricted to: • Biking or hiking paths • Stormwater management facilities, with the approval of (local agency responsible for stormwater). • Recreational uses as approved by (Municipality). • Limited tree clearing with approval from (Forestry Agency or Planning Agency). 4) The vegetative target for the middle zone is mature native vegetation adapted to the region. 3) Zone 3 Outer Zone 1) The function of the outer zone is to prevent encroachment into the forest buffer and to filter runoff from residential and commercial development. 2) The outer zone will begin at the outward edge of the middle zone and provide a minimum width of 25 feet between Zone 2 and the nearest permanent structure. 3) There shall be no septic systems, permanent structures or impervious cover, with the exception of paths, within the outer zone. 4) The vegetative target for the outer zone may vary, although the planting of native vegetation should be encouraged to increase the total width of the buffer. Section VII. Buffer Management and Maintenance. 1) The forest buffer, including wetlands and floodplains, shall be managed to enhance and maximize the unique value of these resources. Management includes specific limitations on alteration of the natural conditions of these resources. The following practices and activities are restricted within Zones 1 and 2 of the forest buffer, except with approval by (Municipality): 1) Clearing of existing vegetation. 2) Soil disturbance by grading, stripping, or other practices. 3) Filling or dumping. 4) Drainage by ditching, under drains, or other systems 5) Use, storage, or application of pesticides, except for the spot spraying of noxious weeds or non-native species consistent with recommendations of (NYS DEC or County Health Department) 6) Housing, grazing, or other maintenance of livestock. 7) Storage or operation of motorized vehicles, except for maintenance and emergency use approved by .(Municipality) 2) The following structures, practices, and activities are permitted in the forest buffer, with specific design or maintenance features, subject to the review of (Municipality): 1) Roads, bridges, paths, and utilities: • an analysis needs to be conducted to ensure that no economically feasible alternative is II-143 available. • the right of way should be the minimum width needed to allow for maintenance access and installation. • the angle of the crossing shall be perpendicular to the stream or buffer in order to minimize clearing requirements • the minimum number of road crossings should be used within each subdivision, and no more than one fairway crossing is allowed for every 1,000 feet of buffer. 2) Stormwater management: • an analysis needs to be conducted to ensure that no economically feasible alternative is available, and that the project is either necessary for flood control, or significantly improves the water quality or habitat in the stream. • in new developments, on-site and non-structural alternatives will be preferred over larger facilities within the stream buffer. • when constructing stormwater management facilities (i.e., BMPs), the area cleared will be limited to the area required for construction, and adequate maintenance access. • material dredged or otherwise removed from a BMP shall be stored outside the buffer. • stream restoration projects, facilities and activities approved by are permitted within the forest buffer. • water quality monitoring and stream gauging are permitted within the forest buffer, as approved by (local, state and/or federal agency). • individual trees within the forest buffer may be removed which are in danger of falling, causing damage to dwellings or other structures, or causing blockage of the stream. • other timber cutting techniques approved by the agency may be undertaken within the forest buffer under the advice and guidance of (State or Federal Foresny Agency), if necessary to preserve the forest from extensive pest infestation, disease infestation, or threat from fire. [Note: Rather than place specific stormwater BMP design criteria in an ordinance, it is Often preferable to reference a manual. Therefore, specific design information call change over time without going through the formal process needed to change ordinance language. One such manual is the NYS DEC's Reducing the Impacts ofStormwater Runoff from New Development.] 3) All plats prepared for recording and all right-of-way plats shall clearly: • Show the extent of any forest buffer on the subject property by metes and bounds • Label the forest buffer • Provide a note to reference any forest buffer stating: "There shall be no clearing, grading, construction or disturbance of vegetation except as permitted by the agency". • Provide a note to reference any protective covenants governing all forest buffers areas stating: "Any forest buffer shown hereon is subject to protective covenants which may be found in the land records and which restrict disturbance and use of these areas. 4) All forest buffer areas shall be maintained through a declaration of protective covenant, which is required to be submitted for approval by II-14 4 (Municipality). The covenant shall be recorded in the land records and shall run with the land and continue in perpetuity. [Note: This protective covenant can be kept either by the local government agent responsible r management of environmental resources, or by an approved nonproit organization.] All lease agreements must contain a notation regarding the presence and location of protective covenants for forest buffer areas, and which shall contain information on the management and maintenance requirements of the forest buffer for the new property owner. 1) An offer of dedication of a forest buffer area to the agency shall not be interpreted to mean that this automatically conveys to the general public the right of access to this area. 2) (Responsible Individual or Group) shall inspect the buffer annually and immediately following severe storms for evidence of sediment deposition, erosion, or concentrated flow channels and corrective actions taken to ensure the integrity and functions of the forest buffer. Note: A local ordinance will need to designate the individual or group responsible for buffer maintenance. Often, the responsible party will be identified in any protective covenants associated with the property.] 3) Forest buffer areas may be allowed to grow into their vegetative target state naturally, but methods to enhance the successional process such as active reforestation may be used when deemed necessary by (Municipality) to ensure the preservation and propagation of the buffer area. Forest buffer areas may also be enhanced through reforestation or other growth techniques as a form of mitigation for achieving buffer preservation requirements. Section VIII. Enforcement Procedures. 1) (Director of Responsible Agency) is authorized and empowered to enforce the requirements of this ordinance in accordance with the procedures of this section. 2) If, upon inspection or investigation, the director or his/her designee is of the opinion that any person has violated any provision of this ordinance, he/she shall with reasonable promptness issue a correction notice to the person. Each such notice shall be in writing and shall describe the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision within this ordinance which has been violated. In addition, the notice shall set a reasonable time for the abatement and correction of the violation. 3) If it is determined that the violation or violations continue after the time fixed for abatement and correction has expired, the director shall issue a citation by certified mail to the person who is in violation. Each such notice shall be in writing and shall describe the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision within this ordinance which has been violated, and what penalty, if any, is proposed to be assessed. The person charged has thirty (30) days within which to contest the citation or proposed assessment of penalty and to file a request for a hearing with the director or his designee. At the conclusion of this hearing, the director or his designee will issue a final order, subject to appeal to the appropriate authority. If, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the citation issued by the director, the person II-145 fails to contest the citation or proposed assessment of penalty, the citation or proposed assessment of penalty shall be deemed the final order of the director. 4) Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance may be liable for any cost or expenses incurred as a result thereof by the agency. 5) Penalties which may be assessed for those deemed to be in violation may include: • a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation with each days continuance considered a separate violation. • a criminal penalty in the form of a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation or imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or both. Every day that such violations shall continue will be considered a separate offense. • anyone who knowingly makes any false statements in any application, record, plat, or plan required by this ordinance shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation or imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days, or both. [Note: Specific penalties will vary between communities, and should reflect realistically enforceable penalties given the political realities of a jurisdiction.] 6) In addition to any other sanctions listed in this ordinance, a person who fails to comply with the provisions of this buffer ordinance shall be liable to the agency in a civil action for damages in an amount equal to twice the cost of restoring the buffer. Damages that are recovered in accordance with this action shall be used for the restoration of buffer systems or for the administration of programs for the protection and restoration of water quality, streams, wetlands, and floodplains. Section IX. WaiversNariances. 1 This ordinance shall apply to all proposed development except for that development which prior to the effective date of this ordinance: • is covered by a valid, unexpired plat in accordance with development regulations • is covered by a current, executed public works agreement • is covered by a valid, unexpired building permit • has been accepted to apply for a building permit • has been granted a waiver in accordance with current development regulations. 2 The director of the agency may grant a variance for the following: • those projects or activities where it can be demonstrated that strict compliance with the ordinance would result in practical difficulty or financial hardship • those projects or activities serving a public need where no feasible alternative is available. • the repair and maintenance of public improvements where avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts to nontidal wetlands and associated aquatic ecosystems have been addressed • for those developments which have had buffers applied in conformance with previously issued requirements. 3 Waivers for development may also be granted in two additional forms, if deemed appropriate by the director: • the buffer width made be relaxed and the buffer permitted to become narrower at some 11-146 points as long as the average width of the buffer meets the minimum requirement. This averaging of the buffer may be used to allow for the presence of an existing structure or to recover a lost lot, as long as the streamside zone (Zone I) is not disturbed by the narrowing, and no new structures are built within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. • (Planning Agency) may offer credit for additional density elsewhere on the site in compensation for the loss of developable land due to the requirements of this ordinance. This compensation may increase the total number of dwelling units on the site up to the amount permitted under the base zoning. 4 The applicant shall submit a written request for a variance to the director of the agency. The application shall include specific reasons justifying the variance and any other information necessary to evaluate the proposed variance request. The agency may require an alternatives analysis that clearly demonstrates that no other feasible alternatives exist and that minimal impact will occur as a result of the project or development. 5 In granting a request for a variance, the director of the agency may require site design, landscape planting, fencing, the placement of signs, and the establishment of water quality best management practices in order to reduce adverse impacts on water quality, streams, wetlands, and floodplains. Section X.Conflict With Other Regulations. Where the standards and management requirements of this buffer ordinance are in conflict with other laws, regulations, and policies regarding streams, steep slopes, erodible soils, wetlands, floodplains, timber harvesting, land disturbance activities or other environmental protective measures, the more restrictive shall apply. II-147 O 0 O KEY O watershed boundary 1 © © 0 stream ©confluence O O © 0 © O O©© stream order Figures 1 and 2 "i Compost Fence Bike path Posting Foot path Str fn STREAMSIDE MIDDLE ZONE C===* <�3 OUTER ZONE ZONE n II-148 MUNICIPAL RESOLUTIONS ENDORSING PRINCIPLES OF WAC 4 PLAN March 7, 2001 2001 — 139 ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION PLEDGING SUPPORT FOR THE "SPIRIT" OF THE GOALS OF THE LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERSHED ADVISORY COMMITTEE #4 Christina Hughes stated that the Environmental Committee of Harrison endorsed the goals of this Committee. On motion of Supervisor Bianchi, seconded by Councilwoman Pritchard, it was RESOLVED as follows: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF WATERSHED ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4 (WAC 4) WHEREAS, the Long Island Sound Study monitored, assessed and researched the water quality and fish and wildlife habitats of Long Island Sound, which.is designated an Estuary of National Significance under the National Estuary Program, and has produced a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the Sound; and WHEREAS, the CCMP recognizes that nonpoint source pollutants significantly deg-ade water quality in the Sound and its tributaries, and threaten the economic, recreational and biologic values of the Sound; and WHEREAS, the County of Westchester established a Citizen's Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound (Committee) in 1992 to respond to the concerns and recommendations raised by the Long Island Sound Study; and WHEREAS,the Committee produced a report and recommendations in 1993. that were designed to control the amount of nonpoint source pollution entering Long Island Sound from its WHEREAS, a Steering Committee (Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution) was established to implement the Citizen's Committee recommendations and has, over the past five years, been implementing an intermunicipal watershed management program to protect and enhance natural resources and water quality in the Long Island Sound watershed, forming Watershed Advisory Committees (WACs) to further its intermunicipal efforts; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the City/Town/Village of Harrison recognizes that the economic, recreational and biologic importance of Long Island Sound and its tributaries are directly linked to water quality and natural resources protection; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, Town of Harrison, representatives on Watershed Advisory Committee 4 "WAC4) have been involved in the development of a watershed management plan that contains ecommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Town Board, Town of Harrison, endorses the principles of WAC 4's watershed management plan titled "Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound: A Management Plan for the Watersheds of the Mamaroneck River, Sheldrake River and Mamaroneck Harbor" (November 2000)"; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board, recommends that the City/Town/Village work with other municipalities and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution to further the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in the Long Island Sound watershed. WHEREAS, a Steering Committee(Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution) was established to implement the Citizen's Committee recommendations and has, over the past five years,been implementing an intermunicipal watershed management program to protect and enhance natural resources and water quality in the Long Island Sound watershed, forming Watershed Advisory Committees (WACs)to further its intermunicipal efforts; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the City/Town/Village of Harrison recognizes that the economic, recreational and biologic importance of Long Island Sound and its tributaries are directly linked to water quality and natural resources protection; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, Town of Harrison, representatives on Watershed Advisory Committee 4 WAC4) have been involved in the development of a watershed management plan that contains recommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Town Board., Town of Harrison, endorses the principles of WAC 4's watershed management plan titled "Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound: A Management Plan for the Watersheds of the Mamaroneck River, Sheldrake River and Mamaroneck Harbor"(November 2000)"; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board, recommends that the City/Town/Village work with other municipalities and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution to further the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in the Long Island Sound watershed.WHEREAS, a Steering Committee (Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution)was established to implement the Citizen's Committee recommendations and has, over the past five years, been implementing an intermunicipal watershed management program to protect and enhance natural resources and water quality in the Long Island Sound watershed, forming Watershed Advisory Committees (WACs) to further its intermunicipal efforts; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the City/Town/Village of Harrison recognizes that the economic, recreational and biologic importance of Long Island Sound and its tributaries are directly linked to —ater quality and natural resources protection; and WHEREAS,the Town.Board, Town of Harrison, representatives on Watershed Advisory Committee 4 (WAC4)have been involved in the development of a watershed management plan that contains recommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor-, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Town Board, Town of Harrison., endorses the principles of WAC 4's watershed management plan titled "Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound: A Management Plan for the Watersheds of the Mamaroneck River, Sheldrake River and Mamaroneck Harbor"(November 2000)"; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board, recommends that the City/Town/Village work with other municipalities and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution to further the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in the Long Island Sound watershed. FURTHER RESOLVED to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Chair of the Environmental Committee. