Dr. Ralph McGill, Mayor Jeff Elliott, Alderman Mary Dorothy LaMarche, Vice-Mayor Ron Honken, Alderman David Smoak, Town Administrator Robert N. Markli, Alderman Allison M. Myers, Town Recorder
September 27,2011
TDEC Knoxville EFO 3711 Middlebrook Pk Knoxville, TN 37921
Town of Farragut, TN - NPDES Annual Report
This annual report covers the dates of July 1, 2010 through June 20, 2011 and has been completed on the new annual report form released in conjunction with the release of the 2010 Municipal Stormwater Permit. Coverage under the new permit became effective on May 20, 2011 as noted on the NPDES General Permit for Discharges From Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), Tracking No. TNS075299 hence some components of the annual report will have several noted N/As that will be completed upon submittal of the 2011-2012 annual report. Any questions regarding this annual report should be directed to Jason R. Scott, Stormwater Coordinator at [email protected] or 865.966.7057. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason R. Scott Stormwater Coordinator Town of Farragut, TN 11408 Municipal Center Dr. Farragut, TN 37934 (865 )966-7057
11408 MUNICIPAL CENTER DRIVE' FARRAGUT, TENNESSEE 37934· TELEPHONE 865-966-7057 ' FAX 865-675-2096' www.townoffarragut.org Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control Enforcement and Compliance Section L&C Annex, 6th Floor, 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243 (615) 532-0625
Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Annual Report 1. MS4 INFORMATION Town of Farragut, Tennessee Name ofMS4
Jason R. Scott Name of Contact Person
865.966.7057 Telephone (including area code)
11408 Municipal Center Dr Mailing Address
Farragut TN 37934 City State ZIP code
What is the current population of your MS4? 20,689 (US Census Bureau, Population Finder)
What is the reporting period for this annual report? From July 1 2010 to July 1 2011
2. PROTECTION OF STATE OR FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES A. Are any of the MS4 discharges or discharge-related activities likely to jeopardize I:8J Yes DNo any state or federally listed species (Part 3, Special Conditions, General Permit for Phase II MS4s)
B. Please attach the determination of the effect of the MS4 discharges on state or federally listed species per sub ~ part 3.2.1 3. WATER QUALITY PRIORITIES A. Does your MS4 discharge to waters listed as impaired on the state 303(d) list? I:8J Yes DNo
B. Ifyes, identify each impaired water, the impairment cause(s), whether a TMDL has been approved by EPA for each, and whether the TMDL identifies your MS4 as a source of the impairment. Waterbody 1.0. # Cause/TMDL Priority Approved TMDL MS4 Assigned to WLA TN06010201037-1000 Loss of Biological Integrity I:8J Yes DNo I:8J Yes DNo Little Turkey Creek (14 RM) Due to Siltation TN06010201340-1000 Loss of Biological Integrity I:8J Yes DNo I:8J Yes DNo Turkey Creek (15.8 RM) Due to Siltation Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) DYes DNo DYes DNo
C. What specific sources of these pollutants of concern are you targeting?Construction, Hot Spots (automotive & food service), Animal Waste From Parks although it is suspected that the E.Coli impairment may be attributed to faulty FUD sewer lines in the upper residential reaches of the North Fork of Turkey Creek or potentially from interstate/commercial parking lot runoff. We are currenlty attempting to isolate this to a more specific area and with adequate supporting information work with FUD and TOOT to resolve this source of impairment. The Turkey Creek Task Force has been created and currently has represetatives from the TOF, City, County, FUD & TOOT at the table with Loudoun County to be added in the future.
CN-1291(Rev.03-10) continued RDA S836-IC Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Annual Report D. Do you have discharges to any Exceptional TN Waters (ETWs) or Outstanding National DYes ,[8] No Resource Waters (ONRWs)? E. Are you implementing additional specific provisions to ensure the continued integrity of DYes [8] No ETWs or Ol\ffi.WS located within your jurisdiction?
4. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Is your public education program targeting specific pollutants and sources of those [8] Yes DNo pollutants? B. If yes, what are the specific causes, sources and/or pollutants addressed by your public education program ?The Automotive industlY is targeted through our education partnership with the Fort Loudoun Lake Association and Knox County which overlaps their SPAP program. In the future this will tie into our upcoming SPAP program as well. We also address animal waste / e. coli issues as well as general topics with our public education program. The food service industry is also a source of concern and will be addressed in a similar manner.
C. Note specific successful outcome(s) (NOT tasks, events, publications) fully or partially attributable to your public education program during this reporting period.Through the success of the 4tll Annual Rainy Day Brush-Off Artistic Rain Barrel Competition in combination with rain barrel sales and workshops, the Town of Farragut, in partnership with the Water Quality Forum, has to-date distributed over 3,000 rain barrels throughout Knox and surrounding counties and engaged over 100 artists in the creation of artistic rain barrels.
Waterfest: Reached approximately 900 children in the greater Knox County area during the course of 1 day teaching the basics of water quality. Rain Barrel Sale @ West Town Mall: Selling com posters and rain barrels. Sold 546 rain barrels. Adopt-A-Stream Program: We continued to manage an adopt-a-stream program with approximately 7 active groups. One group was added this reporting period, JC Penney New Town of Farragut / Storm water Matters Website: Provides more comprehensive information on the Stormwater Program and streamlines interaction between the Town of Farragut and residents (www.townoffarragut.orglstormwatermatters) D. Do you have an advisory committee or other body comprised ofthe public and other [8] Yes DNo stakeholders that provides regular input on your stormwater program? E. Provide a summary of all public meetings required by the permit. The Stormwater Advisory Committee meets the 2nd Thursday of every month discussing a variety of issues. The SAC was recently made the appellate body for all apeals including thos e involving civil penalty appeals by ordinance change. In the 2010-2011 Fiscal year 9 meetings were held. This annual report was presented in the September 2011 SAC meeting for public comment.
5. CODES AND ORDINANCES REVIEW AND UPDA TE A. Is a completed copy of the EPA Water Quality Scorecard submitted with this report? [8] Yes D No B. Include status of implementation of code, ordinance and/or policy revisions associated with permanent storm water management.We have reviewed all of our Town Ordinances along with the EPA Water Quality Scorecard process and anticipate modifications to begin during the 2011-2012 fiscal year. 6. CONSTRUCTION A. Do you have an ordinance or adopted policies stipulating: Erosion and sediment control requirements? [8] Yes D No Other construction waste control requirements? [8] Yes D No Requirement to submit construction plans for review? [8] Yes DNo MS4 enforcement authority? [8] Yes DNo
B. How many active construction sites disturbing at least one acre were there in your jurisdiction this reporting period?11
C. How many of these active sites did you inspect this reporting period? 11 D. On average, how many times each, or with what frequency, were these sites inspected On average these (e.g., weekly, monthly, etc.)? sites are inspected bi-weekly.
