The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutThe Future of Larchmont Reservoir Master Plan 2/1/1981 r F TSL FUTURE, P L.�aCHMONT R MASTER PJ--jAN, , , J F c i r 3 - W-ZEP T rFI NDS OF THE � E5� R,�� PROM= THL BR d,,,`DYWINE CONSFJZVANGyo4K. _= CH ADDS FORD, PA. THE FUTURE OF LARCHMONT RESERVOIR MASTER PLAN Prepared for: Friends of the Reservoir , Inc . by the Environmental Management Center Brandywine Conservancy Chadds Ford, PA 19317 February 1981 THE FUTURE OF LARCHMONT RESERVOIR MASTER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION II. MASTER PLANNING FOR THE LARCHMONT RESERVOIR - LANDS AND BUILDINGS III. FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER SUPPLY IV. SECURING THE FUTURE - LEASE AND PURCHASE ARRANGEMENTS V . SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Benefits/Ownership Options Appendix 2 - Birds of Larchmont Reservoir Appendix 3 - Brandywine Conservancy' s Environmental Management Center: General Description Appendix 4 - Resumes : Environmental Management Center Staff EXHIBITS (Filter Plant Schematics included under separate cover) Exhibit A - Location Map of Larchmont Reservoir including watershed and open space Exhibit B - Trails , Parcel Identifications within Reservoir Property Exhibit C - Critical Natural Features : Reservoir Property Exhibit D - Restrictions (Easements , Rights-of-Way, etc. ) on Reservoir Property Filter Plant Schematics I. INTRODUCTION Over the past thirteen years , the Brandywine Conservancy and the individual members of the staff have directed, organized, and/or participated in a number of community-based efforts to preserve im- portant historic sites, open space and natural areas, and water resources in Pennsylvania ' s Lower Delaware Valley . Issues such as flood protection, storm water management and the protection of water quality or water supplies , have been key concerns of the organization. In working with the Friends of the Reservoir to preserve the Larchmont Reservoir for public use , we have come to realize that this is indeed the most complex and exciting land acquisition project with which we have been involved. The entire Reservoir situation is unique; it involves an urban area in which wildlife and other natural features , recreation, historic preservation, and water resources benefits are all highly visible and significant features of one project . The com- plexity is compounded by the unusual aspects of ownership (public , but extraterritorial) , the jurisdictional boundaries of the land (New Rochelle-Town of Mamaroneck) , the diffusion of public benefits among jurisdictions (direct flood control benefits to the Town and Village of Mamaroneck, indirect benefits to New Rochelle and Larchmont , recrea- tional benefits to all four, etc . ) , possible future public needs for emergency water supplies, and the great potential for future damage to the site resulting from increased storm runoff . (Runoff problems could result from future development and inadequate storm water management facilities in Scarsdale and New Rochelle. _ Other damages could result from the failure of public agencies to accept responsi- bility for adequate maintenance of the dam and as a result of managing the water levels in the future in a manner designed to affect in- creased storm runoff from new development below the dam within the Town of Mamaroneck. ) All of these issues are discussed in greater detail in later sections of this report . The project is exciting because of the above challenges and the opportunities posed by them. For example, the Larchmont Reservoir project could be a prototype for examining the future of many reservoirs in Westchester County and the Northeast generally . Further, the Reservoir ' s high visibility might provide a focus for broad—ranging programs addressing land preservation needs, environ- mental education, alternate energy options , and water resource pro- tection throughout the area. The composition of the membership and the quality of the leadership of the Friends of the Reservoir far exceed that of most struggling new organizations. Consequently, the organization' s potential is great for helping the surrounding local governments resolve seemingly intractable problems with land and water resources and provide other major benefits to the community . However, sympathetic and responsible assistance from local government with the Reservoir project is essential to community progress and to the continued growth of the Friends organization. The Reservoir project cannot succeed if the local governmentsinvolved refuse to recognize that they must each play a role in the solution and that their assistance is not gratuitous but reflects the reality that their residents presently benefit and will continue to benefit from the preservation of the Reservoir site and its improvements . (See Appendix L which shows public benefits and how they are affected by different ownership alternatives . ) Roles of Private Non-Profit Conservation Organizations In the northeastern U. S. , local, private, non-profit conservation organizations have achieved their greatest success in terms of public support and organizational stability by limiting their goals to : (1) acquisition and management of certain interests (i . e. , full fee title or less than full fee title) in land for conservation pur- poses; (2) development of high visibility facilities for public pro- grams (nature centers , museums , historic structures) ; (3) development of education programs on nature subjects and ecology for certain targeted population groups (i. e . , families , various school age groups, specific interest groups such as birdwatchers' wildflower enthusiasts, etc) ; (4) provision of technical assistance and support to private individuals and local governments on environmental issues involving land and water development and/or requiring inter-municipal cooperation; and (5) provision of some limited amount of free public services or public access to landholdings. 1- 2 Examples can be found of successful and stable local organizations which concentrate exclusively on either 3 , 4 , or 5 above; such organ- izations are the exception rather than the rule and usually owe their stability to large infusions of money from one or a few large donors . In only rare cases can funds be solicited from foundations for support of continuing program costs of these types . There are perhaps four important points which need to be made about the role of the non-profit conservation organization . First, the organization can most easily raise funds, acquire gifts, and solicit continuing support for tangible items such as interests in real estate or enhancement of structures and must do so to some extent in order to firmly establish itself . Second, most such organizations have severe difficulties maintaining intensives used land areas (lack of equipment and manpower that can be shifted from other functions) but frequently excel at managing these areas and develop- ing programs ; thus, public ownership and maintenance of such areas are frequently essential over time . Third, the costs of acquiring real estate interests or improving structures can severely restrict funds available for programs so that programs and facilities need to be designed to maximize income opportunities . Such programs cannot con- tinue over long periods of time without either locating specific donors willing to pay their costs or without the beneficiaries (through fees) paying program costs . Finally, an important corollary to this last item is that a non-profit organization cannot assume responsibility for expensive programs or facilities which have such broad community benefits that most people would consider them to be essential public services which local governments should provide . The responsibility for structural integrity and operation of flood control facilities is one example . In summary, the private non-profit conservation organization fills roles that include providing programs to diffused and specialized constituencies, testing innovations for individual or public adoption , serving as a catalyst for local or inter-governmental action on conser- vation issues , and acquiring interests in land or structures in pur- suance of goals or visions which may not presently have full politi- cal consensus or understanding. I- 3 II . MASTER PLANNING FOR THE LARCHMONT RESERVOIR PROPERTY - LANDS AND BUILDINGS Historical Perspective The area surrounding the Larchmont Reservoir property has seen many uses in the 250+years since major European settlement . Early land uses that related to the Sheldrake River were milling and farming . Milling began sometime before 1754 with the establishment by Nehemiah Palmer of a saw mill on the Reservoir site. Nehemiah was the son of Samuel Palmer, Mamaroneck' s first supervisor . The Palmers and other Quaker families from pre-Revolutionary times owned and operated the first Caw mills and grist mills in the area; other mill types--cider, lumber and snuff-- also were established. For over 100 years the Palmer mill went through a succession of owners, until in 1876 it was acquired by John T . Goodliffe who improved the mill dam and increased one pond area behind it for commercial ice extraction. A few years later, Charles H . Murray organized a private water company to provide water to the Village of Larchmont, using wells as a source of supply. When this source was found to be insufficient , over the next few years the company purchased Goodliffe ' s Pond, Sheldrake Pond and Carpenter ' s Pond . Water was actually turned on in 1889 after purchase of Sheldrake Pond. In 1893 , in order to enlarge Sheldrake Pond into a new and bigger reservoir, the Water Company acquired the necessary land from Martha H. Dickerman. While there were other purchases involved in creating the new reservoir, the Dickerman purchase deserves mention because under the terms of the deed, Mrs . Dickerman retained exclusive right to keep and use pleasure boats on the reservoir, to fish, and to water livestock. These provisions constituted an early recognition of the recreational and open space value of the Reservoir, and along with other provisions of the deed--those requiring the Water Company to protect against poachers and trespassers and permitting it to raise the level of the existing Sheldrake Lake by 24 .3 feet--have resulted in continued disagreements between Larchmont and the successors in title to the Dickerman lands . In 1897 the masonry dam was built and the new upper reservoir--known variously as Sheldrake Lake, Larchmont Reservoir , or Sheldrake Reservoir-- was officially added to the water system to increase supply . That same year, the Village contracted with the Water Company for fire hydrant service. In 1922, the Village bought out the Water Company and continued to supply water to residents from the Reservoir . Due to unreliable water levels, inefficiences in the treatment plant, pollution problems and increased supply needs , in 1975 the Reservoir ceased being used for water supply purposes. The Larchmont Water Department then began to purchase its water from the Westchester Joint Water Works, which had i been piping its supply in from the Catskills since 1957 . In the last forty years , the remainder of the Dickerman tract and other vacant land around the Reservoir in New Rochelle and the Town of Mama- roneck was developed, Pine Brook Boulevard and Quaker Ridge Road were improved, and urban services were extended. The owners of lands abutting the Reservoir, other nearby residents, and others from further away increasingly used the Reservoir lands for passive recreation and for more active endeavors such as swimming , ice skating , fishing, and boating -- most of which were activities nominally prohibited by Larch- mont to all but the Dickerman tract purchasers. In general, visitations to the site were not encouraged, although nature enthusiasts were apparent- ly more welcome than others . It is likely that birds and other wildlife had increasingly concentrated in the area as the less intensive uses of the site and regeneration of vegetation provided improved habitat conditions , and as more of the surrounding open land was converted to urban uses. In developing a Master Plan for the Larchmont Reservoir site 's lands and buildings , it is useful to consider the site extrinsically (from a regional perspective) and intrinsically. Regional Setting of Larchmont Reservoir From an open space and environmental education perspective , the site is ideally suited to enhance a number of public and private programs . The Location Map (Exhibit A) shows the centrality of the reservoir property to various public and privately-owned