WOLF CREEK WATERSHED
Stormwater Management
&
Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Fayette County, West Virginia
Final
December 2004
Acknowledgements
Fayette County Commission Kenneth L. Eskew ................................................................................................President Matthew D. Wender ..................................................................................... Commissioner John H. Lopez .............................................................................................. Commissioner
Fayette County Project Team Dave Pollard ........................................................... Fayette County Resource Coordinator Steve Cruikshank ...................................... Fayette County Office of Emergency Services Ralph Davis .................................................................. Fayetteville Town Superintendent Al Gannon.................................................................................... Fayetteville Zoning/PSD Bud Hill ........................................................................................ Fayette Transition Team Mark Ehrnschwender ...................... Plateau Action Network and Fayette Transition Team Gene Kistler .................................................................................. Plateau Action Network
State of West Virginia John McGarrity, AICP ..................................................... West Virginia Development Office
Parsons Brinckerhoff Team David W. Hafley, AICP...............................................................................Project Manager Valerie Birch, AICP .........................................................................................Lead Planner Traci L. Severe, AICP ............................................................................................. Planner David Dee, P.E. ............................................................................................Lead Engineer Scott A. Copen, E.I.T. ......................................................................... Engineer in Training Rodney Saylor ............................................................................................ GIS Technician
i
Table of Contents Chapter 1.
Introduction ............................................................ 1
Chapter 2.
The Wolf Creek Watershed ................................ 6
Chapter 3.
Watershed Issues.................................................18
Chapter 4.
Stormwater Flood Hazard and Watershed Management Regulations, Policies and Programs........................................ 31
Chapter 5.
Overview of Tools ............................................... 42
Chapter 6.
Recommendations .............................................. 54
Appendices Appendix A Wolf Creek Watershed Modeling................. A-1 Appendix B Model Development Principles and Code and Ordinance Worksheet for Fayette County .............................................B-1 Appendix C Model Stream Buffer Ordinance .................. C-1 Appendix D Model Stormwater Management Ordinance............................................................ D-1
ii
Intro Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Project Background The Wolf Creek watershed is located in Fayette County, West Virginia (Figure 1). Fayette County is located in southern West Virginia, an area that supplied much of the coal that fueled the nation’s early industrial expansion. Since the decline of coal mining, Fayette County has emerged as the center of the outdoor recreation industry in southern West Virginia. The area also has a history of flooding. Between July 2001 and May 2002 two major floods devastated parts of southern West Virginia. The July 2001 flood resulted in six deaths and more than $107 million in damages to homes, businesses, and infrastructure in a six-county area that included Fayette County. The May 2002 flood resulted in over $85 million in property damage to the region. Table 1. Flood Damage Estimates due to Recent Flooding In Southern West Virginia
Type of Damage
It is the intent of this Plan to serve as the basis for policy and guideline recommendations, minimize risk for existing and future development, and serve as a model for county-wide flood protection and hazard mitigation programs.
Institutions Infrastructure Commercial Business Residential Parks & Recreation Facilties Emergency Protective Measures Utilities Municipalities Individuals
July 2001
(in Millions) $11.7 $33.0 $10.1 $42.4 $2.6 $2.2 $4.6 $1.3 ---*
May 2002
(in Millions) $1.8 $23.8 $8.6 $21.9 $0.6 $0.9 $1.4 $5.2 $21.2
* Data not available
In 2003, the West Virginia Development Office (WVDO), through an Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant, sponsored the Wolf Creek Stormwater Management and Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for the West Virginia Disaster Recovery Board. The Plan is being prepared as part of an overall economic and flood recovery strategy for southern West Virginia in response to the flooding that occurred in July 2001 and May 2002. It is the intent that this Plan serve as the basis for policy and guideline recommendations for stormwater management and flood hazard mitigation, minimize risk for existing and future development within the Wolf Creek watershed, and serve as a model for county-wide programs.
1.2 Project Team At the beginning of the project, Fayette County assembled a project team to assist with the development of the Stormwater Management and Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan. The team assisted with the identification of issues; goals and objectives; and identification of data resources. The team provided guidance and feedback on development of the Plan and will support Plan implementation activities.
1
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
2
1.3 Data Collection Many different types of data were collected and analyzed during the development of this plan. The data was used not only to determine the existing land use and natural characteristics within the watershed but to predict the potential impacts of future land use. Information about the types of data collected is described below. A digital database was created for the watershed in a geographic information system (GIS).
Stream Characteristics/Health “The Plateau District is renowned for its natural beauty.” – Fayette County Comprehensive Plan 2000
The physical characteristics of Wolf Creek and its tributaries were observed during field reviews in September 2003, January 2004, and July 2004. The Plateau Action Network (PAN) assisted with field reviews and provided site information about current and past conditions within the watershed. A water quality study for the watershed, funded by the Canaan Valley Institute, the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) Stream Partners Program, the U.S. Office of Surface Mines (OSM), and PAN was conducted in 1999 and provided baseline information for the project. Annual monitoring conducted by PAN with assistance from the students at Saints Peter and Paul School and the National Park Service (NPS) confirm a continuation of the initial trends evident in the 1999 study. Data for input into the stormwater model for the watershed was obtained from aerial photography, existing and future land use mapping, USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles, and “Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds” (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55).
Land Use Existing Land Use Existing land use within the watershed was mapped using aerial photography from 1999. More recent aerial photography is unavailable. Land use was also mapped during the field reviews in September 2003 and January 2004. Selective spot checks were made in July 2004. Once the land use was mapped, it was coded in the GIS database. Areas for each category of land use were calculated and input in the stormwater model.
Future Land Use A future land use map for the Wolf Creek watershed was developed by members of the project team during a workshop in May 2004. The projected future land use map was developed for use in the stormwater model to predict future stormwater impacts that could occur as a result of development within the watershed. For the purposes mentioned here, the future land use map was developed without a planning horizon, thus is considered a projected build-out map and does not serve as an official future land use map for the watershed or the county.
3
Floodplains and Flood-Prone Areas Information about federally designated flood hazard areas was obtained from Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The FIRM maps for the watershed had not been updated as of the date of this project. Since the time that the FIRM maps were created (March 4, 1988), additional areas have experienced repeated flooding, particularly since 2000. To further supplement information on the FIRM maps, a map of flood-prone areas within the watershed, but not designated on FIRM maps, was developed by several project team members. Additional information on flooding in the watershed was provided by the County Floodplain Manager.
Demographics Wolf Creek is characterized by rugged and scenic vistas.
Population data was obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing and the 2001 County Business Patterns.
Regulatory Framework A review of existing federal, state, and local stormwater management and flood hazard mitigation initiatives was conducted prior to the development of this Plan. Information about existing federal, state and local initiatives was obtained by contacting agency representatives and visiting their websites.
1.4 Goals and Objectives Population 2000 47,579 persons
During the course of the project, the project team met to identify goals and objectives for the Wolf Creek watershed. The team identified four primary goals and their associated objectives. They are:
1. Reduce flood impacts in the Wolf Creek watershed.
0.8 percent decline
• •
Housing Units 2000
•
Population Change 1990-2000
21,616 housing units
Housing Unit Change 1990-2000
•
Direct public and private investment to flood safe development areas. Develop and promote the use of efficient and effective land management policies. Enhance decision making capabilities and promote wise development decisions that minimize flood impacts while enhancing economic development. Increase public awareness of flood impacts through education and outreach.
4.0 percent increase
2. Manage stormwater in the Wolf Creek watershed to reduce impacts and improve quality. • • • •
Prevent significant increases in the potential for property damage or other negative impacts of stormwater by reducing stormwater discharge from new development. Develop and promote the use of stormwater control methods that are effective, economical, aesthetic, and environmentally acceptable. Maintain a high performance standard for drainage facilities on public property and for facilities necessary to manage the off-site effects of drainage from these properties. Increase public awareness of private drainage responsibilities and potential stormwater effects.
4
•
Develop an equitable system of stormwater financing based on relative contributions to the stormwater problem.
3. Maintain or improve water quality and protect the natural resources in the Wolf Creek watershed. • • • •
Fayette County is the center of outdoor recreation in southern West Virginia.
Develop a stream water quality plan that meets federal water quality standards and local needs. Preserve, restore, or enhance the natural character of the stream channels within the watershed. Protect and enhance the health of the wetlands within the watershed. Incorporate water quality considerations in development policies, regulations, and guidelines.
4. Promote sustainable, environmentally sensitive economic development within the Wolf Creek watershed. • • • •
Develop and adopt a future land use plan for the Wolf Creek watershed. Determine the development potential of the watershed and develop land use controls that tailor density to land suitability. Promote sustainable development that fits with and enhances the natural features of the watershed. Use the proposed Wolf Creek Park development to create an environmentally-friendly, sustainable development that can serve as a model for future development in the county.
5
Wolf
Chapter 2. The Wolf Creek Watershed
Capped Summerlee coal waste pile at the head of the Wolf Creek watershed.
Fayetteville Reservoir looking downstream.
2.1 Physical Characteristics The Wolf Creek watershed is located in the center of Fayette County, West Virginia. Parts of Fayetteville and Oak Hill are located within the watershed. The northern boundary of the watershed runs through the northern section Fayetteville, following High Street southeast to East Maple Street, turning northeast at East Maple Street and following it to Huse Street. At Huse Street, the boundary turns southeast, bisecting Park Drive before turning northward again and exiting the city limits. The southern boundary of the watershed runs through the northern section of Oak Hill, following Summerlee Road eastward to Highway 16, turning south at Highway 16 and following west of the highway to Dickenson Street. At Dickenson Street, the boundary turns east, crossing Highway 16 and Adkins Avenue and exiting the city limits at Gatewood Road. The Fayetteville Reservoir, which provides emergency drinking water to the residents of Fayetteville, is also located within the Wolf Creek watershed. The reservoir, formed by the damming of Wolf Creek, is located approximately ½ mile north the confluence of Wolf Creek and Short Creek. The Wolf Creek watershed, which encompasses approximately 10,947 acres, lies within the Allegheny Plateau. Valleys in the watershed tend to be narrow with very steep sides (20-30 percent slopes). The plateau areas between the stream valleys tend to be more gently rolling. Slopes of less than 10 percent are common in these areas. The headwaters of Wolf Creek are located in the southwestern part of the watershed above Lochgelly. Wolf Creek flows in a northeasterly direction for approximately 10.5 miles before emptying in the New River. Wolf Creek originates at an elevation of approximately 2,000 feet. The stream gradient in the upper reaches is fairly gentle, averaging less than 5 percent until just below its confluence with House Branch. At this point, the stream channel steepens dramatically, dropping from an elevation of 1760 feet to 880 feet in a distance of just over one mile as it flows into the New River. The headwaters of Wolf Creek flow through areas that were surface mined for coal at one time and have since been reclaimed or capped. The Wolf Creek tributary originating on the Summerlee mine site flows through a wooded wetland between the culvert at Summerlee Road and the residential development approximately 1,000 feet to the east. The wetland is bounded on the north by Summerlee Road and the south by the abandoned railroad bed. Another wetland begins at the confluence of the Summerlee tributary and Wolf Creek on the south side of Summerlee Road continues to US 19, stopping as the stream passes under the road and continuing again until the stream reaches US 19 again. A small wetland, a consequence of road construction and commercial development, is located along Wolf Creek as it flows along US 19 adjacent to the Fayette Plaza/Fayette Landing shopping center. The majority of the remainder of the wetlands in the watershed is associated with ponds and impoundments. Wolf Creek flows through or adjacent to developed or agricultural land a majority of its length between its headwaters and the Fayetteville Reservoir. Tree cover, where it exists is generally a mix of oak, poplar, and maple, with few
6
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
7
evergreens. An exception to this is the area of Wolf Creek between Adkins Branch and Levisee Branch, where the stream flows through an area with a dense canopy of hemlock, rhododendron, and pine. North of the reservoir, Wolf Creek flows through the National Park Service’s New River Gorge National River. The character of Wolf Creek changes dramatically along this section. The channel is rocklined and strewn with boulders, the gradient steepens, and the flow rate increases.
Wolf Creek wetland adjacent to US 19 near the Fayette Plaza/Fayette Landing shopping center.
Five named tributaries flow into Wolf Creek: Adkins Branch, Levisee Branch, Short Creek, Crooked Run, and House Branch. Several unnamed tributaries also flow into Wolf Creek, the most notable of which is the one flowing from the Summerlee mine site. The headwaters of Adkins Branch, Levisee Branch, and Short Creek flow through areas that are predominantly agricultural, often flowing into ponds near their sources before continuing downstream. The downstream sections of Adkins Branch and Levisee Branch flow through areas that are predominantly forested and relatively undisturbed by development. The upper reach of Short Creek flows through an area that is predominantly agricultural with little or no tree cover or buffering. The lower reach flows through a narrow evergreen forest. Crooked Run originates in an area dominated by agriculture and residential development. Below the agricultural and residential areas, Crooked Run flows through a woodland dominated by oak, poplar, and maple, with few evergreens, unlike Adkins and Levisee Branches. House Branch flows through an evergreen forest for most of its length, except for an area dominated by oak, poplar, and maple on either side of Highway 16. A tributary to House Branch originates west of Fayetteville and flows through town adjacent to Lively street and under West Maple Street before joining House Branch.
Typical vegetative cover in the area of Wolf Creek between Adkins Branch and Levisee Branch and along both branches.
A tributary to House Branch as it flows through a residential neighborhood in Fayetteville.
Wolf Creek, as it flows towards the New River downstream of the Fayetteville Reservoir.
8
Source: National Wetlands Inventory and Parsons Brinckerhoff
9
2.2 Land Use Land use within the Wolf Creek watershed has been divided into 12 categories for the purpose of this analysis. The sections below describe each land use as it currently exists within the watershed and as it is projected to occur at build out. The 12 categories are:
Pasture areas are common in eastern areas of the watershed.
• • • • • • • • • • • •
Agriculture Forest Water (ponds and reservoirs) Residential Commercial and services Industrial Transportation Mixed industrial and commercial Mixed urban Water treatment facility Mining Barren land—transitional
Existing Land Use Table 2. Existing Land Use
Land Use Category
Acres
Agriculture Forest Water (Ponds and Reservoirs) Residential Commercial and Services Industrial Transportation Mixed Industrial and Commercial Mixed Urban Water Treatment Facility Mining Barren Land - Transitional Total
2,059 6,903 35 1,230 142 101 101 28 134 2 190 22 10,947
10
Percent of Total Land Use 19% 63% < 1% 11% 1% 1% 1% < 1% 1% < 1% 2% < 1% 100.0%
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 11
Agriculture Approximately 2,059 acres (19 percent) of land within the watershed is currently used for agricultural purposes. The majority of the farmland is located in two sections of the watershed: (the area between the east side of highway 16, the north side of Wolf Creek, the south side of Crooked Run, and the west side of Gatewood Road) and the southern and eastern reaches (along or adjacent to Gatewood Road). Much of the farmland in the upper reaches of the watershed is used for grazing dairy cows and beef cattle. (Figure 5)
Forest Open countryside cleared for agricultural land uses.
Currently, 6,903 acres, or over half of the watershed (63 percent), are covered by forest. The majority of the forest is comprised of deciduous trees. Narrow bands of evergreen forest occur along Adkins Branch and its tributaries, Levisee Branch and its tributaries, House Branch, and the lower reaches of Wolf Creek.
Water (Ponds and Reservoirs) Ponds and reservoirs account for less than one percent of the total land area within the watershed. The majority of the ponds are associated with agricultural uses and are located in the southern and eastern portions of the watershed. The Fayetteville Reservoir is the largest waterbody (excluding streams) in the watershed.
Residential
Single-family residential neighborhood within Fayetteville.
Approximately 1,230 acres (11 percent) of land within the watershed are currently being used for residential purposes. The majority of the residential development within the watershed occurs along the Highway 16 corridor from Oak Hill in the upper reach of the watershed to Fayetteville in the lower reach of the watershed. The other area of residential development follows the eastern and southern perimeter of the watershed along the Gatewood Road corridor. Residential development in the interior of the watershed is sparse. Most of the residential development within the watershed consists of single-family housing on small lots. (Figure 6)
Commercial and Services Commercial and service-related uses currently occupy 142 acres of land (less than one percent) in the watershed. These uses are concentrated along the US 19 and Highway 16 corridors, mainly in and near Oak Hill and Fayetteville. The largest commercial development occurs along US 19 at its intersection with Highway 16 and Lochgelly Road. A large shopping center (Fayette Plaza and Fayette Landing) is located on the west side of US 19. Banks, gas stations and fast food restaurants are also located at or adjacent to this intersection.
Commercial development in the Wolf Creek watershed at the US 19/Highway 16 intersection at Oak Hill.
12
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
13
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
14
Industrial Approximately 101 acres (one percent) of land within the watershed are currently used for industrial purposes. The industrial uses are concentrated in the upper reaches of the watershed near Lochgelly. A brine injection facility, an auto repair shop, and a salvage yard are located in Lochgelly near the headwaters of Wolf Creek. Wolf Creek runs under the salvage yard. The Wolf Creek Business Park, a 270-acre industrial park, is located approximately one-half mile west of US Route 19 near Oak Hill.
Transportation Industrial use in upper reaches of Wolf Creek watershed.
The major transportation routes through the watershed are US 19 and Highway 16. Both run north-south. US 19 traverses the watershed at two places: it enters the watershed at the northern tip of Oak Hill and travels north through the watershed for approximately 1¼ miles before exiting. It reenters the watershed just south of the House Branch crossing and exits a final time at the High Street intersection. Highway 16 travels the entire length of the watershed from Oak Hill in the south to Fayetteville in the north. The two roadway networks occupy approximately one percent of the total land within the watershed.
Mixed Commercial and Industrial Commercial and industrial uses sited together or in close proximity occupy less than one percent of the land within the watershed and are located along or adjacent to the US 19 corridor.
Mixed Urban Commercial buildings in downtown Fayetteville.
This category includes commercial and residential uses that are interspersed. Mixed urban uses occupy approximately 134 acres (one percent) within the watershed. The primary concentrations of mixed urban uses are located in and around Oak Hill and Fayetteville.
Water Treatment Facility The water treatment facility is located at the Fayetteville Reservoir and occupies less than one percent of the land within the watershed.
Mining Although coal mining is no longer occurring within the watershed, mine dumps, coal refuse piles and reclaimed areas still remain. Most of the mining that occurred in the watershed took place in the Summerlee/Lochgelly area, where Wolf Creek originates. Mining also occurred on the ridge that forms the northwestern boundary of the watershed west of US 19. These former mine sites occupy approximately 190 acres (two percent) within the watershed.
Barren Land - Transitional Capped Summerlee coal waste pile.
This category includes barren that land that is undergoing a transition from one land use to another. Very little land (22 acres) in the watershed falls into this category. The transitional land is located along Lochgelly Road.
15
Projected Future Land Use (Build-Out Scenario)
Table 3. Projected Future Land Use
Land Use Category Agriculture Forest Water (Ponds and Reservoirs) Residential Commercial and Services Industrial Transportation Mixed Industrial and Commercial Mixed Urban Water Treatment Facility Mining Barren Land - Transitional Total
Acres 430 3,316 14 4,079 522 252 111 26 2,009 2 187 0 10,947
The build-out scenario illustrates projected future land use based on current and anticipated development trends and takes into consideration the development of a 1,000 acre tract within the watershed for a mixed use development that will include residential, business and industrial uses (Wolf Creek Park). It assumes that agriculture will continue to decrease and that tourism and recreation will continue to increase resulting in increased demand for residential and commercial and service development. Based on these assumptions, it is anticipated that residential development will eventually Percent of Total occupy almost 40 percent of the land area within the Land Use watershed. Mixed urban development is also anticipated 4% to increase significantly. Most of the residential and mixed 30% use development is expected to occur in the area of the < 1% watershed that is currently relatively undeveloped and 37% largely forest and agricultural land. As a result, forest cover 5% is anticipated to be reduced by more than 50 percent and 2% the amount of land being used for agriculture is expected 1% to be reduced by more than 50 percent. (Table 3 and Figure < 1% 7) 18% < 1% 2% 0% 100%
The build-out scenario anticipates the maximum development potential within the watershed and was chosen so that the maximum impacts of development on the hydrology of the watershed could be modeled. Table 4 compares existing land use to the projected land use under the build-out scenario.