CN-1291 (Rev.03-1 0) Page 2 RDA 1663 Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Annual Report E. Do you prioritize certain construction sites for more frequent inspections? [gIYes D No If Yes, based on what criteria? A site that has been issued an NOY or been assessed Civil Penalties for a stormwater violation will experience closer monitoring by our engineering staff. Our field engineering technicians will conduct the bi-weekly inspections. If at some point increased enforcement becomes necessary, the Storm water Manager will assess the situation and determine the issuance of stop work orders, NOYs and assessment of Civil Penalties 7. ILLICIT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION A. Have you completed a map of all outfalls and receiving waters of your storm sewer [gI Yes DNo system? B. Have you completed a map of all storm drain pipes of storm sewer system? [gIYes DNo C. How many outfalls have you identified in your system? 526 Pipes, Ditches, Etc. D. How many of these outfalls have been screened for dry weather discharges? 30 in 2010-2011 located in properties zoned as commercial with a higher likeliness of having an illicit discharge. E. How many of these have been screened more than once? None. There was one location near a Laundromat (not at an outfall, but identified during the lODE monitoring) that required follow up because of elevated detergeant levels in some puddles of water near the structure. lODE was promptly addressed and eliminated. F. What is your frequency for screening outfalls for illicit discharges? Screening of outfalls occurs in conjunction with ongoing Stream Corridor Assessments as concerns are observed as well as in response to citizen inquiries and other field observations. Outfalls> 36" in CommerciallIndustrial & Municipal Areas are also given priority review often times assessing smaller outfalls as well. G. Do you have an ordinance that effectively prohibits illicit discharges? [gI Yes D No H. During this reporting period, how many illicit discharges/illegal connections have you discovered (or been reported to you)? 7, the majority of which were sediment related although there was 1 involving grease and 1 involving oi I. I. Of those illicit discharges/illegal connections that have been discovered or reported, how many have been eliminated? 1 8. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS A. Have stormwater pollution prevention plans (or an equivalent plan) been developed for: All parks, ball fields and other recreational facilities [gI Yes DNo All municipal turf grass/landscape management activities [gI Yes DNo All municipal vehicle fueling, operation and maintenance activities [gI Yes DNo All municipal maintenance yards [gI Yes DNo All municipal waste handling and disposal areas [gI Yes DNo
B. Are storm water inspections conducted at these facilities? [gI Yes DNo
1. If Yes, at what frequency are inspections conducted?.o..oIn-,-ot""-er:....:.m.:..:..:..::itt;..:e::.:.;n""tl'-'"y-'-.--,,",-,~..=c.~==-==-:=:..;:SOP is pending and more consistent inspections will occLlr with AmeriCorps assistance. C. Have standard operating procedures or BMPs been developed for all MS4 field [gI Yes DNo activities? (e.g., road repairs, catch basin cleaning, landscape management, etc.) D. Do you have a prioritization system for storm sewer system and permanent BMP DYes [gI No inspections? E. On average, how frequently are catch basins and other inline treatment systems inspected? Quarterly F. On average, how frequently are catch basins and other inline treatment systems cleaned out/maintained? Quarterly G. Do municipal employees in all relevant positions and departments receive ~Yes DNo comprehensive training on storm water management?
H. If yes, do you also provide regular updates and refreshers? ~ Yes DNo
CN-1291 (Rev.03-1 0) Page 3 RDA 1663 Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Annual Report If so, how frequently and/or under what circumstances? Training is conducted upon initial employment and then additional training is provided to employees consistently involved with satormwater maintenance, installation, and review. New electronic training materials have been purchased and a more comprehensive electronic training process will be implemented ..
9 PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROLS A. Do you have an ordinance or other mechanism to require: Site plan reviews of all new and re-development projects? IZl Yes DNo Maintenance of stormwater management controls? IZl Yes DNo Retrofitting of existing BMPs with green infrastructure BMPs? DYes IZl No B What is the threshold for new/redevelopment storm water plan review? (e.g., all projects, projects disturbing greater than one acre, etc.)Stormwater plan review occurs on all project required to hold an NOC from TDEC and any project that needs to pull a grading permit with the Town of Farragut. This is inclusive of any project disturbing greater than 1 acre and any project that calls for preliminary site plan review by the Municipal Planning Comission. C. Have you implemented and enforced performance standards for permanent stormwater DYes IZl No controls? D. Do these performance standards go beyond the requirements found in paragraph 4.2.5.2 and require that pre development hydrology be met for: Flow volumes IZl Yes DNo Peak discharge rates IZl Yes DNo Discharge frequency IZl Yes DNo Flow duration IZl Yes DNo E. Please provide the URL/reference where all permanent storm water management standards can be found. Town of Farragut Stormwater Ordinance http://library.municode.comlindex .as px ?cl ien tI D=14563 &stateID=4 2&statenam e=Tennessee F. How many development and redevelopment project plans were reviewed for this reporting period? 11 G. How many development and redevelopment project plans were approved? 11 H. How many permanent stormwater management practices/facilities were inspected? Q I. How many were found to have inadequate maintenance? Q J. Of those, how many were notified and remedied within 30 days? (If window is different than 30 days, please specify) Q K. How many enforcement actions were taken that address inadequate maintenance?Q L. Do you use an electronic tool (e.g., GIS, database, spreadsheet) to track post DYes IZl No construction BMPs, inspections and maintenance? M. Do all municipal departments and/or staff (as relevant) have access to this tracking DYes [8] No system? N. Has the MS4 developed a program to allow for incentive standards for redeveloped DYes IZl No sites? O. How many maintenance agreements has the MS4 approved during the reporting period? 7 Through Knox County's SPAP program. Many of these elements are not yet applicable as they are based on the newly issued Municipal Stormwater permit. This information will be reflected in the annual report during the 2011-2012 reporting cycle. Plans review for permanent stormwater and entry into GIS has already started although it falls in the current 2011-2012 reporting year.