open space areas . One, the Leather Stocking Trail, passes only a few hundred yards south of II- 2 the Reservoir property. The Ward Estate and Wildcliff Arts and Crafts Center are but a short distance north off Pine Brook Boulevard in New Rochelle. New Rochelle ' s tennis courts , Albert-Leonard Junior High' s open areas, and a small New Rochelle park off of Pengilly Drive on the Reservoir' s north end are all nearby or abutting open areas . Both an opportunity and a challenge exist to tie these areas together into an open space network and to plan for possible future connections with any portions of the lands in the Mamaroneck golf clubs which might some day be dedicated to open space uses . Through proper design of facilities and programs at the Reservoir site (assuming acquisition by the Friends of the critical Reservoir lands) , the Friends could make the Reservoir the logistical center and focal point of open space and environ- mental education programs for a potentially significant and well-used open space network. If , as we are suggesting later, the Friends were to embark upon a program designed to provide public education on the past and future of water supply reservoirs , it is obvious that the Reservoir is both a good example of the problems and is located in close proximity to many such reservoirs in Westchester County . Evaluation of Larchmont Reservoir Property The Trails, Parcel Identifications Map (Exhibit B ) is a breakdown of the significant land areas around the Reservoir presently owned by Larchmont. With the exception of three areas -- a small parcel of land along Pine Brook Boulevard (see dotted line on Parcel A of Exhibit B) , the land which contains the main dam, and the Joint Water Works site -- we believe that the Friends of the Reservoir should control all of the land presently owned by Larchmont. There are a number of reasons why each of the parcels indicated on the map are critical to the site' s function as a nature preserve or nature education area. Parcel B is the most important natural area from a public visitation standpoint because it and the adjoining privately owned open space provide both a variety of habitat conditions and the largest block of undeveloped natural area. It is also the parcel which is most accessible to visitors entering from Weaver Street . Parcel D is most important to the Friends because it contains the house and cabin, the filtration plant, and some other structures which are essential as pro- gram facilities (see discussion below) . Parcel C contains the only safe location on the east side of the Reservoir property for a visitors ' II- 3 parking area with access from Weaver Street, and is needed to control access to Parcel B and the Lower Reservoir . Parcel A has been used as a nesting area by migratory wildfowl and once provided a flood release from the Reservoir to Pine Brook until New Rochelle and Larch- mont constructed reveted embankments . Although Parcel E is crisscrossed by sewer and water lines , it does have value for supervised nature education and is visually important to the rest of the Reservoir site. Basic Principles of Master Planning for Lands and Buildings r_ The Friends of the Reservoir have organized to save what they and many others consider to be a very important community resource , a land and water area which has provided important open space for man and wildlife in a heavily urbanized area . To be sure, this land and water area has also provided, and should continue to provide , substantial flood control and water supply benefits . As this Master Plan suggests , however, the future of these latter benefits should rest with the local governments . The Friends ' major role with regard to these benefits will be as a catalyst to resolve site ownership and management issues in the short run, and to achieve longer range protection of these benefits . Con- sequently, by working with upstream and downstream governments and land- owners, the Friends ' major concern must be how to successfully manage, protect, and enhance the lands and buildings which they plan to acquire . The key issue for locally based conservation organizations embarking on a land acquisition project is to plan ahead for survival and growth . A successful land acquisition is by no means a grand achievement . To the extent that acquisition costs are high, survival questions tend to cloud longer range perspectives , program development may be limited, and essential improvements may be postponed. While survival is an ever-present concern regardless of acquisition costs (and for a variety of reasons acquisitions tend to insure survival) , survival strategies and programs should be designed as essential steps toward the achieve- ment of longer range goals . A successful survival-growth plan for the Friends or similar conser- vation groups hinges on programming and facility development. While continued public access to the property is essential and would be II-4 impossible to prevent even if desired, casual public use will not pay bills . Programs must be designed which will facilitate membership development, provide appeal to possible funding sources , and have sufficient appeal to the general public or to special interest groups that they will pay for them. While the first and last of these are not necessarily mutually exclusive (in some cases , the only difference being that members get reduced prices or special treatment) , large donors or foundations usually do not fund continuing programs which should be self-sufficient. In developing programs for the general public or special interest groups , attention needs to be paid to establishing a high level of quality and to avoiding duplication of well-run nearby public or private programs. Quality programs and unique programs are essential to attaining long-range program income . The magnitude of the Friends ' commitment in terms of land acquisition, management , and development obligations strongly suggests, at least initially, that a few well-planned and well-run programs will be all that can be handled by the organization itself . As will be discussed shortly, this does not mean that.- the Friends should limit pro- gramming on the site to their own programs . As the Friends have already recognized, making the site and its facilities available to other organizations for programs and activities has high priority. Facility development plans should be designed which will provide good public visibility and public relations , will adequately serve the program needs of the Friends and related organizations , and will pro- vide for income-generating opportunities. In the short run , the availability of facilities for one or more of these purposes is more important than whether they meet all of the needs optimally or whether the overall quality meets the desired standards established by the organization . This is more true of facilities used by the organization or other friendly organizations than of facilities to be used by the general public . The general public will critically evaluate what is in comparison to commercial norms or other similar public facilities , whereas your friends will see what can be and will overlook present shortcomings. It is important , however- to develop visual displays of facility improvements which the Friends intend to make and to solicit suggestions and help from other organizations and the public . II-5 With these principles in mind, a number of facility and program possibilities can be suggested . These suggestions are based on meeting the goals which the Friends organization has evolved to this point : (1) to provide opportunities for nature education and historic inter- pretation focusing on the Reservoir property; (2) to provide certain recreational opportunities on the site; (3) to develop a catalyst role for water resources improvements; (4) to protect critical wildlife habitat areas; and (5) to provide facilities which other community organizations may use for their programs . Master Planning for Facilities Nature Trails . For the past year, Mr. Clifford Emanuelson has been assisting the Friends with the development of nature trails . These trails, along with others he has proposed (see Exhibit B) , provide good public visibility, exhibit quality in their design and execution, and can be used by casual visitors and by the Friends and other organizations for programs. It is difficult to derive income from nature trails except through the sale of nature trail guides for self-guided tours (such a guide for this site might also provide a map and guide to other nearby natural areas or parklands-- Leather- stocking Trail for example) or from special guided tours which are part of an educational program (e . g . , wildflower identification courses , bird identification courses , after -school nature programs for children, etc .) . Since nature trails invite more use of areas to which they provide access , access to areas such as the waterfowl nesting area on Parcel A should be strictly limited during nesting periods and access to an area closely bordered by residen ces. such as Parcel E,might be limited to supervised groups in order to maintain good neighborly relations . Controlling access would require fencing in both cases . Parking. The entrance road from Weaver Street to the major buildings and the Joint Water Works is rather unsafe . While the parking area near the old filtration plant can be expanded and the Joint Water Works parking area can be used at certain times, the r.. limited parking area and unsafe road intersection suggest the necessity to develop more extensive parking areas off .the presently unpaved, but safe, Sheldrake Avenue . Consolidated Edison might be willing to donate some of its adjoining land and Mr . Libertella could 11-6 continue to use part of the area for parking . Some grading would be required to improve this parking area and some crushed stone might be necessary. It is possible that grading assistance or stone might be donated by local companies or local government . It has been suggested that the Town should maintain Sheldrake Avenue . In order to use this area for parking, it will be necessary to provide a trail and bridge across the Sheldrake to the main building area. If night use of the buildings will draw large crowds of people in cars , lighting of the trail will become important although guests might be warned to bring flashlights . On the New Rochelle side , the tennis court parking lot can provide some parking for access to the nature trail but it does present possible conflicts with tennis enthusiasts . The Conservation Advisory Commissions of Mamaroneck-Larchmont and New Rochelle have suggested that bicycle visitors to the site be strongly encouraged. This would require bike racks near the tennis courts and at a well observed location near whichever buildings will be occupied (Joint Water Works , old filtration plant or the house) during the day. Recreational Uses of the Land and Water Areas . It is apparent from discussions by the CAC' s mentioned previously that the Reservoir area has occasionally suffered from too much recreational use . Unsupervised swimming and ice skating, rowdy parties , destruction of vegetation, littering, and other problems have caused some alarm on the part of neighbors and other users of the site . Appropriate recreational use of the site and successful control of in- appropriate activities require a multi-faceted approach. 1 . Programs at the site facilities should be designed to attract a broad range of age groups both during the week and on weekends and holidays. Attractions for families are particularly important, since some social restraint is usually imposed by the presence of ... families . 2. A responsible and diplomatic individual should maintain a highly visible presence on the site, particularly during those times of the year when problems are most likely to arise . Most II- 7 logically, the individual would be one hired to conduct programs or provide services on the site. Police patrolling at night and willingness to respond during the day are most essential . The present arrangement with a Town policeman living in the house is fortunate but may be difficult to continue over a long period of time . Since access to much of the site is better from the Mamaro- neck side, the jurisdictional issue needs to be clarified. One suggestion has been to realign the Town boundary to include the dam area and most of the east side Reservoir lands . 3 . Provision should be made to permit activities which could be undesirable or dangerous under certain conditions or in certain locations to occur in a more responsible fashion in appropriate locations . 