Table 4. Existing and Projected Future Land Use Compared
Existing Land Use Land Use Category Agriculture Forest Water (Ponds and Reservoirs) Residential Commercial and Services Industrial Transportation Mixed Industrial and Commercial Mixed Urban Water Treatment Facility Mining Barren Land - Transitional Total
Future Land Use
Acres
Percent of Total Land Use
Acres
2,059 6,903 35 1,230 142 101 101 28 134 2 190 22 10,947
19% 63% < 1% 11% 1% 1% 1% < 1% 1% < 1% 2% < 1% 100.0%
430 3,316 14 4,079 522 252 111 26 2,009 2 187 0 10,947
16
Percent Change of Total Land Percent of Total Use Land Use 4% 30% < 1% 37% 5% 2% 1% < 1% 18% < 1% 2% 0% 100%
-79% -52% -61% 232% 268% 149% 10% -8% 1394% 0% -2% -100% 0%
Source: Fayette County and Parsons Brinckerhoff
17
Water Chapter 3. Watershed Issues
Flood hazards in the watershed include flooding to existing development and potential flood problems if development is allowed in flood-prone areas. These hazards pose a threat to safety and property.
3.1 Flooding Areas prone to frequent flooding exist throughout the Wolf Creek watershed. Flood hazards in the watershed include problems caused by flooding to existing development and potential problems that will occur if development is allowed in flood-prone areas. These hazards pose a threat to safety and property. Many areas prone to flooding in the watershed do not appear on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). FIRM maps are based on hydraulic analyses that assume that the flow of floodwaters through stream channels is unobstructed. Any development or encroachment in the floodplain increases the height of floodwaters and the possibility of damage to more properties than are shown on the FIRM maps. The FIRM maps for the Wolf Creek watershed are outdated and should be updated. For this reason, additional information compiled by the project team was utilized to determine additional flood problem areas. The areas identified are shown on Figure 8 and listed below: 1. The area along Summerlee Road to just past Bethel Church is affected by rain events and includes four houses built in or immediately adjacent to the stream. During rain events, runoff has been observed running down the streets to the north. Much of the flooding in this area has been attributed to the capping of the coal waste pile on the Summerlee mine site and the removal and/or the collapse of some of the retention ponds above the houses, which has increased the amount of stormwater runoff. Other factors include the surrounding slope, development and filling in the stream channel and floodplain and poor maintenance of ditches and culverts. 2. The area on the west side of US 19 and south side of Lochgelly Road below the Fayette Plaza/Fayette Landing shopping center is a low bowlshaped area. During the 2001 flood, this area was under several feet of water. Flooding in this area is attributed to water backing up at the US 19 culverts above and below the site. Uncontrolled parking lot runoff is also a major contributor to the flooding problem in this area. 3. The area near Salem on Gatewood Road floods during heavy rain events.
Flood-prone area along Levisee Branch.
4. The area along Pleasantview Road near Short Creek is low-lying. Several houses experienced flooding during the 2001 flood when Short Creek overflowed its banks. 5. The area at and below Levisee Creek along Wolf Creek Road is low-lying and floods during heavy rain events. One house in this area was destroyed and others were damaged during the 2001 flood. 6. The area along Wolf Creek Road from the crossing of Wolf Creek to the Fayetteville Reservoir floods during heavy rain events when water backs up at the reservoir. Other factors include runoff from the surrounding slopes.
18
Source: Fayette County and FEMA FIRM Maps
19
7. The area along West Maple Street near the airport is low-lying and experiences high water during heavy or sustained rain events. Some basements in this area flooded during the 2001 flood. Much of the flooding in this area is attributed to poor US 19 drainage. 8. The area southwest of High Street in Fayetteville, known as Frogtown, often experiences high water. Much of the flooding in this area is attributed to poor US 19 drainage and poor maintenance of ditches by the landowners. A review of the flood information indicates that much of the flooding in the watershed appears to result from the following causes: Flood-prone area in Frogtown.
•
Increased runoff as a result of the capping of the coal waste pile on the Summerlee site and the removal of a number of retention basins on the site.
•
Development and/or filling in the floodplain or stream channel and destruction/impairment of wetlands.
•
Improper culvert maintenance and sizing.
•
Increase in amount of stormwater runoff from development.
3.2 Stormwater Runoff
Residential development over Wolf Creek along Summerlee Road.
Stormwater runoff is the water that flows over the land during and immediately following a rain event. As development reduces vegetative cover, compacts topsoil, and increases the amount of impervious surface, more water runs off into streams. Stream channels adjust to convey this increased amount of water by widening, deepening, or both. These changes in the stream can result in:
• • • • • • •
Increased sediment in streams Decline in quality of stream habitat Decreased stream stability Increased water temperatures Decline in water quality due to increased nutrients, sediment, metals, hydrocarbons, and bacteria Decline in fish and aquatic insect diversity Decline in habitat diversity
In addition, increased runoff can increase backwater and associated flooding at roadway stream crossings. Existing structures, such as bridges and culverts, may be adequately sized for existing flows but undersized for increased flow rates. Undersized structures can cause excessive backwater on the upstream side and flooding to surrounding property.
Blocked culvert on the north side of Summerlee Road adjacent to the capped coal waste pile.
Within the Wolf Creek watershed, there are already a number of areas where stormwater runoff is an issue. Much of the flooding discussed in section 3.1 appears to be stormwater-related.
20
In order to analyze existing and potential future runoff within the watershed, a hydrologic model of the watershed was developed using the U.S. Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS). For purposes of modeling, the watershed was divided into 15 sub-basins based on roadway stream crossings and tributary confluences (Figure 9). Roadway stream crossings were used as delineation points because existing culverts convey the stream under the roadway. An increase in runoff is most likely to create problems at these culverts, if the current hydraulic opening is not sized to allow passage of future stream flow rates. More detailed information on the modeling methodology can be found in Appendix A. Existing and potential future runoff (peak flow) was modeled for the 2-year, 10year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year storm events. Table 5 shows the storm event and the probability of occurrence during any given year. Stormwater runoff is channeled directly into Wolf Creek from the parking lot at Fayette Plaza/Fayette Landing shopping center on US 19.
Table 5. Modeled Storm Events and Probability of Occurrence
Event 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year
Parking lot stormwater inlet at Fayette Plaza/Fayette Landing.
Probability of Occurrence in Any Given Year 50% 10% 4% 2% 1%
The potential future runoff calculations were based on the future land use buildout scenario developed by the county for this project and represents a worstcase scenario. As expected, the model results show the build out scenario will result in significant increases in peak discharge for each of the modeled storm events. Figures 10 – 14 illustrate the existing and future peak discharges for the sub-basins and outlets for each of the modeled rainfall events. Tables 6 – 10 list existing and future peak discharges for the sub-basins and outlets for each of the modeled storm events and the percent change.
21
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
22
Table 6. Peak Discharge: 2-Year Storm Event Peak Discharge (cfs) Percent Change
Existing Land Use Conditions
Future Land Use Conditions
Wolf Creek Upper 2
192
292
52%
Wolf Creek Upper 1
269
454
69%
435
725
67%
82
203
149%
Sub-basin
Outlet
WCU2-WCU1 Adkins Branch Adkins Branch Trib ABT-AB
92
367
301%
172
569
231%
Toney Hollow
81
270
234%
Levisee Creek
140
294
109%
203
473
134%
72
135
89%
WC6-WC5
774
1822
135%
151
239
58%
WC5-WC4
858
1974
130%
Short Creek Upper
84
207
145%
Short Creek Middle
98
119
21%
176
293
67%
131
177
35%
TH-LC Wolf Creek Middle 2 Wolf Creek Middle 1
SC2-SC1 Short Creek Lower Crooked Run
50
80
59%
1022
2237
119%
House Branch Upper
67
103
55%
House Branch Lower
89
152
70%
135
231
71%
Wolf Creek Lower
183
199
9%
Wolf Creek Outlet
1247
2594
108%
WC3-WC2
HB2-HB1
Figure 10. Estimated Existing and Future 2-Year Storm Event Peak Discharges 3000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf
Existing Discharge
192
269
435
82
92
172
81
140
203
72
774
151
858
84
98
176
131
50
1022
67
89
135
183
Future Discharge
292
454
725
203
367
569
270
294
473
135
1822
239
1974
207
119
293
177
80
2237
103
152
231
199
2594
Percent Increase
52%
69%
67% 149% 301% 231% 234% 109% 134% 89% 135% 58% 130% 145% 21%
67%
35%
59% 119% 55%
70%
71%
9%
108%
Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Creek Creek WCU2- Adkins Adkins ABT- Toney Levisee TH-LC Creek WC6- Creek WC5- Short Short SC2- Short Crooked WC3- House House HB2- Wolf Wolf Branch Creek AB Hollow Upper Upper WCU1 Branch Middle WC5 Middle WC4 Creek Creek SC1 Creek Run WC2 Branch Branch HB1 Creek Creek Trib Upper Middle Lower Upper Lower Lower Outlet 2 1 2 1
Subbasins and Outlets
23
1247
Table 7. Peak Discharge: 10-Year Storm Event Peak Discharge (cfs) Percent Change
Existing Land Use Conditions
Future Land Use Conditions
Wolf Creek Upper 2
502
671
Wolf Creek Upper 1
583
864
48%
1009
1473
46%
Adkins Branch
196
385
97%
Adkins Branch Trib
241
673
179%
Sub-basin
Outlet
WCU2-WCU1
ABT-AB
34%
434
1056
143%
Toney Hollow
206
503
144%
Levisee Creek
341
595
75%
501
932
86%
169
274
62%
1820
3532
94%
346
483
40% 91%
TH-LC Wolf Creek Middle 2 WC6-WC5 Wolf Creek Middle 1
2029
3874
Short Creek Upper
WC5-WC4
205
390
90%
Short Creek Middle
238
273
15%
SC2-SC1 Short Creek Lower Crooked Run
429
598
39%
320
395
24%
117
165
41%
2446
4465
83%
House Branch Upper
184
250
36%
House Branch Lower
197
294
50%
326
488
50%
Wolf Creek Lower
475
500
5%
Wolf Creek Outlet
3031
5306
75%
WC3-WC2
HB2-HB1
Figure 11. Estimated Existing and Future 10-Year Storm Event Peak Discharges 6000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Creek Creek WCU2- Adkins Adkins ABT- Toney Levisee TH-LC Creek WC6- Creek WC5- Short Short SC2- Short Crooked WC3- House House HB2- Wolf Wolf Branch Creek AB Hollow Upper Upper WCU1 Branch Middle WC5 Middle WC4 Creek Creek SC1 Creek Run WC2 Branch Branch HB1 Creek Creek Trib Upper Middle Lower Upper Lower Lower Outlet 2 1 2 1
Existing Discharge
502
583
1009
196
241
434
206
341
501
169
1820
346
2029
205
238
429
320
117
2446
184
197
326
475
3031
Future Discharge
671
864
1473
385
673
1056
503
595
932
274
3532
483
3874
390
273
598
395
165
4465
250
294
488
500
5306
Percent Increase
34%
48%
46%
97% 179% 143% 144% 75%
86%
62%
94%
40%
91%
90%
15%
39%
24%
41%
83%
36%
50%
50%
5%
75%
Subbasins and Outlets
24
Table 8. Peak Discharge: 25-Year Storm Event Peak Discharge (cfs) Sub-basin
Existing Land Use Conditions
Outlet
Percent Change
Future Land Use Conditions
Wolf Creek Upper 2
724
931
Wolf Creek Upper 1
795
1128
42%
1408
1970
40%
Adkins Branch
277
503
82%
Adkins Branch Trib
350
867
148%
WCU2-WCU1
ABT-AB
29%
623
1368
120%
Toney Hollow
297
652
120%
Levisee Creek
485
794
64%
717
1233
72%
239
366
53%
2557
4645
82%
480
644
34% 79%
TH-LC Wolf Creek Middle 2 WC6-WC5 Wolf Creek Middle 1
2863
5122
Short Creek Upper
WC5-WC4
290
508
75%
Short Creek Middle
336
378
13%
SC2-SC1 Short Creek Lower Crooked Run
604
799
32%
451
544
21%
163
222
36%
3466
5946
72%
House Branch Upper
272
353
30%
House Branch Lower
271
388
43%
463
662
43%
Wolf Creek Lower
686
713
4%
Wolf Creek Outlet
4328
7138
75%
WC3-WC2
HB2-HB1
Figure 12. Estimated Existing and Future 25-Year Storm Event Peak Discharges 8000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Creek Creek WCU2- Adkins Adkins ABT- Toney Levisee TH-LC Creek WC6- Creek WC5- Short Short SC2- Short Crooked WC3- House House HB2- Wolf Wolf Branch Creek AB Hollow Upper Upper WCU1 Branch Middle WC5 Middle WC4 Creek Creek SC1 Creek Run WC2 Branch Branch HB1 Creek Creek Trib Upper Middle Lower Upper Lower Lower Outlet 2 1 2 1
Existing Discharge
724
795
1408
277
350
623
297
485
717
239
2557
480
2863
290
336
604
451
163
3466
272
271
463
686
4328
Future Discharge
931
1128
1970
503
867
1368
652
794
1233
366
4645
644
5122
508
378
799
544
222
5946
353
388
662
713
7138
Percent Increase
29%
42%
40%
82% 148% 120% 120% 64%
72%
53%
82%
34%
79%
75%
13%
32%
21%
36%
72%
30%
43%
43%
4%
65%
Subbasins and Outlets
25
Table 9. Peak Discharge: 50-Year Storm Event Peak Discharge (cfs) Percent Change
Existing Land Use Conditions
Future Land Use Conditions
Wolf Creek Upper 2
811
1032
27%
Wolf Creek Upper 1
877
1228
40%
1564
2160
38%
Adkins Branch
309
548
78%
Adkins Branch Trib
393
940
139%
Sub-basin
Outlet
WCU2-WCU1
698
1486
113%
Toney Hollow
ABT-AB
333
709
113%
Levisee Creek
541
870
61%
801
1348
68%
266
401
51%
2845
5069
78%
533
706
33%
3190
5596
75%
Short Creek Upper
323
552
71%
Short Creek Middle
374
419
12%
TH-LC Wolf Creek Middle 2 WC6-WC5 Wolf Creek Middle 1 WC5-WC4
SC2-SC1 Short Creek Lower Crooked Run
673
876
30%
503
602
20%
182
244
34%
3869
6515
68%
House Branch Upper
306
394
28%
House Branch Lower
300
423
41%
517
729
41%
Wolf Creek Lower
768
797
4%
Wolf Creek Outlet
4840
7847
62%
WC3-WC2
HB2-HB1
Figure 13. Estimated Existing and Future 50-Year Storm Event Peak Discharges 9000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
8000
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Existing Discharge
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Creek Creek WCU2- Adkins Adkins ABT- Toney Levisee TH-LC Creek WC6- Creek WC5- Short Short SC2- Short Crooked WC3- House House HB2- Wolf Wolf Branch Creek AB Hollow Upper Upper WCU1 Branch Middle WC5 Middle WC4 Creek Creek SC1 Creek Run WC2 Branch Branch HB1 Creek Creek Trib Upper Middle Lower Upper Lower Lower Outlet 2 1 2 1 1564
309
393
698
333
541
801
266
2845
533
3190
323
374
673
503
182
3869
306
300
517
768
4840
Future Discharge
1032 1228 2160
811
877
548
940
1486
709
870
1348
401
5069
706
5596
552
419
876
602
244
6515
394
423
729
797
7847
Percent Increase
27%
78% 139% 113% 113% 61%
68%
51%
78%
33%
75%
71%
12%
30%
20%
34%
68%
28%
41%
41%
4%
62%
40%
38%
Subbasins and Outlets
26
Table 10. Peak Discharge: 100-Year Storm Event Peak Discharge (cfs) Percent Change
Existing Land Use Conditions
Future Land Use Conditions
Wolf Creek Upper 2
1022
1272
24%
Wolf Creek Upper 1
1072
1463
36%
1935
2608
35%
Adkins Branch
384
653
70%
Adkins Branch Trib
498
1111
123%
Sub-basin
Outlet
WCU2-WCU1
878
1763
101%
Toney Hollow
ABT-AB
419
842
101%
Levisee Creek
678
1051
55%
1007
1620
61%
332
484
46%
3537
6065
71%
657
852
30%
3976
6709
69%
Short Creek Upper
403
657
63%
Short Creek Middle
466
517
11%
839
1058
26%
627
739
18%
TH-LC Wolf Creek Middle 2 WC6-WC5 Wolf Creek Middle 1 WC5-WC4
SC2-SC1 Short Creek Lower Crooked Run
225
295
31%
4837
7850
62%
House Branch Upper
390
490
26%
House Branch Lower
368
507
38%
647
890
38%
Wolf Creek Lower
967
997
3%
Wolf Creek Outlet
6084
9515
56%
WC3-WC2
HB2-HB1
Figure 14. Estimated Existing and Future 100-Year Storm Event Peak Discharges
10000
Existing Discharge 9000
Future Discharge
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf
Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Creek Creek WCU2- Adkins Adkins ABT- Toney Levisee TH-LC Creek WC6- Creek WC5- Short Short SC2- Short Crooked WC3- House House HB2- Wolf Wolf Branch Creek AB Hollow Upper Upper WCU1 Branch Middle WC5 Middle WC4 Creek Creek SC1 Creek Run WC2 Branch Branch HB1 Creek Creek Trib Upper Middle Lower Upper Lower Lower Outlet 2 1 2 1
Existing Discharge
1022 1072 1935
384
498
878
419
678
1007
332
3537
657
3976
403
466
839
627
225
4837
390
368
647
967
6084
Future Discharge
1272 1463 2608
653
1111
1763
842
1051 1620
484
6065
852
6709
657
517
1058
739
295
7850
490
507
890
997
9515
Percent Increase
24%
70% 123% 101% 101% 55%
46%
71%
30%
69%
63%
11%
26%
18%
31%
62%
26%
38%
38%
3%
56%
36%
35%
61%
Subbasins and Outlets
27
3.3 Water Quality Resource Protection Water quality is a primary concern in the Wolf Creek watershed. Decades of mining and industrial development in the upper reaches of the watershed at Summerlee and Lochgelly have seriously degraded the water quality in the headwaters and upper reach of Wolf Creek. In addition, limited sewer service, improperly installed and failing septic systems and the lack of either sewer service or septic systems in some places also contribute to the degradation of water quality in the watershed.
Hot pond and alkaline-lined channel (ALC) on the Summerlee site.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify all surface waters in the state that fail to meet state water quality standards and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for them. Basically, TMDLs are plans of action used to clean up polluted waters to meet state water quality standards and restore its use. Wolf Creek fails to meet state water quality standards and has been placed on West Virginia’s Section 303 (d) list. Lawsuits over the pollution of Wolf Creek by acid mine drainage (AMD) from the Summerlee mine site resulted in a settlement for the clean up and restoration of Wolf Creek in 2001. In 2003 PAN members discovered the abandoned Summerlee dump. The dump drains into Wolf Creek. Water sampling at the site revealed high lead levels. A water quality study of the Wolf Creek watershed, funded in part by the Canaan Valley Institute, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Office of Surface Mines, and the Plateau Action Network, was conducted in 1999. The study found that:
Wetlands below the Summerlee site on the south side of Summerlee Road.
•
Very high concentrations of acid mine drainage (AMD) constituents occur below the coal waste pile at the Summerlee site but decrease dramatically after passing through the upper wetlands.
•
The upper wetlands appear to be acting as a filtration unit or repository for heavy metals since the pH changes from below 3 to above 7 over the course of the upper section.
•
The upper section wetlands are being impacted by silt and AMD and possibly septage.
•
Evidence of wetland stress was abundant.