CN-1291 (Rev .03-10) Page 4 RDA 1663 Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Annual Report 10. ENFORCEMENT A. Identify which of the following types of enforcement actions you used during the reporting period, indicate the number of actions, the minimum measure (e.g., construction, illicit discharge, permanent storm water control) or note those for which you do not have authority: Permanent Illicit Action Construction Stormwater Authority? Discharge Controls
Notice of violation #2 #-- #-- [gJ Yes DNo Administrative fines #N/A #N/A #N/A [gJ Yes DNo Stop Work Orders #2 # #-- [gJ Yes DNo
Civil penalties #2 # #-- [gJ Yes DNo Criminal actions #N/A #N/A #N/A [gJ Yes DNo Administrative orders #N/A #N/A #N/A [gJ Yes DNo Other Letter of Credit #1 #N/A #N/A B. Do you use an electronic tool (e.g., GIS, data base, spreadsheet) to track the locations, [gJ Yes DNo inspection results, and enforcement actions in your jurisdiction? C. What are the 3 most common types of violations documented during this reporting period?Inadequate Erosion Control and Sediment Leaving Site are the 2 primary types of violations documented during this period. Other types are general incidenta I. 11. PROGRAM RESOURCES A. What was your annual expenditure to implement the requirements of your MS4 NPDES permit and SWMP this past reporting period? $32,500 B. What is next year's budget for implementing the requirements of your MS4 NPDES permit and SWMP? $35,925 C. Do you have an independent financing mechanism for your stormwater program? 0 Yes [gJ No D. If so, what is it/are they (e.g., stormwater fees), and what is the annual revenue derived from this mechanism? Source: NIA Amount $NIA Source: N/A Amount $N/A E. How many full time employees does your municipality devote to the storm water program (specifically for implementing the stormwater program vs. municipal employees with other primary responsibilities that dovetail with storm water issues)? 1 Stormwater Coordinator. 1 AmeriCorps Member will be added for the next reporting cycle to significantly enhance the field monitoring/assessment aspect of the TOF's Stormwater Program. Many others that dovetail in Engineering, Community Development and Public Works. F. Do you share program implementation responsibilities with any other entities? [gJ Yes 0 No Entity Activity/TasklResponsibility Your Oversight/Accountability Mechanism Fort Loudoun Lake Assoc. MonitoringlBenthicsNisual Stormwater Advisory Committee Review Fort Loudoun Lake Assoc. Hot Spot Education Staff Oversight N/A N/A N/A
12. EVALUA TINGIMEASURING PROGRESS A. What indicators do you use to evaluate the overall effectiveness of your Stormwater Management Program, how long have you been tracking them, and at what frequency? Note that these are not measurable goals for individual BMPs or tasks, but large-scale or long-term metrics for the overall program, such as in-stream macroinvertebrate community indices, measures ofeffective impervious cover in the watershed, indicators of in-stream hydrologic stability, etc. Indicator Began Tracking (year) Frequency Number of Locations Example: E. coli 2003 Weekly April-September 20 Benthic Macros 2008 Annually 1-2 A Year based on 11 sites over a 5 Yr. Period
