DOCSLIB.ORG

Katonah Business Sewer District Map, Plan and Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Katonah Business Sewer District Map, Plan and Report Town of Bedford BEDFORD HILLS - KATONAH BUSINESS SEWER DISTRICT MAP, PLAN AND REPORT DRAFT September 2016 BEDFORD HILLS - KATONAH BUSINESS SEWER DISTRICT MAP, PLAN AND REPORT BEDFORD HILLS - KATONAH BUSINESS SEWER DISTRICT MAP, PLAN AND REPORT Bedford, New York Carolyn A. Lowe, PE Prepared for: Vice President Town of Bedford Bedford Town House 32 Bedford Road Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Prepared by: Arcadis U.S., Inc. 44 South Broadway 15th Floor White Plains New York 10601 Tel 914 694 2100 Fax 914 694 9286 Our Ref.: 04711007.0000 Date: September 2016 This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. arcadis.com G:\WHI_ENG\Projects\04711007.0000\Draft Map Plan Report 2016\Bedford Sewer District Map Plan and Report 09 29 16 Revised Draftv2.docx i BEDFORD HILLS - KATONAH BUSINESS SEWER DISTRICT MAP, PLAN AND REPORT CONTENTS 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Existing Underground Utility Lines ............................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Existing Water and Wastewater Systems .................................................................................... 1-3 2 Proposed Sewer District Boundaries ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Sewer District Boundaries ........................................................................................... 2-1 3 Proposed Sewerage Facilities ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 General ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Estimated Wastewater Flows ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 First Year of Operation ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Future Flow Allocation ...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Proposed Collection System ........................................................................................................ 3-3 3.4 Existing Wastewater Treatment System ...................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.1 Recommended Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements .......................................... 3-5 3.4.1.1 Existing Facility Improvements ............................................................................... 3-6 3.4.1.2 Future Process Improvements ............................................................................... 3-6 3.4.2 Decommissioning of Upgrade Sites ................................................................................. 3-7 4 Cost Information ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 General ........................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Construction Costs ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Project Costs ................................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs .............................................................................................. 4-4 4.4.1 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) ...................................... 4-6 5 Financing .............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Capital Costs ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 O&M Costs ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Typical Customer Cost – First Year of Full Operation ................................................................. 5-1 arcadis.com G:\WHI_ENG\Projects\04711007.0000\Draft Map Plan Report 2016\Bedford Sewer District Map Plan and Report 09 29 16 Revised Draftv2.docx ii BEDFORD HILLS - KATONAH BUSINESS SEWER DISTRICT MAP, PLAN AND REPORT TABLES Table 1-1. Existing Facility State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits ................................... 1-4 Table 3-1. Total Daily Average Recorded Water Usage and Estimated Wastewater Flow ....................... 3-2 Table 3-2. Allocated, Reserve and Remaining Capacities ......................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-3. Preliminary Design Data for Proposed Wastewater Pumping Stations .................................... 3-4 Table 4-1. Collection System Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ....................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2. Opinion of Probable Project Cost .............................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-3. Collection System Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost ................................................... 4-5 Table 4-4. WWTP Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost ..................................................................... 4-5 Table 5-1. Anticipated First Year Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs (FY2019) .......................... 5-1 Table 5-2. Summary Allocation of First Year O&M Costs (FY2019) .......................................................... 5-2 Table 5-3. Projected First Year Cost to Each Property Owner (FY2019 Estimate) ................................... 