•
The section of the watershed from below Fayette Plaza/Fayette Landing to the Fayetteville Reservoir is impacted by commercial and industrial activities. It is also likely to be impacted by septage and agricultural runoff in this area.
28
•
Fecal concentrations were elevated above safe levels for recreational contact at three monitoring locations: 1 below inflow of the tributary south of Lochgelly Road (PAN 4), below the Route 16 overpass next to WV Whitewater outpost (PAN 5), and above the bridge on Wolf Creek Road, south of confluence with Short Creek (PAN 6).
•
After a significant rainfall event, fecal counts throughout the watershed were very high. Siltation is a problem at the Fayetteville Reservoir.
•
Flow in Wolf Creek near Appalachian Drive after a storm event. Note the sediment being carried in the flow.
Field reviews in 2003 and 2004 indicate that the 1999 findings still hold true and that conditions have not improved. Although no water samples were taken during the field reviews, annual monitoring by members of the PAN indicates that the water quality trends are similar to those noted during the 1999 study. In addition to the AMD from the Summerlee mine site, the following was observed during the field reviews:
•
Wetlands in the upper watershed still appear to be under stress. Scrap metal and trash was observed in the wetland below Lamplighter Road.
•
The salvage yard on Lochgelly Road covers Wolf Creek. No erosion or sediment control measures were observed and, in addition to erosion and sedimentation, it is possible that runoff from the site may contain contaminants from scrap vehicles.
•
Stormwater runoff from the Fayette Plaza/Fayette Landing shopping center is directed straight into Wolf Creek. There is nothing in place to treat the runoff or slow it down.
•
Much of the stream bank along Wolf Creek above the reservoir was heavily eroded and silt was evident on the stream bottom. Much of the stream channel appears to be downcutting to adjust for increases in runoff volumes and/or velocities.
Salvage yard over Wolf Creek in Lochgelly.
Eroding open high wall. 1
These sites are test points for the Wolf Creek Study and monitoring.
29
Source: Plateau Action Network
30
Storm
4.1 Summary of Federal and State Legislation and Programs
Chapter 4. Stormwater Flood Hazard Numerous programs and legislation play a role in stormwater management and and Watershed flood hazard mitigation. The following briefly describes the major programs and legislation related to this Plan. Management Federal Legislation and Programs Regulations, Policies and Clean Water Act of 1977 Programs The Clean Water Act is the principal law governing pollution of surface waters.
Prior to 1987, programs under the Clean Water Act primarily focused on point source pollution. Amendments in 1987 shifted the focus to non-point source pollution, which is generated by stormwater runoff from agricultural land, forests, construction sites, and developed areas. Section 319 of the Act establishes the Nonpoint Source Management Program. The program provides grant money to states for projects that support nonpoint source management. The Clean Water Act also requires states to periodically assess and report on the quality of waters within their state. Section 303(d) requires states to identify all surface waters in the state for which beneficial uses of the water (i.e. drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use) are impaired by pollutants. The listed waterbodies (streams, lakes, and estuaries) do not meet state surface water quality standards. Waterbodies that are placed on the 303(d) list require the preparation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). A TMDLs is a plan of action for the clean up of an impaired waterbody. A TMDLs identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be released into a waterbody without impairing its use and indicate the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. Section 402 of the Act authorizes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, which requires permits to be issued for the discharge of any pollutant from point sources, including municipal sewage treatment plants, to surface waters. Amendments to the NPDES regulations in 1990 created the NPDES Stormwater Program. These amendments, also known as Phase I Stormwater NPDES regulations define certain stormwater discharges as point sources subject to the NPDES permit program. The NPDES regulations were amended again in 1999. The 1999 amendments, also known as the Phase II Stormwater NPDES regulations, lower the acreage requirements for a NPDES permit for construction and land clearing to one acre and allow a case-by-case determination for sites less than one acre.
31
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 The primary purpose of the National Flood Insurance Act is to reduce future flood damages through state and community floodplain regulations and reduce federal expenditures for disaster assistance and flood control. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), established under this Act, enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses provided the community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains. Section 1315 of the Act prohibits the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from providing flood insurance unless the community adopts and enforces floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the floodplain criteria established in Section 1361(c) of the Act. The NFIP is also responsible for identifying and mapping floodplains.
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from providing financial assistance for acquisition or construction of buildings and certain disaster assistance in the floodplains of any community that did not participate in the NFIP by July 1, 1975 or within one year of being identified as flood-prone. The Act also stipulates that federal agencies and federally insured or regulated lenders require flood insurance on all grants and loans for acquisition or construction of buildings in designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) in participating communities.
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 amended the Acts of 1968 and 1973. The 1994 Act increased compliance by mortgage lenders with the mandatory purchase requirement; increased the amount of flood insurance coverage that could be purchased; established a Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program to help states and communities develop mitigation plans and implement measures to reduce future flood damages to structures; codified the NFIP Community Rating System; and required FEMA to assess its flood hazard map inventory at least once every five years.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 authorizes the creation of a pre-disaster mitigation program. Major provisions of the Act include funding for pre-disaster mitigation activities and the establishment of state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements. Section 322 of the Act establishes performance-based standards for mitigation plans and requires that states have a program to implement county plans.
Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 directs all federal agencies to avoid, if possible, development and other activities in the 100-year floodplain. In instances where avoidance is not possible, special considerations and studies for new facilities and structures are required. The Order requires federal agencies to reduce the risk of flood loss; minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.
32
State Legislation and Programs Water Pollution Control Act (WV Code §22-11) The West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act creates a public policy to maintain reasonable standards and purity for West Virginia waters to support public health and aquatic life, the propagation of wildlife, and the expansion of employment opportunities. Figure 16. Watershed Management Framework Phases
Data Gathering Assessment
Prioritization
Planning
Implementation
Source: WV Department of Environmental Protection Non-Point Source Program
West Virginia Watershed Management Framework The West Virginia Watershed Management Framework (WMF) was established to coordinate the operations of existing water quality programs and activities in West Virginia in order to achieve shared water resource management goals. The framework outlines West Virginia’s comprehensive approach to managing the state’s waters and establishes a coordinated way for government agencies, businesses, environmental groups, watershed associations, citizens, and other stakeholders to participate in the identification and targeting of watersheds that need restoration, protection, and enhancement. The watersheds are assessed and prioritized based on water quality data, land use information, water uses, public interests, agencies’ interests, mandates, and ongoing activities. The framework also provides a mechanism to develop and implement management strategies. The state has been divided into 32 watersheds that have been split into five groups: A, B, C, D, and E. Each group is scheduled to undergo the five-year framework process. The process consists of five phases, each lasting approximately one year. During the process, initial information is gathered, the watershed is assessed and prioritized, plans are developed and then implemented. Preparation of TMDLs is included as part of the five-year process. The TMDLs process begins in the first year of the cycle with water quality sampling and public meetings within the affected watersheds. The TMDLs development begins in year two of the cycle. TMDLs development continues in the third year. The TMDLs is finalized in the fourth year. In the fifth year, the TMDLs is implemented.
West Virginia Non-Point Source Program The West Virginia Non-Point Source Program (NPS), which is overseen by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), administers the Clean Water Act Section 319(h) grants. The NPS Program emphasizes management strategies and programs to address non-point source problems. The major priorities of the NPS program are: (1) the implementation of the overall NPS Program, including enforcement of regulations, technical and financial assistance, and educational efforts and (2) the targeting of specific watersheds to improve degraded water quality. The NPS Program is a major component of the Watershed Management Framework.
33
West Virginia National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System (NPDES) Program In West Virginia, the DEP is responsible for implementing the NPDES Program authorized under Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act. As of March 10, 2003 in order to discharge stormwater from a construction site, all construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land must have either: • An individual stormwater permit, or
•
Coverage under one of West Virginia’s general permits.
Disturbance includes, but is not limited to soil disturbance, clearing, grading, and excavation. Operators of sites disturbing less than one acre are also required to obtain a permit if their activity is part of a “larger common plan of development or sale” with a planned disturbance of one acre or greater.
State Agencies Several West Virginia agencies have regulatory authority to protect the state’s water resources: the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Bureau for Public Health, the Department of Agriculture, and the West Virginia Conservation Agency. The major responsibility for protecting the state’s water resources falls to DEP’s Division of Water and Waste Water Management.
4.2 Summary and Evaluation of Current Local Regulations and Policies Local regulations and policies are designed to provide a process for guiding the development and use of land within their jurisdictions. By regulating the location and size of structures, the placement of parks, the amount and location of open space, the development and form of subdivisions, and allowable uses, local ordinances and policies have the potential to dramatically influence the way the built and natural environments function and the relationships between them. If a community values its natural environment and wants to minimize the negative impacts of development on it, regulations and policies need to be clearly written to reflect those values. The following provides a discussion of the regulations and policies set forth in the Fayette County Comprehensive Plan and the Fayette County Unified Development Code.
Fayette County Comprehensive Plan The Fayette County Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2001. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish policies that ensure that the growth of Fayette County is managed in an orderly and rational manner consistent with the County’s vision and goals. The Comprehensive Plan is divided into a number of elements containing goals and policies that address issues pertaining to flooding, stormwater management, water quality, and economic
34
development. As of the writing of the Wolf Creek Watershed Stormwater Management and Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, no corresponding future land use map existed for the Comprehensive Plan.
The
purpose
of
the
Comprehensive Plan is to
establish policies that ensure that the growth of Fayette County is managed in an orderly and rational manner that is consistent with the County’s vision and goals.
The Comprehensive Plan designates all tributary streams within the County as Resource Conservation Districts, which emphasize the preservation of natural resources, sensitive natural areas, and waterfront areas. Resource Conservation Districts also include wetlands adjacent to streams, floodplains, stream valleys, steep slopes, and soils with development constraints. The development policy for these areas states that, in most cases, only passive recreation and lowdensity residential development are appropriate, provided the development design protects environmentally sensitive features. The Plan also encourages the preservation of trees and viewsheds and recommends the establishment of design guidelines and ordinances for development on hillsides with slopes in excess of 20 percent. The Plan addresses stormwater management and water quality indirectly. Stormwater management can be inferred, to some degree, from the reference to hillside development. Protection and/or improvement of water quality can be inferred by the reference to curbing “careless behavior by residents and tourists who litter or pollute waterways throughout the County.” Based upon the County’s goals of achieving sustainable economic development while protecting and preserving the environment and in terms of supporting the goals developed by the Wolf Creek project team for the Wolf Creek watershed, the following items do not appear to be adequately addressed in the Plan:
• • • •
Degradation of water quality by business and industry. Water quality impacts resulting from acid mine drainage and raw sewage. Stormwater runoff/stormwater management. Flood hazard mitigation.
Table 10 summarizes the land use planning concept presented in the Comprehensive Plan and describes the eight categories of development envisioned within the County. Table 11 summarizes the vision and goals the County established for the Plateau Planning District, which includes the entire Wolf Creek watershed.
35
Table 11. Fayette County Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Planning Concept Land Use Planning Concept The Comprehensive Plan categorizes overall development into eight districts. Each district’s role in guiding and managing County growth and development is described in terms of general types, intensities, and character of development that should be encouraged and is based on existing land use patterns; projected growth and development trends; the natural capacity and suitability of the land to support development; the availability and adequacy (existing and proposed) of infrastructure (such as roads, sewer, and water); and the community goals and objectives contained in the plan. Development Service Districts
. Ensuring high quality of new development within the Development Service Districts is a major objective of the Land Use Management Plan. . Areas for development should be large in size (10-15 acres) and should be located at intersections providing space for well-planned service roads. . Clustering of residential development should be encouraged within the Development Service Districts to maintain open space and preserve environmentally sensitive areas. . Creation of zoning districts and standards for development will require focus on a site-bysite level to frame districts and standards that respect existing neighborhood patterns, densities and soil conditions in the absence of central sewer systems.
Activity Centers and Incorporated Towns
. Preparation of more specific plans for each Activity Center should be undertaken by the County to identify how the qualities and form of their development may best be managed. . Elements that should be included in the development of Activity Centers are: 1) mixeduse developments; 2) pedestrian access; 3) greenways/bike paths linking various developments.
Planned Unit Development Districts
Rural/Agricultural Conservation Districts
Community Centers
Neighborhood Conservation Districts Highway Corridor Districts
Resource Conservation Districts
. Oak Hill and Fayetteville, part of which lie within the Wolf Creek watershed, are designated Activity Centers. . Established to provide for areas within the Development Service District where more intense residential and mixed-use development can be accommodated outside designated Activity Centers. . Intended to preserve rural character and open space, to foster agricultural activities and opportunities, and to protect valuable natural resources. . Intended to prevent premature urbanization in areas where public utilities, roads, and other infrastructure is not proposed or where land is not suitable for development at higher densities. . Residential development and density should be minimized to avoid future conflicts between farming activities and rural homes. . Existing villages and crossroad settlements. . Any central water sewer system should be built to serve land areas and development only within the immediate proximity of the Community Center itself and not extend into adjacent rural areas. . Existing residential subdivisions. . Intended to address architectural and aesthetic controls as well as special access and buffering requirements along the County’s major highways. . Encompass a land area 1,000 feet from the right-of-way or anything within view of the route (whichever is greater). . Portions of the US Route 19 Highway Corridor district lie within the Wolf Creek watershed. . Special emphasis should be placed on the preservation of natural resources, sensitive natural areas, and waterfront areas. . Land areas along all tributary streams of the County are designated as Resource Conservation Districts. . These areas include wetlands that are adjacent to tributary streams as well as floodplains, stream valleys, steep slopes, and soils with development constraints. . In most cases, only passive recreation and low density residential development is appropriate in the Resource Conservation District provided the development design is protective of environmentally sensitive features. . Performance standards for development should be framed to implement protection policies.
36
Table 12: Fayette County Comprehensive Plan: Plateau Planning District Vision and Goals
Plateau Planning District Vision Diversify the economic base, while being sensitive to the environment and cognizant of the importance of quality development to provide job opportunities for residents of various socio-economic classes. Plateau Planning District Goals Environment Land Use/Development
. Emphasize the important role the environment will play in the future of the District. . Encourage commercial enterprises in addition to the traditional outdoor activities. . Continue the planning and construction of infrastructure recognizing that these improvements will be a catalyst for future development in the District. . Improve building codes in the County. . Develop a new business/industrial park in the District.
Economic Development and Tourism Element Land Use and Zoning
Tourism
. The County should identify land suitable for development. Stringent design guidelines should be developed for future development to ensure preservation of trees and viewsheds. . The County should preserve large, active farms in order to maintain the rustic, rural character and integrity of the natural viewscape. . Fayette County should be promoted as the whitewater rafting center of the East Coast. . The County should develop and support more initiatives, such as biking, hiking, and rock climbing in the District. . A birding component should be considered as part of the local tourism industry. . Land should be preserved to serve as a buffer for viewshed protection and river activities; both of which are critical to eco-tourism. . A County-wide park and cultural preservation strategy should be developed to enhance recreational and cultural opportunities.
Housing and Residential Development Element Planning
. The County should consider targeting individuals and families to the district, who could work from any location (including their home) and wish to live near peaceful surroundings and natural beauty.
Construction
. Municipal and County governments should adopt building and housing codes throughout the County.
Environmental Quality Element Resource Management
. The County should ensure that land is preserved to buffer viewsheds and the New River. . The County should work with the National Park Service and the Department of Natural Resources to curb careless behavior by residents and tourists who litter or pollute waterways throughout the County. . The County should make an effort to minimize or mitigate the clearing of woodlands and forests. . The County should ensure that landscape and site treatment are used to unify development image and character via defining edges, defining entrances, softening parking lots, providing shade, reducing urban-heat build up, and filtering pollutants. . The County should introduce and enforce stringent garbage disposal laws within the Plateau District.
37
Table 12: Fayette County Comprehensive Plan: Plateau Planning District Vision and Goals (Continued)
Plateau Planning District Goals (Continued) Public S ervices/Civic I ssues Element Enforcement
. The County government should adopt building and housing codes in the Plateau District as well as other areas in Fayette County. . The County should develop guidelines to preserve trees and viewsheds. . The County should identify individuals or organizations that will be responsible for the enforcement of any community guidelines for development, preservation, building codes, or zoning ordinances in the region. . The County should establish design guidelines and ordinances for development on hillsides (slopes exceeding 20 percent). . The Fayette County Zoning Ordinance should be updated to include proper permitting procedures. . The County should ensure that landscape and site treatment are used to unify development image and character via defining edges, defining entrances, softening parking lots, providing shade, reducing urban-heat build up, and filtering pollutants.
Community Appearance Element Built Environment
. The County should discourage the development of linear multi-tenant commercial establishments, throughout the District, that require indiscriminate land clearing and earth moving.
Natural Environment
. The County should require protection and preservation of all land that needs to serve as a buffer for viewsheds and river activities. . It should be ensured that stringent guidelines are developed to preserve trees and viewsheds in all parts of the District. . The natural beauty along U.S. Route 19 should be preserved. . It should be ensured that the clearing of woodlands and forests is minimized in all parts of the county. . The County should ensure that landscape and site treatment are used to unify development image and character via defining edges, defining entrances, softening parking lots, providing shade, reducing urban-heat build up, and filtering pollutants.
Enforcement
. The County should work closely with the National Park Service and the Department of Natural Resources and encourage them to establish new laws and/or enforce existing laws to curb careless behavior by residents and tourists who litter or pollute the river . The concept of clustering, whereby development is grouped and open spaces and scenic vistas are preserved, should be introduced and encouraged. . The County should identify individuals or organizations that will be responsible for the enforcement of any community guidelines for development, preservation, building codes, or zoning ordinances in the region. . It should be ensured that the environmentally sensitive areas in the U.S. Route 19 corridor are identified, managed, and protected.
38
Fayette County Unified Development Code - An Evaluation A goal of Fayette County is to encourage sustainable economic development while protecting and preserving the County’s scenic, environmental, natural and cultural resources. In order to achieve this goal, the County has instituted land use regulations in the form of the Fayette County Unified Development Code. Although development codes and standards are enacted to help a locality minimize the impacts of development on the natural environment, they often work against the efforts to achieve sustainable, low-impact development. For example, standards contained within local codes and ordinances are often inflexible and result in overly wide residential streets, expansive parking lots, and mass clearing and grading of forested areas, which in turn increase impervious surface and contribute to increased runoff. In addition, the codes and ordinances also rarely offer the developer any incentive to conserve natural areas and minimize impacts. The Center for Watershed Protection has developed a Code and Ordinance Worksheet that allows an in-depth review of standards, ordinances, and codes that shape development. The worksheet compares a locality’s development regulations against a set of 22 model development principles that, when applied to new development, can measurably reduce impervious cover, conserve natural areas, and reduce stormwater pollution. The worksheet consists of a series of questions that correspond to the model development principles. Points are assigned to each answer based on how well the existing development regulation agrees with the benchmark developed from the model principles. The model development principles are divided into three categories and represent a simplified design objective in site planning. The three categories are:
1. Residential Streets and Parking Lots These principles focus on codes, ordinances, and standards that determine the size, shape and construction of parking lots, roadway, and driveways.
2. Lot Development These principles focus on the regulations that determine lot size, lot shape, housing density, and the overall design and appearance of neighborhoods.
3. Conservation of Natural Areas These principles address the regulations that promote or impede protection of natural areas and incorporation of open spaces into new development. The Code and Ordinance Worksheet was completed for Fayette County to assess the extent to which its development regulations allow or prevent the model development principles from being implemented within the county. Table 12 provides a summary of the results of the assessment. A completed Code and Ordinance Worksheet for Fayette County and a description of each of the 22 model development principles and can be found in Appendix B.