4. The long range ownership of the land and management or recrea- tion activities should be vested in a Joint Park District as suggested in the Comprehensive Recreation Survey prepared by the County in 1961 for the Town and Village of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont or a Joint Park/Water Control District . Increased public use which can be fully anticipated requires equipment and occasional manpower beyond the means of any non- profit organization, As mentioned earlier, there is no reasonable way to recoup these costs on the Reservoir property. 5 . Until a Joint Park/Water Control District can be formed, the Friends should attempt to develop income approaches to recreation and pursue program funding from New Rochelle and Mamaroneck for other recreational programs . 6 . Highly visible, distinctive, and coordinated signage should be developed to provide instructions on the use of the site. If properly phrased in a positive manner, their instructions frequently reinforced, and visitor diversity increased, some success may be expected in achieving better compliance . 7 . Finally, school children brought to the site in buses, as well as children in general, need some place to burn off energy before their minds are ready for nature education. Clearing an open area between the Joint Water Works and the dam where the kids could play is one possible solution . 11-8 Given the apparent interest of the two CAC 's with regard to recreation- al uses , the Friends should seek to continue formal and informal dia- logues with the two CAC ' s together. Cliff Emanuelson has made several recommendations on recreation in other reports to the Friends and should be included in any meetings of the CAC' s . Buildings. The buildings on the Reservoir site are central to the Friends ' success as an organization and in the implemen- tation of programs . Of the present buildings on the site, the house , the filtration plant, and the gardener' s workshop and greenhouse cold- frame ruins have the greatestpotential for adaptive uses . The "log" cabin might, with some imagination, play some role, but it is neither large enough to fill a major role nor strategically located to provide an essential function. Thanks to the diligent efforts of the present tenant , the house which is the only habitable and immediately usable structure on the site (other than the J .W.W. building) has been given a much needed interior facelift . This building, reputedly a renovated barn, appears to be structurally sound. The basic arrangement of interior walls has under- gone so many transformations that there does not appear to be any rhyme or reason to the interior. If the costs of acquiring the entire Reservoir property are particularly excessive or fund raising is parti- cularly slow, the house may have to function for some time as the principal all-weather program center and office for the Friends . Solar energy experts are presently evaluating ways to take advantage of the excellent southern exposure at the rear of the house . Given the idiosyncratic interior arrangement which is inefficient for residential or organizational purposes , any mechanical changes such as solar adaptions should be considered within a framework of methodical interior modifications . These modifications (principally, removing dividing walls , and reworking plumbing and other utilities) should be done in such a way that, if the program center and office functions are later moved from it, the house can be easily transformed to its next role. We believe that the house should only be considered II- 9 an interim program and office center. Even if the whole first floor were to be one big room, it would still be a relatively small meeting room and office space would have to be pushed to the second floor (making that floor unusable for living quarters) or to the ground level (dairy stall area) which may be subject to flooding. If the house is to be an interim program and office center, we would suggest that an apartment be maintained on the second floor since security will continue to be a problem and that a modest meeting room, offices , and a restroom be provided on the first floor . Ideally, the house would be transformed into two apartments when other functions are moved; one for the Executive Director of the Friends organization, and one for a policeman or another staff person, interns , or part-time consultants . The remoteness of the house as well as the attractiveness of the Reservoir site to groups of illegal users suggests that two households on the site will be safer than one. With greater security, a tax-free housing provision would be a real plus in attract- ing employees . The old filtration plant is located most strategically in terms of the Lower and Upper Reservoirs and the nature trail network. It is rela- tively distant from the area which we feel will provide the best park- ing area. The building looks official and its massive walls and rich architectural features smack of permanence. Indeed, with the exception of a crack in the facade, possibly attributable to a tree , it would appear to be almost indestructible by all but the largest demolition equipment . If the building had been anything but a water plant with enormous concrete tank walls within, there would be little question about its possible usefulness . Nevertheless , we believe that its location and the amount of enclosed space argue for this building being the center of activity because a variety of functions can be accommoda- ted in one building. Using the construction specification blueprints, our draftsman has provided floor plans of the building (see Filtration Plant schematics) without some of the finer details . As can be seen, the third floor has a large expanse of possible open area, if part of the tank is removed. This would provide a major meeting room with substantial wall space for exhibits . With the walls and ceiling insulated, the area could be heated by a coal or wood stove (if only II-10 on an interim basis) . The second floor has plumbing in the Chlorine Room (the present walls of which differ from the original drawings , due to use as an office) which might make it possible to establish a small kitchen area in that location or elsewhere on that floor. The open tank areas on this floor present a hazard but could be used as exhibit space if the holes were covered and rectangular box walls constructed. The first floor , excepting the large room at the front, consists of concrete walled tanks . The tank areas have been suggested as the possible location for historical society archives or other storage uses . Accessing the tanks from the first floor level will , however , require substantial work cutting through the walls . One possible alternative use of one or more tanks would be as a heat storage area for a solar heating system. The front room could be fairly easily converted to office space and an information center-- nature book sales area. This would permit a small staff to accomplish a variety of functions without being spread out over the site. While conventional restroom facilities would be something of a problem with this building, there would seem to be no reason why water-less toilets could not be used and thus provide a functional as well as teaching purpose. The cost of improving this building for use depends primarily on how much use one wants to make and what quality of construction one wishes to provide . Master Planning for Programs Summarizing previous discussions, program planning requires looking at where money will come from. While some people may consider it callous, the organization must view all program proposals from the standpoint of who will pay for them and who will benefit; to the maximum extent possible, the answers should be the same . The one caveat to this general premise is that some programs with high public relations value must be undertaken in anticipation of future payoffs (e.g . , trail improvements and expansions) . II-11 To this point , the organization has been fortunate that many dedicated people have given considerable time to getting the project off the ground. Commitments of time on a scale comparable to Jim Johnson ' s are unreasonable to expect over a long period of time, and yet the details of concluding acquisition and lease agreements and building improvements alone will require considerable time on a day-to-day and, occasionally, on an hour-to-hour basis . Program development will take even more time. Volunteer help from local men and women cannot end; in fact , it will be needed even more, but the Friends will need someone who can devote most, if not all, of his or her time to coordin- ating everything and taking care of details . This management role must be considered an essential element of overall program planning and staff recruitment. Generalizing from discussions earlier in this section and from Sections III and IV, there are a number of programs and functions which can be identified as essential elements : 1 . Acting as a catalyst to bring about improved governmental response to open space and water resource issues . This would include working toward a watershed approach to storm water management and flood control , the formation of a Joint Park Districtand assistance with water supply issues . At the same time, the Friends could work on private initiatives to protect open space or water supplies e .g . , acquiring con- servation easements , gifts of land, etc . 2 . Providing meeting space and assistance to other affiliated organizations (LIFE, Historical Society , etc. ) which have an interest in Larchmont Reservoir , nature education, history, and related topics . 3 . Providing high quality nature education programs (which will not compete with affiliated organizations) to specific , targeted age , population, or interest groups (e .g . , Wild- flower Propagation or Identification, Bird Identification) , concentrating on programs which can bring in income sufficient to cover costs (with some profit , if possible) . II-12 4 . Providing public education on open space and water resource issues through programs , exhibits, etc . 5 . Providing pay-as-you-go outdoor recreation opportunities and limited management of public recreational uses of the site . 6 . Establishing selected programs to build and nurture member- ship and to improve public understanding of the Friends ' goals and the site . We would suggest, in addition, that the Friends might consider several nature-oriented sales events each year as a means to gain income and let people know who you are . For example, a couple of bird seed sales each year might bring in several thousand dollars of profit and a spring sale of native trees or seedlings also could bring some in- come . These types of sales can work well if volunteers help out . The Conservancy can provide information on operating such sales if you are interested. Finally, we feel that it is important to recognize in the planning of programs for public audiences that most people who volunteer and those who attend programs do so as much to socialize and enjoy them- selves as to learn or to provide community service . While the world' s , and Westchester County ' s, environmental problems are serious , people will not pay much to be depressed. Fun , or at least pleasure, is most important. Given the great difficulty of finding , training, and keeping volunteers, particularly younger women who do not work, these suggestions are particularly important . As we understand, Cliff Emanuelson will provide more detailed suggestions on specific programs for the coming year , including relationships with other organizations . 