5-3 FIGURES Figure 3-1. Proposed Sewer District Figure 4-1. Proposed Collection System Figure 4-2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Plan Figure 4-3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram APPENDICES Appendix A – Hamlets of Bedford Hills and Katonah Previous Studies on Wastewater Disposal Issues Appendix B - Bedford Hills Correctional Facility DOCCS Operating Agreement with Veolia Appendix C - Bedford Hills Correctional Facility SPDES Permit NY0101885 (Modified 02/04/2016) Appendix D – Bedford Hills Correctional Facility WWTP Description of Unit Processes Appendix E – Bedford Hills Correctional Facility WWTP Control Building Evaluation Appendix F - Bedford Hills NY WWTP - Review of Temperature and Ammonia Data for Future NY SPDES Limits Appendix G - Guidelines for Abandoning Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems Appendix H – Northern Westchester Watershed Committee Resolution Appendix I – Draft Term Sheets arcadis.com G:\WHI_ENG\Projects\04711007.0000\Draft Map Plan Report 2016\Bedford Sewer District Map Plan and Report 09 29 16 Revised Draftv2.docx iii BEDFORD HILLS - KATONAH BUSINESS SEWER DISTRICT MAP, PLAN AND REPORT 1 INTRODUCTION The Town of Bedford is proposing the creation of a sewer district comprised principally of the business districts (the CB Central Business zoning district) in the hamlets of Bedford Hills and Katonah. Presently wastewaters in these districts are treated by septic systems and cesspools, many of which are beyond their useful life. Under an agreement in the late 1990s with Northern Westchester municipalities, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) established and funded a Water Quality Improvement Program (WQIP) to help finance the cost of wastewater treatment facilities, such as a sewer system. DEP also established a program (Upgrade Program) to upgrade nearby wastewater treatment facilities at Bedford Park Apartments in Bedford Hills (BPA), Katonah Elementary School (KES) and property of St. Mary of the Assumption Church in Katonah (St. Mary’s) (collectively termed the Upgrade Sites). The business districts lie within the Croton Watershed system of New York City’s water supply and are close to the Cross River Reservoir. This focus area has been identified as a Priority Project by the Northern Westchester Watershed Committee (NWWC), who have committed to expend East of Hudson WQIP funds for the creation of this sewer district. In addition to concern regarding treatment of wastewater from these areas, property owners within the proposed district have expressed concern about the vitality of their businesses, given the restrictions and in many instances inability to change or expand uses, such as from a “dry use” to a restaurant. The DEP has stated that change or expansion of use may be possible should a sewer system to be created to serve these areas. It should be noted, however, that the Town’s Zoning Code and sewer system capacity, among other constraints, limit growth. The Westchester County Department of Health issues permits for the construction of new septic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coastal Assessment Form Addendum
    X NY Department of State, U.S. Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management The LWRP Update includes projects to improve water quality in Croton Bay. X X The LWRP Update proposes improvements to several Village parks and a Village-wide parks maintenance and improvement plan. Note: This section is designed for site-specific actions rather than area-wide or generic proposals. The answers to the questions reflect the fact the LWRP Update would apply to all actions wtihin the Village's coastal area, and that the Update proposes several implementation projects. These projects, if undertaken, would be subject to individual consistency review. X X Croton‐on‐Hudson Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Update VILLAGE OF CROTON‐ON‐HUDSON, NEW YORK COASTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ADDENDUM Lead Agency Village of Croton‐on‐Hudson Board of Trustees Stanley H. Kellerhouse Municipal Building 1 Van Wyck Street Croton‐on‐Hudson, NY 10520 Contact: Leo A. W. Wiegman, Mayor (914)‐271‐4848 Prepared by BFJ Planning 115 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Contact: Susan Favate, AICP, Principal (212) 353‐7458 Croton-on-Hudson LWRP Update CAF July 31, 2015 Croton-on-Hudson LWRP Update CAF July 31, 2015 1.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the proposed action discussed in this Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) is the adoption of an update to the 1992 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) of the Village of Croton‐on‐Hudson. In considering adoption of the LWRP Update, the Village of Croton‐on‐Hudson Board of Trustees (BOT) are proposing to modify certain existing policies to reflect changed conditions and priorities since the 1992 LWRP, and to propose specific projects to implement those policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Macroinvertebrate Distribution in Relation to Land Use and Water Chemistry in New York City Drinking-Water-Supply Watersheds