39
Fayette County scored well in the Lot Development category. The score reflects the promotion of open space development (cluster development), the lack of standards specifying driveway widths, and the lack of prohibitions on the use of pervious materials for single-family home driveways and shared driveways, thereby allowing more flexibility in design that can result in less impervious surface and reduced runoff. Table 13. Fayette County Unified Development Code Evaluation
Principle
Total Score Possible
Fayette County Score
Percent
Residential Streets and Parking Lots
40
18
45%
Lot Development
36
28
78%
Conservation of Natural Areas
24
8
33%
Total
100
54
54%
The assessment shows a need for improvement in the other two categories: Conservation of Natural Areas and Residential Streets and Parking Lots. The County scored low in the category of Conservation of Natural Areas primarily because of the lack of regulations concerning both stream buffering and the discharge of unmanaged stormwater into jurisdictional wetlands or sensitive areas. The County scored low in the Residential Streets and Parking Lots category primarily because of a lack of flexibility in roadway design. Creating the necessary flexibility in roadway design is beyond the authority of the County since all roads are owned by the State, and as such, must meet State standards.
Other Fayette County Plans and Regulations Fayette County Building Code The Fayette County Commission adopted the Fayette County Building Code in February 2004. The building code is based on the International Building Code Standard (IBC) and ensures that new construction is built to a uniform standard of safety and quality.
Fayette County Wastewater Plan Fayette County is currently in the process of developing a county-wide comprehensive wastewater management plan. Adoption of the plan is projected for 2005.
40
Citizen Advocacy Groups Plateau Action Network (PAN) The Plateau Action Network is a local non-profit citizens’ coalition promoting responsible economic development and sustainable environmental management. Since its inception in the late 1990s, PAN has been instrumental in compiling water quality studies of New River tributaries, providing water quality education through public outreach, promoting the cleanup and restoration of the Wolf Creek watershed, and promoting a county-wide comprehensive wastewater plan. PAN is the motivating force behind the cleanup and restoration efforts in the Wolf Creek watershed. In 2001, working with federal, state, and local agencies, PAN developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the implementation of the Wolf Creek Watershed Restoration Cleanup Project. The MOU was signed on December 3, 2001 by representatives of the following agencies:
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Plateau Action Network (PAN) Farm Service Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS) U. S. Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining (OSM) U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) West Virginia Conservation Agency Southern Soil Conservation District West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) West Virginia Division of Water Resources (WVDWR) [now known as the West Virginia Division of Water and Wastewater Management] West Virginia Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation Fayette County Town of Fayetteville
The MOU outlines the roles and specific agreements between all parties for the implementation of the restoration project necessitated by the acid mine drainage from the Summerlee mine site, located at the headwaters of the Wolf Creek watershed, into Wolf Creek.
Environmental Trusts Wolf Creek Environmental Trust (WCET) The Wolf Creek Environmental Trust was established in February 2002 to “hold, invest and administer the trust property to pay and/or defray the long-term costs of treatment of acid mine drainage from the Summerlee site.” The trust was funded in February 2003 by a settlement agreement from litigation concerning the water pollution of Wolf Creek by acid mine drainage from the Summerlee mine site.
41
Tools Chapter 5. Overview of Tools
A wide variety of tools are available for flood hazard mitigation, stormwater management, water quality protection, and natural resource protection. The tools range from regulatory land use controls to low-impact design techniques and best management practices. Many of the tools serve multiple purposes because of the relationship between flooding, stormwater runoff and pollution, water quality, and the health of natural resources. The following is a brief overview of the major categories (or types) of tools available.
5.1 Regulatory Land Use Controls Land use controls are used to guide land use. The major type of regulatory land use controls is an ordinance. Ordinances may be individual stand-alone regulations or part of a more comprehensive zoning ordinance. There are many types of land use ordinances. Described below are the primary types of ordinances applicable to the goals and objectives for the Wolf Creek watershed, but not currently in use in Fayette County.
Overlay Zoning for Resource Protection “The most common use of overlay zones is in dealing with development
in
environ-
mentally sensitive areas.” —Elizabeth A. Garvin
An overlay zone is a special zone that is generally created to address one issue or a group of related issues. Overlay zones include regulations that are applied in addition to the existing requirements of the underlying or base zoning district. Overlay zones can cross conventional zoning boundaries and are a particularly effective method for protecting streams and watersheds. A stream-based overlay zone may include provisions for protecting historic, scenic and natural resources. An overlay zone may require buildings to be set back a certain distance from the stream or place restrictions on uses allowed by the underlying zoning. A watershed-based overlay zone typically incorporates stream corridor overlays, but also contains regulations that affect the entire watershed, such as limitations on impervious surface coverage, clear-cutting of trees, and large scale land disturbance. An overlay zone ordinance should include the following components:
•
Intent
Identifies the subject of the overlay; objectives; and often any background information for the creation of the overlay.
•
Applicability
Identifies where the overlay zone will apply; the underlying zones that will be affected; and the types of development subject to the overlay.
•
Definition of Terms
Defines terms used in the ordinance.
•
Overlay Criteria
Defines the requirements of the overlay zone and describes development standards (i.e. setbacks, buffers, general standards, etc.).
42
•
Use Lists
Identifies changes to the underlying zoning district(s) use list(s).
•
Review Procedures
Sets forth review requirements and procedures.
•
Administration and Enforcement
Details the duties of the administrators; procedures for amending the ordinance; and standards for assessing penalties and fines.
Stream Buffers: •
Protect water quality by filtering pollutants, sediment, and nutrients from runoff
•
Control flooding
•
Help stabilize stream banks
• Protect aquatic habitat
Stream Buffer Ordinances Stream buffers serve to physically protect a stream from the impacts of development. They help ensure the natural functioning of floodplains; provide habitat for aquatic life; remove sediment, nutrients, pollutants, and bacteria; and help to stabilize and protect stream banks. Stream buffer ordinances recognize the importance of vegetative buffers and provide a legal means for protecting buffers where they exist and requiring the protection and/or creation of buffers as a criterion for development. Stream buffer ordinances not only regulate size of buffer, uses, and design criteria but also establish regulations for the maintenance and management of the buffer zone. A stream buffer ordinance should include the following components:
•
Intent
Identifies the subject of the ordinance; objectives; and often any background information for the creation of the ordinance.
•
Definition of Terms
Defines terms used in the ordinance.
•
Applicability
Discusses what the provisions of the ordinance apply to and what is exempt.
•
Plan Requirements
Specifies elements required for plan submittal and can include slope maps, buffer plans, streams, seeps, springs, bodies of water, and wetlands; hydric soils; and forest buffers.
•
Stream buffers physically protect streams from the impacts of development.
Design Standards for Forest Buffers
Specifies what a forest buffer consists of; where it starts; required widths; land uses and/or activities permitted, restricted, and prohibited; if a zone approach is used, zones are defined and requirements of each are detailed.
•
Buffer Management and Maintenance
Specifies management requirements; what structures, practices, and activities are permitted in the buffer, with specific design or maintenance features; plan preparation and recording requirements; rights of access; and party responsible for maintenance of the buffer.
43
•
Administration and Enforcement
Details the duties of the administrators; procedures for amending the ordinance; standards for assessing penalties and fines; and specifies when waivers or variances may be granted and the process for requesting such.
•
Conflict with Other Regulations
Generally includes a statement to the effect that the more restrictive regulation shall apply.
Stormwater Management Ordinances
Figure 17. How Development Impacts Water Quality
Stormwater management ordinances serve to minimize localized flooding and impacted water quality often associated with land development. Such ordinances help ensure that stormwater runoff does not exceed natural and anthropogenic channel capacity. Stormwater management ordinances recognize the importance of maintaining existing runoff rates to prevent channel degradation and maintain existing water quality. Additionally, these ordinances provide a legal framework for implementing and regulating stormwater release rates. A stormwater management ordinance should include the flowing components:
•
Purpose and Scope
Identifies the subject of the ordinance and what types of development shall be regulated.
•
Authority
Identifies who will be given the regulatory authority to implement the ordinance.
•
Definition of Terms
Defines terms used in the ordinance.
•
Stormwater, Drainage, and Erosion Control
Provides management requirements for differing land uses and how those requirements will be applied. Source: Non-point Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO)
•
Administration and Enforcement
Explains exceptions to the requirements and how those exceptions are made; identifies responsible parties; and details how enforcement of the ordinance will be applied.
Impervious Surface Regulations Impervious surfaces are surfaces that repel water and prevent precipitation from infiltrating, allowing it to run off instead. Impervious surfaces are usually constructed surfaces such as parking lots, roads, sidewalks, and rooftops. Soil compacted by development also functions as an impervious surface. Increases in impervious surface areas are often a result of development. An increase in impervious surface area generates increased stormwater runoff and higher peak stream discharges, which can result in flooding, stream channel erosion and instability. With increased stormwater runoff, increased transfer of pollutants into streams and other water bodies also occurs, which can result in degradation of water quality and habitat.
44
Impervious surface ordinances recognize the significant negative impact of increased impervious surface area associated with development and limit the amount of impervious cover allowed. Impervious surface/cover regulations can take the form of stand-alone ordinances but more often, are written into other ordinances such as stormwater ordinances or watershed overlay zones. The criteria for controlling impervious surface usually include limits for imperious surfaces for different land uses and are related to the physical characteristics of the area being protected.
Impervious urban surfaces are “desert-like”
in
terms
of
hydrology and micro-climate.
—CGIS
5.2 Conservation Easements A conservation easement is a legal agreement that protects the land by restricting certain actions, even by future owners. A riparian easement can protect a stream by prohibiting or restricting development in the buffer. Riparian easements are often held by non-profit organizations interested in conservation or resource protection.
5.3 Best Management Practices (BMPs) Figure 18. Example of A Stormwater System or Treatment Train The Ecological Home Site: The Building Block of the Ecological Neighborhood
Water movement in backyard swale Shrubs
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective, practical techniques or methods for accomplishing a desired result. There are literally hundreds of BMPs in the stormwater management toolbox, which can be divided into two broad categories: runoff pollution prevention BMPs and stormwater treatment BMPs. Stormwater BMPs in both categories can be structural or nonstructural. Often, the effectiveness of stormwater BMPs can be increased by combining structural and/or nonstructural techniques in a series, or “stormwater treatment train.”
Prairie grasses and wildflowers Lawn Vegetable garden
Design Features - a neat and colorful landscape - bird and butterfly habitat - private backyard - reduced mowing, little fertilizer and pesticides necessary - rainwater infiltration in garden swales Water movement in front-yard swale
Source: Rozumalski, 1997
45
Runoff Pollution Prevention BMPs The most effect way to control runoff pollution is to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater by eliminating the source of the pollutant or preventing the pollutant from contact with rainfall and runoff. Runoff pollution prevention BMPs are usually the most cost-effective since they reduce or eliminate the need for treatment BMPs and are generally simpler and less expensive to implement. Examples of the types of techniques included in this category are: • Impervious surface reduction; • Management practices; • Construction grading and sequencing practices that reduce the chances for sediment release; • Erosion control techniques that prevent exposed soils from eroding; and • Sediment control methods that catch sediment that is already suspended in stormwater. Figure 19. Example of A Runoff Pollution Prevention BMP— Reduction of Impervious Surface
Conventional pavers combined with turf paver “islands” help to increase infiltration.
Source: NDS
46
Stormwater Treatment BMPs Stormwater treatment BMPs work to filter stormwater and reduce the speed and volume of the runoff. As a result, these BMPs help to reduce stormwater pollution and protect streambanks from channel erosion and bank failure. Examples of the types of techniques included in this category are: • Infiltration methods that encourage the infiltration of stormwater; • Filtration systems that work to remove various pollutants; • Constructed wetlands; • Retention systems; • Detention systems; and • Alternative outlet designs. Figure 20. Example of a Stormwater Treatment BMP— A Rainwater Garden
Source: Barr Engineering
Selection of Appropriate BMPs The selection of appropriate BMPs requires an understanding of the interrelationship between precipitation, land management, and pollutants as well as an understanding of BMPs. In general, the most preferred BMPs tend to be the ones that mimic natural processes. Many states have developed guidelines for BMP selection. Several appear to have adopted the process outlined in the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual developed by the Maryland Department of the Environment. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual is “currently one of the better examples of stormwater management planning.” Maryland’s manual guides the developer/designer through a six-step process designed to progressively screen: watershed factors; terrain factors; stormwater treatment suitability; physical feasibility factors; community and environmental factors; and locational and permitting factors.
47
“LID
offers
an
innovative
approach to urban stormwater management—one that does not rely on the conventional end-ofpipe or in- the-pipe structural methods but instead uniformly or strategically
integrates
stormwater controls throughout the urban landscape.” —Larry Coffman Director of Programs and Planning Division Prince George’s County, Maryland
5.4 Low Impact Development (LID) Low Impact Development (LID) is an environmentally friendly approach to land development and stormwater management pioneered by Prince George’s County, Maryland in the early 1990s to address the County’s growing economic and environmental limitations with regard to conventional stormwater management practices. The primary goal of LID is to mimic the predevelopment site hydrology by using site design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate, and detain runoff. Goals and principles of LID include: • Provide an improved technology for environmental protection of receiving waters. • Provide economic incentives that encourage environmentally sensitive development. • Develop the full potential of environmentally sensitive site planning and design. • Encourage public education and participation in environmental protection. • Help build communities based on environmental stewardship. • Reduce construction and maintenance costs of the stormwater infrastructure. • Introduce new concepts, technologies, and objectives for stormwater management such as micro-management and multifunctional landscapes (bioretention areas, swales, and conservation areas); mimic or replicate hydrologic functions; and maintain the ecological/biological integrity of receiving streams. • Encourage flexibility in regulations to allow innovative engineering and site planning to promote “smart growth” principles. According to Low-Impact Development Design Strategies, the manual for LID produced by Prince George’s County, stormwater is managed in small, costeffective landscape features located on each lot rather than being conveyed and managed in large, costly pond facilities located at the bottom of drainage areas. Hydrologic functions, such as infiltration, frequency and volume of discharges, and groundwater recharge can be maintained with the use of reduced impervious surfaces, functional grading, open channel sections, and the use of bioretention/filtration landscape areas. The building blocks of LID are specific LID controls called Integrated Management Practices (IMPs). These can reduce stormwater runoff by integrating stormwater controls throughout the site in many small, discrete units. According to Prince George’s County, the distribution of IMPs in a small portion of each lot, near the source of impacts, virtually eliminates the need for a centralized best management practice (BMP).
48
The key factor in the success of LID is to ensure that the landscape practices are attractive and perceived by the property
LID employs five basic site planning concepts: • Integration of hydrology into the site planning process. • Micro-management or “thinking small.” • Control of stormwater at the source. • Utilization of simplistic, nonstructural methods. • Creation of multifunctional landscape and infrastructure.
owner as adding value to the property. —Low Impact Development Center, Inc.
Figure 21. Key Elements of Low Impact Development (LID)
Source: Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
49
5.5 Stormwater Utilities “A stormwater utility operates similarly to water, sewer, or fire districts, which are funded through service fees and administered separately from the general tax fund.” --Natural Resources Defense Council
An increasingly popular implementation tool is the stormwater utility. A stormwater, or surface water, utility is a special assessment district set up to generate funding specifically for stormwater management. Typically, a storm water utility is a method of financing the functional elements of managing a stormwater infrastructure system, and it can operate to offset the costs of improving stormwater management within a watershed, community or county. Although stormwater utilities have been in existence since the early 1970s, recent Phase II regulations set forth by the NPDES have initiated a rise in the number of communities considering and implementing stormwater utilities to cover increasing costs. Without a dedicated funding source, stormwater control and localized flood mitigation must be paid for from a jurisdiction’s General Fund. A stormwater utility approach allows jurisdictions to charge a service fee to individual customers based upon the amount of run-off contributed to the overall system. A stormwater utility’s customer service fee creates a dedicated funding source for the administration, engineering and planning, operations and maintenance, capital improvement planning, regulation and enforcement, and major capital purchases for a community’s stormwater infrastructure system. The utility approach to funding improvements provides a measure of flexibility and independence in allowing a community to establish and implement priority projects without waiting for local, state or federal funding. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) produced a study in 1999 which evaluated 100 case studies. The study found that establishing a dedicated source of funding helps to ensure the long-term viability of stormwater programs and to build public support for stormwater management. The American Public Works Association recommends a two phase approach to evaluating stormwater utilities. The first phase allows for a preliminary analysis of stormwater needs and possible financing options. At the conclusion of phase one, the study results should inform local decision-makers and aid them in their decisions regarding stormwater management. The first phase includes the following steps:
Phase 1 - Preliminary Analysis 1. Develop a Strategic Plan 2. Perform a Funding Options Analysis 3. Perform a Cursory Level of Service Analysis 4. Assess Data and Review Existing Billing System (If Available) 5. Perform a Cursory Cost of Services Analysis 6. Perform a Rate Structure Analysis 7. Perform a Preliminary Revenue Projection and Rate Estimate 8. Prepare Preliminary Recommendations 9. Present Results and Recommendations to Local Decision-Makers
50
After the conclusion of the first phase, local elected officials should be prepared to make a decision about whether a stormwater utility is the preferred financing option for their community. If local decision-makers choose to move forward and develop a stormwater utility, the second phase begins. The second phase includes analysis, organization, and passage of a proposed ordinance before a utility can begin billing its customers. The second phase includes the following steps:
Phase 2 - Stormwater Utility Development 1. Prepare Billing System Policies and Procedures 2. Perform Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) Determination and Analysis 3. Master Account Billing File Development 4. Measure Non-Residential Properties 5. Develop an Updating Procedures Manual 6. Provide Technical Advice to Legal Staff for Development of the Stormwater Utility Program and Rate Ordinance 7. Perform a Detailed Rate Study Analysis 8. Perform a Comprehensive Cost of Services Analysis 9. Perform a Cash Flow Analysis 10. Develop a Non-Residential Customer Credits Program 11. Perform an Organizational Structure Analysis 12. Master Account Billing File Transfer and Testing 13. Prepare a Public Involvement/Education Program 14. Prepare a Customer Service Training Manual 15. Develop a Customer Appeals Process 16. Prepare Preliminary Recommendations 17. Present Results and Recommendations to Local Decision-Makers 18. Begin Billing Customers (If Ordinance Passed) 19. Perform Error Reconciliation Process
51
Educating the public can create a broad base for support of programs to improve the health of the watershed and improve quality of life.
5.6 Public Awareness, Information and Stewardship Public outreach and education is essential for the ultimate success of this Plan. Educating citizens of all ages and business and industry owners and operators gives them the opportunity to begin to understand the relationship between flooding, stormwater runoff, water quality, and resource degradation and how that relationship affects them and how they affect it. It helps residents realize the impacts of their actions and the often simple things they can do to become better stewards of the land. Educating the public can create a broad base for support of programs to improve the health of the watershed and improve quality of life. A well-designed public education plan that promotes a clear understanding of the flood, stormwater, water quality, and natural resource issues within the watershed and the solutions to those issues will foster a sense of community ownership of those issues and solutions.
Several municipalities have developed and implemented a broad education campaign before establishing the other stormwater pollution prevention measures; giving the program critical momentum. --Natural Resource Defense Council
The public education plan should be flexible so that it can take advantage of opportunities that may arise. It should also be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis to determine which techniques and program are effective and which ones need to be revised or replaced. The plan should target several different audiences and specific programs or presentations should be tailored for each audience. Potential audiences include the general public; residents in environmentally sensitive areas; students; business and industry owners and employees; county and city staff; and tourists and visitors. Examples of some of the techniques and programs that are often used for public education and outreach are listed below.
General Public • Web page • Hotline number • Brochures and fact sheets • Newsletters • Storm drain stenciling • Watershed signage • Local events • Town meetings and public presentations • Water quality and stormwater workshops • Demonstration projects • Watershed tours • Exhibits at local events • Adopt-a-stream program • Annual volunteer clean-up days
52
Residents in Environmentally Sensitive Areas • Personal meetings with land owners in sensitive areas • Water quality and stormwater workshops • Brochures and fact sheets • Demonstration projects • Watershed tours • Adopt-a-stream program Students • Water quality and stormwater workshops • School programs and classroom presentations • Student participation in water quality testing • Watershed tours • Youth group projects • Adopt-a-stream program Business and Industry Owners and Employees • Demonstration projects • Newsletters • Adopt-a-stream program • Education program • Recognition program County/Municipal Staff • Adopt-a-stream program • Municipal employee training • Storm drain stenciling Local youths join Mill Creek Watershed Council member and Township official at a stream crossing along Compton Avenue in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Tourists and Visitors • Brochures and fact sheets • Local events • Demonstration projects • Watershed tours
53
Recom Chapter 6. Recommendations
6.0 Recommendations The goals of this plan, which apply to the entire Wolf Creek watershed, are to:
• • • •
Reduce flood occurrences and resultant impacts of flooding. Manage stormwater effectively. Improve water quality and protect natural resources. Promote sustainable, environmentally sensitive economic development.