11-13 III . FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER SUPPLY The issues of flood control and water supply at the Larchmont Reservoir are somewhat difficult to separate either theoretically or organizationally. The Reservoir was of course originally designed for water supply purposes . While that purpose was abandoned some years ago by Larchmont, a number of questions are now arising about future water supplies (discussed at greater length in this Section) which suggest that water supply use may again become impor- tant . The Reservoir has also been an important element in flood control for many years. Before the Town of Mamaroneck below the Reservoir was extensively developed, Larchmont and New Rochelle built embankments on the southwest corner of the Reservoir to prevent flood discharges to Pine Brook. The Town and Village of Mamaroneck also benefited from flood protection when the Reservoir was still used for water supply and upstream portions of the Sheldrake and Mamaroneck were still sparsely developed . It is extremely difficult, however, to operate a small reservoir as a primary water supply source and as a flood control facility. If used as a sole source water supply, water levels must be maintained at maximum heights to deal with possible drought or heavy use condi- tions . If flood control is the essential purpose , either water levels must be kept low to provide for flood storage or it must be possible to reduce water levels quickly . In the latter case , the dam must have discharge mechanisms installed to permit fast drawdown and the timing of drawdown and storm runoff from downstream areas must be such that the two do not meet at one location at the same time and cause excessive flooding . The ability to control runoff from down- stream areas is thus another important element in managing a multi- purpose reservoir. These two issues, flood control (and its essential component, control of storm water runoff) and water supply are dis- cussed further below. Flood Control As the Location Map (Exhibit A) indicates , the Reservoir property is in the lower middle section of the Sheldrake River watershed . With only a few exceptions (Fenway and Quaker Ridge Golf Clubs , the Temple Israel property, and the northwest corner of Quaker Ridge Road and Weaver Street) , all of the large parcels of privately held land above the Reservoir have been fairly intensively developed. Flood- ing has been a serious problem in the past in a number of locations above the Reservoir (at the Hutchinson Parkway underpass, for example) and can be expected to worsen if these undeveloped parcels or the undeveloped publicly held parcels (Ward Estate , the High School on the Sheldrake in Scarsdale) are subjected to increases in impervious surfaces (buildings , roads , parking lots , etc . ) without stringent controls on storm water runoff . There is also a foresee- able possibility that some of the owners of larger-lot, older home sites upstream will want to subdivide their properties , providing an additional prospect of increased runoff . Without adequate controls on runoff, the Reservoir will be subjected to increased sediment deposition as well as changes in peak flows and volumes of water entering the Reservoir which will make managing water levels more difficult . In order to appreciate how significant these changes in runoff can be , it is useful to consider the case of a small watershed outside Boston which grew rapidly between 1966 (when the Corps of Engineers conducted a flooding study) and 1976 . During that period, the water- shed experienced ever-increasing frequencies of what the Corps had called 100-year floods . Rainfall had not increased but impervious surfaces had . As a consequence, rainfalls which had produced a 10- year flood in 1966 produced 100-year floods in 1976 because the total runoff had increased and the timing of runoff had been concen- trated within a reduced period .—l/ l/ This example can be used to illustrate both this particular phenomenon, and general storm terminology as well . The Corps had evaluated the watershed under undeveloped conditions , when a rainfall of seven inches in a 24-hour period (with a mathe- matical probability of occurrence based on rainfall records of 1 time in 100 years) produced a total runoff of 2 . 5 inches , and a 4-inch rainfall over 24 hours (a 1 time in 10 year probability) produced a total runoff of 1 inch. Ten years later, under developed conditions, the 4-inch rainfall (or "10-year storm") produced 2 . 5 inches of runoff (the expected amount from a "100-year storm" under undeveloped conditions) . III-2 In addition, undeveloped land does not produce much runoff until the ground is saturated (the " sponge" effect) . Paved and developed land (roads , roofs , etc . ) sheds water almost immediately, so that streams fill faster and rise faster after heavy downpours . Below the Reservoir and on other branches of the Sheldrake, the watershed contains more extensive undeveloped land (Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot Golf Clubs) . The development of one or more of these open areas in the future without stringent storm water run- off controls will have very serious impacts on the already heavily flooded areas of the Town and Village of Mamaroneck. As discussed earlier, this could have serious impacts on the effectiveness of the Reservoir as a flood management facility. The development of land around the Lower Reservoir could also effect significant changes in the water level of the Lower Reservoir itself and the Sheldrake basin below the Reservoir. The Soil Conservation Service has estimated that wooded areas have runoff rates which are frequently as little as 1/100th or less of the rates of developed areas . Of course, if structures were built in Parcel C, they could be subject to present flooding as well as any increases in flooding which arise from development around the Lower Reservoir. At the present time, Town Engineer Charles Elfreich manages the water level of the Reservoir under an agreement with Larchmont initiated in the mid-1970 ' s . As each storm occurs , he takes into account runoff water levels in the Sheldrake below the Reservoir, past experience with flows into the Reservoir, and weather service rainfall predictions , to determine when to open the valve at the Reservoir to increase discharges . As discussed later, he has apparently had significant success in reducing flooding in the Town of Mamaroneck. While his success under present conditions is mostly attributable to good judgment, the dam would have little value for flood control if the open space of the various golf clubs had been developed years ago . As it is now, the slower runoff of these up- stream areas providessufficient time to lower Reservoir levels before the major runoff from the golf clubs reaches the built-up areas . If any of these golf clubs is ever developed and storm runoff is not controlled in a manner designed to imitate present conditions , then either the Reservoir water level will have to be lowered substan- tially or increased damages downstream will have to be accepted. If all of the golf courses are developed without such controls , the Reservoir 's value for flood control will be seriously impaired. III-3 There are varied opinions on the precise extent of the Reservoir' s present capacity for flood control under different storm conditions . No one seems to disagree , however, that it is an important flood pro- tection basin and should continue to function as such in the future. The County has repeatedly-1/ recognized its value in this regard, especially as part of an overall storm water management system for the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake sub-basin. In fact, for the past few years the Sheldrake Reservoir has been used in combination with the Joint Water Works ' Mamaroneck River Reservoir , which has been kept virtually dry through permanent holes in the dam. This has reportedly (Elfreich) alleviated flooding to a great extent, particularly in the Village of Mamaroneck. A Metcalf and Eddy study prepared for Mr. Kellogg in 1978 estimated that maintaining the water level 3 feet below the spillway would definitely protect against a 1-year storm and partially protect against a 2-year storm along the Sheldrake River. This study also pointed out that significant protection could be provided against 5 and 10-year storms if durations were short. Charles Elfreich, Engineer for the Town of Mamaroneck, recently made a rough guess that the Reservoir was now capable of protecting against a 25-year storm if valve operation were properly timed . (Since the Metcalf and Eddy study was an extremely "quick and dirty" evaluation which contained several erroneous figures and limited technical information, it would seem that it underestimated the level of protection and that Elfreich is correct. ) He doubts that opening another valve to release water through another 20-inch pipe would help , due to the limited discharge capacity of the pipe and carrying capacity of the river. He currently sees the latter as a key factor , and is trying to increase carrying capacity through two modest engineering projects on the west branch2/ l/ 1961 County report: A Comprehensive Recreation Survey (Village of Larchmont, Town and Village of Mamaroneck) 1976 Environmental Review Record: Sheldrake River Flood Control 10/15/79 letter from County Executive del Bello to Mayor Noyer 2/ These adjustments to the slope of the stream bed to speed up flow are being thought of in lieu of the long-deferred Corps of Engineers project. They are less drastic variations on the scheme proposed by the Corps. III-4 (funding not confirmed) . He seems relatively confident that these two projects , plus proper valve operation, should "do it" in terms of flood control for most of the major storms (e .g . , the 25-year storm which now occurs on a 3-4 year frequency) . In his opinion , maintaining the level at 6 feet below the spillway might lead to full control, but also might only postpone the flood waters in the Sheldrake ' s west branch in the most intense storms . Some dollar figures (now several years old) have been estimated for storm damage savings if the Sheldrake Reservoir were kept 3 feet below spillway. For example, the Corps of Engineers estimated an annual benefit of $20 ,000 for protection against a 1-year storm (for damages between the Reservoir and the mouth of the Sheldrake) and a $101, 500 annual benefit for a 2-year storm. Eliminating damages merely between the Reservoir and the East Branch confluence would save $15, 000 for a 1-year storm and $75 ,000 for a 2-year storm. Additional beneficial results include : protecting low, moderate and middle- income areas in the Town and Village of Mamaroneck; facilitating existing rehabilitation programs ; increasing the availability of mortgage money; and retaining industry in the area. While the need for storm water runoff management to protect the Reservoir' s flood control capacity and its open space value has been discussed previously, it is worth noting that some facilities already exist upstream of the Reservoir which could be improved to provide some reductions in flooding and to reduce the great volumes of trash, sediment, and pollutants which are washed into the Reservoir. Carpenter' s Pond might have some value in this regard, while it is clear that if Dickerman ' s Pond were cleaned out and an additional outlet to discharge normal streamflow (other than the spillway) were installed, the Pond could serve as a detention basin as well as a trash, sediment, and pollutant remover . Another factor affecting flood control capacity of the Reservoir is the potential discharge of flood water to Pine Brook Boulevard over the embankments in the southwest corner where lots have been proposed . III- 5 The Conservancy has been unable to verify the elevation of the top of these embankments but they appear to be below 140 feet. The dam' s spillway elevation according to the 1897 water company plans is 144. 