    J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2006, 25(4):954–976 Ó 2006 by The North American Benthological Society Macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to land use and water chemistry in New York City drinking-water-supply watersheds Erika B. Kratzer1, John K. Jackson2, David B. Arscott3, Anthony K. Aufdenkampe4, Charles L. Dow5, L. A. Kaplan6, 7 6 J. D. Newbold , AND Bernard W. Sweeney Stroud Water Research Center, 970 Spencer Road, Avondale, Pennsylvania 19311 USA Abstract. Macroinvertebrate communities were examined in conjunction with landuse and water- chemistry variables at 60 sites in the NYC drinking-water-supply watersheds over a 3-y period. The watersheds are in 2 adjacent regions of New York State (east of Hudson River [EOH] and west of Hudson River [WOH]) that are geographically distinct and have unique macroinvertebrate communities. Nonforested land use at EOH sites was mostly urban (4–57%), whereas land use at sites in the rural WOH region was more agricultural (up to 26%) and forested (60–97%). Land use accounted for 47% of among-site variability in macroinvertebrate communities in the EOH region and was largely independent of geological effects. Land use accounted for 40% of among-site variability in macroinvertebrate communities in the WOH region but was correlated with underlying geology. Comparisons among 3 landuse scales emphasized the importance of watershed- and riparian-scale land use to macroinvertebrate communities in both regions. Multivariate and bivariate taxa–environment relationships in the EOH and WOH regions identified specific landuse and water-chemistry gradients and, in general, showed a continuum in conditions across the watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Croton-To-Highlands Biodiversity Plan
    $8.00 Croton-to-Highlands Biodiversity Plan Balancing Development and the Environment in the Hudson River Estuary Catchment Metropolitan Conservation Alliance a program of MCA Technical Paper Series: No. 7 Croton-to-Highlands Biodiversity Plan Balancing Development and the Environment in the Hudson River Estuary Catchment by Nicholas A. Miller, M.S. and Michael W. Klemens, Ph.D. Metropolitan Conservation Alliance Wildlife Conservation Society Bronx, NY Cover photograph: Hunter Brook, Yorktown, NY. ©WCS/MCA, Kevin J. Ryan Suggested citation: Miller, N. A. and M. W. Klemens. 2004. Croton-to-Highlands Biodiversity Plan: Balancing development and the environment in the Hudson River Estuary Catchment. MCA Technical Paper No. 7, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York. Additional copies of this document can be obtained from: Metropolitan Conservation Alliance Wildlife Conservation Society 68 Purchase Street, 3rd Floor Rye, New York 10580 (914) 925-9175 [email protected] ISBN 0-9724810-2-8 ISSN 1542-8133 Printed on partially recycled paper ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without the enthusiastic collaboration and support of our key partners: the towns of Cortlandt, New Castle, Putnam Valley, and Yorktown. These communities have helped to guide this project and have contributed to its success through active engagement at meetings and planning charettes, on-going outreach to their citizenry, and contribution of seed monies. We extend thanks to all of our partners within these four communities (including many elected and appointed officials, town staff, volunteer board members, and concerned citizens) who have moved this project forward and who continue to make conservation of biodiversity a priority within their towns.
    [Show full text]
  • How New York City Used an Ecosystem Services Strategy
    How New York City Used an Ecosystem Services Strategy Carried out Through an Urban-Rural Partnership to Preserve the Pristine Quality of Its Drinking Water and Save Billions of Dollars and What Lessons It Teaches about Using Ecosystem Services by Albert F. Appleton November 2002 New York City This paper was previously presented at The Katoomba Conference / Tokyo, November 2002 Introduction The New York City Water system serves nine million people, eight million in New York City and one million in the suburbs north of the City. It provides these customers with 1.2 billion gallons of water a day, delivered to 600, 000 residential and 200,000 commercial building in the City, and close to two dozen local water systems in New York’s northern suburbs. New York City is a surface water system that gathers its water from three watersheds located well north of the City. These watersheds cover an area of 2,000 square miles (830,000 hectares), nearly the size of the state of Delaware. The City's Croton River watershed, which was created in the 1830s and expanded in the 1880s, is located 15 to 25 miles (25 to 40 kilometers) north of the City and east of the Hudson River in Westchester and Putnam counties. This area was originally rural, but since World War II it has become (or is now becoming) largely suburban. The Croton supplies 10% of the City's water supply. The City's main watershed is now the Catskill-Delaware watershed system west of the Hudson River. It encompasses most of the Catskill Mountains, a rural area of farms, forests, small towns and a growing number of vacation home developments.