These goals address issues that arise due to the functional relationship between land use (land cover) and natural systems. A physical change in the natural landscape results in a change in how the natural system functions. As a result, the County must have a comprehensive approach in developing solutions and strategies to address problems and issues. The County must focus on integrated watershed management planning as a way to accomplish the goals established for the Wolf Creek watershed. The recommendations for accomplishing the four major goals of this plan are based on an analysis of existing conditions and local codes and ordinances. Recommendation are organized into the following categories:
• • • • • • • • •
Comprehensive Plan Codes and Ordinances Intergovernmental Relationships Site Planning and Land Development Stormwater Management Water Quality and Natural Resource Protection Flood Hazard Mitigation Public Awareness and Outreach Environmentally Sensitive Economic Development
Comprehensive Plan The Fayette County Comprehensive Plan goals and policy address the four major goals of this plan in an indirect manor. The plan should be revised to present clearly stated goals, objectives, and policies for flood hazard mitigation; stormwater management; watershed and natural resource management and protection; and water quality for the County and for each of the eight development districts. Based on conversations with the County resource coordinator, the County is promoting cluster development (referred to as planned unit development in the plan). The plan should reflect this intent in a policy statement. A future land use map for Fayette County should be prepared and adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Many industrial land uses are located in the environmentally sensitive headwater areas of the Wolf Creek watershed. The Comprehensive Plan should address this issue by directing land uses that have the potential to seriously impact the headwater areas of the watershed to more appropriate locations within the watershed.
54
Codes and Ordinances The results of the assessment of the Fayette County Unified Development Code were discussed in Chapter 4.0. The assessment compared the Unified Development Code to a set of 22 model development principles that can measurably reduce impervious cover, conserve natural areas, and reduce stormwater pollution. The assessment results identified a need for improvements in the categories of Conservation of Natural Areas and Residential Streets and Parking Lots. The low score in the category of Conservation of Natural Areas reflects the lack of regulations concerning stream buffering and stormwater discharge. To improve its score in this category and further the goals for the Wolf Creek watershed it is recommended that the County develop and adopt the following regulations:
• • •
To further the goals of the Wolf Creek
watershed,
it
is
recommended that Fayette County develop and adopt the following regulations: •
Stream Buffer Ordinance or Stream Corridor Overlay Zone
•
Watershed Overlay Zone
•
Stormwater Ordinance
Management
Stream Buffer Ordinance (Model ordinance is located in Appendix C) or Stream Corridor Overlay Zone Watershed Overlay Zone Stormwater Management Ordinance (Model ordinance is located in Appendix D)
Amending the Unified Development Code to include a Wolf Creek watershed overlay zone is preferable over the stream buffer or stream overlay zone since, in addition to incorporating stream overlays, it contains regulations that affect the entire watershed and is much more comprehensive. The watershed overlay zone should place use restrictions and stringent design standards on all development within the environmentally sensitive headwater areas of the watershed. If it is not possible to adopt a watershed overlay zone, the County should aggressively pursue the adoption of either the stand-alone Wolf Creek stream buffer ordinance or an amendment of the Unified Development Code to include a Wolf Creek stream corridor overlay zone. Including the stream overlay zone in the Unified Development Code may help keep things simpler, on the principle that all the rules for development would be located in one document as opposed to a number of different documents. The low score the County received in the category of Residential Streets and Parking Lots reflects a lack of flexibility in roadway design more than parking lot design. Increasing flexibility in roadway design presents a dilemma for the County since the roads in the county are owned by the State and flexibility in design is currently not a State mandate. In addition to the above recommendations, the following additional changes to the Unified Development Code are recommended based on the goals for the watershed and the recommendations stated in the Fayette County Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that where examples of specific changes in language are given, they are suggestions and should be subjected to a thorough legal review prior to adoption.
55
Section 9: Development Standards •
Add an Article that sets standards for development on slopes exceeding 20 percent and prohibits development on slopes of 30 percent or greater.
•
Add an Article that sets standards for allowable amounts of impervious surface cover (could also be covered in a stormwater ordinance or a watershed overlay zone).
Article 9007: Floodplain District This Article should be revised to include higher regulatory standards for floodplains. FEMA encourages communities to adopt higher regulatory standards for floodplains than the minimums they set. Additionally, the State of West Virginia recently passed land use legislation (S.B. 454) allowing zoning ordinances to include “identifying flood-prone areas subject to periodic flooding, and regulating with specific control the permitted use, type of construction and height of floor levels above base flood elevation permitted in the area so as to lessen or avoid the hazards to persons and damage to property resulting from the accumulation of storm or flood waters.” Some recommended revisions include:
•
Amending Article III, Section 3.1 to include lands that have physical or documented evidence of flooding within recent history.
•
Amending Article IV, Section 4.1 to prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement and other development in the floodway.
•
Amending Article IV, Section 4.2 to require a technical evaluation by a registered professional engineer demonstrating that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing development and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation more than one foot at any point within the community.
•
Amending Article VI to address the placement of critical facilities: Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (100-year floodplain) and any flood-prone areas designated by the County. Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA and flood-prone areas shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet or to the height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and from the critical facility should also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible.
•
Amend Article VI, Section B in its entirety. This section should include restrictions that require compensatory storage for any fill that displaces floodwaters and compensatory conveyance capacity so that the flow of
56
floodwaters across the property is not impeded. Example language for these types of restrictions read as follow: “No displacement of floodwaters by structures or foundation systems for structures shall be permitted except where it can be shown that provision has been made on the subject property to balance the capacity to store floodwaters and accommodate potential surface flow in an amount equal to the amount of floodwater likely to be displaced.”
To
improve
cooperation jurisdictions,
the
spirit
between they
of the
should
consider at least one moderated joint team-building session and, perhaps, an intergovernmental compact to focus on watershed goals.
Intergovernmental Relationships Four different governmental entities have jurisdiction over parts of the Wolf Creek watershed: Fayette County, Fayetteville, Oak Hill, and the National Park Service. However, watersheds know no jurisdictional boundaries, only physical ones. In order to effectively address the issues within the watershed, the jurisdictions involved need to be able to communicate openly and work together toward a common set of goals. To date, cooperation and communication between Fayette County and Oak Hill, at least with regard to land use policies and regulation, appears limited. Fayette County and Fayetteville appear to be cooperating to some degree. For example, Fayetteville adopted the County’s US Route 19 Corridor district guidelines, but Oak Hill did not. To improve the spirit of cooperation between the jurisdictions, they should consider at least one moderated joint team-building session and, perhaps, an intergovernmental compact to focus on watershed goals.
Site Planning and Land Development The majority of land in the Wolf Creek watershed is currently undeveloped. As the county promotes recreational and residential opportunities in the area, the watershed will face pressure to develop. The County places a high value on protection of natural resources as valuable community assets and keys for economic development. As the land in the watershed develops, if the development is not done in a manner that is sensitive to the natural environment, the health of the watershed will continue to decline. In addition to the regulatory tools discussed above, the County should actively encourage and promote the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques and site planning BMPs that have been proven effective under local conditions, both where new development is planned and, to the extent feasible, for retrofitting of existing development. To that end, the County should develop a pilot project that makes use of these techniques and will serve as a model for other development within the watershed. In addition, the County should develop site planning and land development BMP manuals that will serve as guides to developers and contractors. The BMP manuals should be referenced in the Unified Development Code.
Stormwater Management Stormwater runoff and pollution is already an issue in the watershed, even with a majority of the land in forest cover. As land is developed, the problem will worsen unless the County takes steps to prevent it. In addition to developing and adopting regulatory tools for stormwater management discussed earlier, the County should pursue development of a stormwater management BMP
57
manual. Many excellent stormwater BMP manuals already exist, making the task easier. Two of the best manuals reviewed during the development of this plan are the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, which according to the EPA website is “currently one of the better examples of stormwater management planning” and the Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual: Stormwater Best Management Practices for Cold Climates. Once a manual is developed, it should be referenced in the Stormwater Management Ordinance (once adopted). Many of the stormwater problem areas appear to be located in the area along Summerlee Road and in various areas along US Route 19. According to members of the Wolf Creek planning team, stormwater runoff in the Summerlee area increased after the coal waste pile was capped and ponds were either filled in or collapsed. The problem in that area is compounded by the construction of several homes within flood prone areas, with at least one built on fill in the actual streambed. If possible, the runoff from the Summerlee site should be controlled at or near its source. In addition, the wetlands below the site on the south side of Summerlee Road should be restored to their natural function, which will help to reduce the runoff and filter the pollutants leaching from the coal waste pile. Many of the stormwater problems along US Route 19 appear to related improper culvert maintenance and sizing. The roadway culverts are the responsibility of the West Virginia Department of Highways, making enforcement of maintenance difficult for the County. The County should explore the possibility of a Memorandum of Agreement with the State for resolution of the issue. At the Fayetteville Plaza on the west side of US Route 19, the problem is compounded by the runoff from the large parking lot that runs directly into Wolf Creek. This area has the potential to be used as a demonstration site for retrofit using LID techniques or a combination of stormwater BMPs. In other problem areas, such as Frogtown, where poor maintenance of ditches and culverts on private property contribute to the stormwater runoff problems, the feasibility of an inspection program and the development of agreements with property owners to clean out and maintain as needed should be investigated. Stormwater management can be costly. When no dedicated source of funding is available, costs must be paid from the General Fund. It is recommended that Fayette County examine the feasibility of implementing a stormwater utility to generate funding for stormwater management in the Wolf Creek watershed.
Water Quality and Natural Resource Protection Water from the headwaters of the Wolf Creek watershed flow into the Fayetteville Reservoir, which is a back-up drinking water supply for Fayetteville. Water quality monitoring conducted in the watershed indicates poor water quality in the headwaters. Water entering Wolf Creek from the Summerlee coal waste pile has a pH of below 3.
58
Wolf Creek has been designated an impaired waterbody and is on the West Virginia 2002 Section 303(d) List and is on the West Virginia Watershed Framework TMDL 2007 candidate list. According to the Watershed Framework, one of the selection factors considered is whether or not the watershed has an active watershed group. The Plateau Action Network (PAN), a local nonprofit citizens’ coalition is extremely active in the Wolf Creek watershed, something that has not gone unnoticed by the Watershed Framework. It appears likely that Wolf Creek will be selected for TMDL development. If selected, TMDL plans will be prepared by the Department of Environmental Protection. The plans will include pollution source identification and a strategy development for contaminant source reduction or elimination. Sources likely to be identified include the coal waste pile at Summerlee and the salvage yards and auto repair facilities along Lochgelly Road. The County and PAN should remain actively involved in the process and be prepared to implement the resultant TMDL strategy. They should also coordinate with the Watershed Framework to ensure that the strategy includes the types of techniques that they are promoting within the watershed (i.e. effective, affordable, reliable techniques that can realistically be implemented). In addition to the water quality issues in the headwaters of the watershed, the riparian corridor along Wolf Creek is also in decline. Many of the remaining wetlands along the upper reaches of Wolf Creek are severely stressed and the stream channel is downcutting and eroding. Recommendations for reversing this trend are described below.
1. Establish a regular stream monitoring and assessment program. PAN currently does water quality monitoring several times a year. This effort should be expanded to include monitoring of the riparian conditions (i.e. wetland health, streambank and channel conditions, etc.).
2. Develop a watershed database. Effective water quality and natural resource protection requires the development and maintenance of an integrated GIS-based database that can be used for tracking all information gathered within the watershed. Inclusion of land use and zoning information would make the database a powerful tool to use in the land use planning and policy making process.
3. Acquire critical areas along Wolf Creek and its tributaries. Establishment of a proactive easement program that provides for outreach efforts to owners of land in the watershed that contain environmentally sensitive resources, particularly where those resources would not otherwise be protected by regulation, is a way to actively promote the protection of those sensitive areas. Land can also be protected through deed transfer to the County, conservation groups, or land trusts. PAN is pursuing charitable donations of streambed and wetland property in the upper reaches of the Wolf Creek watershed to accommodate treatment and restoration projects. According to PAN members, their efforts to date have “met with surprising success.”
59
4. Develop a watershed management plan. A watershed management plan would identify issues and concerns; set goals and objectives for the watershed; provide a detailed summary/analysis of existing and future conditions; identify appropriate solutions, strategies, projects and implementation measures to meet the desired goals; and identify potential funding sources for implementation. Information from this plan and the Watershed Framework TMDL studies (should Wolf Creek be selected) would provide a good starting point for the development of the watershed plan.
5. Develop a wetland and riparian corridor reconstruction/ restoration plan. As mentioned previously, wetlands and riparian corridors protect and help to improve water quality and reduce flood impacts. A wetland and riparian corridor reconstruction/restoration plan should be developed to restore or reconstruct the wetlands and riparian areas that have been lost. This plan could be a component of a watershed management plan or could be pursued separately. If pursued separately, the plans would need to be developed so that they are complimentary.
Flood Hazard Mitigation Flooding within the Wolf Creek watershed, as discussed in earlier chapters, appears to result from stormwater runoff and encroachment of development in the floodplain. In addition to the changes to the Unified Development Code recommended above, the following action items are recommended:
1. Develop a flood event database. All flood events within the watershed should be thoroughly documented and mapped. This will provide the information needed by the County to define and delineate flood-prone areas for inclusion in the Floodplain District regulations.
2. Enforce floodplain ordinances. Floodplain ordinances already in effect should be aggressively enforced. Development and fill of the floodplain and streambed along Summerlee Road has contributed to the flooding problem in that area.
3. Relocate businesses and residences in the floodplain and floodprone areas. The County and local jurisdictions should adopt a repetitive loss policy for property in flood-prone areas, in addition to those in mapped FIRM areas.
60
Public Awareness and Outreach “A knowledgeable citizen is a
Many of the citizens within the Wolf Creek watershed are unaware of the impacts of their actions on the watershed and their contribution to many of the issues within the watershed.
caring citizen, and caring citizens
1. Develop a coordinated public education/awareness plan.
will remain active in their efforts
There are literally hundreds of techniques for effective public awareness and outreach. One technique alone will not achieve widespread results. Different techniques work for different target groups. Techniques range from media and printed material campaigns to workshops and adopt-a-stream programs. A listing of some of the types of techniques can be found in Chapter 5.
to protect their creek and their watershed.” —Ellerbe Creek Local Watershed Plan
2. Strengthen partnerships with appropriate public and citizen organizations. The development of good relationships with local organizations and the public helps to broaden participation in education and stewardship activities aimed at changing attitudes and behaviors. It could also lead to increased volunteerism, which could help to stretch staff resources for watershed initiatives.
3. Investigate proactive outreach to property owners who have property abutting streams. Property owners who have property abutting streams may not be aware of stream issues. A proactive outreach is a personalized way to establish a positive relationship with the property owners and provide them with information about the watershed. It could also be an effective way to encourage participation in volunteer stream programs and activities.
4. Develop a stewardship program. Development of a stewardship program that actively recruits citizen volunteers would provide volunteer support for water quality and stream monitoring, restoration, and educational activities. The program could also recruit citizen volunteers to help monitor compliance with local environmental regulations.
Environmentally Sensitive Economic Development Implementation of recommendations listed in all of the above categories will foster environmentally sensitive economic development. The successful completion of a well designed and constructed pilot development project that utilizes low-impact development techniques and BMPs could motivate more developers to adopt less traditional development practices.
61
Appendix A Wolf Creek Watershed Modeling
A-1
Wolf Creek Watershed Modeling Table of Contents Purpose of Study .............................................................................................................................................1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................1 Results.............................................................................................................................................................6 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................6 Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................................13
List of Tables Table 1.
Table of modeled rainfall events and probability of occurrence during any given year. ......2
Table 2.
Existing and proposed CN values for the Wolf Creek hydrologic study...............................3
Table 3.
Table of storm events and simulated rainfall amounts used for the Wolf Creek hydrologic study ..................................................................................................................5
Table A.1
Table of parameters used for the existing and future land uses for each of the simulated sub-basins for the Wolf Creek watershed..........................................................................14
List of Figures Figure 1.
Aerial photograph of the Wolf Creek watershed showing the modeled sub-basins and streams................................................................................................................................2
Figure 2.
Schematic drawing of the HEC-HMS Wolf Creek hydrologic model....................................5
Figure 3.
Existing and future CN’s for each of the modeled sub-basins in the Wolf Creek watershed. ........................................................................................................7
Figure 4.
Estimated existing and future 2-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlet for the Wolf Creek watershed. ...........................................8
Figure 5.
Estimated existing and future 10-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlet for the Wolf Creek watershed. ...........................................9
Figure 6.
Estimated existing and future 25-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlet for the Wolf Creek watershed. .........................................10
Figure 7.
Estimated existing and future 50-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlet for the Wolf Creek watershed. .........................................11
Figure 8.
Estimated existing and future 100-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlet for the Wolf Creek watershed. .........................................12
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
i
Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to evaluate the existing and possible future runoff from the Wolf Creek watershed located in Fayette County, West Virginia.
Portions of the town of Fayetteville, WV and
Appalachian Corridor L (U.S. Route 19) lie, respectively, within the northern and western domain of the Wolf Creek watershed boundary. Runoff is expected to increase because of future changes in land use patterns throughout the watershed. These changes in land use will result from future development of residential, commercial, and industrial areas and improved transportation corridors. In addition, this development will reduce the amount of underdeveloped land, such as agricultural fields and forests. The changes in land use from a “rural” to an “urban” type of pattern are expected to increase the runoff because of decreased rainfall infiltration due to increases in the amount of impervious areas as well as the addition of drainage systems. Methodology In order to determine the existing and future runoff from the change in land use, a hydrologic model of the Wolf Creek watershed has been developed. In order to develop this hydrologic model, the extent of the Wolf Creek watershed was determined using 7.5’ United States Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles. This boundary represents the topographic divide where rainfall that lands inside of the boundary will flow to a common point at the outlet. Fifteen sub-basins were also delineated based on roadway stream crossings and tributary confluences (Figure 1). Roadway stream crossings were used as delineation points because existing culverts convey the stream under the roadway. An increase in runoff is most likely to create problems at these culverts, if the current hydraulic opening is not sized to allow passage of future stream flowrates. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) is being used to simulate the rainfall-runoff relationship for the Wolf Creek watershed. Several runoff estimation methods are available with HEC-HMS. Because of the size of the watershed and the reduced need for in-field data collection, the Soil Conservation Service’s (SCS), which is now referred to as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), runoff model is being used to estimate the peak flow for the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year rainfall events. It is important to note that this rainfall event notation is somewhat misleading. Saying the 2-year event does not mean that this event will occur every two years, but instead means that there is a 50% chance that this event will occur during a given year. Table 1 shows the rainfall event and probability of occurrence during any given year.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
1
Figure 1.
Aerial photograph of the Wolf Creek watershed showing the modeled sub-basins and streams.
Table 1.
Table of modeled rainfall events and probability of occurrence during any given year.