7 feet. This would suggest, as the Metcalf and Eddy report does , that discharges to Pine Brook decrease flooding problems in Mamaroneck below the Reservoir while increasing flooding in Pine Brook in New Rochelle and harchmont . The preceding discussion of flood control issues shows that there is little solid information on the hydrology of the Sheldrake watershed. There is a real need for an expert hydrologic evaluation/flood routing analysis which considers the impacts of development and runoff in different areas , the effect of Dickerman' s Pond and other obstructions such as bridges, and all additional factors relating to the volumes, velocities and timing of water runoff under different storm conditions . Only then can the true value of the Reservoir as a flood control facility be known and its future management planned. A second related issue is flood management responsibility within the area. There is only limited agreement now on this issue among the local governments involved. Friends of the Reservoir seems to be a logical organization to act as a catalyst for greater cooperation in this regard. The Soil and Water Conservation District is very interested in both of the above issues . Its priority in 1981 will be storm water manage- ment . The District also wants to continue encouraging inter-jurisdic- tional cooperation. In a recent conversation, Susan Weisman, District Manager , supported both the idea of a hydrologic study and a project to develop inter-governmental approaches to watershed flood control. The District would be eager to receive a grant proposal for either one of these items from one or several of the local governments acting together, and would approve of the money being passed through to the Friends . One problem is that the District grants only small amounts of money (a few thousand dollars) , which would not be sufficient to fund a watershed hydrologic analysis . It would be best for the District III-6 to do its own study, in the form of technical assistance to the watershed' s localities , and use its grant monies to fund a project to develop inter-jurisdictional coordination on storm water manage- ment and flood control . In early December, Ms. Weisman suggested that there was some possibility that top U . S. Geological Survey and Soil Conservation Service hydrolo- gists might be called upon to conduct the hydrologic analysis (storm water runoff evaluation) and flood-routing evaluation . The validity of such an analysis will be limited somewhat by the fact that there are probably limited streamflow records for the area. The Friends may wish to work towards the development of automatic streamflow monitors at several locations . In the Brandywine, a Telemark monitor- ing system provides telephonic transmission of stream height which is used to provide flood warnings and flood analysis . Such a system could help Mr. Elfreich to plan discharge from the Reservoir, if pro- perly located on the Sheldrake above and below the Reservoir. Water Supply When Larchmont abandoned the Reservoir as a water supply, it did so because the old filtration plant could not be economically improved to meet more stringent drinking water standards . Over the years , storm water runoff from the upper Sheldrake and regular streamflows had also become increasingly polluted, with some effects on the costs of treatment . In the late 1950 ' s, the Joint Water Works was assured by Westchester County of sufficient quantity and quality of water from the New York City system to serve the Town and Village of Mamaroneck, Harrison and others . Since 1970, New York City has lost population, but its water usage has greatly increased. New York' s allocation of flow from the Delaware River may be reduced according to discussions of the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the City' s water system is allegedly losing increased amounts of water due to lack of maintenance and unmetered usage . The drought conditions of this past year have resulted in severe drawdown of the City ' s reservoirs and should not III-7 be considered unusual since somewhat similar rainfall conditions occurred about fifteen years ago and are known to be cyclical. In short, a severe water shortage would force the City to decide who gets how much and, regardless of legal obligations to others , the City is not going to be able to severely restrict its consumption . West- chester County has begun to talk of developing treatment capability at the old reservoirs for emergency shortages . While the quality of New York City ' s water is better than that from Larchmont ' s treatment plant , that quality must also be upgraded to meet the latest drinking water standards . Depending on where New York decides to treat the water, above or below Westchester ' s intake, the Joint Water Works might have to construct a new treatment system and plant . At such time , if not before, the use of Reservoir water would deserve careful consideration. Whether or not Reservoir water is used, it would not be in the best interest of the Friends or those who use the Reservoir for open space and natural enjoyment to see a major treatment plant expansion occur on the present site . It also seems unlikely that the abandoned filtration plant could ever be put back into service at reasonable costs . Finally, it is worth mentioning again that if the Reservoir water were to be used on a regular basis in the future, the adjustment of water levels for flood control would have to be very closely coordin- ated with drinking water withdrawals . In addition, any changes to the dam which might be made to improve flood control capability should be reviewed in terms of possible impact on water supply use . Ownership and Management of the Dam Until December 1980 , the Friends and most people involved with the Reservoir felt that the dam was structurally sound. Some concern had been expressed that the spillway was inadequatel/ and that the space l/ Based on a dam inspection in June 1.978 by the New York District Corps of Engineers under The National Dam Safety Program. Two years later the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation reversed the judgment based on the dam' s overtopping capability . III-8 between the concrete and the stone dam walls on the south side should be filled and blacktopped. Various methods of improving flood control capabilities had been discussed. In December , the Friends asked two dam experts to inspect the dam. During this inspection, they located an apparent leak which flows inside the rubble fill of the south wing of the dam. Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Elfreich have planned an inspection of the dam breast whenever the water(ice) levels can be lowered and dye tests run . Since the last major improvements to the dam were reportedly made in the 1930 ' s , it is reasonable to project that some repairs will be necessary from time to time in the future. Since the dam is used to provide flood control for the Town and Village of Mamaroneck--all of whose residents benefit directly or indirectly-- and since the dam would be essential to future public water supply use of the Reservoir , the Friends can ill afford accepting responsibility for the dam' s structural integrity . First, it is clearly a public responsibility given the public nature of its benefits and impacts . Second, it would represent a financial burden for which the Friends could never raise sufficient funds on a voluntary basis . While Larchmont Planning Commission has expressed some interest in reserving water rights for the future and the Town and Village of Mamaroneck need flood control capability, it would be difficult but not impossible to divide ownership or maintenance responsiblity between them. Funding repairs might present some problems due to taxing limitations and varying annual budget demands . The cleanest and perhaps most logical approach would be for the Joint Water Works to be given title to the dam. The Joint Water Works could justify the repairs in order to maintain the right to use the water. Since Mamaroneck' s Town Engineer has been managing the discharge valves and the Town and Village are the beneficiaries of flood control, im- provements to the dam for flood control purposes could either be funded by Urban County federal funds , the Town and Village directly, or through a surcharge on water rates to residents of the Town and Village . III- 9 Basic maintenance costs for the dam and any improvements for water supply purposes would be added to rates for all water users . The Friends of the Reservoir could agree to keep the dam clear of vegetation in return for the right to maintain their trails and generally use the dam site for program purposes . The transfer by Larchmont of dam title and water rights to the Joint Water Works for a nominal consideration (e.g. $1) would certainly have some attraction to the J.W.W. The equity of such a transaction might be questioned by the J .W.W. inasmuch as it would be accepting a present liability (the dam--at least from Harrison' s standpoint) in return for a potentially valuable future resource (the water) . To resolve this disparity and as an alternative to surcharging water rates to the Town and Village of Mamaroneck (for flood control usage of the dam) , Larchmont might consider transferring title to the water works site to the J.W.W. as a quid pro quo for the Joint Water Works assuming responsibility for the dam. Furthermore , these transfers might be discusses within the framework of Larchmont membership in the J.W.W. The future use of the Reservoir for water supply purposes has of course been greatly enhanced by Westchester County 's recent recognition of its potential in its drought emergency planning and the County' s willingness to pick up half of the costs involved. These funds could be used for dam improvements (to insure the water supply) as well as treatment plant needs . From the Friends ' standpoint, they must be assured that the land area which will be subject to water rights (covered by water) is established at the present level (129 .5 feet) or some other prearranged level . Summary of Major Issues 1 . In order for the Reservoir to function properly as a flood control facility, much more is at issue than water levels, valve control and drawdowns . Off-site activities are also critical, both upstream and downstream. Upstream, strict storm water runoff controls on all new development, and better usage of Dickerman' s (and perhaps Carpen- ter' s) Pond as detention and siltation basins , are both needed. Downstream, equally stringent runoff controls combined with Elfreich' s two engineering projects , are just as essential . III-10 2 . As the adequacy of the New York City water supply system is thrown increasingly into doubt under drought conditions , the possibility of the Reservoir' s use as an emergency water supply is more and more likely . Several problems are attached to this likelihood, two of them being how to coordinate water levels needed for water supply with those needed for flood control, and who should possess the water rights (e.g . , Larchmont or the Joint Water Works) . 3 . The Joint Water Works currently operates a treatment plant on the Reservoir property and has already notified the Village of its interest in constructing a filter plant on the same property. However, in terms of the Friends ' own goals , a major expansion such as this would substantially diminish the value of the Reservoir for open space and natural enjoyment. 4. There is no agreement on the full extent of the Reservoir' s capacity for flood control under different storm conditions , primarily because there is little reliable information on the hydrology of the Sheldrake watershed. The Soil and Water Conservation District has expressed a real interest in funding, or conducting itself, an hydro- logy/flood routing evaluation as well as funding a project in inter- governmental cooperation. There is an immediate need for the Friends to research the specifics of developing such grant proposals and to see that the appropriate party (parties) follow through. 5 . There is also no agreement concerning who should assume responsibility related to the Reservoir for both emergency water supply and flood management. That is , which party or parties should retain the water rights -- Larchmont? Joint Water Works? Which should assume responsibility for dam improvement and maintenance -- Mamaroneck? Larchmont? Joint Water Works? Several options have been discussed in this section: a. Divide ownership and maintenance responsibility between Larch- mont (reserve water rights) and Mamaroneck. III-11 b . Give dam title and water rights to the Joint Water Works for nominal fee . Dam improvements for flood control funded by Urban County federal monies , Mamaroneck directly, or through a water rate surcharge on Mamaroneck residents . Dam maintenance and improvements for water supply purposes financed through water rate increases . Friends keep dam clear of vegetation for right to use dam site for program purposes and to maintain trails , C . Alternative to surcharge provision of b. above : Larchmont trans- fers title of current treatment plant site to Joint Water Works free of charge in return for Joint Water Works assuming responsibility for the dam. III-12 IV. SECURING THE FUTURE - LEASE AND PURCHASE ARRANGEMENTS In the preceding text , we have discussed the variety of benefits and entities presently involved with the Reservoir (for a summary of how those entities benefit from the Reservoir site, see Appendix 1) . It is obvious from these various discussions that while the residents of Larchmont presently benefit from this open area, they are not the prime beneficiaries of any of the Reservoir' s present values . Prospectively, they could benefit from the preservation of a future water source for themselves , but if the most recent report and policy on water shortages from Westchester County endures , the County would consider providing financial assistance to any entity which would develop a water supply. This water supply would be considered part of the total water sub- ject to allocation by the County and not a supplement to other allocations . That is , the new water supply would be considered part of Westchester County' s total supply. The Joint Water Works has the existing organization and ability to work toward