    [Show full text]
  • Relating Major Ions and Nutrients to Watershed Conditions Across a Mixed-Use, Water-Supply Watershed
    J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2006, 25(4):887–911 Ó 2006 by The North American Benthological Society Relating major ions and nutrients to watershed conditions across a mixed-use, water-supply watershed 1 2 3 Charles L. Dow , David B. Arscott , AND J. Denis Newbold Stroud Water Research Center, 970 Spencer Road, Avondale, Pennsylvania 19311 USA Abstract. Stream inorganic chemistry was sampled under summer baseflow conditions from 2000 to 2002 at 60 sites as part of a large-scale, enhanced water-quality monitoring project (the Project) across New York City’s drinking-water-supply watersheds. The 60 stream sites were evenly divided between regions east and west of the Hudson River (EOH and WOH, respectively). EOH sites had generally higher ionic concentrations than WOH sites, reflecting differences in land use and geology. Within each region, variability in inorganic chemistry data between sites was far greater than annual variability within sites. Geology was an important factor controlling underlying baseflow chemistry differences within and between regions. However, after taking into account geological controls, anthropogenic land uses primarily defined ion and nutrient baseflow chemistry patterns at regional and watershed levels. In general, watershed-scale landscape attributes had either the strongest relationships with analytes or had relationships with analytes that did not differ fundamentally from relationships of riparian- or reach- scale landscape attributes. Individual analyses indicated no dominant watershed-scale landscape attribute that could be used to predict instream inorganic chemistry concentrations, and no single ion or nutrient was identified as the best indicator of a given anthropogenic land use. Our results provide a comprehensive baseline of information for future water-quality assessments in the region and will aid in examining other components of the Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations on the Administration and Use of Mayo's
    Recommendations on the Administration and Use of Mayo’s Landing A Report Prepared for the The Board of Trustees of The Village of Croton-on-Hudson By The Croton River Watershed Compact Committee April 2007 Members of the Croton River Watershed Compact Committee Joel E. Gingold, Chairman Nancy & Paul Kennedy Elizabeth & Richard Maurer Ronald Sanchez Kenneth Sergeant Frederick Turner Charles Kane, Village Board Liaison 2 1. Introduction Mayo’s Landing is a parcel of land owned by the Village of Croton-on-Hudson on Nordica Drive along the Croton River. The property currently has no specific designation, although we believe at least a portion of it is included in the Croton Point Park Critical Environmental Area designated by Westchester County in 1990. Mayo’s Landing is one of the few public access points to the Croton River within the Village and has been used for many years for river access for fishing, swimming, boating and similar recreational activities. Until recently, there had been relatively few problems caused by those using the river. However, during the past several years, use of Mayo’s Landing has increased dramatically with many of those using the parcel for Croton River access coming not only from outside of the Village, but from outside of the area. The large crowds visiting Mayo’s Landing have overstressed the capacity of the site to accommodate them and have created a variety of significant problems for local residents including: • Trespassing on private property • Destruction of vegetation and consequent erosion of Mayo’s Landing • Vandalism • Excessive alcohol consumption • Loud noise • Littering • Open fires Those responsible for these offenses have accessed the River not only from Mayo’s Landing, but also from the New York State Unique Area along the Croton Aqueduct on the opposite side of the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Tidal Marsh Development in Anthropogenic Backwaters
    Received: 18 March 2020 Revised: 23 November 2020 Accepted: 25 November 2020 DOI: 10.1002/esp.5045 RESEARCH ARTICLE Rapid tidal marsh development in anthropogenic backwaters Brian Yellen1 | Jonathan Woodruff1 | Caroline Ladlow1 | David K. Ralston2 | Sarah Fernald3 | Waverly Lau1 1University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA Abstract 2Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Tidal marsh restoration and creation is growing in popularity due to the many and Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA diverse sets of services these important ecosystems provide. However, it is unclear 3New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River what conditions within constructed settings will lead to the successful establishment National Estuarine Research Reserve, of tidal marsh. Here we provide documentation for widespread and rapid develop- Staatsburg, New York, USA ment of tidal freshwater wetlands for a major urban estuary as an unintended result Correspondence of early industrial development. Anthropogenic backwater areas established behind Brian Yellen, University of Massachusetts, 233 Morrill Science Center, 611 North railroad berms, jetties, and dredge spoil islands resulted in the rapid accumulation of Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01003, USA. clastic material and the subsequent initiation of emergent marshes. In one case, his- Email: [email protected] torical aerial photos document this transition occurring in less than 18 years, offering Funding information a timeframe for marsh development. Accretion rates for anthropogenic tidal marshes Hudson River Foundation; National Estuarine – – −1 Research Reserve System, Grant/Award and mudflats average 0.8 1.1 and 0.6 0.7 cm year , respectively, equivalent to two Number: NAI4NOS4190145; U.S. Geological to three times the rate of relative sea level rise as well as the observed accretion rate Survey at a 6000+ year-old reference marsh in the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