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Vetere, Paladino and Strati Councilwoman Pritchard Supervisor Bianchi NAYS: None ABSENT: None Copies to: —Assessor FILED TI TIS Benefits qq5 ____Bldg s.-r..;_ 3. OF --.f Cotnpt'lr ✓Engrng . 200/ Law _Police Wrks j r �Purch'g ` cr k, Tarr son, Nc�w York -Recr'tn Su .vs TaRIC FJ e_V EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD MARCH 7,2001 AT 8:15 PM IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 W.BOSTON POST ROAD,MAMARONECK,NEW YORK RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF WATERSHED ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4(WAC 4) I! WHEREAS,the Long Island Sound Study monitored,assessed and researched the water quality and fish and wildlife habitats of Long Island Sound,which is designated an Estuary of National Significance under the National Estuary Program,and has produced a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP)for the Sound;and WHEREAS,the CCMP recognizes that nonpoint source pollutants significantly degrade water quality in the Sound and its tributaries,and threaten the economic,recreational and biologic values of the Sound;and WHEREAS,the County of Westchester established a Citizen's Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound(Committee)in 1992 to respond to the concerns and recommendations raised by the Long Island Sound Study;and WHEREAS,the Committee produced a report and recommendations in 1993 that were designed to control the amount of nonpoint source pollution entering Long Island Sound from its watershed in Westchester County;and WHEREAS,a Steering Committee(Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution)was established to implement the Citizen's Committee recommendations and has,over the past five years,been implementing an intermunicipal watershed management program to protect and enhance natural resources and water quality in the Long Island Sound watershed,forming Watershed Advisory Committees(WAGS)to further its intermunicipal efforts;and WHEREAS,the Town of Mamaroneck applied for and received the grant that funded development of this plan and brought together through a Memorandum of Understanding the six municipalities in the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake watershed with Westchester County to form WAC 4;and WHEREAS,the Town Council of the Town of Mamaroneck recognizes that the economic, recreational and biologic importance of Long Island Sound and its tributaries are directly linked to water quality and natural resources protection;and WHEREAS,the four representatives(Wallace Irwin,Jr.,Howard McMichael,Stephen Altieri and Phyllis Wittner)on Watershed Advisory Committee 4(WAC 4)have been involved in the development of a watershed management plan that contains recommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Mamaroneck Town Council endorses the principles of WAC 4's watershed management plan titled"Controlling Polluted Stormwater:A Management Plan for the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor"(January 2001);" AND,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Mamaroneck Town Council recommends that the Town of Mamaroneck work with other municipalities and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution to further the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in the Long Island Sound watershed. Ayes: Seligson,Odierna,Myers,Wittner,O'Keeffe Nays: None STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER } SS.: TOWN OF MAMARONECK I do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed Resolution with the original on file in my office, and that the same is a true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of the said original Resolution,which was duly passed by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, March 7th.................................................12001. a quorum being present,on.................... . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Corporate Seal of said Town of Mamaroneck, this ..8th...... day of.......March 2001. Deputy Town Clerk EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK HELD ON MONDAY,MARCH 26,200 1,AT 8:00 P.M.IN THE COURTROOM AT VILLAGE HALL, MAMARONECK,NEW YORK. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF WATERSHED ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4(WAC 4) On motion of Trustee McConnell,seconded by Trustee Savolt: WHEREAS,the Long Island Sound Study monitored,assessed and researched the water quality and fish and wildlife habitats of Long Island Sound,which is designated as Estuary of National Significance under the National Estuary Program,and has produced a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP)for the Sound;and WHEREAS,the CCMP recognizes that nonpoint source pollutants significantly degrade water d threaten the economic,recreational and biologic values of the quality in the Sound and its tributaries,an Sound;and i' it WHEREAS,the County of Westchester established a Citizen's Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound(Committee)in 1992 to respond to the concerns and recommendations raised by the Long Island Sound Study;and I I. WHEREAS,the Committee produced a report and recommendations in 1993 that were designed to control the amount of nonpoint source pollution entering Long Island Sound from its watershed in Westchester County;and I � IjWHEREAS,a Steering Committee(Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution)was established to i j; implement the Citizen's Committee recommendations and has,over the past five years,been implementing �'i an intermunicipal watershed management program to protect and enhance natural resources and water Iquality in the Long Island Sound watershed,forming Watershed Advisory Committees(WACs)to further �I its intermunicipal efforts;and I WHEREAS,the Village of Mamaroneck recognizes that the economic,recreational and biologic importance of Long Island Sound and its tributaries are directly linked to water quality and natural I; resources protection;and WHEREAS,the Village of Mamaroneck representatives on Watershed Advisory Committee 4 (WAC 4)have been involved in the development of a watershed management plan that contains recommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Village of Mamaroneck endorses the principles j of WAC 4's watershed management plan titled"Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island II Sound:A Management Plan for the Watersheds of the Mamaroneck River,Sheldrake River and Mamaroneck Harbor"(November 2000)";and I I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Board of Trustees recommends that the Village of Mamaroneck work with other municipalities and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution to further the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in the Long Island Sound Watershed. Ayes: McConnell, Savolt, Zerega, Nathan I 41njuin ofl Nays: None ii `�" i� �,�,,,,�` ( ss.; Absent: Chapin Al ) t„r...._coneCkk Wesherc C000ry,New Yosk, �I 1, the nodeaigaed desk of the Village of i DO HEREBY CERTIFY: Tbu I bare mmpued the anacmd enact of the mionm of the meeting of the Baud of Tnuum of the Vitiage of 3Ls�. ioduding the tc oladons coaaioed themin, hdd on the II 26th day of March 2001 with the original d=eof on file in ml ice, and thu II the same is a true and macct tansctipt therefrom and of the whole of said original so far a the same relates to the subject maters therein tefemd to I FURTHER CERTIFY that all member of acid Board had due notice of said maecing ` �rt �i�sss �bsasttf, I ha�c hereunto set my hand and affued she seal of said � i� Viliageth is 27th day of March 2001. i II 1 II ..... .................v .. ................ ........... I� li I I II Dist Member Yeas Na s Abstain Absent Introduced On: 1st Boyle Introduced By: 2nd Selin 'eld: 3rd Brown ]opted: 4'^ Fosina ,,,o. 51h Bramson Council Members Michael E. Boyle, Jr. Moved: M. Christina Selin, Beuenia M. Brown, 611 Sussman (and} Joseph F. Fosina, 4oam Bramson,MariarmeL.. Mayor Idoni Seconded: Sussman and Mayor/Timothy C. Idoni Approved As To Form: q' Corporation Counsel SUBJECT OR TITLE RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE WAC 4 PLAN TITLED "CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IN LONG ISLAND SOUND: A MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE WATERSHEDS OF THE MAlVIARONECK RIVER, SHELDRAKE RIVER AND MAMARONECK HARBOR". WHEREAS, the Long Island Sound Study monitored, assessed and researched the water quality and fish and wildlife habitats of Long Island Sound, which is designated an Estuary of National Significance under the National Estuary Program, and has produced a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP) for the Sound; and WHEREAS, the CCMP recognizes that nonpoint source pollutants significantly degrade water quality in the Sound and its tributaries, and threaten the economic, recreational and biologic values of the Sound; and WHEREAS, the County of Westchester established a Citizen's Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound (Committee) in 1992 to respond to the concerns and recommendations raised by the Long Island Sound Study; and WHEREAS, the Committee produced a report and recommendations in 1993 that were designed to control the amount of nonpoint source pollution entering Long Island Sound from its watershed in Westchester County; and WHEREAS, a Steering Committee (Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution) was established to implement the Citizen's Committee recommendations and has, over the past five years, been implementing an intermunicipal watershed management program to protect and enhance natural resources and water quality in the Long Island Sound watershed, forming Watershed Advisory Committees (WACs)to further its intermunicipal efforts; and WHEREAS, the City Council of New Rochelle recognizes that the economic, recreational and biologic importance of Long Island Sound and its tributaries are directly linked to water quality and natural resources protection; and ql WHEREAS, the City of New Rochelle representative on Watershed Advisory Committee 4 (WAC 4) has been involved in the development of a watershed management plan that contains recommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the watersheds of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor, which watershed management plan has been sent to involved City departments for review and comment; WHEREAS, the City of New Rochelle on April 15, 1997, by Resolution No. 73, adopted a similar resolution endorsing the principles of the WAC 5 recommendations, which area encompasses the watersheds of Stephenson Brook, Burling Brook, and Pine Brook and the City of New Rochelle has implemented many of the environmental recommendations contained in that report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New Rochelle endorses the principles of WAC 4's watershed management plan titled "Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound: A Management Plan for the Watersheds of the Mamaroneck River, Sheldrake River and Mamaroneck Harbor" (Janurary 2001);" AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New Rochelle instructs the City Manager and City administration to work with other municipalities and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution to further the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in the Long Island Sound watershed. Authenticated and certified) TIMOTHY C. IDONI, Mayor this 20th day of Feb. , 2001) DOROTHY ALLEN, City Clerk Wac 4 resolution RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF WATERSHED ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4 (WAC 4) J WHEREAS, the Long Island Sound Study monitored, assessed and researched the water quality and fish and wildlife habitats of Long Island Sound,which is designated an Estuary of National Significance under the National Estuary Program, and has produced a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP)for the Sound; and WHEREAS, the CCMP recognized that nonpoint source pollutants significantly degrade water quality in the Sound and its tributaries, and threaten the economic,recreational and biologic values of the Sound; and WHEREAS, The County of Westchester established a Citizen's Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound(Committee)in 1992 in which Scarsdale participated to respond to the concerns and recommendations raised by the Long Island Sound Study; and WHEREAS, the Committee produced a report and recommendations in 1993 that were designed to control the amount of nonpoint source pollution entering Long Island Sound from its watershed in Westchester County; and WHEREAS, a Steering Committee (Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution)was established to implement the Citizen's Committee recommendations and has, over the past five years, been implementing an intermunicipal watershed management program to protect and enhance natural resources and water quality in the Long Island Sound watershed,forming Watershed Advisory Committees(WACs)to further its intermunicipal efforts; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Village Board of the Village of Scarsdale recognizes that the economic,recreational and biologic importance of Long Island Sound and its tributaries are directly linked to water quality and natural resources protection; and WHEREAS; the Village representatives on Watershed Advisory Committee 4 (WAC 4)have been involved in the development of a watershed management plan that contains recommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the watershed of the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor, and WHEREAS, it would be more effective and efficient to implement the various recommendations in the WAC 4 watershed management plan on a drainage basin basis without the limitations of municipal boundary lines, by an Agency,new or existing,that can act with a regional mandate;and WHEREAS, such Regional Agency could be empowered to levy fees on commercial properties on a porous/impervious formula which will further advance EPA objectives in regard to nonpoint source runoff,thereby providing an appropriate mechanism to generate the necessary funding to implement the WAC 4 recommendations, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Village of Scarsdale endorses the principles of WAC 4's watershed management plan titled "Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound:A Management Plan for the Watersheds of the Mamaroneck River, Sheldrake River and Mamaroneck Harbor(November 2000);"and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE supports working with other municipalities and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution to further the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in the Long Island Sound watershed and explore the potential for a Regional Agency to effectively and efficiently implement the WAC 4 recommendations, Submitted by:Village Managers Date: March 6,2001 � ® RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS ENDORSING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE WATERSHED ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WAC 4) REPORT ENTITLED "CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IN LONG ISLAND SOUND: A MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SHELDRAKE AND MAMARONECK RIVERS AND MAMARONECK HARBOR." WHEREAS, the Long Island Sound Study monitored, assessed and researched the water quality and fish and wildlife habitats of Long Island Sound, which is designated as an Estuary of National Significance under the National Estuary Program, and WHEREAS, a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan ("CCMP") for Long island Sound has been produced; and WHEREAS, the CCMP recognizes that nonpoint source pollutants significantly degrade water quality in Long Island Sound and its tributaries, and threaten the economic, recreational and biologic values of Long Island Sound; and WHEREAS, the County of Westchester established a Citizen's Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound (the "Long Island Sound Committee") in 1992 to respond to the concerns and recommendations raised by the Long Island Sound Study; and WHEREAS,the Long Island Sound Committee produced a report and recommendations in 1993 that were designed to control the amount of nonpoint source pollution entering Long Island Sound from its watershed in Westchester County; and WHEREAS, a Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution was established to implement the Long Island Sound Committee recommendations and has, over the past five years, been implementing an intermunicipal watershed management program to protect and enhance natural resources and water quality in the Long Island Sound watershed; and WHEREAS, Watershed Advisory Committees were formed for the various watersheds of the Long Island Sound; and WHEREAS, the Watershed Advisory Committee 4 ("WAC 4") was established for the Mamaroneck River and Sheldrake River watersheds to,among other things,study and development recommendations for the management of nonpoint source pollution in the Mamaroneck River Watershed; and WHEREAS, the City of White Plains is located in the Mamaroneck River Watershed; and WHEREAS,the Cityof White Plains recognizes that the economic,recreational and biologic importance of Long Island Sound and its tributaries are directly linked to water quality and natural resource protection; and ,6—z WHEREAS, the Environmental Officer and staff of the Planning and Public Works Departments have been involved with WAC 4 and the Westchester County Planning Department in the development of a watershed management plan that contains recommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the watershed of the Mamaroneck River; and WHEREAS, the 1997 Comprehensive Plan for the City of White Plains states as a specific strategy that the City of White Plains "Address the issue of nonpoint source pollution in future planning and environmental reviews;" and WHEREAS, the Common Council, the Planning Board, the Board of Appeals and the Commissioner of Building of the City of White Plains, as approving agencies, incorporate requirements for stormwater management and water quality treatment in their land use approvals, including requirements for stormwater management plans; and WHEREAS, the Open Space and Natural Resource Policy, which is a part of the Environmental Protection Initiative announced by the Mayor on January 19, 2001, includes requirements for limitation on the use of herbicides and pesticides on City-owned land; establishes criteria for the acquisition of open space in the community, and establishes, "as a matter of public policy",the consideration by all approving agencies of"the impact of approvals on the preservation of significant open spaces, wildlife habitats and critical natural resources;" and WHEREAS,on February 5,2001, Joyce Lannert,Commissioner of Planning for Westchester County sent to the City of White Plains copies of the final report of WAC 4 entitled "Controlling Polluted Stormwater, A Management Plan for the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor,"dated January 2001; and WHEREAS, the Common Council has reviewed the WAC 4 report and its recommendations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council endorses the principles of WAC 4's watershed report entitled "Controlling Polluted Stormwater, A Management Plan for the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers and Mamaroneck Harbor,"dated January 2001; and be it further RESOLVED, that Common Council recommends that the City of White Plains work with other communities in the Mamaroneck River Watershed and the Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution to further the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in the Long Island Sound watershed. STATE OF V YORK } COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER } ss.: CITY OF WHITE PLAINS } CERTIFIED COPY I, the undersigned, Deputy City Clerk, of the of a(an) City of White Plains,NY,do hereby certify that I have CERTIFIED COPY RESOLUTION in relation to compared the proceeding with the original resolution adopted by the Common Council of the City of White Resolution of the Common Council of the City Plains,NY,by the affirmative vote of a majority of the from the White Plains endorsing the principles of tt members of the Common Council at an Adjourned Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC-4) Repc entitled,"Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution Regular Stated Meeting, held the 12``' day of March Long Island Sound: A Management Plan for tF 2001 and I do hereby certify the same to be a correct Sheldrake and Mamaroneck Rivers ar transcript therefrom and of the whole of said original. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS Mamaroneck Harbor." 255 Main Street White Plains,NY 10601 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of the City of ADOPTED BY THE White Plains,NY, this 20th of March , 2001 COMMON COUNCIL of the CITY OF WHITE PLAINS l Qe®gdlS '{ 4 B 4� ''�� ¢14v OF 20t`' March 2001 MUM 0� City Cler , ity of White Pla s, r std Department of Planning ' ' � 402 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine avenue White Plains, N' 10601 Andrew J. Spano Tel: (914) 995-4430 County Executive Fax: (914.)995-3780 www.west;eliestergov.(-or.ri/l)lay.ini-.ng Mamaroneck Village Residents Association Organizing members: Natasha 0.Cherry Judith D.Rawcliffe,Esq. 347-224-7577 347-2248145 615 First Street,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 615 First Street,Mamaroneck,NY 10543 noc(a islandfinancialaroup.com iresoOrawcliffelaw.com OCTOBER 8,2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS CALENDAR OF UPCOMING MEETINGS..............................................2 SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING NOTES (CHERNY).........................................................4 SEPTEMBER 19,2007 MAMARONECK VILLAGE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (MVRA) MEETING NOTES (RAWCLIFFE)........................................6 SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 LONG ISLAND SOUND WATERSHED INTERMUNICIPAL COUNCIL (LISWIC), CHERNY MEETING NOTES, CHERNY COMMENTS TO LISWIC..............................................................................15 SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK PLANNING BOARD MEETING NOTES (RAWCLIFFE) ..................................................1G SEPTEMBER 279 2007 VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK CITIZENS FLOOD COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES (JACKSON) ....................................18 SEPTEMBER 28,2007 WESTCHESTER COUNTY CONSERVATION CAFE MEETING NOTES (CHERNY).......................................................20 1 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update Calendar of upcoming meetings: Date Time Who/what Agenda Location Regularly scheduled Village Board of Trustees Meeting AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING—PROPOSED LOCAL LAW 19- 2007(Village Attorney as Full Time Village Employee) REPORTS OF VILLAGE BOARD&VILLAGE MANAGER ON STATUS OF PROJECTS;LIAISON REPORTS 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A.Board of Trustees Regular Meeting of June 25,2007 (Revised) 2.AUDIT OF BILLS: 3.OLD BUSINESS: Tuesday, 7:30 VoM Board of 4.NEW BUSINESS: Courtroom, 169 Mt. October 9 p.m. Trustees A.R.P.T.L Section 520,Sub(1)Tax Exemptions(1-6) Pleasant Ave. B.2007 Hazard Mitigation Grant Application—Eligible Project DR-NY-1692-4110 C.Salary Increase—Assistant Building Inspector D.Resolution—Change of Counsel E.Capital Fund Authorization—Volunteer Firehouse F.Traffic Commission—Appointment of Joseph Mazzullo/Member G.BAR—Appointment of Andrew Spatz/Member H.Resolution Adopted by Town of Rye in support of the opposition of FAA Proposal I.Budget Amendment-$8,500 Legislative Grant Awards 5.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OF VILLAGE MANAGER: A.File for the Record-Agreement with Hazard Mitigation Consultants,LLC 6.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OF CLERK- TREASURER: A.Post Sale Summary of Village's Issuance of $7,107,200 Public Improvement Serial Bonds B.Comments received from Deputy Commissioner/Westchester County Planning Board re: Mamaroneck Beach&Yacht Club Final Environmental Impact Statement C.Letter from Carter Ledyard&Milburn,Attorney for Shore Acres Property Owners Association to the Planning Board requesting they require the preparation of a supplemental EIS to examine significant modifications to the Applicant's proposal. 7.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OF VILLAGE ATTORNEY 8.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OF POLICE CHIEF: 9.MINUTES—COMMISSIONS,BOARDS, COMMITTEES: A.Tree Committee Minutes of September 19,2007 Meeting(Filed for the Record) B.Planning Board Minutes of July 26,2007 Regular Meeting(Filed for the Record) C.Planning Board Minutes of July 31,2007 Special Meeting(Filed for the Record) 10.PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 2 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update Date Time Who/what Agenda Location Regularly scheduled Village Planning Board Meeting AGENDA OLD BUSINESS: 1.875 MAMARONECK AVE.—HUDSON SAVINGS Thursday, VoM Planning BANK-Continuation of Site Plan review, Courtroom, 169 Mt. October 11 7 p.m' Board amended to eliminate drive-thru facility. Pleasant Ave. NEW BUSINESS: 1.NOLLES RIDGE—FENIMORE ROAD— Determination of lot count(reduced from 18 to proposed 9 lots). Wednesday, 933 Mamaroneck October 17 7 p.m. MVRA Mayor Phil Tritiletti,guest speaker. Ave,LL Conf. Room Thursday, Citizen's Flood Regularly scheduled meeting of the Village of Conference Room, October 18 7 p.m. Committee Mamaroneck Citizens Flood Committee. Open to the Village Hall at the public. Regatta Monday, 7:30 VoM Board of Regularly scheduled Village Board of Trustees Courtroom, 169 Mt. October 22 p.m. Trustees Meeting. Pleasant Ave. Thursday, VoM Planning Regularly scheduled Village Planning Board Meeting Courtroom, 169 Mt. October 25 7 p.m. Board Pleasant Ave. Friday, Green Building Conference—with Habitat for November 9 Iona College HumanitySpellman Hall Monday, 7:30 VoM Board of Regularly scheduled Village Board of Trustees Courtroom, 169 Mt. November 12 p.m. Trustees Meeting. Pleasant Ave. 3 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees September 10,2007 Meetiniz Notes N. Cherny This meeting was to have been a major update on flood mitigation activities. No representatives from Clinton, Schumer,or Lowey's offices were present. Judy Myers and Supervisor O'Keeffe came to update the Board for the County's Task Force. Mayor Trifiletti did receive a letter from a member of Senator Schumer's staff indicating that $30 million had been secured for the Sheldrake/Mamaroneck Watershed for watershed management,bank restoration, and wetland restoration. A 5:30 p.m. today, G. Shapiro of Senator Clinton's office called to say she would be represented at the Village's next flood update (which Mayor Trifiletti indicated would be approximately quarterly, going forward). Jim Killoran of Habitat for Humanity advised there would be a Green Building Conference (2nd Annual) at Iona College on November 9,2007, Spellman Hall. There was a meeting on Friday, September 7, of Mayor Trifiletti, Mayor Steve Otis, State Senator Oppenheimer, Trustees Ryan and Fava, and Village Manager Verrastro. Mayor Otis spoke about Beaver Swamp Creek, Boston Post Road, and Shore Acres and indicated that the City of Rye's study of this area would be made available to the Village of Mamaroneck. Rob Yamuder updated the Board of Trustees on his flood-related projects to date. A letter of intent has been sent to SEMO requesting $2 million for the Jefferson Avenue Bridge rehab. SEMO rejected request for funds for stream bank restoration, which it considered to be regular maintenance. He also reported that several miles of sanitary sewers have been relined in the I&I program; more grants have been received to do more safety and quality improvements, catch basin maintenance, and to design a schedule of regular maintenance. ELQ contractors are continuing to get silt out of the rivers in the vicinity of bridges. Of the Leonard Jackson Associates studies requested by the Citizens Flood Committee,which has had three meetings as of this date,proposal"A" for$12.5K was approved (this study deals primarily with the confluence of the two rivers at Columbus Park). The Village has also made an application to SEMO for back-flow prevention valves; the funds would be used to cost-share with homeowners. The Army Corps is making progress. And the LISWIC-commissioned proposal for a Stormwater Utility District from Malcolm Pirnie is"in"and being reviewed by the Village. Judy Myers and Valerie O'Keeffe stated that the County Flood Action Task Force may be looking at a program similar to the County legacy plan for athletic fields,wherein municipalities have to apply for funding. The Task Force would review a municipality has acted to protect itself from flooding. An example of a measure taken by a municipality to mitigate against flooding: in the Town of Mamaroneck, an ordinance requires that any landowner who creates 100 square feet of impervious surface must install a drywell. Water shifted to surface runoff must be contained. 4 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update The $10 million in promised County funds will be in the 2008 budget, which is to be submitted to the Board of Legislators in on November 15th and must be approved by them by December 15th. All funds obtained will be on a reimbursement basis. It was reiterated by both Myers and O'Keeffe several times that this is a very complex watershed-wide matter, and that no "simple" approach is possible. What might work in one locale will not work in another. Ex., one cannot really"dredge" Larchmont Reservoir—it is a glacial pond, and one would reach bedrock very quickly. The County Planning Board/Department of Planning will oversee intermunicipal cooperation. 5 INTERNAL MEMORANDUM To: Neil Alexander From: John Tomlin Re: Brief Synopsis of the Proposed Clean Water Protection/Flood Prevention Act Date: June 30, 2005 Currently,the New York Freshwater Wetlands Act (NY FWA)protects freshwater wetlands that are greater than 12.4 acres in size or of"unusual local importance."' The NY FWA is implemented through regulations promulgated by the State Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC).2 Any person can petition the DEC Commissioner to get a wetland designated as of"unusual local importance."3 Although the petitioner usually must prove that the wetland has a characteristic of a Class I wetland,the Commissioner may consider other characteristics, such as flood and storm control.4 In order for the DEC to have jurisdiction over wetlands,the wetlands must be mapped.5 Currently,the process to map wetlands is set out in specific procedures, and involves public hearings and notification.6 In addition to the DEC's authority to regulate wetlands, municipalities can enact their own local laws?to regulate isolated wetlands.8 NY FWA and its associated regulations set out a specific process through which local governments can become 'New York's Freshwater Wetlands Act,N.Y.Envt.l Conserv.Law§24-0301 (2005). 2 See http://www.dec.state.ny.us(last visited June 29,2005). 3 N.Y.Envt.l Conserv.Law§24-0301. 4 6 N.Y.C.R.R.664(2005). 5 N.Y.Envt.l Conserv.Law§24-0107;see also DEC Mapping Program, http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/fwwprog5.htm(last visted June 29,2005). 6 id. 7 N.Y.Envt.l Conserv.Law§24-0501. 8 Wetlands that are wholly within one state and that have no surface water connection to any other bodies of water. certified to regulate wetlands within their boundaries.9 Until the local government has assumed jurisdiction over its wetlands,the NY FWA preempts local authority.10 Although the local authority to regulate wetlands allows municipalities to pass laws that give them jurisdiction over isolated wetlands less than 12.4 acres in size,New York State has mostly left regulation of smaller wetlands to the Army Corps of Engineers ("the Corps).11 The Corps jurisdiction over isolated wetlands was based on the Migratory Bird Rule.12 The constitutional basis for this rule was that destruction of these wholly intrastate water bodies could affect interstate commerce due to the millions of dollars associated with migratory birds (such as tourism for bird watching and hunting).13 However, the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC)invalidated the Migratory Bird Rule and effectively removed the Corps jurisdiction over isolated wetlands.14 In response to the "regulatory gap" created by the SWANCC decision,New York State Legislators introduced the Clean Water Protection/Flood Protection Act (the Bill). The Bill was first introduced in 2004, but stalled in the Senate. However, it was re- introduced in 2005.15 The proposed legislation will make significant changes to the NY FWA. The four most important changes that the Bill will make are that: (1) it will allow the DEC to regulate wetlands that are one acre or larger;16 (2) it will allow the DEC to 9 See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 665.1. 10Ardizzone v. Elliott,75 N.Y.2d 150(1989). " Brian Knutsen,Asserting Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Over Isolated Waters: What Happens After The SWANCC Decision,20 Alb.L.Envtl.Outlook J. 153 (2005). 121d. 131d 14 See Solid Waste Agency off. Cook County v. U.S.Army Corps ofEng'rs, 531 U.S. 159(2001). '5 A.2048 was introduced on January 24,2005 and passed in the Assembly on February 2,2005. 5.2081 was sent to the Senate,where it has been referred to the Environmental Conservation Committee on February 9,2005 16 S.2081,2005-2006 Reg. Sess. (N.Y.2005)(proposed amendment to §24-0107). 2 regulate the mere subdivision of land;17 (3) it will remove a grandfathering provision that allowed subdivisions and building permits approved prior to the passage of the law 18; and (4) it will remove wetland mapping as a condition for DEC regulation. 1. Regulation of Wetlands One Acre or Larger Even though the size of the wetlands to be regulated will be significantly reduced, it appears that there will still be a 100ft buffer zone from the boundary of the wetland.19 Moreover, it appears that wetlands that are less than one acre which are adjacent to other water bodies (even intermittent water bodies) will also be regulated.20 2. Subdivision of Land Although the act of subdividing land does not involve draining, dredging, excavation or dumping (i.e. the moving of dirt), it will still come under regulation of the NY FWA. The mere subdivision of land will therefore have to go through a permitting process. 3. Removal of the Grandfather Clause Currently,NY FWA does not apply to certain activities in wetlands that were given approval prior to the passage of the law in 1975.21 Specifically,this Grandfather clause exempts from the NY FWA: site plan approvals, plat approvals for subdivisions and building permits.22 The Bill repeals that section of the NY FWA. This will have significant consequences to existing land uses on or near wetlands. 17 S.2081,2005-2006 Reg. Sess.(N.Y.2005)(proposed amendment to §24-0701). 18 S.2081,2005-2006 Reg. Sess.(N.Y.2005)(proposed repeal of§24-1305). 19 S.2081,2005-2006 Reg. Sess.(N.Y.2005)(proposed amendment to §24-0701). 20 S.2081,2005-2006 Reg. Sess. (N.Y.2005)(proposed amendment to §24-0107). 21 N.Y.Envt.l Conserv. Law§24-1305. 22 Id 3 4. Removal of Wetland Mapping as a Condition for DEC Regulation Instead of providing jurisdiction for DEC regulation of wetlands, the maps will only be used to "serve the purpose of educating the public on the location of wetlands."23 DEC jurisdiction will instead be based on specific scientific criteria for wetland designation. Although public hearings will be held in the general area of where wetlands are to be placed on the map, the Bill eliminates the requirement to directly notify owners of property whose land is to be designated as wetlands.24 " S.2081,2005-2006 Reg. Sess. (N.Y.2005)(proposed amendment to §24-0107). 24 id. 4 Page 1 of 4 Radow, Elisabeth From: Radow, Elisabeth Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:41 AM To: Tomlin, John Cc: Radow, Elisabeth Subject: FW: Bills-Wetlands Legislation Elisabeth N. Radow Special Counsel Cuddy & Feder LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, 14th Floor White Plains, New York 10601 Telephone: (914) 761-1300 Facsimile: (914) 761-5372 eradow@cuddyfeder.com From: Assemblyman George Latimer [ma iIto:latimeg @assembly.state.ny.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:19 PM To: kajim2@aol.com; Radow, Elisabeth; dsearchplan@aol.com; sunnyg45@aol.com; Unstables@aol.com; tonyg@agsac.org; amterrone@aol.com; cselin@aol.com; ksavolt@optonline.net; Catherine_hiller@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Bills -Wetlands Legislation Assemblyman George Latimer wrote: Major legislation on the environment to protect wetlands -which I'm co-sponsoring George http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A07133 New1ork State S S E M B L Yz Monday, April 9, 2007 Bill Summary - A07133 Back I New York State Bill Search I Assembly Rome See Bill Text 5/9/2007 Page 2 of 4 A07133 Summary: BILL NO A07133 SAME AS Same as S 3835 SPONSOR Sweeney COSPNSR Fields, Brodsky, Clark, Bradley, Peoples, Jaffee, Koon, Lafayette, Pheffer, Paulin, Stirpe, Kavanagh, Latimer MLTSPNSR Alessi, Bing, Diaz R, Glick, Gottfried, Jacobs, John, Magnarelli, Markey, McEneny, Millman, Schroeder, Weisenberg Amd SS24-0105, 24-0107, 24-0301, 24-0701, 24-0703, 24-0901 & 24-0903, rpld S24-1305, En Con L Relates to the definition of freshwater wetlands; repeals section relating to the applicability of the freshwater wetlands article; provides authority of DE over wetlands which are one acre or more; amends permitting requirements for subdivision of land. A07133 Actions: BILL NO A07133 03/29/2007 referred to environmental conservation A07133 Votes: A07133 Memo: BILL NUMBER:A7133 TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to freshwater wetlands and repealing section 24-1305 of such law relating thereto PURPOSE: To provide the Department of Environmental Conservation with regulatory authority over Freshwater wetlands of one acre or more in size and other wetlands of significant local importance. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section one of the bill amends section 24-0105 of the ECL to revise and add to the list of benefits derived from wetlands. Section two of the bill amends section 24-0107 of the ECL to amend the definition of "Freshwater Wetland" to include wetlands that are one acre or more in size or adjacent to a water body or of significant 5/9/2007 Page 3 of 4 local importance. This section also amends subdivision two of section 24-0107 of the ECL to indicate that DEC's "Freshwater Wetlands Map" shall not serve as the basis for regulation by the Department and shall be only educational in purpose. Section three of the bill amends section 24-0301 of the ECL to specify the substantive and procedural requirements for the freshwater wetlands map. Section four of the bill amends section 24-0701 of the ECL to specify the permitting requirements for Freshwater wetlands, including the requirement for a wetlands permit for the subdivision of land. Section five of the bill amends section 24-0703 of the ECL to specify the requirements for DEC to respond to requests for determination of wetland status. Section six of the bill amends section 24-0901 of the ECL to remove reference to the wetlands map in relation to consultations with local governments. Section seven of the bill amends section 24-0903 of the ECL to remove reference to the wetlands map in relation to the DEC determination of compatible land uses. Section eight of the bill repeals section 24-1305 of the ECL. Section nine of the bill is the effective date. JUSTIFICATION: Wetlands improve drinking water quality by providing a buffer zone to intercept polluted runoff before it contaminates our lakes, rivers and coastal waters. Wetlands act as natural water filters, absorbing pollutants, pesticides, nitrogen, phosphorus and other contaminants before they infiltrate our drinking water. Additionally, wetlands absorb flood waters and serve as buffers during storms, saving billions of dollars in property damage annually. In a closely divided 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government no longer has jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. With the Supreme Court ruling in SWANCC, estimates from the EPA and Corps of Engineers show at least 20% and possibly 50% of existing wetlands, constituting millions of acres nationwide, will be left unprotected. In New York State, estimates are even higher. While a number of states (including all the northeastern States) already have the regulatory authority to step in and regulate the wetlands that Corps of Engineers formerly oversaw, New York's DEC is currently limited to regulating mapped wetlands of a size greater than 12.4 acres. If we do not protect New York's wetlands, we jeopardize our drinking water and property values. This legislation gives DEC the regulatory authority necessary to protect New York's wetlands by eliminating the mapping and reducing the size limitations on DEC's regulatory authority over wetlands. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2003: A.7905 - referred to En Con 2004: A.7905-A - Passed Assembly FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: To be determined. 5/9/2007 Page 4 of 4 EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately. Contact Webmaster Page display time= 0.0042 sec 5/9/2007 11/23/2007 NYLJ 3,(col. 1) Page 1 11/23/2007 N.Y.L.J.3,(col. 1) New York Law Journal Volume 238 Copyright 2007 ALM Properties, Inc. All rights reserved. Friday, November 23, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Stricter Rules on Storm Water Discharges Taking Effect Michael B. Gerrard On Jan. 8, 2008, new requirements will take effect in New York requiring some previously unregulated entities to file for permits to discharge storm water, and imposing stricter or different requirements on those entities that are already regulated. The state is requiring urbanized communities and publicly owned institutions, referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) , [FN1] to establish fully functional stormwater management programs (SWMPs) by that date. The state has issued new draft permits for MS4s and also for operators of construction sites over one acre, which go into effect on Jan. 8. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified storm water discharges of pollutants as an enforcement priority for 2008-2010. Specifically, EPA intends to focus its enforcement efforts on storm water runoff from home-building and 'big box' store construction, ready-mix concrete and crushed stone operations, concentrated animal feeding operations, municipal combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer_ overflows, and sand and gravel operations. [FN2] This article will briefly explain the history of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program as it relates to storm water management, the requirements of NPDES Phase II, and what MS4s and other regulated entities in New York must do to comply with the most recent facets of Phase II implementation. Need for Storm Water Management Storm water discharges are generated by runoff from paved streets, parking lots, rooftops and other surfaces during rain and snow melt. Natural features such as wetlands, forests and ponds can trap storm water runoff and allow it to filter into the ground, removing pollutants and slowing the rate of runoff. Land development often eliminates theselfeatures, leading to erosion and depositing pollutants into streams, lakes and rivers. The goal of this aspect of the NPDES program, and state programs like New York's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) , is to minimize the amount of storm water runoff and to require the effective management of what remains. Copyright © 2007 The New York Law Pub. Co. 11/23/2007 NYLJ 3,(col. 1) Page 2 11/23/2007 N.Y.L.J.3,(col. 1) NPDES Phases I and II NPDES was created in 1972 as part of §402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) . [FN3] The NPDES program was designed to regulate the discharge of pollutants from 'point sources' into waters of the United States by granting permits. Originally, NPDES did not regulate storm water discharges. However, 1987 amendments to the CWA required EPA to create and implement a storm water discharge permit program for certain categories of 'non-point' discharges. [FN4] In November 1990, the EPA published final NPDES stormwater regulations in accordance with this mandate. [FN5] These regulations, which addressed the most contaminated discharges, were referred to as 'Phase I. ' Pursuant to Phase I, the following categories of storm water discharge required permits: (1) discharges for which permits were issued prior to Feb. 4, 1987; (2) discharges related to industrial activity, including construction activity of five acres or more; (3) discharges from 'large' MS4s, or systems serving populations of 250, 000 or more; (4) discharges from 'medium' MS4s, or systems serving populations between 100,000 and 250, 000; and (5) discharges that in the EPA's view contribute to the violation of water quality standards or are significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States. [FN6] In 1999, the EPA issued 'Phase II' regulations addressing other types of stormwater discharges. [FN7] These regulations went beyond the Phase I program by requiring NPDES permit coverage for storm water discharges from 'small' MS4s, or those serving populations of less than 100,000 within an 'urbanized area' [FN8] as delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau (otherwise known as 'regulated small MS4s' ) , [FN9] and from 'small' construction sites disturbing between 1 and 5 acres of land. [FN10] The Phase II regulations became effective March 10, 2003. New York's SPDES Program Under the CWA, the EPA is authorized to issue NPDES storm water permits, but in most jurisdictions the EPA has delegated its permitting authority to a state or tribe. [FN11] Since, 1975, New York has been a CWA 'approved state, ' meaning that it is authorized by the EPA to implement the NPDES provisions through its SPDES _"-'i program. [FN12] In 198,8, the New York State Legislature gave the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) authority to regulate industrial and municipal storm-water discharges [FN13] and to issue storm water permits pursuant to the SPDES program. [FN14] 1) 'Small' MS4 Permits. To implement Phase II of the SPDES program, in January 2003 the DEC issued two nonindustrial Storm Water Management (SPDES) General Permits (GPs) , which are effective for five years. (A general permit contains a standard set of conditions that apply to a particular kind of operation or facility; typically one needs to register but not to seek authorization for the Copyright © 2007 The New York Law Pub. Co. 11/23/2007 NYLJ 3,(col. 1) Page 3 11/23/2007 N.Y.L.J.3,(col. 1) operation or facility. ) New versions of these general permits will go into effect in January 2008. One general permit applies to small MS4s. Under the current version (referred to as GP-02-02) , small MS4s that wish to obtain such a permit are required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) form to the DEC. The NOI requires MS4s to provide an initial outline of planned management practices, and to identify measurable goals to assess progress annually toward the full implementation of an appropriate SWMP. These SWMPs must contain the following six minimum control measures established by EPA: (1) public education and outreach; (2) public involvement and participation; (3) illicit discharge detection and elimination; (4) construction site storm water runoff control; (5) postconstruction-site storm water runoff control; and (6) pollution prevention for municipal employees. The EPA has published a continually updated list of best management practices for each of these control measures. [FN15] Although the DEC has specified a few required actions and provided a list of approved management practices for each minimum control category, MS4s are free to tailor the development of their SWMPs to best address their local storm water problems. The DEC is requiring that MS4s fully implement their SWMPs by Jan. 8, 2008. On Sept. 24, 2007, the DEC made available its new draft general MS4 storm water permit, referred to as GP-0-08-002. [FN16] Written comments on this draft permit are due by Dec. 10, 2007, [FN17] and it is expected to be finalized and go into effect on Jan. 8, 2008. This permit is different from GP-02-02 in several ways. First, the permit format has been changed to include different minimum control measures (MCMs) for traditional land-use control MS4s (such as cities, towns and villages) and for traditional nonland-use/nontraditional MS4s (such as county and state prisons, hospitals, road authorities and office buildings) . Second, selected items required for annual reporting have been included with each of the MCMs. Third, several areas in the state are now considered 'small' MS4s in urbanized areas, including Southold, East Hampton, Shelter Island, Greenport and Dering Harbor. Fourth, there are additional requirements for MS4s in watersheds where the reasonable potential to violate water quality standards has been judged to require more controls. MS4s not authorized under GP-02-02 must file an NOI if they are required to obtain coverage under this general permit. Newly authorized MS4s will have three years from the effective date of the permit to develop their SWMP and commence implementation. 2) 'Small' Construction Permits. The other general permit regulates construction activities impacting areas over one acre. Under the current version (referred to as GP-02-01) , construction operators must notify the DEC of any project disturbing one acre or more, prepare a formal written Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) , and adhere to the provisions of the SWPPP during and after construction. SWPPPs are plans for controlling storm water runoff and pollutants from a site during and after construction activities. In general, construction operators are required to prepare and maintain copies of an SWPPP prior to the submission of the NOI. Operators are also required to file a copy of the SWPPP with the local governing body. The principal objective of an SWPPP is to plan and implement the following practices: (1) reduction or elimination of erosion and sediment loading to waterbodies during construction; (2) control of the impact of storm water runoff on� Copyright © 2007 The New York Law Pub. Co. 11/23/2007 NYLJ 3,(col. 1) Page 4 11/23/2007 N.Y.L.J.3,(col. 1) the water quality of the receiving waters; (3) control of the increased volumed peak peak rate of runoff during and after construction; and (4) installation of storm water controls to address postconstruction storm water discharges. Once the NOI has been submitted to the DEC and the agency has issued a letter of acknowledgement, construction can begin. Once the construction project is completed, a notice of termination (NOT) must be filed with the DEC to cancel coverage under the general permit. On Oct. 10, 2007, the DEC released its new draft general storm water construction permit, referred to as GP-0-08-001. [FN18] As with the MS4 draft permit, the comment deadline is Dec. 10, 2007, and it is expected to be finalized and go into effect on Jan. 8, 2008. There are three major changes to this permit: . • Construction projects in the East of Hudson watershed: This watershed, which covers 375 square miles, [FN19] makes up a large portion of New York City's drinking water supply. Because storm water has been found to potentially contribute to a violation of water quality standards in this watershed, the minimum size of construction disturbance triggering a permit has been reduced from one acre to 0.11 acre (5,000 square feet) . While operators of construction projects between 0.11 and one acre will be required to obtain coverage under the general storm water permit, they will normally only have to develop an SWPPP that includes erosion and sediment control and will not have to meet postconstruction water quality management standards. • Construction projects in the East of Hudson, Onondaga Lake and Greenwood Lake watersheds: Runoff from construction sites in these watersheds contributes to phosphorous problems. Construction sites over one acre in these watersheds are ere ore required to prepare an SWPPP that includes postconstruction stormwater management practices meeting the Enhanced Phosphorous Removal Design Criteria. [FN20] • Construction projects that are tributary to state waters classified as AA or AA- s [FN21] that will disturb land areas with very steep slopes: These are land areas where the Soil Slope Phase is identified as E or F (generally those exceeding 25 percent slope) on the USDA Soil Survey. After specified dates, construction activities disturbing these land areas will be ineligible for coverage under the general permit and will have to apply for individual SPDES permits. The DEC is now requiring individual permits for these sites because of the increased potential for construction activities to be a significant contributor of silt and sediment to drinking water supplies. Application for individual permits must be filed at least 180 days before the anticipated first discharge. A construction owner or operator with coverage under GP-02-01 on the effective date of the updated permit will be automatically permitted to discharge in accordance with the updated permit unless otherwise notified by the DEC. Under the updated permit, an inspection is required every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a storm event in which 0.5 inches of rain or snow fell. For sites where active construction has been suspended, the updated permit requires inspections every 30 days, provided that temporary stabilization measures have been applied to disturbed areas. No more than five acres may be disturbed at any one time between Nov. 1 to March 1. [FN22] According to the DEC, this is largely because grass is the best run-off Copyright © 2007 The New York Law Pub. Co. 11/23/2007 NYLJ 3,(col. 1) Page 5 11/23/2007 N.Y.L.J.3,(col. 1) prevention method and grass seed will not germinate during this period. Owners or operators who have construction activities under way that will extend beyond Jan. 8, 2008 that will be affected by these changes should ensure that they obtain the requisite permit coverage and, for activities that are not covered by the current permit, they should ensure that they file an NOI and that their SWPPPs comply with the updated permit by Jan. 8, 2008. 3) Industrial Activity Permits. The DEC recently issued its revised general permit for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, referred to as the SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MS P . [FN23] The DEC revised this permit to resemble the EPA's MSGP more closely. This permit, referred to as GP-0-06- 002, replaces GP-98- 03 and became effective on March 28, 2007. It covers new and existing discharges of storm water from industrial c ivities. The revised MSGP now includes both general requirements applicable to all facilities with permit coverage (parts I through VII) and industry-specific requirements that have been tailored to address 31 different industrial categories (part VIII) . An industrial facility needing a storm water permit is required to submit a new Notice of Intent or Termination (NOIT) to obtain coverage. Facilities with coverage under the old permit were allowed until June 26, 2007 to submit their NOIT forms. Additionally, these facilities were allowed until Aug. 25, 2007 to update their SWPPPs to meet any new requirements applicable to them. [FN24] Michael B. Gerrard heads the New York office of Arnold & Porter. His latest book is 'Global Climate Change and U.S. Law' (ABA 2007) . J. Cullen Howe of Arnold & Porter assisted in the preparation of this article. FN1. The term 'MS4' refers to a city or other unit of government that owns or operates a storm sewer system. MS4s include cities, towns and counties. They can also include road authorities, watershed districts, universities, medical facilities, military bases, prisons and other public campuses. However, this term does not include combined sewer systems or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) , which are sewage treatment systems operated by a public agency. See 40 CFR 122.26 (b) (8) . FN2. See 'U.S. EPA October 2007 FY08-FY10 Compliance and Enforcement Priorities Under the Clean Water Act, ' available at http:// epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/data/planning/priorities/fy2008prioritycw a.pdf. FN3. 