reactivation of this important water source . Larchmont has little inducement to going it alone . From these two perspectives (secondary open space beneficiary and water supply) , Larchmont should not be expected to give away or commit on a long range basis to preserving the property without receiving some compensation. From open space, water supply, and flood control perspectives, there is only one small portion of the site which could reasonably be sold off by Larchmont to private owners without creating future problems . A small area along Pine Brook Boulevard identified on Exhibit B_ would not interfere with the present nesting area and would not impede future use of the Reservoir for flood control or water supply purposes . It is suggested, however , that any such sale should contain a retained ease- ment to permit the owners of the Reservoir to raise the water level on the Reservoir side of the embankment temporarily or permanently to a height above the present levels or lower it below existing levels . The Friends agree that the sale of a parcel which does not contain the nesting peninsula would be acceptable , provided that the peninsula is fenced off from intruders . At one time , the Village Engineer proposed the sale of Parcel C . Apart from the fact that this area is needed for parking, any house or houses built on this parcel would be likely to interfere with open space use and views along the Lower Reservoir. Also, since the water line easement shown on the Restrictions Map (Exhibit D) divides this tract, any house between that easement and the Sheldrake River would be subject to (and would exacerbate) flooding problems . Furthermore, if the Reservoir is reactivated as a water supply in the future and the Joint Water Works is relocated, new pipes may need to be installed across this area. We have suggested that the Friends cannot and should not accept responsibility (i. e. , ownership) for the dam site . While they may be willing to help keep it free of vegetation and help to secure funding for major repairs or improvements , the Town and Village of Mamaroneck receive the greatest immediate benefit from the dam. Similarly , the Friends gain little from owning the land on which the Joint Water Works is located. Larchmont ' s ownership as lessor apparently results in beneficial water rates for Larchmont , a value to Larchmont ' s residents which would not accrue directly to the Friends . We suggest that Larchmont consider disposing of the dam, the Joint Water Works site and the water rights to the J.W.W. , perhaps in return for membership on the J.W.W. and other considerations . In all fairness to the Friends, most of the open land which remains (including the land under the Reservoir) should be owned by a Joint Park/Wager Control District consisting of Larchmont, New Rochelle, and the Town and Village of Mamaroneck. The Friends , as suggested earlier, could provide management and some programs , but their most important need is buildings to develop their programs and , second- arily, a new parking area. The latter also would be required by a Joint Park/Water Control District . At the same time, it is recognized that a Joint Park/Water Control District cannot be established over- night. The question, then, is what is the best arrangement for controlling the future of Parcels B and C, the buildings and area shown as Parcel D, IV-2 and the remainder of the Village ' s holdings after transfer of the dam and the present J.W.W. site to the Joint Water Works . From the Friends ' perspective, raising funds for improvements to the buildings and the parking area (Parcel C & D) would be extremely difficult without having full title to these areas . The remainder of the land (assuming transfer of the dam and J .W.W. site) , while essential to programs , does not have much development value . The nesting area portion of Parcel A must be considered a critical wildlife habitat, and not a developable tract. Parcel E is landlocked and contains utility easements. Parcel B would be difficult to access and extraordinarily expensive to develop, due to rocky and swampy areas , and thus a sale to a developer would bring little income . It is critical to the Friends program however, and its purchase is considered important for that reason. It would seem logical under the circumstances that the Friends could achieve their essential goals if they were given a lease for program purposes on the remaining open space and all other areas except the dam and J.W.W. site with the understanding that Larchmont could convey titles to some or all of these parcels to a Joint Park/Water Control District. A lease, reflecting the nominal real estate values of this land could be for a five-year period, renewable for an additional five years at the Friends ' option and at ten-year periods thereafter at the option of either party, In addition to the lease, the Friends should secure a continuing . long-term right of first refusal to purchase all of the land (including the J .W.W. site but not the dam) with a guarantee of six months grace before settlement to provide sufficient time to raise funds if necessary. To summarize the various transactions which could be expedited in the near future: 1) Larchmont subdivides and sells a tract of land on Parcel A (identified on Exhibit B) with retained rights to raise or lower water levels . 2) Once Larchmont provides a current survey of the property, the Friends should get an appraisal of the entire site . Based upon the appraisal they should prepare an offer to purchase Parcels B, C, and D (minus the J.W.W. site) with Larchmont retaining an access easement to the present J .W.W. site and the dam upon completion of an appraisal and Larchmont providing a current survey. 3) At the same time, the Friends and Larchmont execute an agreement giving the Friends a long-term right of first refusal for all remaining lands except the dam and the five-year renewable lease (as outlined) on all of the remaining land excluding the IV-3 J .W.W. site and the dam. Under this arrangement, the Friends will be able to fund improvements to the buildings and develop their programs without an extensive commitment of funds for acquisition or a long-term commitment to manage a public park. The Friends , however , should commit their organization to assisting Larchmont with the transfer of title to the Joint Water Works and with the formation of a Joint Park/Water Control District and transfer of land to that District . In return for Larchmont ' s favorable treatment of their purchase, lease, and right of first refusal offers , the Friends could stipulate that , in the event of their organization ' s demise, the purchased property shall revert to either the Village or a Joint Park/Water Control District , To minimize up-front cash needs (and thus expedite program and facility development) , the purchase of Parcels B, C , and D should be through the instrument of an installment sale . On this basis , the Friends would make an initial cash payment of a portion of the total purchase price and would then make annual payments of principal and interest over a period of years (e.g. , a total of 5 payments) . If Larchmont were to accept a lower purchase price, the time period for purchase might be shortened. The Friends should not hurry acquisition, however , if this will impair investments in improvements . The organization and all users of the site will gain more excitement from the construction of improvements and transformation of the buildings than they will from acquisition alone. Programs also will benefit , since the curious as well as expected visitors will want to see what is happening . IV-4 V. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION Of the various issues discussed in this Plan , there are roughly five which require immediate attention by the Friends , working in concert with the other key parties . 1. Proposed Subdivisions Affecting the ultimate feasibility, as well as quality, of the Friends ' programs on the site are several subdivision proposals for lots on Pine Brook Boulevard ("lots 1 and 2") and others off Weaver Street in Parcel C . Related to the latter is Monroe Nursery School' s interest in expanding its property. Lots "l and 2" require priority action since the Village is now actively pursuing suggestions for subdivision and sale of that property . The Friends need to seek immediate support from the Larchmont Trustees for their (the Friends ' ) alternative proposal for lots 1 and 2 . 2 . Application to the Soil and Water Conservation District District Manager Susan Weisman has urged the interested parties to submit a grant proposal to the District as soon as possible . Acting in its role of "catalyst for cooperation, " the Friends should hold immediate discussions with potential grant applicants (Larchmont, Village and Town of Mamaroneck) to win support for the study and project ideasl/ and to determine which body or bodies would make the application. The City of New Rochelle and Town of Scarsdale would be important participants in any such study or l/ These refer to the hydrologic/flood routing study and the project in inter-governmental cooperation discussed in Section III. project . (Another party to be included might be the Joint Water Works ; see 3 below. ) Further, these initial meetings might logically represent the beginnings of a broader and more organized approach to the water supply and flood management issues of the Reservoir itself and of the entire watershed. In fact , it might be a goal of the Friends to work toward the formation of a joint task force to attack these immediate, as well as longer-term ,issues . 3. Water Rights The future use of the Reservoir as an emergency water supply is becoming a real possibility under severe drought conditions . A recent county reportl/ recommended that the County should con- sider methods for reactivating the Sheldrake River source for local use and for using County funds to partially cover those costs . The Village of Larchmont has grown increasingly interested in retaining water rights to the Reservoir and considers it a key issue in any disposition proposal for the property . The Joint Water Works is also very much involved in this issue, and as recommended in Section III , is probably the preferred recipient of the water rights . The Friends would be advised to bring the water rights question before the affected parties and have it resolved as soon as possible , Since the water supply and flood control issues are so interrelated (as Section III explains) , it is recommended that the discussions initiated by the Friends in 2 above also include the issues of water supply and water rights . 4. Programming for the Reservoir Site While the resolution of program issues is less pressing, a good deal of lead time is still needed to get programs off the ground. 1/ Part VIII : Drought Contingency Plan, Report No . 14-80WA, West- chester County Water Agency, October, 1980 . V-2 The Friends , through the good offices of Cliff Emanuelson, must con- tinue making progress on two fronts : (a) adoption and enforcement of interim regulations for use of the property, e . g . , along the lines of the CACs ' 25 recommendationsl/ , and (b) developing final program proposals for use of the land and buildings and drafting operating agreements with other organizations which could be implemented immediately once given the go-ahead . 