2-year
Probability of Occurrence in Any Given Year 50%
10-year
10%
25-year
4%
50-year
2%
100-year
1%
Event
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
2
In order to determine the runoff for the given storm events, several variables must be determined. These variables include the sub-basin drainage areas, SCS Curve Number (CN), and SCS Lag Time (TLAG). Additionally, stream channel dimension, length, slope, and roughness characteristics also have to be determined. Sub-basin areas were determined as previously described using 7.5’ USGS topographic maps. CN’s, which are used to estimate rainfall runoff, were determined for both the existing and future land uses using tables provided in the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55, “Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds” (TR-55) dated June 1986. CN’s were developed based on a weighted average of all the CN’s and land use area in each subbasin. Typically, CN’s range from 30 (areas with little to no runoff, i.e. wetlands and lakes) to 98 (areas with high runoff, i.e. impervious areas) depending on ground cover and soil type. The CN’s used in this study for each land use are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Existing and proposed CN values for the Wolf Creek hydrologic study. Existing Land Use
Future Land Use
Land use Description
CN
Land use Description
CN
Agriculture
77
Agriculture
77
Forest
70
Forest
70
Water
30
Water
30
Residential
85
Residential
85
Commercial and Services
94
Commercial and Services
94
Industrial
91
Industrial
91
Transportation
98
Transportation
98
Industrial and Commercial
92
Industrial and Commercial
92
Mixed Urban
87
Mixed Urban
87
Water Treatment Facility
30
Water Treatment Facility
30
Other Agriculture Land
77
Barren Land Strip Mine
60
Barren Land Strip Mine
60
Barren Land Transitional
60
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
3
The SCS TLAG is used to estimate when the peak flow rate will occur for each of the sub-basins used in the hydrologic model. TLAG is calculated using the distance (L) from the most remote point of each sub-basin to the outlet, the average basin slope (y), and the CN. 7.5’ USGS topographic maps were used to determine L and y for each sub-basin. Stream channel parameters are needed so that runoff from the subbasins can be routed through the stream channels to account for channel storage and peak flow reduction. These parameters were estimated from photography taken throughout the Wolf Creek watershed. After all of the required data was collected and analyzed, a basic schematic model of the Wolf Creek watershed was developed with HEC-HMS (Figure 2). This schematic model is used as a visual representation of the relationships of the sub-basins to one another and to the Wolf Creek watershed as a whole. Each of the sub-basins ( ), junctions and outlets (
), routed stream channels (
), and general
flow directions are shown. The required parameters were then input into HEC-HMS for each of the subbasins and routed stream channels (Appendix A). A meteorologic model was then developed for each of the studied storm events (2-year, 10-year, etc.). Each meteorologic model requires the input of the sub-basins for which the storm is to be applied, storm type, and the rainfall depth. Because of the size of the Wolf Creek watershed, the storm was applied to all of the sub-basins simultaneously. The storm type describes how the rainfall event is distributed in time. For this study a 24-hour Type II storm was simulated for each of the modeled events. Rainfall depths for each storm event were determined from rainfall maps found in TR-55 and are presented in Table 3.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
4
Figure 2. Schematic drawing of the HEC-HMS Wolf Creek hydrologic model. Table 3.
Table of storm events and simulated rainfall amounts used for the Wolf Creek hydrologic study.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Storm Event
Rainfall Amount (in.)
2-year
2.7
10-year
4
25-year
4.8
50-year
5.1
100-year
5.8
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
5
Results Results of the Wolf Creek hydrologic study show an increase in CN for all of the sub-basins from the existing to the future land use conditions. These increases in CN’s also show an increase in runoff for all the sub-basins for each of the simulated storm events (Figure 3 to Figure 8). The largest percent increase in runoff is seen in the sub-basin identified as Adkins Branch Trib (Figures 1 and 2) for all of the simulated storm events. The smallest percent increase in runoff is seen in the sub-basin Wolf Creek Lower (Figures 1 and 2) for all of the simulated storm events. Discussion The potential effects of increased urbanization on streams are difficult to quantify and predict. The relationship between watershed hydrology and stream stability is complicated and cannot be easily characterized.
The total effect is highly dependent on several factors, including topographic relief,
streambed form and sediment supply, soil and erosion potential, etc. Conversely, generalized relationships between increased runoff and stream responses are known. Generally, when a large increase in runoff is produced a stream will adjust to convey the increase in flow. These adjustments can either be quick (months and years) or slow (decades). Adjustments take form in an increase of hydraulic opening within the stream bank, meaning the channel will likely widen, deepen, or both. This channel degradation increases sediment loading, and decreases stream stability, and effects water quality. The other concern of increased runoff is the increased backwater and associated flooding at roadway stream crossings. Existing structures, such as culverts and bridges, may be sized adequately for existing flows but undersized for increased flow rates.
Undersized structures can cause excessive
backwater on the upstream side and undesirable flooding to surrounding infrastructure and property. Because the largest increase in flowrates are seen where tributaries of Wolf Creek confluence with the main stem, culverts directly downstream of these areas are most likely to experience adverse impacts from future development. The estimated increase in runoff in the Wolf Creek watershed will likely affect both stream water quality and increase localized backwater at roadway stream crossings. In order to mitigate for this increase in runoff, a storm water management plan should be developed to control peak flows and minimize impacts.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
6
90
Existing Land Use Future Land Use
Curve Number (CN)
85
80
75
70
65 Wolf Creek Upper2
Wolf Creek Upper1
Adkins Branch
Existing Land Use
72
78
74
Future Land Use
76
84
84
Adkins Branch Trib
Toney Hollow
Levisee Creek
Wolf Creek Middle2
Wolf Creek Middle1
71
72
73
74
76
86
85
81
81
81
Short Creek Upper
Crooked Run
House Branch Upper
House Branch Lower
Short Creek Middle
Short Creek Lower
Wolf Creek Lower
74
74
74
75
70
77
72
84
76
77
80
74
83
73
Subasins and Outlets
Figure 3. Existing and future CN’s for each of the modeled sub-basins in the Wolf Creek watershed. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
7
3000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Wolf Creek Upper
Wolf Creek Upper
Existing Discharge
192
269
435
82
92
172
Future Discharge
292
454
725
203
367
569
52
69
67
149
301
231
234
%Increase
Adkins WCU2- Adkins Branch WCU1 Branch Trib
ABTAB
Levise e Creek
TH-LC
81
140
203
72
774
151
858
84
98
176
131
50
1022
67
89
135
183
1247
270
294
473
135
1822
239
1974
207
119
293
177
80
2237
103
152
231
199
2594
109
134
89
135
58
130
145
21
67
35
59
119
55
70
71
9
108
Toney Hollow
Wolf Creek Middl
WC6WC5
Wolf Creek Middl
WC5WC4
Short Creek Upper
Short Creek Middl
SC2SC1
Short Creek Lower
Crook ed Run
WC3WC2
House House Branch Branch Upper Lower
HB2HB1
Wolf Creek Lower
Wolf Creek Outlet
Subasins and Outlets
Figure 4. Estimated existing and future 2-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlets for the Wolf Creek watershed. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
8
6000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Wolf Wolf WCU2Creek Creek WCU1 Upper 2 Upper 1
Adkins Branch
Adkins Toney Branch ABT-AB Hollow Trib
Levisee Creek
TH-LC
Wolf Creek Middle 2
WC6WC5
Wolf Creek Middle 1
WC5WC4
Short Creek Upper
Short Short Creek SC2-SC1 Creek Middle Lower
Crooked Run
WC3WC2
House Branch Upper
House Branch Lower
HB2HB1
Wolf Creek Lower
Wolf Creek Outlet
Existing Discharge
502
583
1009
196
241
434
206
341
501
169
1820
346
2029
205
238
429
320
117
2446
184
197
326
475
3031
Future Discharge
671
864
1473
385
673
1056
503
595
932
274
3532
483
3874
390
273
598
395
165
4465
250
294
488
500
5306
% Increase
34
48
46
97
179
143
144
75
86
62
94
40
91
90
15
39
24
41
83
36
50
50
5
75
Subasins and Outlets Figure 5. Estimated existing and future 10-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlets for the Wolf Creek
watershed. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
9
8000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Wolf Wolf WCU2Creek Creek WCU1 Upper 2 Upper 1
Adkins Branch
Adkins Toney Branch ABT-AB Hollow Trib
Levisee Creek
TH-LC
Wolf Creek Middle 2
WC6WC5
Wolf Creek Middle 1
WC5WC4
Short Creek Upper
Short Short Creek SC2-SC1 Creek Middle Lower
Crooked Run
WC3WC2
House Branch Upper
House Branch Lower
HB2HB1
Wolf Creek Lower
Wolf Creek Outlet
Existing Discharge
724
795
1408
277
350
623
297
485
717
239
2557
480
2863
290
336
604
451
163
3466
272
271
463
686
4328
Future Discharge
931
1128
1970
503
867
1368
652
794
1233
366
4645
644
5122
508
378
799
544
222
5946
353
388
662
713
7138
% Increase
29
42
40
82
148
120
120
64
72
53
82
34
79
75
13
32
21
36
72
30
43
43
4
65
Subasins and Outlets Figure 6. Estimated existing and future 25-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlets for the Wolf Creek
watershed. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
10
9000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Wolf Wolf WCU2Creek Creek WCU1 Upper 2 Upper 1
Adkins Branch
Adkins Toney Branch ABT-AB Hollow Trib
Levisee Creek
TH-LC
Wolf Creek Middle 2
WC6WC5
Wolf Creek Middle 1
WC5WC4
Short Creek Upper
Short Short Creek SC2-SC1 Creek Middle Lower
Crooked Run
WC3WC2
House Branch Upper
House Branch Lower
HB2HB1
Wolf Creek Lower
Wolf Creek Outlet
Existing Discharge
811
877
1564
309
393
698
333
541
801
266
2845
533
3190
323
374
673
503
182
3869
306
300
517
768
4840
Future Discharge
1032
1228
2160
548
940
1486
709
870
1348
401
5069
706
5596
552
419
876
602
244
6515
394
423
729
797
7847
27
40
38
78
139
113
113
61
68
51
78
33
75
71
12
30
20
34
68
28
41
41
4
62
% Increase
Subasins and Outlets Figure 7. Estimated existing and future 50-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlets for the Wolf Creek
watershed. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
11
10000
Existing Discharge Future Discharge
9000
Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Wolf Wolf WCU2Creek Creek WCU1 Upper 2 Upper 1
Adkins Branch
Adkins Toney Branch ABT-AB Hollow Trib
Levisee Creek
TH-LC
Wolf Creek Middle 2
WC6WC5
Wolf Creek Middle 1
WC5WC4
Short Creek Upper
Short Short Creek SC2-SC1 Creek Middle Lower
Crooked Run
WC3WC2
House Branch Upper
House Branch Lower
HB2HB1
Wolf Creek Lower
Wolf Creek Outlet
Existing Discharge
1022
1072
1935
384
498
878
419
678
1007
332
3537
657
3976
403
466
839
627
225
4837
390
368
647
967
6084
Future Discharge
1272
1463
2608
653
1111
1763
842
1051
1620
484
6065
852
6709
657
517
1058
739
295
7850
490
507
890
997
9515
24
36
35
70
123
101
101
55
61
46
71
30
69
63
11
26
18
31
62
26
38
38
3
56
% Increase
Subasins and Outlets Figure 8. Estimated existing and future 100-year storm event peak discharges for each of the modeled sub-basins and outlets for the Wolf Creek
watershed. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
12
APPENDIX A
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
13
Table A-1.
Table of parameters used for the existing and future land uses for each of the simulated sub-basins for the Wolf Creek watershed. Basin ID
Area (sq mi)
Existing Land Use
Future Land Use
CN
TLAG (min.)
CN
TLAG (min.)
Wolf Creek Upper2
1.33
72
51
76
45.6
Wolf Creek Upper1
1.81
78
95.4
84
78.6
Adkins Branch
0.88
74
120
84
88.2
Adkins Branch Trib
1.37
71
132
86
83.4
Toney Hollow
1.09
72
129
85
86.4
Levisee Creek
2.43
73
204.6
81
161.4
Wolf Creek Middle2
1.12
74
198.6
81
161.4
Wolf Creek Middle1
1.01
76
77.4
81
66.6
Short Creek Upper
0.42
74
41.4
84
30.6
Short Creek Middle
0.64
74
60.6
76
57.6
Short Creek Lower
0.86
74
60.6
77
55.2
Crooked Run
0.66
75
172.2
80
148.8
House Branch Upper
0.82
70
88.2
74
79.2
House Branch Lower
1.08
77
187.8
83
156
Wolf Creek Lower
1.59
72
72.6
73
70.8
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Over a Century of Engineering Excellence
14
Appendix B Model Development Principles and Code and Ordinance Worksheet for Fayette County
B-1
The Center for Watershed Protection’s Model Development Principles The model development principles fall into one of three categories: Residential Streets and Parking Lots; Lot Development; and Conservation of Natural Resources. Each principle represents a simplified design objective in site planning. To learn more about these principles, please refer to the Center’s website at www.cwp.org. Residential Streets and Parking Lots These principles focus on codes, ordinances and standards that determine the size, shape, and construction of parking lots, roadways, and driveways. 1. Design residential streets for minimum required pavement width needed to support travel lanes; on-street parking; and emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. 2. Reduce the total length of residential streets by examining alternative street layouts to determine the best option for increasing the number of homes per unit length. 3. Wherever possible, residential street right-of-way widths should reflect the minimum required to accommodate the travel-way, the sidewalk, and vegetated open channels. Utilities and storm drains should be located within the pavement section of the right-of-way wherever feasible. 4. Minimize the number of residential street cul-de-sacs and incorporate landscaped areas to reduce their impervious cover. The radius of cul-de-sacs should be the minimum required accommodating emergency and maintenance vehicles. Alternative turnarounds should be considered. 5. Where density, topography, soils, and slopes permit, vegetated open channels should be used in the street right-of-way to convey and treat stormwater runoff. 6. The required parking ratio governing a particular land use or activity should be enforced both as a maximum and a minimum in order to curb excess parking space construction. Existing parking ratios should be reviewed for conformance taking into account local and national experience to see if lower ratios are warranted and feasible. 7. Parking codes should be revised to lower parking requirements where mass transit is available or enforceable shared parking arrangements are made. 8. Reduce the overall imperviousness associated with parking lots by providing compact car spaces, minimizing stall dimensions, incorporating efficient parking lanes, and using pervious materials in spillover parking areas. 9. Provide meaningful incentives to encourage structured and shared parking to make it more economically viable. 10. Wherever possible, provide stormwater treatment for parking lot runoff using bioretention areas, filter strips, and/or other practices that can be integrated into required landscaping areas and traffic islands.
B-2
Lot Development Principles 11 through 16 focus on the regulations that determine lot size, lot shape, housing density, and the overall design and appearance of neighborhoods. 11. Advocate open space development that incorporates smaller lot sizes to minimize total impervious area, reduce total construction costs, conserve natural areas, provide community recreational space, and promote watershed protection. 12. Relax side yard setbacks and allow for narrower frontages to reduce total road length in the community and overall site imperviousness. Relax front setback requirements to minimize driveway lengths and reduce overall lot imperviousness. 13. Promote more flexible design standards for residential subdivision sidewalks. Where practical, consider locating sidewalks on only one side of the street and providing common walkways linking pedestrian areas. 14. Reduce overall lot imperviousness by promoting alternative driveway surfaces and shared driveways that connect two or more homes. 15. Clearly specify how community open space will be managed and designate a sustainable legal entity responsible for managing both natural and recreational open space. 16. Direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas such as yards, open channels, or vegetated areas and avoid routing rooftop runoff into the roadway and the stormwater conveyance system. Conservation of Natural Areas These principles address regulations that promote (or impede) protection of existing natural areas and incorporation of open spaces into new development. 17. Create a variable width, naturally vegetated buffer system along all perennial streams that also encompasses critical environmental features such as the 100-year floodplain, steep slopes, and freshwater wetlands. 18. The riparian stream buffer should be preserved or restored with native vegetation that can be maintained throughout the delineation, plan review, construction, and occupancy stages of development. 19. Clearing and grading of forests and native vegetation at a site should be limited to the minimum amount needed to build lots, allow access, and provide fire protection. A fixed portion of any community open space should be managed as protected green space in a consolidated manner. 20. Conserve trees and other vegetation at each site by planting additional vegetation, clustering tree areas, and promoting the use of native plants. Wherever practical, manage community open space, street rights-of-way, parking lot islands, and other landscaped areas to promote natural vegetation.
B-3
21. Incentives and flexibility in the form of density compensation, buffer averaging, property tax reduction, stormwater credits, and by-right open space development should be encouraged to promote conservation of stream buffers, forests, meadows, and other areas of environmental value. In addition, off-site mitigation consistent with locally adopted watershed plans should be encouraged. 22. New stormwater outfalls should not discharge unmanaged stormwater into jurisdictional wetlands, sole-source aquifers, or sensitive areas.
B-4
Center for Watershed Protection Codes and Ordinances Worksheet Fayette County 1. Street Width a. What is the minimum pavement width allowed for streets in low density residential developments that have less than 500 average daily trips (ADT)?
0
If the answer is between 18-22 feet, award 4 points 28 feet b. At higher densities are parking lanes allowed to also serve as traffic lanes (i.e., queuing streets)?
0
If the answer is YES, award 3 points No 2. Street Length a. Do street standards promote the most efficient street layouts that reduce overall street length?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Yes 3. Right-of-Way Width a. What is the minimum right-of-way (ROW) width for a residential street?
0
If the answer is less than 45 feet, award 3 points 50 feet b. Does the code allow utilities to be placed under the paved section of the ROW? If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not specifically prohibited.
0
4. Cul-de-Sacs a. What is the minimum radius allowed for cul-de-sacs? If the answer is less than 35 feet, award 3 points
0 If the answer is 36 feet to 45 feet, award 1 point 46 feet b. Can a landscaped island be created within the cul-de-sac? If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not specifically prohibited
1
c. Are alternative turn arounds such as "hammerheads" allowed on short streets in low density residential developments? If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not specifically prohibited
B-5
1
5. Vegetated Open Channels a. Are curb and gutters required for most residential street sections?
0
If the answer is NO, award 2 points Yes b. Are there established design criteria for swales that can provide stormwater quality treatment (i.e., dry swales, biofilters, or grass swales)?
0
If the answer is YES, award 2 points No 6. Parking Ratios a. What is the minimum parking ratio for a professional office building (per 1000 ft2 of gross floor area)? If the answer is less than 3.0 spaces, award 1 point Not specified—negotiable
1
b. What is the minimum required parking ratio for shopping centers (per 1,000 ft2 gross floor area)? If the answer is 4.5 spaces or less, award 1 point Not specified—negotiable.
1
c. What is the minimum required parking ratio for single family homes (per home)? If the answer is less than or equal to 2.0 spaces, award 1 point 2
1
d. Are the parking requirements set as maximum or median (rather than minimum) requirements?
2
If the answer is YES, award 2 points Yes 7. Parking Codes a. Is the use of shared parking arrangements promoted?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Yes b. Are model shared parking agreements provided?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point No c. Are parking ratios reduced if shared parking arrangements are in place?
0 If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not addressed. d. If mass transit is provided nearby, is the parking ratio reduced? If the answer is YES, award 1 point N/A 8. Parking Lots a. What is the minimum stall width for a standard parking space? If the answer is 9 feet or less, award 1 point Not specified—negotiable
1
b. What is the minimum stall length for a standard parking space? If the answer is 18 feet or less, award 1 point Not specified—negotiable
B-6
1
c. Are at least 30% of the spaces at larger commercial parking lots required to have smaller dimensions for compact cars?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point No d. Can pervious materials be used for spillover parking areas? If the answer is YES, award 2 points Not specifically prohibited.
2
9. Structured Parking a. Are there any incentives to developers to provide parking within garages rather than surface parking lots?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point No 10. Parking Lot Runoff a. Is a minimum percentage of a parking lot required to be landscaped?
2
If the answer is YES, award 2 points Yes b. Is the use of bioretention islands and other stormwater practices within landscaped areas or setbacks allowed? If the answer is YES, award 2 points Not specifically prohibited.
2
11. Open Space Design a. Are open space or cluster development designs allowed in the community? If the answer is YES, award 3 points Yes
3 If the answer is NO, skip to question No. 12 b. Is land conservation or impervious cover reduction a major goal or objective of the open space design ordinance?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Yes c. Are the submittal or review requirements for open space design greater than those for conventional development?