42 U.S.C. §402 (p) . FN4. 33 U.S.C. §1342 (p) . FN5. 55 Fed. Reg. 47990 (Nov. 16, 1990) . FN6. 42 U.S.C. §402 (p) (2) . FN7. 64 Fed. Reg. 68722 (Dec. 8, 1999) . FN8. 'Urbanized areas' are generally contiguous census blocks with population Copyright © 2007 The New York Law Pub. Co. 11/23/2007 NYLJ 3,(col. 1) Page 6 11/23/2007 N.Y.L.J.3,(col. 1) densities of greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, New York has 14 such areas encompassing 44 cities, 183 villages and 141 towns. FN9. 40 CFR §122.26(b) (16) (i) . FN10. 40 CFR §122.26(a) (9) (i) (B) . FN11. 42 U.S.C. §402 (b) . FN12. ECL §17-0801 et seq. FN13. ECL §17-0808. FN14. ECL §70-0117. FN15. This list is available at http:// cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm. FN16. A copy of this permit is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_ pdf/fdms4permit.pdf. FN17. Written comments should be submitted to the DEC contact listed on the Public Notice, available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20071010_not0.html. FN18. A copy of this draft permit is available at http:// www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/gpcondraft08.pdf. FN19. A map of this watershed is included as Figure 1 in the draft permit. FN20. A copy of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, which includes these criteria, is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_ pdf/premoval.pdf. FN21. These classifications allow these waters to be a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. Class AA-s waters contain no floating solids, toxic or industrial wastes, discharges of sewage, and no phosphorus and nitrogen in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes. Class AA waters are those, that, if subjected to approved disinfection treatment, with additional treatment if necessary to remove naturally present impurities, meet or will meet New York State Department of Health drinking water standards and are or will be considered safe and satisfactory for drinking water purpose. See 6 NYCRR §§701.3; 701.5. A map of these waters and their watersheds is included as Appendix E in the draft permit. FN22. See Subsection II (C) (3) (c) of the proposed permit. FN23. A copy of this permit is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_ pdf/gp060l.pdf. FN24. A copy of the applicable NOIT form is available at http:// Copyright © 2007 The New York Law Pub. Co. 11/23/2007 NYLJ 3,(col. 1) Page 7 11/23/2007 N.Y.L.J.3,(col. 1) www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/gpnoit.pdf. 11/23/2007 NYLJ 3, (col. 1) END OF DOCUMENT Copyright © 2007 The New York Law Pub. Co. Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update MVRA September 19,2007 Meeting Notes J. Rawcliffe Attendees: Don Beebe Rosemarie Beebe Natasha Cherny Marcia Cornelius Ian Daly Gina Falco Mary Lou Greco Regina McCough Betty Montiero Paula Piekos(White Plains) Judith Rawcliffe,Esq. Paul Ryan Joanne Schroeder Jeff Slater Myriam Valle Theresa Vallese Maureen Zaccagnino Presenters: Kathy Savolt,former Mamaroneck Village Trustee and Mayoral Candidate 2007 (Democratic and Working Families lines) Randi Rabinowitz, Candidate 2007,Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees (Democratic and Working Families lines) This was a very informal "round table" format discussion. Ms. Savolt invited us to introduce ourselves to her, and to provide a brief"resume"of our reasons for being at the meeting. She also invited us to write to her or Ms. Rabinowitz at mamaroneck2007&gmail.com,their campaign email address. Ms. Savolt's resume includes extensive grant-writing experience, management of large organizations, and a passion for environmental issues. Notes: Mamaroneck has three watersheds: Beaver Swamp Creek, Sheldrake River, and the Mamaroneck River. Ms. Savolt believes that the Trustees appointed a Citizens Flood Committee because the Village has insufficient staff. She recommends creation of a committee comprised of village staff,trustees, and citizens. The "Disaster Cycle"has the following components: 1. Prevention 2. Preparedness 3. Response 6 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update 4. Recovery 5. Mitigation Residents should Prevention: Stream maintenance, catch basin maintenance, removal of illegal hookups, village sewer lines,no development in flood zones. The pipes to the lateral pipes are the homeowner's responsibility; the laterals are the Village's responsibility, and the County trunk line and sewage treatment plant are the county's responsibility. The County notified the Village years ago that the laterals are undersized. Natasha asked Ms. Savolt to briefly outline the form of government in the Village: • The Village Manager is comparable to a corporate Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The Mayor is not the CEO. • The Clerk-Treasurer is comparable to a corporate Chief Financial Officer • The role of the Board of Trustees (which includes the Mayor, and whose members serve two-year terms) is to make policy,pass laws, and to budget. Direction of Village employees is not its role. Only the Chief of Police, Village Manager, and Village Attorney report to the Trustees. Continuing the analogy to corporations, the Board of Trustees is comparable to a Board of Directors;the Mayor is like a Chairman of the Board. By contrast,the Town of Mamaroneck has a form of government having a"Strong Supervisor" and a Town Manager. Mayor Trifiletti has been in office for six years; in Ms. Savolt's opinion,there should be some consistency and progress on water management. The League of Women Voters has recommended that the Village lengthen the Trustees' terms;this must be done by referendum. The County has promised$10 million per year for stormwater management,but in order for Mamaroneck to get it,we must clean our own house by tightening zoning,mitigation etc.,per Judy Myers. That is, no more projects like Blood Brothers. Note: BoT did pass an ordinance recently requiring that the Village invite the Army Corps of Engineers to review all proposals for development in the flood plain in Mamaroneck. Ms. Savolt suggests that Mamaroneck register as an"interested party"with the planning boards of all upstream communities. Problem: Municipal projects are exempt from SEQRA(State Environmental Quality Review Act);therefore, Mamaroneck would not be notified as an interested party for those projects. Westchester County is under federal court supervision for I&I (inflow and infiltration) into Long Island Sounds. Mamaroneck was under county orders to report illegal hookups 7 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update to Westchester County by April 30; because of the floods, these still have not been submitted. Mamaroneck has been slip-lining the sewer mains; has conducted smoke testing; and has put cameras into sanitary sewers to find leaks and illegal hookups. ************************************************************************ During the last half-hour of the meeting, Ms. Savolt described the rain garden she created on her own property in Shore Acres for the purpose of water management. As a direct result of the rain garden, she had less water in her home in the April storm than did her uphill nei,-hbor. Note: Silverleaf maples are a native species; the love water and grow quickly. Rather than describe Ms. Savolt's own rain garden, we have included below an article published by the Brooklyn Botanical Garden on the topic: Rain Gardens—Usinz Spectacular Wetland Plantings to Reduce Runoff PLANTS& GARDENS NEWS VOLUME 199 NUMBER I I SPRING 2004 BY JANET MARINELLI I used to hate rainy days. The drama of each passing storm escaped me. I'd sulk inside, waiting for the leaden clouds to lift. Then one day, as a nor'easter lashed our Shelter Island,New York, home, my husband, Don, and I watched the storm water come gushing down our gutters, creating a gully as it carried eroded soil down the driveway. We decided to figure out how much water rolls off our roof each year, and where it all goes. �-F � y °i A rain garden in Philadelphia, designed by Edgar David. Rainwater that flows from the house roof to the stone cistern is used to irrigate an intimate collection of woodland plants Like most people, Don and I didn't think a lot about the earth's hydrological cycle, which supports every terrestrial creature, from human being to towering tree, in the form of rain, fog drip, and snow. Over the ages this precipitation has etched a vast web of watersheds into the planet's surface. However, our huge and costly storm-water infrastructure subverts nature's plumbing system. Rainfall is immediately whooshed from our roofs to gutters and downspouts and channeled by concrete curbs to storm drains and pipes, sometimes in destructive torrents. 8 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update In a natural landscape—a forest, say—there's generally very little runoff. The soil and its dense cover of leaf litter and vegetation act as a sponge, absorbing most precipitation. But because we've replaced so much natural groundcover with impervious surfaces,rainfall no longer soaks into the soil as readily as it once did. As a result,huge volumes of runoff flow from countless roofs and compacted lawns down driveways and roads to storm sewers, carrying pesticides,motor oil, and other pollutants to nearby streams and rivers, fouling surface waters and destroying aquatic life through sheer physical force. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that a typical city block generates nine times more runoff than a woodland area of the same size. According to the EPA, storm-water runoff is the leading threat to the nation's estuaries and the third-largest problem facing lakes. After a few minor calculations,Don and I determined that more than 20 thousand gallons of water pour off our roof each year. (To figure out how much rain runs off your roof,use the formula in Resources.) We wanted to find a natural, low-tech way to dissipate the runoff and encourage it to seep into the soil. We decided to create a rain garden by directing the storm water from our downspouts into a low area we excavated and filled with lovely wetland wildflowers. DESIGNING WITH NATURE We located our rain garden behind the house where there was an open area with room for an array of moisture- loving plants native to our local wetland habitats. The southwest- facing area gets a few hours of sunlight before the setting sun dips behind the trees of the surrounding woodland just enough sunshine to support a decent variety of flowering plants. Because I was determined that our rain garden should attract butterflies and ruby- throated hummingbirds, I included many nectar-rich plants. The garden is at its most spectacular in late summer,when the massive, dusty pink flower heads of joe-pye weed loom high and mingle with the fragrant white flowers of sweet pepperbush and the intense,ruby-colored flower spikes of red lobelia. My miniature wetland has given me a great deal of pleasure. However, I didn't realize just how spectacular a rain garden can be until recently,when I saw the work of Edgar David, a Pennsylvania-based landscape architect (610-584-5941; www.seddesignstudio.com). In David's gardens,the storm water isn't just whisked safely into a wetland planting; it is celebrated and becomes a focal point of the design. "The flow of water," in his words, "serves as a barometer of the storm," an expression of the natural forces acting on the environment. 9 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update s, 4• �Y The rain garden designed by Edgar Davis at Temple University's Ambler Campus. In one of David's gardens, on a typical narrow urban lot in Philadelphia's Chestnut Hill, rainwater collected from the house roof cascades into a handsome stone cistern. The water in the cistern can be used to irrigate the intimate native woodland garden that he re- created on the site. Excess water overflows into a recharge basin comprised of stones and gravel beneath the garden path,replenishing diminishing groundwater instead of ending up in nearby streams and causing erosion and other ecological damage. At another rain garden he designed for a suburban setting at Temple University's Ambler Campus, outside Philadelphia, runoff from the roof of an adjacent cottage flows overhead in an "aerial aqueduct," dropping dramatically in two steps on its way to a solar-powered fountain. Storm water running off a nearby terrace is carried by a handsome,plant-lined rocky swale into a native wetland garden. Here some 200 plant species, from bonesets to tussock sedges, filter pollutants from the water as it seeps into the soil. (See list of plant species.) HOW TO CONSTRUCT A RAIN GARDEN But you don't have to be a professional landscape designer to create a beautiful rain garden. A rain garden is really just a strategically located low area where storm water can be captured to soak naturally into the soil. Begin by observing your landscape when it rains to determine how storm water runs off your property. Typically,the largest sources of runoff are the roof,paved surfaces, and slopes. You can locate your rain garden at the bottom of slopes or next to hard surfaces such as your driveway and sidewalks—along the front walkway or between the sidewalk and the street, for example,to keep runoff from flowing into the road and down the nearest storm sewer. You can also direct runoff from your roof to the side or back yard. Not only will a rain garden along the side of the house catch runoff from your roof, it will also create a handsome living fence between you and your neighbors. Wherever they are located, rain gardens can replace high-maintenance lawn that provides little in the way of visual interest or wildlife habitat. Just keep the plantings at least ten feet from your house—or your neighbor's to prevent moisture problems in the basement. 10 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update There's no regulation size for a rain garden. Home rain gardens installed by the city of Maplewood,Minnesota, which since 1999 has made these gardens a regular part of its ongoing street-reconstruction efforts,were in three standard sizes: 12 feet by 24 feet, 10 feet by 20 feet, and 8 feet by 16 feet. However, a planting of any dimension will help reduce the runoff problem. If you are technically minded,you can calculate the area of your rooftop and average storm-water volumes in your vicinity(or the volume of your sump pump, if you have one)to determine exactly how large your garden must be to capture rainfall from all but the biggest storms (consult one of the technical design manuals listed in Resources). Unless you've got a naturally low area in your landscape,you'll need to create a depression by excavating soil. Typically,the deepest portion of the rain garden will be about six inches below the level of the surrounding land. Some of the topsoil removed from the site will be used to create a porous planting mixture. If your rain garden is located on a slope,you can pack some of the excavated soil along the downhill side to increase the depth of the planting area with less digging. Or you can use the leftover topsoil elsewhere in your yard. It's a good idea to loosen the remaining subsoil in the depression with a shovel or garden fork.Next,return some of the topsoil, amended with compost, and sand if necessary.A blend of 20 percent organic matter such as compost, 50 percent sandy soil, and 30 percent topsoil will promote good drainage and help break down pollutants. Clay content, which inhibits drainage, should not exceed 10 percent of the soil mixture. The proper soil mixture will ensure that there is rarely standing water in your rain garden for more than a few hours, or a few days at most—too short a time to breed mosquitoes, which require about a week of standing water to reproduce. To direct the storm water from the downspout or sump-pump outlet, attach a length of plastic pipe and bury it in a shallow trench that slopes down to the rain garden. Alternatively,you can simply lay the pipe on the ground or create a grassy swale leading from the downspout to your rain-garden depression. 11 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update Ilex verticillata (winterberry holly) „ Clethra alnifolia (sweet pepperbush) Monarda didyma Chelone glahra regalis � •'t , (bee balm) (white turtlehead) (royal fern) , ' " }s~ f rA Cornus stolonifera ,i (red-osier dogwood) t Labeha eardmali (red lobelia) osmanda dnnamamea (cinnamon fern) •A simple rain garden design, with red lobelia and royal fern occupying the lowest, wettest zone, CHOOSING PLANTS Planting a rain garden is the fun part. A variety of native wildflowers, ferns, grasses, shrubs, and trees thrive in moist soil. Your rain garden can be divided into three wetness zones: In the lowest zone,plant species that can tolerate short periods of standing water as well as fluctuating water levels, because a rain garden will dry out during droughts or at times of the year when precipitation is sparse. Species that can tolerate extremes of wet soils and dry periods are also appropriate for the middle zone, which is slightly drier. You can put plants that prefer drier conditions at the highest zone or outer edge of your rain garden. Plant as many species as you can to enhance your rain garden's value as wildlife habitat. If your rain garden is shaded by existing trees,plant smaller understory trees and shrubs such as river birch and sweet pepperbush, as well as ferns, sedges, and wildflowers. Re- creating the vertical layers found in a natural forest will provide a number of different habitat niches for a variety of birds and other creatures. If you are planting in a sunny area, a wet meadow full of colorful prairie wildflowers and grasses is an appropriate choice. Gardeners in and areas should plant the species that grow naturally along streamsides and desert washes, such as acacia,hackberry, and desert willow. (See an extensive list of region-specific plant recommendations.) When you're finished planting, add a three-inch layer of hardwood mulch to suppress weeds. The mulch will also remove heavy metals from the precipitation before it percolates down into the groundwater. 