CN-1291 (Rev .OJ-1 0) Page 5 RDA 1663 Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Annual Report TSS, SS, pH, Temp, DO, 2009 Annually 11 samples yearly taken Cond., cfs from the same sites as the Benthic Macros B. Provide a summary of data (e.g., water qual ity information, performance data, modeling) collected in order to evaluate the performance of permanent stormwater controls instaJled throughout the system. This evaluation may include a comparison of current and past permanent storm water control practices. Based on the information that we have collected to date it is difficult to draw any significant conclusions on the variation of water quality since we've started sampling. From the onset of monitoring we established 11 "locations of interest" in Turkey Creek, the North Fork of Turkey Creek and Little Turkey Creek and have collected from many of these sites although have not had enough overlap at this point to make any concrete determinations. The segment of stream sampled in 2010 returned an IBI-M score of 34, or "Not-impaired" and a Habitat Score of 103, or "Moderately impaired." The FLLA's general analysis of all 11 sites for pH, Temp, DO, Cond., TSS, SS & Flows showed an increase in terms ofTSS and SS .. Reading in 20 I 0 were higher than they were in 2009, The 2010 mean for suspeded solids was 8.35 mg/L up from 200 levels which were 0.08 mg!L. Development is a likely culprit in these areas. Also noted in the report by the FLLA is speculation that failing or broken pipes could also be contributing to these readings. It has been recommended that if readings continue to increase in 2011 sampl ing, steps should be taken to alleviate some of the pressures to theses systems. E.Coli testing was also conducted above and below Campbell Station Park on the North Fork ofTurkey Creek. The upstream site had 310 CFU/I00ml and the downstream site had 150CFU/IOO ml which appears to indicate that the tributaries entering in the middle of the park and the park itself are diluting the source of the e.coli which would appear to be the area north of Campbell Station Park would be the source. This area is largely residential so our initial assumption would be a faulty sanitary sewer system, but through conversations with TOOT and the City of Knoxville we have been made aware that their water quality testing results would indicate that runofffrom roads and impervioius areas (like parking lots) have been shown to have incredibly high concentrations of e.coli. Beyond the residential area is a great deal of commercial development and the interstate so this will have to be 13. STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE A. Describe any changes to the MS4 program during the reporting period including but not limited to: Changes adding (but not subtracting or replacing) components, controls or other requirements per Qaragra h 4.4.2.a of the permit. N/A Changes to replace an ineffective or unfeasible BMP per aragra 11 4.4.2.b ofthe permit. NIA Information (e.g. additional acreage, outfalls, BMPs) on program area expansion based on annexation or newly urbanized areas. NIA Changes to the program as required by the division. N/A 14. CERTIFICATION This report must be signed by a ranking elected official or by a duly authorized representative of that person. See signatory requirements in sub-part 6.7.2 of the permit. "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
PA-vlI:> ... 9 - 27-1/ ~~M-.:ro~I A~~, ~ ~4~ Printed Name and Title Signature Date
Annual reports must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of subpart 5.4. (Reporting) of the permit. Annual reports must be submitted to the appropriate Environmental Fiel.d Office (EFO) by September 30 of each calendar year, as shown in the table below:
