Update: Where We Are and Feedback

1. Update: Where We Are and Feedback Lake George Stream Corridor Management Stake Holder Meeting June 25, 2008

2. Process for Stream Corridor Management Regulations • First Stakeholder Meeting May 28, 2008 • Second Stakeholder Meeting June 25, 2008 • Draft GEIS for Public Comment November 15, 2008 • Public Hearing December 1-5 • Final GEIS February 9, 2009 • Final Regulations Promulgated After March, 2009

3. Feedback from Last Meeting - I • Mapping • Should be field checked. • Example widths should be widened. • Buffer Information • Examples of other programs. • Data on stream buffer implementation (before and after).

4. Feedback from Last Meeting - II • Regulation • Program needs to be simple. • Process needs to be transparent. • Measures of success? • Need incentives/education for compliance. • Should address property rights. • How do we treat streams that originate in the Lake George Park, but flow to other waters?

5. Feedback from Last Meeting - III • Regulation (continued) • Difference between redevelopment and redevelopment? • How do we “retrofit” during redevelopment? • Other Broader Concerns • Need to include state agencies, towns and counties who cause most of the problem. • Need to address septic systems.

6. Important Note: • “Starting Point” proposal is a technically justifiable option, but is not at this point the recommended criteria for Lake George. • Feedback, along with further analysis, will help to determine if these criteria are feasible.

7. Topics for Discussion • Buffer Width • Buffer Expansion • Vegetation Within the Buffer • Stream Crossings • Use of Stream Mapping in the Regulation • Property Rights Issues, Exceptions • Regulations for Redevelopment Versus New Subdivisions • Other Concerns?

8. Any Major Topics We Aren’t Covering?

9. Buffer Width Starting Point: 100’ Buffer from High Water Reasons: • Typical of Many Communities (range between 50’-200’) • Provides pollutant removal and temperature benefits • Same as DEC Wetland Buffer

10. “Bankfull Flow” or “Mean High Water” (Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Water/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_163598.html)

11. Impacts to Property* *Assumption: Square Lot with stream along 1 edge of the property

12. Modified from: Emmons & Olivier Resources, 2001 Critical Buffer Widths

13. Concerns/ Comments • 100’ • Too Narrow? • Too Wide? • Just Right?

14. Buffer Expansion • Typical Buffer Expansion for: • Steep Slopes • Wetlands • Floodplain • Starting Point: • Steep slopes, wetlands do not count for buffer. • Expand to include floodplain.

15. Starting Point • Expand for: • All Slopes>15% • Wetlands

16. Buffer Management - I • Potential Prohibited Uses • Tree Clearing • Construction of Structures • Mowing • Fertilizing • Storage of Hazardous Materials

17. Any others that should be restricted?

18. Should any of these uses be allowed?

19. Buffer Management - II Potential Allowable uses Utility rights of way Footpaths Road crossings, where permitted Docks, where permitted Stormwater management practices (50’ setback)

20. Should any of these uses be prohibited?

21. Any Other Uses That Should Be Allowed? • Uses • Where they should be allowed

22. Stream Crossings

23. Stream Crossing Starting Point • Cross perpendicular to the buffer. • Minimize width. • Limit to one crossing per 1000 feet. • Design to convey the 100-year storm. • Design to allow fish passage.

24. Additional criteria or recommendations? Any concerns?

25. Use of Mapping • Accuracy of the Data • Streams Mapped (1st order?) • What is a stream? • When should site mapping be required • What should we do with non-mapped, intermittent conveyances

26. Mapping: Any Known Missing or Inaccurate Streams? Review existing maps at: www.lgpc.state.ny.us

27. Is this a Stream? • Some Indicators • Defined Channel • USGS “Dashed Line” Hydric Soils • Flows “30%-90% of the year” • Flows with baseflow. • Identified as a wetland.

28. How should we treat unmapped, intermittent streams? • Starting Point: No clearing of banks. Provide buffer as much of a buffer as possible to prevent sedimentation. • Definition: Wetlands attached to the stream network?

29. Property Rights 1: Who Owns the Buffer? • Can be • Held in an Easement • Have a Deed Restriction • Purchased

30. Potential Guidelines for Waivers • For new single lot development: • Buffer makes construction of a single home impossible? • Retain a 25’ buffer for mapped streams? • For expansions on existing lots • Automatic waiver if less than 250 sf of impervious cover constructed within the buffer? • Retain a 25’ buffer for mapped streams?

31. Other Guidance for Waivers?

32. “Grandfathering”: Which Sites Should This Apply To? • Considerations: • Sites where Subdivision Approval Has Been Granted. What should we do here? • Sites Under Construction • Existing Impervious Cover

33. Subdivisions Versus Single Lot Development • Starting Point: No Waivers for Subdivisions because: • Site Design Allows for more flexibility • The buffer will affect less of these large parcels (i.e., before subdivision)

34. http://swim.wellsreserve.org/ktmlpro10/images/uploads/ConSubCompVert.pnghttp://swim.wellsreserve.org/ktmlpro10/images/uploads/ConSubCompVert.png

35. Redevelopment • Starting point • Waivers available (See above) • No reforestation typically required, but encouraged. • Incorporated as part of the waiver process?

36. Comments after Meeting Send to: Deb Caraco dsc@cwp.org