12 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update Although rain gardens require some initial effort, they are a cinch to maintain. Until your plants become established,you may have to weed out undesirable volunteers. Leave the dormant plants alone over the winter to provide seeds and shelter for overwintering birds and butterflies. In spring,you can cut back or mow the stalks of herbaceous plants if you prefer the neat-and-trim look. Reapply mulch when necessary. Now that I have a rain garden full of glorious, colorful blooms, I actually look forward to the occasional shower or dramatic downpour. I know that by keeping stormwater from running off my property,my rain garden is helping to promote the health of our local watershed. My rain garden has other satisfactions as well. It creates valuable wildlife habitat, satisfying the needs of brilliant butterflies,peepers,birds, and other wildlife. At the same time, our little wetland planting helps replenish the underground reservoir that provides the fresh,pure drinking water that supports me and my family. Resources To calculate how much rainwater runs off your roof each year, first figure out your roof s square footage,then multiply that number by 623.Next, divide the product by 1,000,and multiply the result by the number of annual inches of rainfall in your location. In my case, I came up with nearly 24,000 gallons of water per year. Prince George's County, Maryland,where the rain garden was invented,has a rain-garden pamphlet for homeowners and a technical, 100-page design manual, "Low-Impact Development Design Strategies," with information on rain gardens and other storm- water-management approaches,which can be downloaded from the Department of Environmental Resources'web site. Go to www. ogot)rince eg_or esg count, and search for "bioretention." Or call 301-883-5834 for a hard copy. For information on rain gardens in colder climates, including "Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual," a technical design manual,visit the Metropolitan Council web site, www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/BMP/manual.htm. If you live in the desert Southwest,you'll find plenty of good tips on dealing with storm- water runoff in "Harvesting Rainwater for Landscape Use,"published by the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension. It is available online at http://ag.arizona.edg/pubs/water/azl052/harvest.html. A wealth of information on storm-water management, including technical design manuals for a number of other states,can be found on the web site of the Center for Watershed Protection,www.cwp.org/storinwater mst.htm. Janet Marinelli is Director of Publishing at Brooklyn Botanic Garden. Her latest book, Plant,published by DK, is a new global reference that showcases some 2,000 plants that are threatened in the wild but available in cultivation. The book,which is sponsored by botanic gardens around the world, features a new kind of gardening that nurtures a 13 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update greater richness of plant and animal life. Sales of the volume will help fund urgent plant conservation projects worldwide. Photographs courtesy Edgar Davis Illustration by Steve Buchanan Source: http://www.bbg_org/gar2/topics/design/2004sp raingardensl.html 14 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update September 21, 2007 Long Island Sound Watershed Intermunicipal Council (LISWIC) Attendee Meeting Notes and Comments by Attendee N. Cherny To introduce you to LISWIC, I have copied the text below from LISWIC's website, www.liswic.org: "LISWIC is a group of 12 municipalities located in the Long Island Sound Watershed in Westchester County,New York. The Council was the result of a four-day Community Leadership Alliance Program, held in the spring of 1998 at Pace University Law School, where a group of municipal officials and leaders saw the potential benefits of working intermunicipally to achieve common goals. Intermunicipal Cooperation An Intermunicipal Agreement was signed that included these salient points: • the goal of a cleaner Long Island Sound (LIS)with the attendant responsibilities and benefits of protecting the LIS watershed; • prevention of non-point source pollution, remediation of existing pollution and the preservation of open space and natural resources; • appropriate development and restoration of the business and industrial districts to promote economic vitality; • maintenance and improvement of the quality of life including the quality of water and air, the control of traffic and noise, • the provision of open space and recreational opportunities, the cultural, social, scenic, aesthetic and historical assets of the area; and • preservation and restoration of wetlands, watercourses and associated habitat areas. Our Objectives Our objectives include: • sharing information regarding development projects with intermunicipal impacts; • resolution of disputes regarding development projects that impact environmentally sensitive areas; • developing compatible comprehensive plans, zoning and land use regulations; • monitoring compliance and enforcement of regulations; • developing programs for educating the public and public officials; • securing and sharing federal, state and county agency funding; and • coordinating efforts with federal, state and county agencies and authorities to assure that activities in the watershed are compatible with the plans and programs of the cooperating municipalities." and 15 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update "LISWIC hired Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to study the feasibility of creating a Regional Stormwater Management District. The Final Report was completed in August 2007. To download a copy of the Executive Summary, click on this link: Evaluation of a Regional Stormwater Management District - Executive Summary Notes: 1. The Regional Stormwater Management District is hereinafter referred to as the "RSMD". 2. The Evaluation of the Regional Stormwater Management District is hereinafter referred to as the "Malcolm Pirnie Report". The Malcolm Pirnie report was distributed to the Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees at its September 10th meeting, where I obtained a CD containing the full report. I read it extensively, including all the appendices, before attending the September 21 st LISWIC meeting. I had written LISWIC previously, asking (1)whether they also considered flooding a matter for their consideration; and (2) whether they had made a second attempt to get White Plains and Eastchester to join LISWIC; I was subsequently invited to make a brief statement at the coming meeting. I have included the text of those remarks following my meeting notes, below. I read the Malcolm Pirnie report with interest and optimism. The engineering firm made repeated reference to flooding as a matter for a proposed RSMD's jurisdiction, along with water quality. You are encouraged to read the executive summary by clicking on the link, above (it is easy reading, and I don't have the time or energy to summarize a summary for you!). At the September 21 meeting, the attending members each indicated that their respective village, town, and city Boards of Trustees and Councils would be voting on resolutions of support for the recommended RSMD over the course of the next 2 months'. Once the member municipalities have voted, enabling legislation for the new entity will be drafted in Albany, the members will be asked for"home rule" resolutions, and the proposed bill will be submitted to both houses in Albany for approva12. Members also agreed to again invite both White Plains and Eastchester to join LISWIC. First, letters will be sent; thereafter, appointments for meetings will be requested of both mayors. Below is the statement I read at the conclusion of the meeting: My name is Natasha Cherny. I am a lifelong resident of Westchester County and a four-year-- three flood -- resident of the Village of Mamaroneck. My home sustained seven feet of water on September 8,2004,9 feet of water on March 2, 2007, and 13 feet of water on April 15, 2007. Following the last of these floods, I co-founded a small neighborhood organization whose missions are firstly, educating ourselves about flooding, flood mitigation, and flood recovery; and secondly, maintaining ongoing and active participation at the Board of Trustee,Town Council,and Planning Board meetings of the cities, towns, and villages of the Lower Long Island Sound Drainage Basin,that is,the communities that comprise LISWIC. It was obvious to each of us that only a ' The Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees voted in favor unanimously on September 24,2007. 2 Other business was also discussed at this meeting. My focus was on the RSMD. 16 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update regional approach to flood mitigation would have any beneficial effect; and that communities acting unilaterally could actually exacerbate flooding for their neighbors. I first wrote to LISWIC in July to ask if it had weighed in on Project Home Run, which, depending on who one asks, may or may not have contributed to flooding in April;to ask whether there had been any renewed effort to invite the participation of White Plains and Eastchester in LISWIC; and to find out why, despite several major floods in recent years, I could find no mention of flooding in any of LISWIC's meeting minutes or agendas. How could one address stormwater quality without also speaking to quantity? Ms.Wittner explained that LISWIC only weighs in when invited to; that there had not been any recent efforts to enlist White Plains and Eastchester; and advised that Malcolm Pirnie had been commissioned to evaluate the creation of a Regional Stormwater Management District, which would deal with both water quality and water quantity issues. She subsequently invited me to say a few words this morning. I came today to listen and observe, and to thank all the participating communities for forming LISWIC. Your voluntary participation in an organization that may ultimately carve out a piece of cherished home rule authority for a common good is an accomplishment. I urge you to press White Plains and Eastchester into joining you;to ask that you consider flooding and water quality to be co-equal priorities; and ask that you pursue the recommendations outlined in the Malcolm Pirnie report with urgency. I read all of the Executive Summary, all the Appendices,and much of the body of the feasibility study. I was struck by how familiar much of the material was. The contents largely echoed the recommendations of conservationists and environmentalists of 30 and 40 years ago, whose warnings largely went unheeded. While the technologies continue to improve and mature, there is nothing new about the philosophy of low impact development. We have long known the value of wetlands in mitigating flooding and in filtering pollutants from water. We have long understood that our attempts to control watercourses could have ruinous results. The consequences of our collective complacency and recklessness as we built on, paved over, and polluted our neighborhoods are now being felt by so many that finding the political will to bring the RSMD to fruition should be possible. Thank you. 17 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update September 27, 2007 Village of Mamaroneck Citizens Flood Committee Meeting Notes by Committee Chair, Peggy Jackson Committee Member Attendees: Peggy Jackson, Chair Paul Ryan, Deputy Chair Natasha Cherny Benedict Salanitro Andy Spatz Not attending: Leigh Bass Andy Spatz Village Liaison Robert Yamuder Board of Trustees Liaison Tony Fava The meeting was also attended by three non committee members, including Jim Killoran (Habitat for Humanity) and Judith Rawcliffe (MVRA) Hi Everyone, Here is a recap from Thursday's meeting. Our next meeting is the 18th of Oct, at 7.00(hopefully at the Regatta!) 1. We discussed asking Rob to look into the possibility of getting extensions if needed on the Nov 9th deadline for the Fema/Semo filings, due to the devastation in the Village, and our later start in the LJA studies. I e mailed Rob separately yesterday morning, and he's going to look into this at once. 2. Rob, another question that came up was whether once the LJA studies are done, would they add a letter advising the County that in their professional opinion, whatever work the Village undertakes, it MUST be done in conjunction with County work upstream. Also, would you please invite Dennis from LJA to our next meeting?We would like to discuss non structural solutions to our issues, and possibly commission another study which would further be presented to FEMA/SEMO. 3. Jim Killoran joined us, and one of the many topics we discussed was initiating a system of"Stickers"for all flood potential residences, indicating the number of adults/children/pets in the dwelling, so that in the event of another storm, the emergency services would know who is potentially in each home to be evacuated. Jim was to reach out to other"habitat networks"to ask how they are handling this, and what literature they have put together as information packages for affected areas. I will go out to the police and the fire departments here in the Village and ask the same info. We also started discussing the need for some kind of informational newsletter to the whole community, perhaps bi-lingual, to go through the preparation steps for a potential storm, and the process after a storm. We got a bit side tracked, and never returned to the subject. Perhaps we can pick this up nest meeting. 4. Another suggestion was to establish a flood mitigation fund, similar to a fund for the library restoration. We would set up a 501C3 non profit corp, which would solicit donations from Corporations, Foundations, and individuals so that when we do have the proper course of action, and we do need to kick in funds on the local level, not all monies 18 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update will have to be raised by the village. This will necessitate a proper board, mission statement etc, and Jim K has offered his help in establishing this fund. It was felt that the proper time to announce the formation of this fund is when we receive the LJA studies to the public, and begin soliciting funds from Federal/State and County resources. 5. It was also discussed that we need legislation on the village level clearly setting out the Impervious Surfaces rules and regulations-Our village does not have a clear policy, and one needs to be formatted. I will try to get the Town's best management practices, and also I'll check what Rye has. Benny, would you please get us a copy of Scarsdale's practices? have forwarded Jim K the "Spano letter", and I will reach out to Judy Myers for her suggestions of how to get some reply. That's all I have, once again, if I have left anything out, please feel free to shoot it around to all. Kind Regards, Peggy 19 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update September 27,2007 Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board Meeting Notes J. Rawcliffe Subject: Mamaroneck Beach& Yacht Club Issue: Whether a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(SEIS) should be required by the Planning Board, or whether the Board should vote to adopt its Findings based on the existing FEIS. Findings Statement(distributed). There is a court order to review the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) independently. Board has done so. VoM Board of Trustees has sent a letter to the Planning Board agreeing with the State that an SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) is necessary. Also, a Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission [HCZM] review that was omitted is required for approval of consistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program [LWRP]. The Planning Board wants to approve the marina,pool, and new yacht club building, a combination of scenarios B 1 and C,based on the SEQR requirement to minimize environmental impact to the utmost. But, Bl/C includes the new marina in Mamaroneck Harbor(using underwater land leased from New York State),which marina must be approved by the HCZM, which is mandated to enforce the LWRP laws. Buckhurst & Fish(consultants for the VoM 2025 Commission) disputed the need for an SEIS,which was agreed to at the time by the Village attorney. A number of letters have been received from interested parties: Dennis Mildner,New York State Department of State,Division of Coastal Resources,wants an SEIS because of the marina; an environmental law professor at Pace Law School, who worked on LWRP and SEQR(did not get his name) and the VoM Board of Trustees, in consultation with the Village attorney, also requested an SEIS; the HCZM thought that MBYC's proposed seasonal residences would violate the intent of the law to maintain the waterfront for recreation. Although any waterfront project must go before the HCZM,they have to date been excluded from formally considering the developer's project; nevertheless,they did submit a letter as an interested party. Board member Carl Alterman is opposed to the MBYC's tactics. He voiced opposition to permitting the marina because of the restriction to the in/out flows of the Harbor, and expects HCZM to oppose it. Board member Stu Sterk recused himself from the discussion and the vote, as he is the attorney for the Shore Acres Homeowners Association,which opposes the project. Planning Board Chair Robert Galvin would have wanted the marina to be constructed closer to the shore and reduced from 32 spaces to around 20,but the existing law 20 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update provides no opportunity to amend a developer's plans;the Board must use the developer's alternatives or a combination thereof. Mr. Galvin pointed out that the 12 "seasonal"units that would be built under Plan B 1/C would be located in the McKim, Meade & White Clubhouse building,which is to be renovated as an historic structure as part of the project. Presuming that the LWRP were to allow such seasonal units,the fact that they would be located on the top floor of the Clubhouse effectively prevents the developer from selling them as waterfront condos. Mr. Galvin pointed out that the Planning Board would not approve any new buildings (the developer's other scenarios all involved extensive construction of waterfront buildings for the "seasonal residences") due to outstanding permits and violations and long-standing character issues of Mr. Rosenblum. Mr. Galvin emphasized that the Board's priority was the historic preservation of the Clubhouse. Board member Leonard Violi stated that he opposes a new 32-unit marina because of its environmental impact on the Harbor ecology and in/out flows. Mr. Violi believes that, in effect, an SEIS will be required during the site plan review,where he will oppose the marina. Board member Michael Ianniello withheld his remarks at this time. Consultant Frank Fish urged the Board to table the vote approving the Findings based on the existing FEIS, in order to allow the Board time to review letters from interested parties that had come in that day(9/27/07). According to Mr. Fish, a common theme of the letters was that an SEIS should be required because of the marina. However, as Mr. Fish pointed out,the 32 slips were included in applicant's alternatives B1,B2, and G. The proper use of an SEIS is for a proposed change,new information, or a change in circumstances, so his opinion is that an SEIS is not really required here. Board member Violi said, "people need to know that approval of the FEIS does not mean we'll approve 32 boat slips! —or any slips!" He also said that the Board had the right to ask for further impact studies of alternative