EFO Street Add ress City Zip Code Telephone _ ~~att~~ooga ._ mm _. .. .. ?~g_M_c_Ca.!!.ie~y~~~e STE 550 C h atta.~'?'()J~~;~ ..._ ?2~2~_. ...m.._(~2 :u.~~~~ 5745.. _ Columbia 1421 Hampshire Pike Columbia 38401 (931) 380-3371
CN-1291 (Rev.03-IO) Page 6 RDA 1663 Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Annual Report
C::()5)~~_~! 11.~ ______..1. .?2 I _S_o~t.~!V i110W f\.ve. ___ __c::_?()~~yill e ___ __ . ~~?9?___ _._ (93 1)~3 2-40 15 __ ' _ ~~~ks_()!: ______~?_ ~__!i?~ .JY \\f.()od D~~y~ __ ...... ____. ___~~ck_~()l:! ___.___]. ~~2?__ .____._.___(7~J1!3.. ~J2Q_O_ Joh~~()l:!_~Lry _ _ __ . ~~9~J!~~r.9~I~_ R()ad J0~~~()__~ _ ~ ~~__._ 17~ _.._ ___ (i23) ~~~- 54.2~ _ _ ~oxv\II~ _ __ __ 37}}_..!Y.!. idd Ie_~~??!<.!'. . i.~ ~.______._Kn.?xvi11~_. . ____ }_7~?_~______(8_??2 594-(j03 ?______!'1emphis ______~3 83_\,\!?.If Lake DJ.~_ __ _ . ___ .l?artle!!______}~ ~}} ______(2QD_37_!}og~_ Nashville 711 R S Gass Boulevard Nashville 37216 (615) 687-7000_
CN-1291 (Rev.03-1 0) Page 7 RDA 1663 STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVAnON NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM 7tb Floor L&C Annex, 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0447 Phone (615) 532-0431 FAX (615) 532-3019
RARE SPECIES SURVEY
Return completed fonn to above address and maintain a copy for your records
Species Name: Sf"c", ,,,i ~
Name of Area: I=-o>'rr"\~"l= (l\~i-lc"O("\ Survey Site Name (if different from above): ___--'/'---______Unmanaged: 0 Managed: 0 Ifmanaged, by whom?: ______Owner Name: To"""", of Farcry. J c TAt Contact Name:.jMoV! .5c ... f+ Phone: (06)) 766-7057 Directions to Survey Site: ---"1Il.wE=--£cl-,,,.~::::.· "'=..:....--"-Wl::..!.>.luc..::,,,'-".l."-, .:.;;;p""<>,C!..I-,c,....,(/,-"u,-,t",,,::"2'- ___ ~ ov l \., C ' >ft..Af&1I -Sfdl;OVl gel. ( "'0 d nI...V Vl 6 : 11 j",,(o GV <> oJ"x 9(CC'l1 .
Habitat Description: f-o.l.") S .... ((e;5.-> l o "" ~! vV~oJ ... .) CIa(/\. j'",dudq <1 PI'o:..4Yljg\ lU./(7cClI (6lft/g lAe):, ~IAQ.rr")";"( k,,,b,'L,I- Ell' Ci n"nr,lo~inYl of: .5, o'dorot", 1 1
Associated Species: --.,L-zt ------ I
Population Data: N.IO Q Ol.""~',," e J
Photograph and/or Specimen cOlliction Number and Methodology (ifapplicable): ______Nb'Qf 0'" so ("~ c
Name: JCA.!.OVl Scot~ Phone: Work C3bS) 'Ib6 - 70.:;7 Home (aM) ~ -,7<15"1
CN-1154 (Rev. 03-10) RDA S386-1 Amended Water Quality Monitoring Plan
On April 26, 2007 the Town of Farragut submitted IIFort Loudoun Lake Watershed TMDL Monitoring Planll under Permit No. 075299 to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation that was subsequently approved. This document is a revision of that document with the additional inclusion of all monitoring operations that occur in the Town of Farragut's Storm water Matters water quality program and Schedules for completion
Biological Stream Sampling (Analytical)
Biological stream sampling will occur on all stream segments impaired for siltation/habitat alteration within the 5 year permit cycle.
This is listed as BMP 2D in the Town of Farragut's Notice of Intent under which coverage under the 2010 permit was secured.
Bacteriological Stream Sampling (Analytical)
1 bacteriological sample will be pulled on the North Fork of Turkey Creek which is listed for E.Coli impairment during the 5 year period. Results from this sampling can be found in the 2010-2011 Annual Report. This is listed as BMP 2D in the Town of Farragut's Notice of Intent under which coverage under the 2010 permit was secured.