1
If the answer is NO, award 1 point No d. Is open space or cluster design a by-right form of development?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Yes e. Are flexible site design criteria available for developers that utilize open space or cluster design options (e.g, setbacks, road widths, lot sizes)
2
If the answer is YES, award 2 points Yes
B-7
12. Setbacks and Frontages a. Are irregular lot shapes (e.g., pie-shaped, flag lots) allowed in the community?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Yes b. What is the minimum requirement for front setbacks for a one half (½) acre residential lot?
0
If the answer is 20 feet or less, award 1 point 25 feet c. What is the minimum requirement for rear setbacks for a one half (½) acre residential lot?
1
If the answer is 25 feet or less, award 1 point 25 feet d. What is the minimum requirement for side setbacks for a one half (½) acre residential lot?
1
If the answer is 8 feet or less, award 1 points 5 feet e. What is the minimum frontage distance for a one half (½) acre residential lot?
0
If the answer is less than 80 feet, award 2 points 100 feet 13. Sidewalks a. What is the minimum sidewalk width allowed in the community?
0
If the answer is 4 feet or less, award 2 points 5 feet b. Are sidewalks always required on both sides of residential streets?
0
If the answer is NO, award 2 points Yes c. Are sidewalks generally sloped so they drain to the front yard rather than the street?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not specified. d. Can alternate pedestrian networks be substituted for sidewalks (e.g., trails through common areas)? If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not specifically prohibited.
1
14. Driveways a. What is the minimum driveway width specified in the community? If the answer is 9 feet or less (one lane) or 18 feet (two lanes), award 2 points Not specified
2
b. Can pervious materials be used for single family home driveways (e.g., grass, gravel, porous pavers, etc)? If the answer is YES, award 2 points Not specifically prohibited.
2
c. Can a "two track" design be used at single family driveways? If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not specifically prohibited.
B-8
1
d. Are shared driveways permitted in residential developments? If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not specifically prohibited.
1
15. Open Space Management a. Does the community have enforceable requirements to establish associations that can effectively manage open space?
0
If the answer is YES, award 2 points No b. Are open space areas required to be consolidated into larger units?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point No. c. Does a minimum percentage of open space have to be managed in a natural condition?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Yes d. Are allowable and unallowable uses for open space in residential developments defined?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Yes e. Can open space be managed by a third party using land trusts or conservation easements?
1
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Yes 16. Rooftop Runoff a. Can rooftop runoff be discharged to yard areas? If the answer is YES, award 2 points Not specifically prohibited.
2
b. Do current grading or drainage requirements allow for temporary ponding of stormwater on front yards or rooftops? If the answer is YES, award 2 points Not specifically prohibited.
2
17. Buffer Systems a. Is there a stream buffer ordinance in the community?
0
If the answer is YES, award 2 points No. b. If so, what is the minimum buffer width?
0
If the answer is 75 feet or more, award 1 point c. Is expansion of the buffer to include freshwater wetlands, steep slopes or the 100-year floodplain required?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point 18. Buffer Maintenance a. Does the stream buffer ordinance specify that at least part of the stream buffer be maintained with native vegetation?
0
If the answer is YES, award 2 points
B-9
b. Does the stream buffer ordinance outline allowable uses?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point c. Does the ordinance specify enforcement and education mechanisms?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point 19. Clearing and Grading a. Is there any ordinance that requires or encourages the preservation of natural vegetation at residential development sites?
2
If the answer is YES, award 2 points Yes b. Do reserve septic field areas need to be cleared of trees at the time of development? If the answer is NO, award 1 point 20. Tree Conservation a. If forests or specimen trees are present at residential development sites, does some of the stand have to be preserved?
2
If the answer is YES, award 2 points Yes b. Are the limits of disturbance shown on construction plans adequate for preventing clearing of natural vegetative cover during construction?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point Not required. 21. Land Conservation Incentives a. Are there any incentives to developers or landowners to conserve non-regulated land (open space design, density bonuses, stormwater credits or lower property tax rates)?
0
If the answer is YES, award 2 points No b. Is flexibility to meet regulatory or conservation restrictions (density compensation, buffer averaging, transferable development rights, off-site mitigation) offered to developers?
2
If the answer is YES, award 2 points Yes 22. Stormwater Outfalls a. Is stormwater required to be treated for quality before it is discharged?
0
If the answer is YES, award 2 points No b. Are there effective design criteria for stormwater best management practices (BMPs)?
0
If the answer is YES, award 1 point No c. Can stormwater be directly discharged into a jurisdictional wetland without pretreatment?
0
If the answer is NO, award 1 point Yes
B - 10
d. Does a floodplain management ordinance that restricts or prohibits development within the 100 year floodplain exist?
2
If the answer is YES, award 2 points Yes
TOTAL Scoring
90 - 100
Community has above-average provisions that promote the protection of streams, lakes and estuaries.
80 - 89
Local development rules are good, but could use minor adjustments or revisions in some areas.
70 - 79
Opportunities exist to improve development rules. Consider creating a site planning roundtable.
60 - 69
Less than 60
Development rules are likely inadequate to protect local aquatic resources. A site planning roundtable would be very useful. Development rules are definitely not environmentally friendly. Serious reform is needed.
B - 11
54
Appendix C Model Stream Buffer Ordinance
C-1
Wolf Creek Watershed Draft Stream Buffer Ordinance 1.0 BACKGROUND A. Buffers adjacent to stream systems provide numerous environmental protection and resource management benefits that can include the following: 1. Restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the water resources 2. Removing pollutants delivered from urban stormwater 3. Reducing erosion and sediment entering the stream 4. Stabilizing stream banks 5. Providing infiltration of stormwater runoff 6. Maintaining base flow of streams 7. Contributing the organic matter that is a source of food and energy for the aquatic ecosystem 8. Providing tree canopy to shade streams and promote desirable aquatic organisms 9. Providing riparian wildlife habitat 10. Furnishing scenic value and recreational opportunity B. It is the desire of Fayette County to protect and maintain the native vegetation in riparian and wetland areas by implementing specifications for the establishment, protection, and maintenance of vegetation along all stream systems within our jurisdictional authority. 2.0 INTENT A. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish minimal acceptable requirements for the design of buffers to protect the streams, wetlands, and floodplains of the Wolf Creek watershed; to protect the water quality of watercourses, reservoirs, lakes, and other significant water resources within the Wolf Creek watershed; to protect the Wolf Creek watershed’s riparian and aquatic ecosystems; and to provide for the environmentally sound use of the Wolf Creek watershed’s land resources. 3.0 DEFINITIONS Active Channel
The area of the stream channel that is subject to frequent flows (approximately once per one and a half years) and that includes the portion of the channel below the floodplain.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Conservation practices or management measures that control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal wastes, toxics, sediment, and runoff.
1
Buffer
A vegetated area, including trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation, that exists or is established to protect a stream system, lake, reservoir, or coastal estuarine area. Alteration of this natural area is strictly limited.
Development
1) The improvement of property for any purpose involving building 2) Subdivision or the division of a tract or parcel of land into two or more parcels 3) The combination of any two or more lots, tracts, or parcels of property for any purpose 4) The preparation of land for any of the above purposes
Nontidal Wetlands
Those areas not influenced by tidal fluctuations that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Pollution that is generated by various land use activities rather than from an identifiable or discrete source and is conveyed to waterways through natural processes, such as rainfall, stormwater runoff, or groundwater seepage rather than direct discharges.
One Hundred-Year Floodplain
The area of land adjacent to a stream that is subject to inundation during a storm event that has a recurrence interval of 100 years.
Pollution
Any contamination or alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of any waters that will render the waters harmful or detrimental to 1) Public health, safety, or welfare 2) Domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses 3) Livestock, wild animals, or birds 4) Fish or other aquatic life
Sensitive Stream Habitat
Areas in and adjacent to streams that provide wildlife and aquatic habitat, such as wetlands, that may be adversely affected by development or other disturbance. These habitats may also serve to control water temperature and attenuate flood flow.
2
Stream Channel
Part of a watercourse either naturally or artificially created that contains an intermittent or perennial base flow of groundwater origin. Base flows of groundwater origin can be distinguished by any of the following physical indicators: 1) Hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or other hydrologic indicators in the area(s) where groundwater enters the stream channel in the vicinity of the stream headwaters, channel bed, or channel banks 2) Flowing water not directly related to a storm event 3) Historical records of a local high groundwater table, such as well and stream gauge records.
Stream Order
A classification system for streams based on stream hierarchy. The smaller the stream, the lower its numerical classification. For example, a first-order stream does not have tributaries and normally originates from springs and/or seeps. (See Figure 1.)
Stream System
A stream channel together with one or both of the following: • 100-year floodplain • Hydrologically related nontidal wetland
Streams
Perennial and intermittent watercourses identified through site inspection and US Geological Survey (USGS) maps. Perennial streams are those which are depicted on a USGS map with a solid blue line. Intermittent streams are those which are depicted on a USGS map with a dotted blue line.
Water Pollution Hazard
A land use or activity that causes a relatively high risk of potential water pollution.
4.0 APPLICATIONS A. This ordinance shall apply to all proposed development except for that development which meets waiver or variance criteria as outlined in Section 9.0 of this regulation. B. This ordinance shall apply to all timber harvesting activities, except those timber harvesting operations which are implementing a forest management plan that has been deemed to be in compliance with the regulations of the buffer ordinance and has received approval from the Fayette County Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO). C. The ordinance shall not apply to agricultural operations that are covered by an approved Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation plan that includes the application of BMPs. D. Except as provided in Section 9.0, this ordinance shall apply to all parcels of land, structures, and activities that are causing or contributing to: 1. Pollution, including nonpoint source pollution, of the waters of the jurisdiction adopting this 3
ordinance 2. Erosion or sedimentation of stream channels 3. Degradation of aquatic or riparian habitat 5.0 PLAN REQUIREMENTS A. In accordance with Section 4.0 of this ordinance, a plan approved by the appropriate agency is required for all development, forest harvesting operations, and agricultural operations. B. The plan shall set forth an informative, conceptual, and schematic representation of the proposed activity by means of maps, graphs, charts, or other written or drawn documents so as to enable the agency an opportunity to make a reasonably informed decision regarding the proposed activity. C. The plan shall contain the following information: 1. A location or vicinity map 2. Field-delineated and surveyed streams, springs, seeps, bodies of water, and wetlands (include a minimum of 200 feet into adjacent properties) 3. Field delineated and surveyed vegetative buffers 4. Limits of the ultimate 100-year floodplain 5. Hydric soils mapped in accordance with the NRCS soil survey of the site area 6. Steep slopes greater than 15 percent for areas adjacent to and within 200 feet of streams, wetlands, or other waterbodies 7. A narrative of the species and distribution of existing vegetation within the buffer D. The buffer plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the required grading plan for any development, and the vegetative buffer should be clearly delineated on the final grading plan. E. Permanent boundary markers, in the form of signage approved by the Fayette County ZEO, shall be installed prior to final approval of the required clearing and grading plan. Signs shall be placed at the edge of the middle zone (See Section 6.0 - I). 6.0. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR VEGETATIVE BUFFERS A. A vegetative buffer for a stream system shall consist of a vegetated strip of land extending along both sides of a stream and its adjacent wetlands, floodplains, or slopes. The vegetative buffer width shall be adjusted to include contiguous sensitive areas, such as steep slopes or erodible soils, where development or disturbance may adversely affect water quality, streams, wetlands, or other waterbodies. B. The vegetative buffer shall begin at the edge of the stream bank of the active channel. C. The required width for all vegetative buffers (i.e., the base width) shall be a minimum of 100 feet, with the requirement to expand the buffer depending on: 1. Stream order (see Figure 1) 2. Percent slope 4
3. 100-year floodplain 4. Wetlands or critical areas Figure 1. Stream Order (Source: Schueler, 1995)
D. In third-order and higher streams, 25 feet shall be added to the base width of the vegetative buffer. E. The vegetative buffer width shall be modified if steep slopes are within close proximity to the stream and drain into the stream system. In those cases, the vegetative buffer width shall be modified as follows: Type of Stream Use Percent Slope
Water Contact Recreational Use
Sensitive Stream Habitat
0% to 14%
no change
add 50 feet
15% to 25%
add 25 feet
add 75 feet
Greater than 25%
add 50 feet
add 100 feet
F. Vegetative buffers shall be extended to encompass the entire 100-year floodplain and a zone with a minimum width of 25 feet beyond the edge of the floodplain. G. When wetland or critical areas extend beyond the edge of the required buffer width, the buffer shall be adjusted so that the buffer consists of the extent of the wetland plus a 25-foot zone extending beyond the wetland edge. H. Water Pollution Hazards 5
The following land uses and/or activities are designated as potential water pollution hazards and must be set back from any stream or waterbody by the distance indicated below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I.
Storage of hazardous substancesC300 feet Aboveground or underground petroleum storage facilitiesC300 feet Drainfields from onsite sewage disposal and treatment systems (i.e., septic systems)C200 feet Raised septic systemsC500 feet Solid waste landfills or junkyardsC600 feet Confined animal feedlot operationsC500 feet Subsurface discharges from a wastewater treatment plantC200 feet Land application of biosolidsC200 feet Car washes—500 feet
The vegetative buffer shall be composed of three distinct zones, with each zone having its own set of allowable uses and vegetative targets as specified in this ordinance. (See Figure 2.) 1. Zone 1 Streamside Zone a. Protects the physical and ecological integrity of the stream ecosystem. b. Begins at the edge of the stream bank of the active channel and extends a minimum of 25 feet from the top of the bank. c. Allowable uses within this zone are highly restricted to i. ii. iii. iv.
Flood control structures Utility right of ways Footpaths Road crossings, where permitted
d. Target for the streamside zone is undisturbed native vegetation. 2. Zone 2 Middle Zone a. Protects key components of the stream and provides distance between upland development and the streamside zone. b. Begins at the outer edge of the streamside zone and extends a minimum of 50 feet plus any additional buffer width as specified in this section. c. Allowable uses within the middle zone are restricted to i. ii. iii. iv.
Biking or hiking paths. Stormwater management facilities, with the approval of the ZEO. Recreational uses as approved by the ZEO Limited tree clearing with approval from the ZEO.
d. Targets mature native vegetation adapted to the region.
6
3. Zone 3 Outer Zone a. Prevents encroachment into the vegetative buffer and filters runoff from residential and commercial development. b. Begins at the outward edge of the middle zone and provide a minimum width of 25 feet between Zone 2 and the nearest permanent structure. c. Restricts septic systems, permanent structures, or impervious cover, with the exception of paths. d. Encourages the planting of native vegetation to increase the total width of the buffer. Figure 2: Three-Zone Buffer System (Adapted from Welsch, 1991)
7.0. BUFFER MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE A. The vegetative buffer, including wetlands and floodplains, shall be managed to enhance and maximize the unique value of these resources. Management includes specific limitations on alteration of the natural conditions of these resources. The following practices and activities are restricted within Zones 1 and 2 of the vegetative buffer, except with approval the ZEO: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Clearing of existing vegetation. Soil disturbance by grading, stripping, or other practices. Filling or dumping. Drainage by ditching, underdrains, or other systems. Use, storage, or application of pesticides, except for spot spraying of noxious weeds or nonnative species consistent with recommendations of the ZEO. 6. Housing, grazing, or other maintenance of livestock 7. Storage or operation of motorized vehicles, except for maintenance and emergency use approved by the ZEO. 7
B. The following structures, practices, and activities are permitted in the vegetative buffer, with specific design or maintenance features, subject to the review of the ZEO: 1. Roads, bridges, paths, and utilities: a. An analysis needs to be conducted to ensure that no economically feasible alternative is available. b. The right-of-way should be the minimum width needed to allow for maintenance access and installation. c. The angle of the crossing shall be perpendicular to the stream or buffer to minimize clearing requirements d. The minimum number of road crossings should be used within each subdivision, and no more than one fairway crossing is allowed for every 1,000 feet of buffer. 2. Stormwater management: a. An analysis needs to be conducted to ensure that no economically feasible alternative is available and that the project either is necessary for flood control or significantly improves the water quality or habitat in the stream. b. In new developments, onsite and nonstructural alternatives will be preferred over larger facilities within the stream buffer. c. When constructing stormwater management facilities (i.e., BMPs), the area cleared will be limited to the area required for construction and adequate maintenance access as outlined in the most recent edition of the Wolf Creek Watershed Stormwater Management Ordinance and the WVDEP NPDES requirements. d. Material dredged or otherwise removed from a BMP shall be stored outside the buffer. 3. Stream restoration projects, facilities, and activities approved by the ZEO are permitted within the vegetative buffer. 4. Water quality monitoring and stream gauging are permitted within the vegetative buffer, as approved by the ZEO. 5. Individual trees within the vegetative buffer that are in danger of falling, causing damage to dwellings or other structures, or causing blockage of the stream may be removed. 6. Other timber cutting techniques approved by the agency may be undertaken within the vegetative buffer under the advice and guidance of the West Virginia Division of Forestry if necessary to preserve the buffer from extensive pest infestation, disease infestation, or threat from fire.
8
C. All plans prepared for recording and all right-of-way plans shall clearly: 1. Show the extent of any vegetative buffer on the subject property 2. Label the vegetative buffer 3. Provide a note to reference any vegetative buffer stating: AThere shall be no clearing, grading, construction or disturbance of vegetation except as permitted by the agency.@ 4. Provide a note to reference any protective covenants governing all vegetative buffer areas stating: AAny vegetative buffer shown hereon is subject to protective covenants that may be found in the land records and that restrict disturbance and use of these areas.@ D. An offer of dedication of a vegetative buffer area to the agency shall not be interpreted to mean that this automatically conveys to the general public the right of access to this area. E. Vegetative buffer areas may be allowed to grow into their vegetative target state naturally, but methods to enhance the successional process such as active reforestation may be used when deemed necessary by the ZEO, in consultation with the West Virginia Division of Forestry, to ensure the preservation and propagation of the buffer area. Vegetative buffer areas may also be enhanced through reforestation or other growth techniques as a form of mitigation for achieving buffer preservation requirements. 8.0 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES A. The ZEO or his/her designee is authorized and empowered to enforce the requirements of this ordinance in accordance with the procedures of this section. B. If, upon inspection or investigation, the director or his/her designee is of the opinion that any person has violated any provision of this ordinance, he/she shall with reasonable promptness issue a correction notice to the person. Each such notice shall be in writing and shall describe the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision within this ordinance that has been violated. In addition, the notice shall set a reasonable time for the abatement and correction of the violation. C. If it is determined that the violation or violations continue after the time fixed for abatement and correction has expired, the director shall issue a citation by certified mail to the person who is in violation. Each such notice shall be in writing and shall describe the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision within this ordinance that has been violated and what penalty, if any, is proposed to be assessed. The person charged has 30 days within which to contest the citation or proposed assessment of penalty and to file a request for a hearing with the director or his/her designee. At the conclusion of this hearing, the director or his/her designee will issue a final order, subject to appeal to the appropriate authority. If, within 30 days from the receipt of the citation issued by the director, the person fails to contest the citation or proposed assessment of penalty, the citation or proposed assessment of penalty shall be deemed the final order of the director. D. Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance may be liable for any cost or expenses incurred as a result thereof by the agency. E. Penalties may be assessed. 9
F. In addition to any other sanctions listed in this ordinance, a person who fails to comply with the provisions of this buffer ordinance shall be liable to the agency in a civil action for damages in an amount equal to twice the cost of restoring the buffer. Damages that are recovered in accordance with this action shall be used for the restoration of buffer systems or for the administration of programs for the protection and restoration of water quality, streams, wetlands, and floodplains. 9.0 WAIVERS/VARIANCES A. This ordinance shall apply to all proposed development except for activities that were completed prior to the effective date of this ordinance and had received the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.
A valid, unexpired permit in accordance with development regulations A current, executed public works agreement A valid, unexpired building permit A waiver in accordance with current development regulations.
