Update: Where We Are and Feedback

Lake George Stream Corridor Management Stake Holder Meeting

June 25, 2008

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

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).

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?

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.

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.

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?

Any Major Topics We Aren’t Covering?

Buffer Width

Starting Point: 100’ Buffer from High WaterReasons:

Typical of Many Communities (range between 50’-200’)

Provides pollutant removal and temperature benefits

Same as DEC Wetland Buffer

“Bankfull Flow” or “Mean High Water”

(Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resourceshttp://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Water/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_163598.html)

Impacts to Property*

Lot Size

1.3-acre 3.2-acre 8.5-acre 100-acre

Buffer Area(acres)

0.55(42% of lot)

0.86(27% of lot)

1.40(16% of lot)

4.80(5% of lot)

RemainingLot Area(acres)

0.75 2.34 7.10 95.20

*Assumption: Square Lot with stream along 1 edge of the property

Modified from: Emmons & Olivier Resources, 2001

Critical Buffer Widths

Concerns/ Comments

100’ Too Narrow? Too Wide? Just Right?

Buffer Expansion

Typical Buffer Expansion for: Steep Slopes Wetlands Floodplain

Starting Point: Steep slopes, wetlands do not count for buffer. Expand to include floodplain.

Starting Point Expand for:

All Slopes>15% Wetlands

Buffer Management - I

Potential Prohibited Uses Tree Clearing Construction of Structures Mowing Fertilizing Storage of Hazardous Materials

Any others that should be restricted?

Should any of these uses be allowed?

Buffer Management - II

Potential Allowable uses Utility rights of way Footpaths Road crossings, where permitted Docks, where permitted Stormwater management practices (50’

setback)

Should any of these uses be prohibited?

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

Stream Crossings

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.

Additional criteria or recommendations?

Any concerns?

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

Mapping: Any Known Missing or Inaccurate Streams?

Review existing maps at:

www.lgpc.state.ny.us

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.

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?

Property Rights 1: Who Owns the Buffer? Can be

Held in an Easement Have a Deed Restriction Purchased

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?

Other Guidance for Waivers?

“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

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)

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

Redevelopment

Starting point Waivers available (See above) No reforestation typically required, but

encouraged. Incorporated as part of the waiver process?

Comments after Meeting

Send to:Deb Caracodsc@cwp.org