Bl/C. Mr. Galvin pointed out that without an HCZM consistency statement(that the project is consistent with LWRP), and without permits,the Board could not yet consider any of the elements of the site plan. HCZM makes its recommendations to the Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. Alterman pointed out that under the new law just passed by the Trustees, the FEIS must also consider flood mitigation,which it does not nresentlV do. Trustee Murphy(non-voting liaison to the Planning Board) asked consultant Fish whether,had there been separate applications for the onshore work and the marina, would not HCZM require SEQR, and would not an approval of the FEIS by the Planning Board deprive HCZM of their right to require an EIS? Mr. Fish responded that because the original plan proposed five new buildings,the Building Department was the lead agency. If the application had been for a marina only, HCZM would have been the lead agency. Mr. Murphy asked, again, if Board acceptance of the FEIS would prevent HCZM from getting the detailed information on marine effects that they could have gotten had they been the lead agency? Mr. Fish said that was true,but this Board has rejected all five of the applicant's plans. The applicant needs to come back with an amended plan in accord 21 Mamaroneck Village Residents Association October 8,2007 Update with the Board's Findings, or sue. He pointed out that no one can predict an applicant's behavior. Mr. Fish said that the letters received also raised this segmentation issue. The Pace professor's letter also raised a completeness issue regarding the EIS, as to the effect on climate. Fish agrees that effect on climate change should be included in the findings statement,but does not know if it will be a substantive issue. Thus, it appears that two important environmental considerations, effect on flooding by alteration of the harbor's in and out flows, and effect on climate change,have not been addressed by the applicant in the FEIS. The HCZM letter took issue with the tone of the applicant's comments regarding the HCZM and its authority;the consistency decision is HCZM's, alone. The letter also took exception to the many instances in the FEIS where substantive issues were dealt with by reference to"the applicant's opinion". Obviously,Mr. Rosenblum is not an environmental scientist and his opinion should be excluded from a Final Environmental Impact Statement. HCZM also has significant disagreements with the permits applicant desires,but these disagreements are legal issue rather than SEQR issues. According to Mr. Fish,HCZM is entitled to know the size and location of the marina and its effect on small boats, and any additional information required by HCZM will be paid for by the applicant. The Village attorneys have opined that there is no need for an SEIS, but the Planning Board has insisted on a written opinion letter. Climate change is considered in the 2025 Plan, and should be considered regarding this project as well. Mr. Fish pointed out that SEQR provides for revised Findings, and suggests the Board table the vote on accepting the Findings. Member Violi asked whether the PB could adopt Findings without knowing the impact of a 32-unit marina. He pointed out that HCZM will be bound by the Planning Board's Findings of no environmental impact, even though it is obvious that the issue has not been completely studied. At this point, Mr. Yardley interjected, "it is your duty as lead agency to have all this information in the SEQR record." He advised the Board either to require an SEIS or to otherwise obtain the information from the applicant and his consultants, and to obtain the information requested in HCZM's letter and consult with the Planning Board's own consultants prior to approving the Findings. Chairman Galvin, stating that the Board needed more information on the impact of size, configuration, and location of the marina on marine life,harbor drainage, small boats, etc.,tabled the vote. There was an interesting development toward the end of the meeting: all of the MBYC's paperwork referred to their current lease from New York State for 29 boat slips. Their consultant stated that they have been paying rent for and have been operating 62 slips,but because of a typographical error in the lease by New York State, it has been listed as 29 slips since 1984. Note: If they are currently operating 62 slips, arguably they don't need another 32, especially not in the middle of our harbor! [Ed.] 22 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL.BUILDING NEW YORK,N.Y.10278-0090 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CENAN-PL-F September 2007 MAMARONECK AND SHELDRAKE RIVERS BASIN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY REEVALUATION STUDY This notice announces the initiation of a reevaluation study to determine if flood damage reduction opportunities are advisable for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin in Westchester County, NY. The New York District Corps of Engineers is conducting the reevaluation study under authority of Section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, 99th Congress, 2nd Session), adopted November 17, 1986. In light of the recurrence of flooding over the past several years, including flooding from the severe storms of March and April 2007, the Corps of Engineers will examine the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin in Westchester County to determine if there is an opportunity to move forward with a flood damage reduction project for the basin. Previously, a study, entitled "Feasibility Report for Flood Control, Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin", was completed in October 1977. Subsequent to completion of the Feasibility Report, the project was authorized for construction in W RDA 1986. A General Design Memorandum (GDM)for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin was completed in January 1989, however, the project was not constructed. The features discussed in the 1989 GDM included channel modification, construction of retaining walls, bridge replacement, and construction of a diversion tunnel. The initial phase of this effort will be used to determine if the plan developed in 1989 is still valid or if other alternative plans should be identified for further analysis. This initial analysis will result in the execution of a design agreement for the cost-shared study with a non-Federal sponsor. In conjunction with this preliminary examination, we will coordinate with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as Westchester County, to develop the scope for the cost-shared reevaluation study. The reevaluation study will examine the current field conditions and study criteria to determine whether opportunities for flood damage reduction exist for continued Federal participation in a construction project. Determination of Federal interest in the project Will be based on the costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the potential alternative(s), as well as the extent of support by local officials and interested parties. If continued study and project development by the Federal government is justified, this reevaluation will be followed by design and construction of an authorized project. We request any pertinent information about the project area from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as the private sector. In particular, we request information on the type and amount of damages that have occurred from storms in recent years. The information provided will be used to the greatest extent possible to define the nature and severity of the flood problems and to determine potential Federal interest in providing flood damage reduction measures. We also welcome any assistance and suggestions pertaining to the conduct of this study. All comments should be directed to Mr. Eugene Brickman, P.G., Deputy Chief, Planning Division, Eucbene.BrickmanCo)-usace.army.mil, 917 790 8701, or Ms. Jodi McDonald, Rivers and Lakes Section Chief Jodi.M.McDonald(a�usace.army.mil, 917 790 8720. 1 Aniello L. Tortora Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander _ � � A_y. -4 .1 3 `>-•�S.L�' �C L r E iiT��J ��` i ti�ijl. C?�2 1 tgy� < t wo $ .y `i, 3 • w+j 48_- t LUL' S; �� � rte''` � • •- s p9,y meL� '..`�� Sz,; �. S'e x� Al PIZ' 2C N IS*m p a. ¥Sri$.,.t * .-• do 'a• i ;vilfa�e of`inamaroareck ny G 1\�: N10m$ro11R6k ' ti. c a aa`; �,1ma�e920flTM a• orkrGia ;,�i{nzfp���0o7FTLvtaMal/ < -x 'a R �=.p •r_ +4d7 Navinna pviflter d0 5 2VO4'-.W-73 43'40.77 Yti .eiuv Stet 5`t�eamiag€,iti'.€;€"90Q.-� €Ye:-ak tOfT6,it r DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK,N.Y.10278-0090 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CENAN-PL-F September 2007 COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE REPORT 14 COUNTIES IN NEW YORK This notice announces the initiation of a Federally-funded reconnaissance level study to determine if Federal involvement in flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration or other water resource opportunities is advisable for the 14 Counties covered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Disaster Declaration, FEMA-1692- DR, New York. The New York District Corps of Engineers is conducting the study under authority of Section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2332). The Comprehensive Response Document will be a reconnaissance-level multi- watershed report that will identify problems as well as opportunities, potential solutions, potential authorizations and potential cost-sharing partners for individual studies, projects and programs, which may include actions for non-Federal entities. Some of the counties under this disaster declaration have been studied by the Corps of Engineers in prior reports or will be studied under a separate Reconnaissance Study for which a separate Public Notice has been issued. This study will examine the current field conditions to determine whether any watershed-based opportunities for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration or other allied purposes exist for continued Federal and/or non-Federal participation during detailed evaluation and construction. As part of this effort, the water resources problem(s) in the study area will be identified as will potential solutions to the problem(s). Determination of Federal interest in any identified opportunity will be based on the water resources problem(s), authority for Corps of Engineers involvement, as well as the extent of support by local officials and interested parties. We request any pertinent information about the project area from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as the private sector. In particular, we request information on the type and amount of damages that have occurred from storms in recent years. The information provided will be used to the greatest extent possible to define the nature and severity of the flood problems and to determine potential Federal interest in providing flood damage reduction measures. We also welcome any assistance and suggestions pertaining to the conduct of this study. All comments should be directed to Mr. Eugene Brickman, P.G., Deputy Chief, Planning Division, Eugene.Brickman(cD-usace.army.mil, 917 790 8701; Ms. Jodi McDonald, Rivers and Lakes Section Chief, Jodi.M.McDonald(a)-usace.army.mil, 917 790 8720; or Mr. Jason Shea, Economics and Policy Section Chief, Jason.A.Shea(a)usace.army.mil, 917 790 8727. lio L. ortora Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander I FEMA-1692-DR,New York Disaster Declaration as of 05/09/2007 00 - ta��' - �ki �L 1 uF-;q y. c' 4. inti t`j'i ,aX.k2&"e,y ]brim W-v . hrta OMd .<h1,f ` fsY^c.r 6ea� ML.e SoeP 14-'?rt� "r "'a�. fivrtrt. D�dsH wnpw +� _ y QLWo )i4Yar L c*dou Map Legend 4 Designated Countles FEMA r " mHvr�a a.w7�%�cwr Q No Designation � er. � T - ..I�ividualAssetmce ostaar on.zr,urmr fndi iduat Aasi,=-.M Aibbc Assistance s.�n„awrrswa.a �,n<. QYuDlicAai§. •gym: osw»a�n lY � �"��._�,.�.:` McamYr�n ipllel Ho1KNNles MWO 3964eO4rva DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK,N.Y.10276-0090 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CENAN-PL-F September 2007 WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, NY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY This notice announces the initiation of a Federally-funded reconnaissance level study to determine if flood damage reduction opportunities are advisable for the following river basins in Westchester County. The Basins are the Saw Mill River, Bronx River, Hutchinson River, Mamaroneck River, Sheldrake River, Byram River and Blind Brook and their tributaries. The New York District Corps of Engineers is conducting the study under authority of a resolution adopted on May 2, 2007 by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives. A previous study, "Streams in Westchester County, NY and Fairfield County, CT Survey Report for Flood Control"was completed in July 1972 under authority of study resolutions adopted September 14, 1955, November 14, 1955, and June 13, 1956. This report examined the basins listed above and identified that there was favorable interest in pursuing flood damage reduction along the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers in the Village of Mamaroneck. This survey report then led to the completion of a Feasibility Report entitled "Feasibility Report for Flood Control, Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin, dated October 1977". Subsequent to completion of the Feasibility Report, the project was authorized for construction by Section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, 99th Congress, 2'd Session), adopted November 17, 1986. A General Design Memorandum for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin was completed in January 1989, however, the project was not constructed. The reevaluation effort for Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin will be conducted separately. The 1972 Survey report stated that the cost for improvements along the Hutchinson River for flood damage reduction would greatly exceed any expected benefits, and therefore, would not be economically justified. Along the Bronx River, the 1972 Survey Report indicated that flood damages are too widely scattered to justify any system of flood works. In the Blind Brook Basin, the Survey Report indicated that there are no available storage areas for flood retention and the costs for other proposals would greatly exceed the anticipated benefits. Currently, a watershed study of the Blind Brook in the City of Rye, NY is ongoing, which will identify problems and opportunities within the Blind Brook Watershed. In the Byram River Basin, the Survey Report indicated that flood damages are insufficient to support any flood protection works. In the 1972 Survey Report for the Saw Mill River Basin, the only economically feasibility plan of improvement was located at the Village of Ardsley. In addition, favorable projects were proposed for further consideration in later reports in Chappaqua and Yonkers, and Nepera Park in Yonkers. Flood Damage Reduction projects were constructed at these four locations in the early—mid 1980's. In the 1972 Survey Report, there was no economically justified plan for the Saw Mill River at Elmsford, however, in 1974, a further survey report identified potential Federal interest in flood damage reduction in the Village of Elmsford and Town of Greenburgh. A plan for flood damage reduction was authorized in 1976 and a post-authorization report was completed in 1985, however, no project was constructed at Elmsford or Greenburgh. The reevaluation effort for the Saw Mill River at Elmsford and Greenburgh will be conducted separately. In light of the recurrence of flooding over the past several years, including flooding from the severe storms of April 2007, the Corps of Engineers will examine the entire Westchester County Streams study area to determine whether any changes from previous studies have occurred in this area. The reconnaissance study will examine the current field conditions and study criteria to determine whether any opportunities for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration or other allied purposes exist for continued Federal participation during detailed evaluation and construction. As part of this study, the water resources problem(s) in the area will be identified as will potential solutions to the problem(s). Determination of Federal interest in the project will be based on the preliminary screening of alternatives, as well as the extent of support by local officials and interested parties. If continued study and project development by the Federal government is justified, this study will be followed by a more detailed cost- shared feasibility-level study. We request any pertinent information about the project area from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as the private sector. In particular, we request information on the type and amount of damages that have occurred from storms in recent years. The information provided will be used to the greatest extent possible to define the nature and severity of the flood problems and to determine potential Federal interest in providing flood damage reduction measures. We also welcome any assistance and suggestions pertaining to the conduct of this study. All comments should be directed to Mr. Eugene Brickman, P.G., Deputy Chief, Planning Division, Eugene Brickman Qusace.army,mil, 917 790 8701, or Ms. Jodi McDonald, Rivers and Lakes Section Chief Jodi.M.McDonald(a�usace.army.mil, 917 790 8720. Aniello L. Tortora Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander i E I i h uc �� z >" e3 1 " aanla 11!W AIRS �€ ss bait a ��r rt t� r' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS \\ JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING - NEW YORK,N.Y.10278-0090 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CENAN-PL-F September 2007 MAMARONECK AND SHELDRAKE RIVERS BASIN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY REEVALUATION STUDY This notice announces the initiation of a reevaluation study to determine if flood damage reduction opportunities are advisable for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin in Westchester County, NY. The New York District Corps of Engineers is conducting the reevaluation study under authority of Section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, 99 ' Congress, 2nd Session), adopted November 17, 1986. In light of the recurrence of flooding over the past several years, including flooding from the severe storms of March and April 2007, the Corps of Engineers will examine the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin in Westchester County to determine if there is an opportunity to move forward with a flood damage reduction project for the basin. Previously, a study, entitled "Feasibility Report for Flood Control, Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin", was completed in October 1977. Subsequent to completion of the Feasibility Report, the project was authorized for construction in WRDA 1986, A General Design Memorandum (GDM)for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin was completed in January 1989, however, the project was not constructed. The features discussed in the 1989 GDM included channel modification, construction of retaining walls, bridge replacement, and construction of a diversion tunnel. The initial phase of this effort will be used to determine if the plan developed in 1989 is still valid or if other alternative plans should be identified for further analysis. This initial analysis will result in the execution of a design agreement for the cost-shared study with a non-Federal sponsor. In conjunction with this preliminary examination, we will coordinate with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as Westchester County, to develop the scope for the cost-shared reevaluation study. The reevaluation study will examine the current field conditions and study criteria to determine whether opportunities for flood damage reduction exist for continued Federal participation in a construction project. Determination of Federal interest in the project will be based on the costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the potential alternative(s), as well as the extent of support by local officials and interested parties. If continued study and project development by the Federal government is justified, this reevaluation will be followed by design and construction of an authorized project. We request any pertinent information about the project area from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as the private sector. In particular, we request information on the type and amount of damages that have occurred from storms in recent years. The information provided will be used to the greatest extent possible to define the nature and severity of the flood problems and to determine potential Federal interest in providing flood damage reduction measures. We also welcome any assistance and suggestions pertaining to the conduct of this study. All comments should be directed to Mr. Eugene Brickman, P.G., Deputy Chief, Planning Division, Eugene.Brickman(a)usace.army.mil, 917 790 8701, or Ms. Jodi McDonald, Rivers and Lakes Section Chief Jodi.M.McDonald(cDusace.army.mil, 917 790 8720. Aniello L. Tortora Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander • • �, � s Ma app Wyi a r LeLfergz<` - �3 L� C�.?a tai _ d�) • - �Ir'' m t. r`"�.;�=,°o: a ray • illage o1 mamarQzlerk fly. „� fill ",IrnageV2007N-w- PrkrGDz c R d 's� � �` ax�x. > r' - ��244tzEuropnx Tvctinvlottkos��,� � • s � ..