5 . Title Review, Survey , and Appraisal In the past, Larchmont has subdivided and sold land around the Reservoir. The Village has reportedly retained access easements in some of these transactions and it has also granted easements in other transactions , A title report prepared for the Village indicates easements granted over existing Village properties , but apparently does not mention retained rights over conveyed properties (e. g. , easement through the New Rochelle tennis court property) . If the Friends or a Joint Park/Water Control District are to purchase lands owned by the Village, they should have access to information on any retained rights in prior sales . With regard to the conveyance of clear title, it would appear that any conveyance would, in the absence of a contravening court decision, be subject to certain limitations imposed by the Dickerman deed . Past sales of land by Larchmont as well as the possibility of encroachments by abutting private landowners suggest a need for an updated survey including the location of monuments around parcels intended for purchase by the Friends , l/ Report Regarding the Larchmont Reservoir , Village, Town and City Conservation Advisory Commissions , October 9 , 1980 . V-3 If the Friends intend to purchase Parcels B , C , and D or all of the remaining Larchmont lands or even if leases are desired on these lands , it is essential to locate a qualified and objective MAI appraisor to evaluate the whole property and its parts. This appraisor should be familiar with all of the legal restric- tions on the property as well as the practical and technological restrictions on its value (e.g . , the fact that many areas are already subject to periodic flooding or that utility access to certain parcels would require blasting) . This appraisal would provide the best starting point for negotiations with Larchmont of purchases or leases (some New York court decisions would appear to require an appraisal as a basis for lease negotiations) . Negotiations would obviously be necessary if the Village were to wish to retain water rights and the right to install improvements to facilitate their use or if the Friends and the Village were to find it desirable for the Friends to purchase the land subject to a reverter clause by which the land would revert to Village owner- ship in the event that the Friends should cease to exist . The sooner an appraisal is available, the easier it will be for all parties to focus on the development of concrete and defensible proposals . V-4 Appendix 1 BENEFITS - LARCHMONT OWNERSHIP OPTIONS (assumes water rights, dam maintenance & valve control remain in public hands) Wildlife Sanct'ry Envir. Educ. Public Rec, Open Space Duffer Flood Control Water Supply Village sells entire parcel to developer Village sells off Pine Brook Blvd. & Weaver St. lots (Kellogg proposals) to developer; remainder / \ to Friends /i/\ \\ \� /� \\\ �� , M r• Village sells entire parcel to Friends; excepting one Pine Brook Blvd. frontage lot (Friends' proposal) Key: Benefit lost Benefit diminished ® Benefit retained Appendix 1 (cont.) BENEFITS - MAMARONE'CK OWNERSHIP OPTIONS (assumes water rights, dam maintenance & valve control remain in public hands) Wildlife Sanct'ry Envir. Educ, Public Rec, Open Space Buffet Flood Control* Village sells entire parcel to developer i \ Village sells off Pine \\ // \\ / \\ �� \\ ,� b Brook Blvd. & Weaver St. lots (eloper; proposal) //�\\ /j\ \ /�\ // \\ Qj to develo er; remainder to Friends Village sells entire ~ parcel to Friends; excepting one Pine Brook n Blvd. frontage lot 0 (Friends° proposal) rt u Key: 1 yr. Storm 2 yr, Storm Benefit lost *Westchester Urban County summarized Bonnie Briar Lane in the following chart Corps of to East Branch $15,000 $75,000 Benefit diminished Engineers' Figures (now several years old) for Sheldrake River storm damage East Branch to Benefit retained savings if the Reservoir is kept 3 Larchmont Gardens feet below spillway: Lake $ 5,000 $25,000 Larchmont Gardena Lake to Mouth -0- $ 1,500 BENEFITS - NE14 ROCHELLE OWNERSHIP OPTIONS (assumes water rights, dam maintenance & valve control remain in public hands) Wildlife Sanct'ry Envir. Educ. Public Rec, Open Space Buffer Village sells entire parcel to developer 9 Village sells off Pine \ / \ / i (p Brook Blvd. & Weaver St. �� /� \\ / \ / �� /� p lots (Kellogg proposal) to developer; remainder to Friends Village sells entire f parcel to Friends; O excepting one Pine Brook 0 Blvd. frontage lot t (Friends' proposal) Key: FBenefit lost \ Benefit diminished Benefit retained Appendix 2 BIRDS OF LARCHMONT RESERVOIR As Observed Between 1976 through 1979 Compiled by Andrew Vallely January , 1980 Symbols used in this list are defined as follows : ** Rare , recorded on less than three occasions . * Breeding at least once in given time period; at reservoir or within one-fourth mile radius . Pied-Billed Grebe Broad-Winged Hawk Great Blue Heron Golden Eagle** American Egret** Marsh Hawk (Harrier) Snowy Egret** Osprey Green Heron* Kestrel Mute Swan Ring-Necked Pheasant* Canada Goose American Coot** Snow Goose** Killdeer** Mallard Spotted Sandpiper American Widgeon Herring Gull Pintail** Ring- Billed Gull Shoveller** Laughing Gull** Wood Duck* Rock Dove* Ring-Necked Duck Mourning Dove* Greater Scaup** Night Hawk Buffle-Head Chimney Swift Hooded Merganser Ruby Throated Hummingbird** Turkey Vulture Belted Kingfisher Sharp-Shinned Hawk Yellow-Shafted Flicker* Red-Tailed Hawk Hairy Woodpecker** Red-Shouldered Hawk** Downy Woodpecker* Eastern Kingbird Birds of Larchmont Reservoir cont . Great Creasted Flycatcher** Parula Warbler** Phoebe* Yellow Warbler* Eastern Wood Pewee** Magnolia Warbler** Tree Swallow Black-Throated Blue Warbler** Bank Swallow Myrtle Warbler Rough-Winged Swallow Black-Poll Warbler Barn Swallow* Palm Warbler Blue Jay* Oven Bird Crow* Northern Water-Thrush** Black-Capped Chickadee* Yellow-Throat Tufted Titmouse* Canada Warbler** White-Breasted Nuthatch* American Redstart Brown Creeper** House Sparrow* House Wren* Red-Winged Balckbird* Mockingbird* Northern Oriole* Catbird* Common Grackle* Brown Thrasher* Brown-Headed Cowbird* American Robin* Scarlet Tanager* Wood Thrush* Cardinal* Hermit Thrush Rose-Breasted Grosbeak* Swainson' s Thrush** Indigo Bunting** Veery Purple Finch Ruby-Crowned Kinglet House Finch* American Pipit** Common Redpoll** Cedar Waxwing Pine Siskin Starling* American Goldfinch* Solitary Vireo Rufous-Sided Towhee* Red-Eyed Vireo* Dark-Eyed Junco Warbling Vireo* Chipping Sparrow* Black and White Warbler White-Throated Sparrow Song Sparrow* Appendix 3 BRANDYWINE CONSERVANCY ©i ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CENTER General Description The Conservancy's Environmental Management Center is unique among conservation organizations in the United States. Although its main focus has been local, the EMC has had tremendous impact on the Middle Atlantic region and has had additional influence nation- ally. Unlike many environmental groups which have concentrated on direct governmental action, the Center has pioneered in the use of economically attractive initiatives by private landowners as a corollary to well-reasoned governmental regulation. The Center has stressed conservation, not preservation. It is not an inflexible opponent of all land development , but has sought to protect the critical historic and natural resources which frequently are des- troyed by short-sighted developers. The Center stresses research of issues, but it has been known for decisive action. In an age when old values are disappearing, the staff has taken special pride in establishing a reputation of trust between the Center and the public organizations and private individuals with whom it is involved. The Center' s staff of six full and part-time professionals is supplemented by top legal counsel in Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, Wilmington, and West Chester, by technical and engineering consultants from research institutions and private firms in the Middle Atlantic area, and by numerous volunteers . In October 1980, the Brandywine Conservancy was the recipient of the Achievement Award of the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service , U. S. Department of the Interior, in recognition of the Con- servancy 's continuing outreach in environmental concerns . . . (and) its many accomplishments in the public interest . " The Programs LAND STEWARDSHIP . This program develops and applies techniques that private landowners may employ to protect historic and natural resources (primarily through the use of conservation easements) , to manage their lands more productively, and to develop their properties. The Conservancy also will accept easements on or title to key pieces of common open space created through development. Results: * Over 4 ,000 acres of land have been placed under conservation easement agreements in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Work proceeds on several thousand more acres in this area and in other states. * Management and development plans prepared for a number of major properties . Permanent protection of the open space in several residential developments . * Acquisition of more than 300 acres of key open land for protection of visual, natural , and historic resources. Assistance to Other Organizations : *Staff has assisted organ- izations in California, New Mexico, Wyoming, New York, New Hampshire, Maryland, South Carolina, Ohio , New Jersey, Canada and other sections of Pennsylvania and Delaware with development of conservation easement programs and with questions of land management and disposition. Publications: Landscaping with Native Plants in the Middle Atlantic Re ion, (Soon to be printed: Land Steward- ship Manua ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK. This program conducts continuing technical and legal research to prepare environmentally and economically sound land and water use regulations for local governments in Pennsylvania. Although the staff has been in contact with organizations in other states regarding the establishment of similar programs, the Handbook program remains a unique approach to local land use issues. Over fifty federal, state, and local governmental agencies, as well as private firms and non-profit organizations, pay an annual subscription to the program. Additional EMC staff assistance to individual subscribers is available on an at-cost basis for plan and ordinance drafting , development proposal reviews, etc. Publications: Environmental Management Handbook and annual updates, perio is revisions and new sections; Environmental Currents , quarterly newsletter . Certain Han oo sections e.g . , tormwater Management) available separately. HISTORIC PRESERVATION. This program assists public organizations, municipalities, investors , and private individuals with the develop- ment of plans for the preservation of historic sites . Staff also is responsible for managing a multi-year survey of some 20 ,000 historic sites in Chester County . Occasional workshops and con- ferences are sponsored. Results: *The Center has developed or assisted in the develop- ment of preservation plans for hundreds of properties in the area and has assisted other organizations in establishing preservation programs . Publications: Historic Preservation in the Lower Delaware Valley c e u e or printing during 1981) WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT. All members of the Center staff collabor- ate in this program area designed to protect the area' s most critical resource, water . From 1971 to 1975 , the Center con- ducted one of the most extensive analyses of a stream ever under- taken in the U.S . Techniques developed in the Brandywine Water Resources Project have been used elsewhere in the U.S . and the information and computer models developed for the project have continuing value to the staff . The Center's emphasis today is on developing appropriate water resource protection methods. Staff recently has been under contract to work on new sewage treatment applications and stormwater management practices and is working on a water conservation program. Publications : A full list is avialable upon request. Appendix 4 Resumes : Environmental Management Center Staff H. William Sellers David C. Sweet Wendy M. Emrich Martha L. Wolf Stephen N. Kuter RESUME H. William Sellers Date of Birth: 6/8/41 901 Denton Hollow Rd. West Chester, PA 19380 Education: Tulane University New Orleans , LA BA 1963,Public Administration, and Philosophy Ohio State University, MA 1968, City Planning Experience : A) May 1975 to present: Direct all Conservancy environ- mental education and environmental management programs including: Ordinance and Planning Assis- tance Program serving local and county governments in Pennsylvania; Land Stewardship Program promoting land stewardship and resource conservation among private landowners in Pennsylvania and the Delmarva peninsula; Historic Preservation Program assisting public agencies and private entities in developing historic preservation plans ; Water Resource Planning Program assisting public agencies in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Supervise Program Directors for the above and special consultants . Jan. 1973 to May 1975 : Ohio Environmental Protec- tion Agency, Columbus , Ohio Senior Policy Analyst and Chief, Division of Planning Senior Policy Analyst position involved development of short and long term plans for the overall direc- tion and management of the Agency and legislative and budgetary priorities for the Director. Chief, Division of Planning , involved responsibility for direction and supervision of four sections chiefs and over thirty employees . Planning Division responsibilities included air , water, solid waste , manpower, and land use plans , A95 Clearinghouse for federal environmental funding programs . Coordination of State agency reviews of EIS , and power siting review and comment . Other duties : Represented