Visual Stream Assessment (Non-Analytical)
The protocol for the assessment will follow the Maryland DNR Stream Corridor Assessment Protocols (Yetman, 2001) and from the Center for Watershed Protection (Tasillo and Brown, 2009).
The Town of Farragut has contracted with the Fort Loudoun Lake Association (FLLA) to conduct a visual assessment at a rate of 6 miles per year totaling 30 stream miles over a 5 year period which will meet or exceed the standards spelled out in section 5.2 Non-Analytical Monitoring in the 2010 NPDES Municipal Permit. This is listed as BMP 2E in the Town of Farragut's Notice of Intent under which coverage under the 2010 permit was secured.
Year 1 Year2 Year 3 Year4 YearS 6 Miles 12 Miles 18 Miles 24 Miles 30 Miles EPA Water Quality Scorecard, Final Report 2011
Completed August 19th 2011 Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a brief summary of the EPA Water Quality Scorecard process completed by Town of Farragut staff in the summer of 2011. A summary of results, barriers and goals are presented to reflect upon the strengths and weaknesses identified through the process.
Summary "EPA's Water Quality scorecard is a tool for municipalities of various sizes to help municipal staff, Stormwater managers, planners, and other stakeholders to better understand where a municipality's land development regulations and other ordinances may present barriers or opportunities to implementing a comprehensive water quality protection approach. The scorecard provides policy options, resources, and case studies to help communities develop a comprehensive water quality program." (pg. 1 EPA Water Quality Scorecard)
The Town of Farragut was prompted to complete this exercise by the NPDES Municipal General Permit of 2010 Section 4.2.5.3 "Codes and Ordinances Review and Update" which states "Within one year of obtaining permit coverage, the permittee shall review local codes and ordinances using the EPA Water Quality Scorecard (the scorecard). A completed copy shall be submitted with the subsequent annual report." The TOF received permit coverage under the municipal general permit on May 20, 2011 setting the deadline for completion for the Water Quality Scorecard to l\IIay 20, 2012 with a reporting deadline of September 30, 2012 as per section 5.4 "Reporting" of the 2010 Municipal General Permit.
The EPA Water Quality Scorecard was completed by Town staff from the Departments of Engineering and Community Development including Darryl Smith (Town Engineer), Chris Jenkins (Assistant Town Engineer), Ruth Hawk (Community Development Director), Mark Shipley (Assistant Community Development Director) and Jason Scott (Stormwater Coordinator).
At times it was challenging to find meaning behind the scores considering numerous questions in the scorecard were in many ways non-applicable to the Town of Farragut, most notably the sections dealing with brownfields and infill. Also, with a lack of average state/regional scores to compare ourselves to it made it difficult to know for certain where we stack up although the City of Franklin was willing to share their scores with us to provide some context. To make better sense of the scoring system an adjusted grand total and 5 year goal grand total is included with the results below. 4A Reduced Parking Requirements 10/20 (50%) 4B Transportation Demand Management Alternatives 0/8 (0%) 4C Minimizing Stormwater From Parking Lots 5.5/13 (42.30%)
Adopt Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management Provisions TOTAL 15.5/39 (39.74%)
5A Green Infrastructure Practices 12/29 (41.37%)
5B Maintenance / Enforcement 7/10 (70%)
GRAND TOTAL 121/257 47.08%
** Adjusted Totals were calculated based on the removal of 20 questions that were considered totally unrelated to the Town of Farragut as a community. These questions typically 1) had a conflict between offering open space reductions on something that is required, hence an incentive would be inapprapriote. 2) Many questions dealing with in/ill/redevelopment/brown/ields seemed to be more relevant to an urban/city enviranment as opposed to the TOF which is a suburban enviranment. 3) The Town of Farragut does not operate utilities within its jurisdiction. Utilities are managed by First Utility District (FUD) and Lenoir City Utility Board (LCUB). 4) The Town of Farragut does not have a Storm water utility and as such cannot offer any incentive discounting the said utility fee. 5 Points were removed fram "Pratect Natural Resources (Including Trees) And Open Space", 12 points were removed from "Pramote EffiCient, Compact Development Patterns and Infill", 1 point was removed fram "Design Complete, Smart Streets That Reduce Overall Imperviousness", no points were removed fram "Encourage Efficient Pravisian of Parking" and 2 points were removed fram "Adopt Green Infrastructure Storm water Management Pravisians". Results Items in bold are the grand totals for a given section, items in represent anticipated changes based on identified improvements that will be pursued. represent the specific modifications in the Water Quality Scorecard that will be pursued to yield the noted changes.