> E. . Pnitrfs.r 41)'.57'„.C4 t.'-73•.'4071 ;"d i*Dcr 5.,t! J.,tr,,�n•1r.; I .�!,'-tC0':, Eva.<vk "44F5-:t i DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING NEW YORK,N.Y.10278-0090 REPLY TO AT UMON OF: CENAN-PL-F September 2007 COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE REPORT 14 COUNTIES IN NEW YORK This notice announces the initiation of a Federally-funded reconnaissance level study to determine if Federal involvement in flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration or other water resource opportunities is advisable for the 14 Counties covered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Disaster Declaration, FEMA-1692- DR, New York. The New York District Corps of Engineers is conducting the study under authority of Section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2332). The Comprehensive Response Document will be a reconnaissance-level multi- watershed report that will identify problems as well as opportunities, potential solutions, potential authorizations and potential cost-sharing partners for individual studies, projects and programs, which may include actions for non-Federal entities. Some of the counties under this disaster declaration have been studied by the Corps of Engineers in prior reports or will be studied under a separate Reconnaissance Study for which a separate Public Notice has been issued. This study will examine the current field conditions to determine whether any watershed-based opportunities for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration or other allied purposes exist for continued Federal and/or non-Federal participation during detailed evaluation and construction. As part of this effort, the water resources problem(s) in the study area will be identified as will potential solutions to the problem(s). Determination of Federal interest in any identified opportunity will be based on the water resources problem(s), authority for Corps of Engineers involvement, as well as the extent of support by local officials and interested parties. We request any pertinent information about the project area from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as the private sector. In particular, we request information on the type and amount of damages that have occurred from storms in recent years. The information provided will be used to the greatest extent possible to define the nature and severity of the flood problems and to determine potential Federal interest in providing flood damage reduction measures. We also welcome any assistance and suggestions pertaining to the conduct of this study. All comments should be directed to Mr. Eugene Brickman, P.G., Deputy Chief, Planning Division, Eugene.Brickman(a.usace.army.mil, 917 790 8701; Ms. Jodi McDonald, Rivers and Lakes Section Chief, Jodi.M.McDonald(a7usace.army.mil, 917 790 8720; or Mr. Jason Shea, Economics and Policy Section Chief, Jason.A.Shea(a)usace.army.mil, 917 790 8727. Ilo L. ortora Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander I FEMA-1692-DR,New York Disaster Declaration as of 05/09/2007 i 2 ' , i Ts � � c r S E-- -.5 fwrv.� amLt� w.tnr -eR:' + ,:. - .G•�T.tr-..:,__. ..�--....'..' ., ,. .,.; .._ �.�: `x`�'L�.-,--xr��s.�,'�,' �w t...'�°F,�.eis,.w'�"�': 3.ocatloa MaP Lcgepd Designated Counliea FEMA -S. ex rnxy�a,s,wp,;,cab '� , .:.. Q Na Designation ,v�.a;.pws oc �..: Mfr. ..IsdividmtAssatmcc ov1a4� ov.�rr.wmr �� I�rvirhtat Asiatame and Poxblic Asistaace s.�w�.rmw,ea;.�.w.w .:� a�.�xs.x ovcsouox Q Public Asaiahaa ��).Y �� ';�'.�'�� � .UJcwM1'�ewa6yilaJx HewlNywiw Mep10 39b4e04r,:;e i DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING 1 NEW YORK,N.Y.10276-0090 REPLY TO AI rENTION OF: CENAN-PL-F September 2007 WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, NY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY This notice announces the initiation of a Federally-funded reconnaissance level study to determine if flood damage reduction opportunities are advisable for the following river basins in Westchester County. The Basins are the Saw Mill River, Bronx River, Hutchinson River, Mamaroneck River, Sheldrake River, Byram River and Blind Brook and their tributaries. The New York District Corps of Engineers is conducting the study under authority of a resolution adopted on May 2, 2007 by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives. A previous study, Streams in Westchester County, NY and Fairfield County, CT Survey Report for Flood Control"was completed in July 1972 under authority of study resolutions adopted September 14, 1955, November 14, 1955, and June 13, 1956. This report examined the basins listed above and identified that there was favorable interest in pursuing flood damage reduction along the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers in the Village of Mamaroneck. This survey report then led to the completion of a Feasibility Report entitled "Feasibility Report for Flood Control, Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin, dated October 1977'. Subsequent to completion of the Feasibility Report, the project was authorized for construction by Section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, 99th Congress, 2nd Session), adopted November 17, 1986. A General Design Memorandum for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin was completed in January 1989, however, the project was not constructed. The reevaluation effort for Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers Basin will be conducted separately. The 1972 Survey report stated that the cost for improvements along the Hutchinson River for flood damage reduction would greatly exceed any expected benefits, and therefore, would not be economically justified. Along the Bronx River, the 1972 Survey Report indicated that flood damages are too widely scattered to justify any system of flood works. In the Blind Brook Basin, the Survey Report indicated that there are no available storage areas for flood retention and the costs for other proposals would greatly exceed the anticipated benefits. Currently, a watershed study of the Blind Brook in the City of Rye, NY is ongoing, which will identify problems and opportunities within the Blind Brook Watershed. In the Byram River Basin, the Survey Report indicated that flood damages are insufficient to support any flood protection works. In the 1972 Survey Report for the Saw Mill River Basin, the only economically feasibility plan of improvement was located at the Village of Ardsley. In addition, favorable projects were proposed for further consideration in later reports in Chappaqua and Yonkers, and Nepera Park in Yonkers. Flood Damage Reduction projects were constructed at these four locations in the early—mid 1980's. In the 1972 Survey Report, there was no economically justified plan for the Saw Mill River at Elmsford, however, in 1974, a further survey report identified potential Federal interest in flood damage reduction in the Village of Elmsford and Town of Greenburgh. A plan for flood damage reduction was authorized in 1976 and a post-authorization report was completed in 1985, however, no project was constructed at Elmsford or Greenburgh. The reevaluation effort for the Saw Mill River at Elmsford and Greenburgh will be conducted separately. In light of the recurrence of flooding over the past several years, including flooding from the severe storms of April 2007, the Corps of Engineers will examine the entire Westchester County Streams study area to determine whether any changes from previous studies have occurred in this area. The reconnaissance study will examine the current field conditions and study criteria to determine whether any opportunities for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration or other allied purposes exist for continued Federal participation during detailed evaluation and construction. As part of this study, the water resources problem(s) in the area will be identified as will potential solutions to the problem(s). Determination of Federal interest in the project will be based on the preliminary screening of alternatives, as well as the extent of support by local officials and interested parties. If continued study and project development by the Federal government is justified, this study will be followed by a more detailed cost- shared feasibility-level study. We request any pertinent information about the project area from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as the private sector. In particular, we request information on the type and amount of damages that have occurred from storms in recent years. The information provided will be used to the greatest extent possible to define the nature and severity of the flood problems and to determine potential Federal interest in providing flood damage reduction measures. We also welcome any assistance and suggestions pertaining to the conduct of this study. All comments should be directed to Mr. Eugene Brickman, P.G., Deputy Chief, Planning Division, Eugene.Brickman(cD-usace.army.mil, 917 790 8701, or Ms. Jodi McDonald, Rivers and Lakes Section Chief Jodi.M.McDonald(a-)usace.army.mil, 917 790 8720. Aniello L. Tortora Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander A gASiNxY s 00, rM �r Y�t, :.ej'is° ,, .t2y�. Ef, Saw r1 aw �4tndougd Rtf 2x ¢ Saw Mill MY-N, ;{ 1 } �� lY �,. f7 '- October 9, 2007 VIA TELECOPIER(914) 965-8409 and FEDERAL EXPRESS Andrew M. Romano,Esq. 20 South Broadway, Suite 902 Yonkers,New York 10701 Re: Mack-Cali So. West Realty Associates, LLC("Landlord') v. Benni's I, LLC("Tenant') Index No.: SP 2346-06,Premises' 2 Executive Blvd.,Yonkers,NY 10701 ("Premises") Dear Andy: As you know, in connection with the above-referenced proceeding--the second proceeding which Landlord has been forced to commence as a result of Tenant's chronic defaults--a Judgment and Warrant (copy attached)were duly issued by the Court on October 3, 2007. The Warrant was duly served upon Tenant,together with the 72-Hour Notice, by the Deputy City Marshal on October 4, 2007. As a result,the Lease for the Premises and the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties,has been annulled and terminated,by operation of law. See Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 749(3) ("the issuing of a warrant for the removal of a tenant cancels the agreement under which the person removed held the premises, and annuls the relation of landlord and tenant..."); RM Restaurant, Inc. v. Marsan Realty Corgi, 1 A.D.3d 423, 767 N.Y.S.2d 776 (2d Dept. 2003) (holding that the "issuance of a warrant of eviction terminates a landlord-tenant relationship"). Thereafter, on Friday, October 5, 2007, at 5:00 p.m., Tenant dropped of the enclosed checks with the receptionist at my office totaling$80,000. As explained below,Landlord hereby rejects Tenant's belated tender of arrears, does not have any intent to reinstate the tenancy, and will be proceeding to enforce its legal right to obtain possession of the Premises. As Tenant is well aware,this latest eviction proceeding is the second eviction proceeding that Landlord has been forced to commence to obtain rent and additional rent which Landlord is admittedly owed under the Lease. The prior proceeding, commenced under index number SP 2683-05 (the "Prior Proceeding"),was commenced for arrears totaling more than$120,000 dating back to July 2003, and resulted in a prior judgment("Prior Judgment")and prior warrant (the "Prior Warrant")issued in December 2005. It has thus been a period of more than four(4) C&F:820203.1 Page -2- years of Tenant's chronic Lease defaults since July 2003, and despite the issuance of the Prior Judgment and Prior Warrant,Tenant has continued to remain in default to this day under the Lease. Landlord and its employees have been forced to appear in court on multiple occasions, and has incurred tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees as a result of Tenant's repeated breaches of the Lease. During all of this time,Landlord has evinced an unequivocal intent to take all steps necessary to obtain possession of the Premises and remove Tenant from the Premises. In fact, after the Prior Judgment and Prior Warrant were issued in the Prior Proceeding, Tenant was specifically informed on the Record in open court and then again in writing(see attached transcript and letter)that Landlord had no intention to ever reinstate your client's tenancy. Although the Court restored your client's tenancy, over Landlord's objection, Tenant continued to default virtually every month since December 2005,thus resulting in the commencement of this second Proceeding and the issuance of the Judgment and Warrant herein. Tenant has remained in default in paying Court Ordered payments of undisputed base rent and CAM charges to Landlord, and has never once offered any valid basis for its constant and continuing defaults. Given your client's horrendous track record over the past four(4)years, it is certain that its non- payment of rent and additional rent owed to Landlord would undoubtedly continue in the future, if Tenant remained as a tenant. Accordingly,Landlord hereby rejects and is returning Tenant's post-Warrant and Judgment tender of the Eighty Thousand Dollars,has no intention or desire to ever reinstate the tenancy, and intends to pursue all of its rights and remedies, including but not limited to obtaining possession of the Premises. 32-05 Newton Avenue Associates v. Hailazopoulos, 168 Misc.2d 125, 645 N.Y.S.2d 260 (App. Term 2d Dept., 1996) (reversing lower court's reinstatement of the tenant's tenancy because, inter alia,the tenant's post-warrant tender of arrears was rejected by the landlord,thereby "clearly evincing an intent not to renew the landlord-tenant relationship"). Of course, all rights and remedies of Landlord are reserved in all respects. Very truly yours, Josh Kimerling JK:fs cc: Benni's I, LLC (via regular mail and certified mail,RRR) One Michael Frey Drive Eastchester,NY 10709 C&F:820203.1 San Francisco bans traditional plastic grocery bags Page 1 of 2 San Francisco bans traditional plastic grocery bags Ban expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4.2 million kilograms annually Last Updated: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 112:32 PM ET CBC News San Francisco has become the first city in North America to ban the use of traditional plastic grocery bags, a step that municipal leaders hope will spread across the country. Passed Tuesday by the city's board of supervisors, the law prohibits large grocery stores and drugstores from using non-recyclable and non-biodegradable plastic bags made from petroleum products. Supermarkets will have six months to comply while drugstores will have up to one year. The city legislator who introduced the bill, Ross Mirkarimi, said that up to 200 million plastic bags are used each year in the city of roughly 740,000 people. It's estimated a traditional plastic bag takes 1,000 years to dissolve. "The first order of conservation is reduction and what we want to do is reduce the non-recyclable plastic bag," Mirkarimi said. "Many [foreign] cities and nations have already implemented very similar legislation. It's astounding that San Francisco would be the first U.S. city to follow suit," he said. Will reduce carbon dioxide output Jared Blumenfeld, the head of the city's environment department, said there would be many benefits. By cutting 100 million plastic bags a year the city will save 1.5 million litres of oil, and eliminate 4.2 million kilograms of carbon dioxide, Blumenfeld said. Blumenfeld said he hopes other cities will follow in San Francisco's footsteps. "We certainly hope that it will proliferate throughout the United States, certainly at least throughout the state of California," he said. Canadian town to ban bags On April 2, the tiny town of Leaf Rapids in northwestern Manitoba is set to become the first Canadian community to ban plastic bags. The bylaw prevents retailers from selling or distributing the single-use bags. Ignoring the ban could result in a $1,000-per-day fine. Officials will hand out cloth shopping bags to each of the town's roughly 550 residents before the ban http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/03/28/sanfrancisco-plastic.html 10/8/2007 San Francisco bans traditional plastic grocery bags Page 2 of 2 comes into effect on April 2. The B.C. mountain town of Rossland is also considering a voluntary ban on single-use plastic bags. With files from the Associated Press http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/03/28/sanfrancisco-plastic.html 10/8/2007