Agency on Governor' s Land Use Policy Work Group , Mass Transportation Advisory Committee , Great Lakes Basin Commission, Lake Erie Jetport Study, Ohio Coastal Zone Management Task Force. Jan. 1970 - Dec. 1972 : Mid-Ohio Health Planning Federation, Columbus , Ohio. Director of Environmental Health Planning and Comprehensive Health Planning Coordinator. Supervision of four employees . Responsible for organizing and advising citizen committees and 2 - local officials on health and environmental issues and the development of plans in these areas . Other duties : Executive Staff to Chairman John Glenn and the Citizen' s TAsk Force on Environmental Protection (appointed by the Governor) , 1971 . Columbus Development Code Advisory Committee , Franklin County Municipal Officials Council , Central and Southwest Ohio Water Resources Council. Nov. 1969 - Jan. 1970 : The Ohio State University Research Foundation Research Associate Developed research proposal for a five-year project to develop a systems approach for determining ecolo- gically sound methods of community development in frigid regions (Arctic and Antarctic) . Aug. 1968 - Nov. 1969 : The Ohio State University Research Foundation. Research Associate Worked with Superintendent of public school system, his staff, and university research team evaluating the effects of applying various management and planning systems to the operations of the school system. Provided training in systems analysis , PERT, PPBS, and other planning strategies to planning team from the Board of Education. June 1967 - Aug. 1968 : Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Columbus , Ohio . Planning Intern. (Part time during graduate school . ) June 1964 - October 1964: Social Science Consultants , New Orleans , LA. Research Assistant Market Surveys , Public opinion polls , community decision-making study. PUBLIC SERVICE : APPOINTIVE OR ELECTED OFFICES Supervisor, Pocopson Township , Chester County Board of Trustees , Chadds Ford Historical Society and Historic Red Clay Valley , Inc. Trustee, German Village Historic District Resident 's Association, Columbus , Ohio . RESUME David C. Sweet Date of Birth: 9/27/45 408 Dean St. West Chester, PA 19380 Education: A) Wesleyan University Middletown, Conn. BA, Modern European History: 1967 B) University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Fine Arts , Philadelphia, PA Master of City Planning: 1971 Experience: A) Sept. 1975 - present : Environmental Management Center, Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford, PA. Primary responsibility for the Environmental Management Handbook program and the Conservancy' s technical assistance to municipalities on land use and environmental planning. Developing,both directly and with staff and consultant assistance , materials and services that comprise the Handbook program: updated and new text, case law, and ordinance models for the Handbook; a quarterly newsletter; periodic workshops/seminars ; and response to requests for technical assistance , e .g. , ordinance review or preparation, comprehensive planning activities , review of development proposals . Assist Director in fulfillment of ongoing EMC programs , staff supervision, budgetary matters , and setting of goals and policies . B) 2/71 - 9/75 : Regional Supervisor , Bureau of annin , Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs , Philadelphia Re ion. Development, administration, monitoring, and evaluation of state-and federally-funded local planning programs within the five county southeastern Pennsylvania region; provision of planning services and technical assistance to local governments and to Departmental programs ; and personnel supervision. C) 1/68 - 2/71: (intermittent , full- and art-time) : Human Resources Center, University of Penns vania, Phi lade 1pTHaPA Research assistant on a variety of research, implementation, and evaluation projects concerned with social change . 2 - D) 8/68 - 6/69 : Penn-Delco School District , Aston (Delaware County, Pa. Classroom teacher and coach of 4th and 5th year students in a public school system. E) 6/67 - 8/67 : Arlington Co. Office of Planning, Arlington, Va. Planning Internship. PUBLIC SERVICE; APPOINTIVE OR ELECTED OFFICES. Member , West Chester Borough Planning Commission Member, West Chester Regional Planning Commission RESUME Wendy M. Emrich Date of Birth : 11/19/47 724 Harvard Avenue Swarthmore , PA 19081 Education : A) Mount Holyoke College South Hadley , MA B.A. , Political Science : 1969 B) University of California, Dept . of City & Regional Planning, Berkeley , Calif. Master of City Planning: 1976 Experience : A) Oct . 1980-present : Special projects consultant to Environmental Management Center, Brandywine Conserv- ancy , Chadds Ford, PA. B) Jan . 1979-Nov. 1980 : Consultant to the Council on Environmental Qua ity , Washington , D. C. C) Oct . 1978-Dec . 1979 (part-time) : PROJECT OFFICER, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) , Executive Office of the President , Washington , D. C. Admin- istered a project on environmental conflict resol- ution , including third-party mediation . Worked closely with contractors to introduce conflict management techniques into federal government environmental decision making; helped organize workshops on negotiation and mediation; wrote sections of an environmental mediation handbook; maintained liaison with government agencies, environmental mediation groups and all others interested in the project; prepared a final "white paper" on environmental mediation for CEQ. D) Feb . 1978-Jul 1978 (part-time) : PLANNING ASSISTANT , RESOLVE , Center for tnvironmental Conflict Resolution, Palo Alto, California . Helped to develop objectives , priorities and an operating plan for the first action year; drafted speeches , papers , and articles on the potential application of con- flict resolution techniques to different environ- mental issues ; prepared comments on proposed legis- lation and regulations regarding ways of incorpor- ating environmental conflict resolution into govern- ment agency procedures . E) Aug . 1976-Feb . 1978 (half-time) : PROGRAM COORDIN- ATOR, Continuing Education in Environmental Design , University of California Extension, Berkeley . Developed workshops and conferences for practicing planners and public administrators in the areas of physical planning, community and economic development , and land use law. F) Summer 1975 (full-time) , Oct . 1975-Jan . 1976 (part- time) : art- time) : ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN , Loca gency Forma- tion Commission (LAFCO) of Alameda County, Calif. (Commission mandated by state law to contain urban sprawl and promote orderly local government . ) Analyzed annexation and incorporation proposals ; prepared sections of environmental impact reports (EIRs) ; completed a cost/revenue study of municipal- type services delivered by the county; analyzed pro- posed legislation affecting LAFCO's . G) Oct . 1973-Sept . 1974 (full-time) , Oct . 1974-Nov. (part-time) : CONSULTANT IN PROJECT EVALUATION to the Oakland Unified School District , Oakland, Calif. Developed evaluation instruments ; supervised and trained 40 parent interviewers ; prepared year- end school evaluation reports ; served as special project evaluator of a contract guarantee learning program. H) June 1972-Ma 1973 : PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, ice ot FederalPrograms , School District of Philadelphia, PA. Responsible for 15 federally- funded programs totaling $2 million (grant applica- tions , monitoring and reporting) ; chaired grant development task forces and guest-lectured on how to write grant proposals and budgets . I) Oct . 1969-Ma 1972 : PROGRAM ANALYST, Philadelphia MoUel Cities Program, PA. Conducted program planning; developed grant proposals and budgets ; evaluated funded programs and shared supervision of four evaluation assistants ; negotiated contracts with federal , state and city officials . RESUME Martha L. Wolf Date of Birth: 2/23/49 980 Brinton's Bridge Rd. West Chester, PA 19380 Education: Swarthmore College Swarthmore, PA BA Art History, 1971 Experience: A) October 1977 - present: Environmental Management Center, Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford, PA As Historic Preservation Specialist, primary respon- sibility is to represent the Conservancy on historic preservation matters and to conduct a variety of historic preservation projects , including historic districts , research and submission of historic registrations , township surveys , preservation tech- niques , workshops . Directs preservation volunteers at the EMC, works with local governments and local historical societies . Assists with writing of quarterly newsletter and updating of Environmental Management Handbook. B) 6/75-5/76 : New Castle County Department of Parks and Recreation, Wilmington, Delaware, Instructor. C) 10/71-6/73: Stella Maris Hospice, Towson, Maryland Weaving instructor. D) Fall 1969 : Delaware County Planning Commission, Media, PA. Assistant cartographer. Assisted with county road survey. PUBLIC SERVICE: APPOINTIVE OR ELECTED OFFICES Appointed by Birmingham Township Board of Supervisors as Secretary-Treasurer in June 1977 , member of Planning Commission, 1976-77 . Guide, John Chad House, Chadds Ford, PA (present) University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Conservation volunteer. (1974-75) RESUME Stephen N. Kuter Date of Birth: 5/15/49 268 Lenape Road Kennett Square , PA 19348 Education: A) Tulane University School of Architecture New Orleans, LA B) Washington University, School of Architecture St. Louis , MO BA, Architecture 1971 Experience: A) 6/71 - present: Environmental Management Center, Brandywine Conservancy Chadds Ford, PA 19317 1973 - present: (part-time) graphics and drafting for EMC' s land stewardship program, environmental planning program and in house publications . 1971-1973 (full-time) design and construction of Nature Trail walkway from Brandywine River Museum to John Chad House. B) 1/79 - present : (part-time) graphics and drafting Natural Lands Trust, Inc . and Philadelphia Conser- vationists , Phila. , PA 19107 . C) 8/75 - 4/76: Interpreter Colonial Pennsylvania Plantation Bishop 's Mill Historical Institute Edgmont , PA 19020 D) Consulting basis drafting : 1978 - Restoration Fraternity, Media, PA 19063 1974-76 - Resource Management Assoc . , West Chester, PA 19380 1975 - Plymouth Meeting Historical Society, Plymouth Meeting, PA. PUBLIC SERVICE Member: Pennsylvania Log House Society Lebanon, PA Exhibit A. ; 'i.. .'.ry✓� �'.. .1 SUCL DRGKE CU\= beave WEAMR 5MME7 -0 ,..� - Z aomm. Maw PQW=E& o"INm LIMN Ldp ' CE mar oms- ¢ 4, I '( / I LOCL1TCN N\aP Or LARGUMONT RESERVOIR C.rrY OC I&W QYIEUE,MV^4 OC h W4QCNECK,7CWN Q 5rd LE mn 50-QM,5 IM5 MD vmlm R.::XS .CJQd (870J02� V.W S �E 10 h 6-AMAXM? a- M.W PREP.%ZM 5Y TUE BM@xJMB•(TAL ff,6�T CM4TM CF TLE 62'�NVYWKE CoN%wa r-y CLu1 CMP m YNUn2`/ (b,K18) Erse er C, PAC Pqb \ uwa or UIV of NEW uo LLI v. f RIVE NES7AWEA aL1aMo1011T RESERypq \e RF1N5 pIMA —41 r�� Lj w IAWFq los a Vo��...�... � _ '� A -A c � o O LARCHMONT RESERVOIR CITY Of NEW ROCHELIE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK WESTCHESTER COLJNTX NEW YORK 5?PEEL TRAILS, DAXEL IDENTILICATIONS ,!WEAVER A 3aPIWF5r a fo®iaf .�au`ur[a u�nwon re tears c 6�sT0WIM um RESERWR ® par•.w w wua weR wn G IOYiIt Pill .�a aw.ws ww srwra sw o.ee,as.ww.nu a ow a wwmrc � D N7iPl IOiY4R RFiE4rOR •Dina w.w�.rr..o�,wr [ IJORN s•fav+®M si savo r, rwrsrrr wa uw 7" >s Mrw.`..a m.aa+•q ureo mo,r .w�wt fai agar o y G V \\ LAM'ot ca 09 KW r-_YOCIIEIlE W \ � op a.mu ,� oea r + / rt LMR RE% EL ios �, p \ o - �O p LARCHMONT RESERVOIR Y I� l\ ' CITY OF NEW ROCHEUF, TOWN OF MAMARONECK ;4K�ww.� r WESiCHESTER COUNf1( NEW YORK ems,/ StREET ..WEAVER CRITICAL NATURAL MATURES ` was l SWMW ARMS o u®R[I .uxoe¢uwre a wniwn ro moors str 1w w w.a.rat,wsr Q SLOPE 15 TO 25 •r.•.n.c�w.q.raai a..rs w a�oe,ius..o im R oM s rwaita mmi la�rwwasa,� O SLOPE GREATER TLIAN 25 MIY I�i1PY[D M K{IUgywt-MY/ra{� s utr Maaw.K a+avYV..1�tt Rq A IIrrY 4� Oqb \ U" or cm Q Mw ROU" \ / O •��c'� M91N R1gR �' � �K ores � j-� j LOM RMRWR EL 10 MAT LARCFiMONT RESERVOIR f`•.. .�j �\ t� CRY OF NEW ROCHELLE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK •� "" I� WESTCHESTER COUNTX NEW YORK - ? t RESTPXTION .e 5FREE WEAVER ®PY RIA"EASEMENT 10 0ICDUNIY uoII�� wrt� M 20 Ff WOE PMR4E 1.FA% TO WFW.MYM JXJT WM MM NO E •urm r u hire a unnwwr ro s�at<f ® �.."'°„o.••"a"`�„"�,�rw Q RNID WOUGE"IlIEAUC& MD 1.005E LF4% TO l 5KIE5TER VW MMR WM6 No I v m m e can.amo ows a, ®DCXUAMN USAGE GRF4 '�7"fi ..v.a wm er nr e„as.wnn.»rw..ae wa PMP05ED slew m �runww.r rasrnxr,uw.w mw,.. raw'♦w uaaewr o 0