    Village of Croton-on-Hudson Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Draft July 2015 Prepared for Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York Prepared by: LWRP Advisory Committee with assistance from BFJ Planning DRAFT DRAFT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Village of Croton-on-Hudson Board of Trustees Leo Wiegman, Mayor Ann Gallelli, Deputy Mayor Andrew Levitt Brian Pugh Maria Slippen LWRP Advisory Committee Leo Wiegman, Mayor Ann Gallelli, Deputy Mayor, Waterfront Advisory Committee, Planning Board Liason Janine King, Acting Village Manager Daniel O’Connor, Village Engineer Charles Kane, Waterfront Advisory Committee Ronnie Rose, Planning Board Secretary BFJ Planning Frank Fish, FAICP, Principal Susan Favate, AICP, PP, Principal Noah Levine, AICP, Associate DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM Draft July 2015 Prepared for Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York Prepared by: LWRP Advisory Committee With assistance from: BFJ Planning 115 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 DRAFT DRAFT Contents SECTION I: BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ 4 SECTION II: INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 8 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 9 Existing Land and Water Uses.......................................................................................... 14 Zoning Districts ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Monitoring Report, DWQC 2003
    New York City Department of Environmental Protection Integrated Monitoring Report Prepared by the Division of Drinking Water Quality Control October 2003 Michael A. Principe, Ph.D. Deputy Commissioner Bureau of Water Supply Table of Contents List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures........................................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgements................................................................................................................ ix Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... xi 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Scope of this Document ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background on Water Quality Monitoring Network Design................................. 1 1.3 Framework for an Integrated Monitoring Network ............................................... 3 2. Hydrology Monitoring Program ........................................................................................ 9 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Hydrology Program Objectives .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Hydrilla Survey
    Hudson River Hydrilla Survey 2015 Hydrilla Monitoring in the Croton River (NY) and Nearby Waters (Hudson River) Report Prepared For: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control 580 Rockport Rd. Hackettstown, NJ 07840 Commission and the New York State Phone: 908-850-8690 Department of Environmental Conservation Fax: 908-850-4994 NEI Job Code: 0100-143-005 www.alliedbiological.com Project Code: 2015-020 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Procedures .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Submersed Aquatic Macrophyte Summary .................................................................................................. 7 Submersed Aquatic Plant Abundance and Distribution Discussion by Location ........................................ 21 Summary of Aquatic Plant Species Collected ............................................................................................. 52 Future Hydrilla Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 53 Croton River/Bay Hydrilla Tuber Monitoring .............................................................................................. 54 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Payments for Environmental Services in the Catskills: a Socio-Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Strategy In
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237455844 Payments for Environmental Services in the Catskills: A socio-economic analysis of the agricultural strategy in... Article CITATIONS READS 15 26 1 author: S. Ryan Isakson University of Toronto 13 PUBLICATIONS 263 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by S. Ryan Isakson on 17 November 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. PAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IN THE CATSKILLS: A Socio-Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Strategy in New York City’s Watershed Management Plan Prepared for the PRISMA-Ford Foundation Project on Payments for Environmental Services in the Americas Ryan S. Isakson Department of Economics University of Massachusetts, Amherst October 27, 2001 CONTENTS Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………….1 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………2 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….6 Key Concepts……………………………………………………………………………9 1. Case Setting…………………………………………………………………………………11 Expanding the Water Supply……………………………………………………………12 Land Acquisitions and Legal Institutions: A History of Animosity…………………….16 A New Crisis: Water Quality……………………………………………………………17 Description of New York City’s Water Delivery System……………………………….19 Agriculture and Poverty in the Catskills…………………………………………21
    [Show full text]
  • Significant Habitats in the Town of Pound Ridge, Westchester County, New York
    SIGNIFICANT HABITATS IN THE TOWN OF POUND RIDGE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK C. Graham © 2012 Report to the Town of Pound Ridge, the Hudson River Estuary Program, and the Westchester Community Foundation By Christopher Graham, Elise Heffernan, and Gretchen Stevens August 2018 Hudsonia Ltd. P.O. Box 5000 Annandale, NY 12504 SIGNIFICANT HABITATS IN THE TOWN OF POUND RIDGE CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION Background ........................................................................................................ 4 What is Biodiversity? ........................................................................................ 6 What are Ecologically Significant Habitats? ..................................................... 6 Study Area ......................................................................................................... 7 METHODS Gathering Information & Predicting Habitats ................................................. 11 Preliminary Habitat Mapping & Field Verification ........................................ 13 Defining Habitat Types ................................................................................... 14 Final Mapping & Presentation of Data ............................................................ 14 RESULTS Overview ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]