B. The ZEO may grant a variance for the following: 1. Those projects or activities for which it can be demonstrated that strict compliance with the ordinance would result in a practical difficulty or financial hardship. 2. Those projects or activities serving a public need where no feasible alternative is available. 3. The repair and maintenance of public improvements where avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts to nontidal wetlands and associated aquatic ecosystems have been addressed. 4. Those developments which have had buffers applied in conformance with previously issued requirements. C. Waivers for development may also be granted in two additional forms, if deemed appropriate by the director: 1. The buffer width may be reduced at some points as long as the average width of the buffer meets the minimum requirement. This averaging of the buffer may be used to allow for the presence of an existing structure or to recover a lost lot, as long as the streamside zone (Zone 1) is not disturbed by the reduction and no new structures are built within the 100-year floodplain. 2. The Fayette County Planning Commission may offer credit for additional density elsewhere on the site in compensation for the loss of developable land due to the requirements of this ordinance. This compensation may increase the total number of dwelling units on the site up to the amount permitted under the base zoning. D. The applicant shall submit a written request for a variance to the director of the agency. The application shall include specific reasons justifying the variance and any other information necessary to evaluate the proposed variance request. The agency may require an alternative analysis that clearly demonstrates that no other feasible alternatives exist and that minimal impact will occur as a result of the project or development. 10
E. In granting a request for a variance, the director of the agency may require site design, landscape planting, fencing, signs, and water quality best management practices to reduce adverse impacts on water quality, streams, wetlands, and floodplains. 10.0
CONFLICT WITH OTHER REGULATIONS
A. Where the standards and management requirements of this buffer ordinance are in conflict with other laws, regulations, and policies regarding streams, steep slopes, erodible soils, wetlands, floodplains, timber harvesting, land disturbance activities, or other environmental protective measures, the more restrictive shall apply.
11
Appendix D Model Stormwater Management Ordinance
D-1
Wolf Creek Watershed Draft Stormwater Management Ordinance Chapter 1.0 PURPOSE, SCOPE AND AUTHORITY 1.1 PURPOSE A. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be liberally construed to accomplish its remedial purposes, which are: 1. Protect, to the greatest extent practicable, life, property and the environment from loss, injury and damage by pollution, erosion, flooding, landslides, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence, and other potential hazards, whether from natural causes or from human activity; 2. Protect the public interest in drainage and related functions of drainage basins and watercourses; 3. Protect surface waters and receiving waters from pollution, mechanical damage, excessive flows and other conditions in the drainage basin which will increase the rate of downcutting, streambank erosion, and/or the degree of turbidity, siltation and other forms of pollution, or which will reduce their low flows or low levels to levels which degrade the environment, reduce recharging of groundwater, or endanger aquatic and benthic life within these surface waters and receiving waters of the State; 4. Meet the requirements of state and federal law; and 5. Fulfill the responsibilities of the Fayette County Commission as trustee of the environment for future generations. B. It is expressly the purpose of this Ordinance to provide for and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. This Ordinance is not intended to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by its terms. 1.2 SCOPE This Ordinance applies to: A. All grading and drainage and erosion control, whether or not a permit is required; and B. All new development and redevelopment, whether or not a permit is required; and C. All new and existing discharges directly or indirectly to a public drainage control system; and 1
D. All new and existing land uses. 1.3 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS A. The requirements of this Ordinance are minimum requirements. They do not replace, repeal, abrogate, supersede or affect any other more stringent requirements, rules, regulations, covenants, standards, or restrictions. Where this Ordinance imposes requirements that are more protective of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail. B. Approvals and permits granted under this Ordinance are not waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do they indicate compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including rules promulgated under authority of this Ordinance. 1.4 AUTHORITY A. The provisions of this Ordinance are to be administered by the Fayette County Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO). B. All departments, officials, and public employees of Fayette County which are vested with the duty or authority to issue permits or licenses shall issue no permit or license for any use, building, or purpose if the same would be in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance. 1.5 LIABILITY A. Nothing contained in this Ordinance is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of the Fayette County Commission or the ZEO, or their officers, employees or agents for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of responsible parties to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance, or by reason or in consequence of any inspection, notice, order, certificate, permission or approval authorized or issued or done in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this Ordinance, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the Commission or ZEO related in any manner to the enforcement of this Ordinance by its officers, employees or agents. B. The Commission or any employee charged with the enforcement of this Ordinance, acting in good faith and without malice on behalf of the Commission, shall not be personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act required by the Commission, or by reason of any act or omission in the discharge of these duties. Any suit brought against the Commission or other employee because of an act or omission performed in the enforcement of any provisions of this Ordinance, shall be defended by the Commission.
2
Chapter 2.0 STORMWATER, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL 2.1 SCOPE A. All new and existing discharges subject to this Ordinance as set forth in Section 1.2, all land uses and all new development, redevelopment, and grading shall comply with all requirements of this Ordinance unless explicitly exempted by this Ordinance or by the ZEO exercising authority granted under this Ordinance. 2.2 REQUIRMENTS FOR EXISTING DISCHARGES AND LANDUSES A. General: 1. For all existing discharges directly or indirectly to a public drainage control system, responsible parties shall implement and maintain nonstructural best management practices. Nonstructural best management practices shall include, but not be limited to, maintenance and housekeeping practices such as cleaning of catch basins and detention facilities, sweeping of parking lots, storing oil barrels and other contaminant sources out of the rain, covering material stockpiles, and proper use and storage of hazardous materials. 2. If the ZEO determines that discharges from a drainage control facility are causing or contributing to a water quality problem, then the ZEO may require the responsible party to undertake more stringent or additional best management practices. These best management practices may include structural best management practices, or other action necessary to cease causing or contributing to the water quality. Structural best management practices include but shall not be limited to constructed facilities such as detention tanks, wet ponds, oil/water separators, grassed swales, roofing and berming of container storage areas, and revised piping systems. B. Spill Prevention Required: 1. All commercial and industrial responsible parties shall take measures to prevent spills or other accidental introduction of illicit discharges into a public drainage control system. Such measures shall include: a. Establishment and implementation of plans and procedures to prevent spills and other accidental releases of materials that may contaminate stormwater; b. Implementation of procedures for immediate containment and other appropriate action regarding spills and other accidental releases to prevent contamination of stormwater; and c. Provision of necessary containment and response equipment on-site, and training of personnel regarding the procedures and equipment to be used.
3
2. The provisions of this Ordinance may be satisfied by a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in compliance with an NPDES industrial stormwater permit for the site. 3. The responsible parties shall make the plans and procedures required by this Ordinance available to the ZEO when requested. C. Release Reporting Requirements: A responsible party must, at the earliest possible time, but in any case within 24 hours of discovery, report to the ZEO, a spill, release, dumping, or other situation that has contributed or is likely to contribute pollutants to a public drainage control system. This reporting requirement is in addition to, and not instead of, any other reporting requirements under federal, state or local laws. D. Natural Drainage Patterns: Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained. E. Obstruction of Watercourses: Watercourses shall not be obstructed. 2.3 STORMWATER, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS A. When Compliance is Required: 1. New Development: All new development, regardless of type, and regardless of whether or not a permit is required, must comply with the minimum requirements set forth in Subsection C below. 2. Redevelopment: The portion of the site being redeveloped shall at least comply with the minimum requirements set forth in Subsection C below. Compliance is required regardless of the type of redevelopment, and regardless of whether or not a permit is required. 3. Approval of Exceptions Required: Exceptions to the requirements of this Ordinance may not be used on any projects, including those that are below the threshold sizes specified in Subsection B, unless allowed by the Commission or ZEO. Approval shall be obtained prior to initiating land disturbing activities or new development or redevelopment. Approvals must be obtained for exceptions to any and all requirements of this Ordinance, including but not limited to the requirement that natural drainage patterns be maintained and the requirement that watercourses not be obstructed. B. Thresholds for Drainage Control Review: The ZEO may waive the drainage and erosion control permit and document requirements for property owned by public entities, when discharges from the property do not enter the public drainage control system or the public combined sewer system. Whether or not they are required to obtain permits or submit documents, public entities are subject to the substantive requirements of this Ordinance, unless exceptions are granted as set forth in Section 3.1.
4
C. Minimum Requirements for All Projects: All projects must comply with the requirements of this subsection. Projects with more than 10,000 square feet of developmental coverage shall also comply with the requirements of Subsection D below. The ZEO may also require projects with 10,000 square feet or less of developmental coverage to comply with the requirements set forth in Subsection D when necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Ordinance. 1. Control Measures: During new development, redevelopment and land-disturbing activities, best management practices shall be used to accomplish the following: a. Control erosion and the transport of sediment from the site through measures such as mulching, matting, covering, silt fences, sediment traps and catch basins, settling ponds and protective berms; b. Permanently stabilize exposed soils that are not being actively worked, through such methods as the installation of permanent vegetative cover and installation of slope protective materials; and c. Control the introduction of contaminants and pollutants into, and reduce and treat contaminants in drainage water, drainage control facilities, surface water and groundwater, and the public drainage control system by methods such as covering of material stockpiles; proper disposal of hazardous materials; regular cleaning of catch basins, gravel truck loading and heavy equipment areas; spill control for fueling operations; sweeping; and maintaining erosion control protective features described above. 2. Identification of Drainage Control: For those projects that are less than 10,000 square feet, the applicant shall submit a memorandum of drainage. Projects exceeding 10,000 square feet must submit a comprehensive drainage control plan as set forth in Subsection D below. The ZEO may impose additional requirements for projects under 10,000 square feet, including a comprehensive drainage control plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer, when the project has complex or unusual drainage, or when additional requirements are otherwise necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Ordinance. 3. Memorandum of Drainage Control: The owner(s) of the site shall prepare a "memorandum of drainage control". Completion of the memorandum shall be a condition precedent to issuance of any permit that is required. The memorandum shall not be required when the drainage control facility will be owned and operated by the Commission. A memorandum of drainage control shall include: a. The legal description of the site;
5
b. A written narrative of the physical site characteristics or a site sketch. Any known limitations of the drainage control facilities must be identified and an agreement by the owner(s) to implement the identified drainage control facilities; c. An agreement that the owner(s) shall inform future purchasers and other successors and assignees of the existence of the drainage control facilities, the limitations of the drainage control facilities, and of the requirements for continued inspection and maintenance of the drainage control facilities; d. Permission for the ZEO to enter the property for inspection, monitoring, correction, and abatement purposes; e. An acknowledgment by the owner(s) that the ZEO is not responsible for the adequacy or performance of the drainage control facilities, and a waiver of any and all claims against the ZEO for any harm, loss, or damage related to the facilities, or to drainage or erosion on the property, except for claims arising from the ZEO’s sole negligence; and f.
The owner(s) signatures acknowledged by a notary public.
4. Flood-Prone Areas: Sites within flood prone areas must employ measures to minimize the potential for flooding on the site and for the project to increase the risk of floods on adjacent or nearby properties. 5. Natural Drainage Patterns: Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained. 6. Obstruction of Watercourses: Watercourses shall not be obstructed. D. Additional Requirements for Large Projects: All projects exceeding 10,000 square feet of developmental coverage and those small projects identified by the ZEO according to Subsection C above must comply with the requirements set forth in this subsection. These requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth in Subsection C above. When the ZEO develops rules prescribing best management practices for particular purposes, whether or not those rules are adopted by ordinance, BMPs prescribed in the rules shall be the BMPs required for compliance with this Subsection. Best management practices shall include, but not be limited to: maintenance and housekeeping practices such as proper storage of oil barrels and other contaminant sources, covering material stockpiles, proper use and storage of hazardous materials, as well as constructed facilities such as detention tanks, wet ponds, extended detention dry ponds, infiltration, vegetated streambank stabilization, structural stabilization, catch basins, oil/water separators, grassed swales, and constructed wetlands.
6
1. Discharge Point: The criteria used to select the discharge point shall include, but not be limited to, preservation of natural drainage patterns and whether the capacity of the drainage control system is adequate for the additional volume. For those projects meeting the review threshold, the proposed discharge point shall be identified in the drainage control plan, for review and approval or disapproval by the ZEO. 2. Discharge Rate: To the extent practical, the peak drainage water discharge rate from pervious and impervious surfaces on the site shall not exceed the existing discharge rate for the 2, 10, and 100-year 24-hour design storm events using the most appropriate method determined by the design engineer and accepted by the ZEO. Where laws or regulations of the federal government or the State of West Virginia impose a more stringent requirement, the more stringent requirement shall apply. 3. Control the sources of sediment and other contaminants and pollutants that could enter drainage water, including the selection, design and maintenance of temporary and permanent best management practices. 4. Minimize streambank erosion and effects on water quality in streams, including the selection, design and maintenance of temporary and permanent best management practices, where stormwater is discharged directly to a stream or to a conveyance system that discharges to a stream. 5. Minimize the introduction of sediment, heat and other pollutants and contaminants into wetlands, including the selection, design and maintenance of temporary and permanent best management practices, where stormwater discharges directly to a wetland or to a conveyance system that discharges into a wetland. 6. Analyze impacts to off-site water quality resulting from the project. The analysis shall comply with this Subsection and rules promulgated pursuant to this Subsection. The analysis shall provide for mitigation of all surface water quality or sediment quality impacts. The impacts to be evaluated and mitigated shall include at least the following: a. Amount of sedimentation; b. Streambank erosion; c. Discharges to groundwater contributing to recharge zones; d. Violations of state or federal surface water, groundwater, or sediment quality standards; and e. Spills and other accidental illicit discharges;
7
7. A schedule shall be provided for inspection and maintenance of proposed temporary and permanent drainage control facilities and other best management practices. The schedule shall meet the requirements of this Ordinance and rules promulgated under this Ordinance. 8. In addition to the requirements described above, for land-disturbing activities and demolition of structures, an erosion/sediment control plan designed to comply with the requirements and purposes of this Ordinance and rules promulgated hereunder shall be submitted and implemented. The erosion/sediment control plan shall be designed to accomplish the following: a. Stabilization of exposed soils and sediment trapping; b. Delineation of limits on clearing and easements; c. Protection of adjacent property; d. Appropriate timing and stabilization of sediment trapping measures; e. Minimization of erosion on cut-and-fill slopes; f.
Control of off-site erosion;
g. Stabilization of temporary conveyance channels and outlets; h. Protection of storm drain inlets; i.
Minimization of transport of sediment by construction vehicles;
j.
Appropriate timing for removal of temporary best management practices;
k. Control of discharges from construction site dewatering devices to minimize contamination of drainage water; and l.
Inspection and maintenance of best management practices for erosion/sediment control to insure functioning at design capacity.
9. Comprehensive Drainage Control Plan: A comprehensive drainage control plan to comply with the requirements of this Ordinance and rules promulgated hereunder and to accomplish the purposes of this Ordinance shall be submitted with the permit application. It shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer in accordance with standards adopted by the ZEO.
8
E. Basin Plans: The ZEO may determine that, for a particular project, compliance with a drainage basin plan satisfies Subsections D1 through D4 above. The basin plan must have been adopted by rule or ordinance and must provide a level of protection for surface water and groundwater that equals or exceeds that which would otherwise be achieved.
9
CHAPTER 3.0
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
3.1 EXCEPTIONS TO REQUIREMENTS A. General: Requests for exceptions to the requirements of this Ordinance shall be made according to this Section. Exceptions shall include alternative requirements, waivers, reductions, or modifications of the requirements. An exception shall only be granted to the extent necessary to meet the criteria set forth in this Section. An applicant is not entitled to an exception, whether or not the criteria allowing approval of an exception are met. The ZEO may require an applicant to submit a licensed professional engineer’s report or analysis with a request for an exception. When an exception is granted, the ZEO may impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate harm that may be caused by granting the exception, or that would have been prevented if the exception had not been granted. B. Equally Protective Exceptions: The ZEO may approve a request for an exception if the ZEO determines that it is likely to be equally protective of public health, safety and welfare, the environment, and public and private property as the requirement from which an exception is sought. C. Other Exceptions: The ZEO may approve a requested exception even if it is not equally protective of public health, safety and welfare, the environment, and public and private property, or if the ZEO cannot determine whether it is equally protective, if the ZEO determines that substantial reasons exist for approving the requested exception. Substantial reasons may include, but are not limited to: 1. The requirement is not technically feasible; 2. An emergency situation necessitates approval of the exception; 3. No reasonable use of the property is possible unless the exception is approved; 4. The requirement would cause harm or a significant threat of harm to public health, safety and welfare, the environment, or public and private property, or would cause extreme financial hardship, which outweighs its benefits, and the requested exception would not cause significant harm. 3.2 LIABILITY AND DEFENSES OF RESPONSIBLE PARTIES A. Who Must Comply: It is the specific intent of this Ordinance to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon the responsible parties. B. Joint and Several Liability: Each responsible party is jointly and severally liable for a violation of this Ordinance. The Fayette County Commission or the ZEO or both of them may take enforcement action, in whole or in part, against any responsible party. All applicable civil penalties may be imposed against each responsible party. In the event
10
enforcement action is taken against more than one responsible party, recoverable damages, costs, and expenses may be allocated among the responsible parties by the court. C. Defenses: A responsible party shall not be liable under this Ordinance when the responsible party carries the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, one of the following defenses: 1. The violation was caused solely by an act of God; 2. The violation was caused solely by another responsible party over whom the defending responsible party had no authority or control and the defending responsible party could not have reasonably prevented the violation; 3. The violation was caused solely by a prior owner or occupant when the defending responsible party took possession of the property without knowledge of the violation, after using reasonable efforts to identify violations. However, the defending responsible party shall be liable for all continuing, recurrent, or new violations after becoming the owner or occupant. 4. The responsible party implemented and maintained all appropriate best management practices. 3.3 RIGHT OF ENTRY With the consent of the owner or occupier of a building or premises, or pursuant to a lawfullyissued warrant, the ZEO may enter a building or premises at any reasonable time to perform the duties imposed by this code. 3.4 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS A. Investigation: The ZEO may investigate any site where there is reason to believe that there may be a failure to comply with the requirements of this Ordinance. B. Notice of Violation 1. Issuance: Whenever the ZEO determines that a violation of this Ordinance has occurred or is occurring, the ZEO is authorized to issue a Notice of Violation to the property owner or other responsible party. 2. Contents: a. The Notice of Violation shall include the following information: i.
A description of the violation and the action necessary to correct it;
11
ii. The date of the notice; and iii. A deadline by which the action necessary to correct the violation must be completed. b. A Notice of Violation may be amended at any time to correct clerical errors and to add citations of authority. 3. Service: The ZEO shall serve the notice upon the responsible party either by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, sent to the party(s) last known address and, where possible, by posting a copy on the site. Service by certified mail shall be effective on the date of mailing. C. Alternatives to Notice of Violation. 1. Stop Work Order: a. In lieu of issuing a Notice of Violation, the ZEO may order work on a site stopped when he or she determines it is necessary to do so in order to obtain compliance with or to correct a violation of any provision of this Ordinance or rules promulgated hereunder or to correct a violation of a permit or approval granted under this Ordinance. The stop work notice shall contain the following information: i.
A description of the violation; and
ii. An order that the work be stopped until corrective action has been completed and approved by the ZEO. b. The stop work order shall be posted conspicuously on the premises or personally served on the property owner or other person known to be responsible for the work. It is unlawful for any work to be done after posting or service of a stop work order, except work necessary to conduct the required corrective action, until authorization to proceed is given by the ZEO. It is unlawful for any person to remove, obscure or mutilate a posted stop work order. 2. Emergencies: a. The ZEO is authorized to enter any property when it reasonably appears that a condition associated with grading, drainage, erosion control or a drainage control facility creates a substantial and present or imminent danger to the public health, safety or welfare, the environment, or public or private property. The ZEO may enter property without permission or an administrative warrant in the case of an extreme emergency placing human life, property or the environment in immediate and substantial jeopardy that requires corrective action before either permission or an administrative warrant can be obtained.
12
b. The ZEO may order the responsible party to take corrective action and set a schedule for compliance and may require immediate compliance with an order to correct. 3. 5 SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be separate and severable and the invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, Section or portion of this Ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
13