Protect Natural Resources (Including Trees) And Open Space TOTAL 53/82 (64.63%)X
lA Natural Resource Protection 23.5/43 (52.33%)X
lB Open Space Protection 3.5/9 (27.77%) lC Tree Preservation 26/30 (86.66%)
Promote Efficient, Compact Development Patterns and Infill TOTAL 13/45 (28.88%)
2A Infill and Redevelopment 0/10 (0%) 2B Development in Areas with Existing Infrastructure 7/23 (30.43%)
2C Mixed-Use Development 6/12 (50%)
Design Complete, Smart Streets That Reduce Overall Imperviousness TOTAL 24/50 (48%)
3A Street Design 17.5/34 (51.47%)
3B Green Infrastructure Elements and Street Design 6/16 (37.5%)
Encourage Efficient Provision of Parking 15.5/41 (37.8%) Where Do We Proceed From Here?
Over the next 5 years the Town of Farragut seeks to improve conditions for incorporating green infrastructure into the community by a minimum of 10% largely by focusing on updating the Town of Farragut's regulations to meet new requirements laid out in the 2010 NPDES Municipal General Permit along with the adoption of incentives. The specific areas where these gains are anticipated are noted above with a maximum estimated net increase of 12.06% with the largest proposed gains being in "Adopt Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management Provisions" (+38.46%) and "Design Complete, Smart Streets That Reduce Overall Imperviousness" (+20%) with the majority of these changes being permit driven. WATERO!JALITY SCORECARD Incorporating Green Infrastructure Practices at the Municipal, Neighborhood, and Site Scales TABLE OF CONTENTS L:. " '}:_ !~> 'l " ' 1 .': " ,I, \\I,~ >~'~ ";
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy ...... 1
BACKGROUND 1
THE WATER Q1!ALlTY SCORECARD ...... 3 How to Use the Scorecard...... 3 A Nole aboulthe Poinl System ...... 5 Tipsfor Building Relationships Between Slormwaler Managers. Land Use Planners. and Other Local Officials..... 5 Table 1.' Water Quality Scorecard Q1Iick Reference Guide...... 7
GETTING STARTED ...... 10
SECTION 1: PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING TREES) AND OPEN SPACE 11 Resources...... 21 Case Studies 21
SECTION 2: PROMOTE EFFICIENT, COMPACT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND INFILL Resources .. 28 Case Studies 28
SECTION 3: DESIGN COMPLETE, SMART STREETS THAT REDUCE OVERALL IMPERVIOUSNESS ...... 29 Resources...... 34 Case Studies .. 34
SECTION 4: ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT PARKING ...... 36 Resources...... 41 Case Studies.. 41
SECTION 5: ADOPT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS Resources .. 50 Case Studies.. 50
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS , • r' ' 0" ' I 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY J...... ,...... 2 BACKGROUND \. }t l, ttl~"" '; J, ,( , \, ••• •p.1.1 :/ , Many communities across the United States face the challenge of balancing Growth and development expand communities' 0ppOltunities by bringing in water quality protection with the desire to accommodate new growth and new residents, businesses, and investments. Growth can give a community the development. These cities and counties are finding that a review of local resources to revitalize a downtown, refurbish a main street, build new schools, ordinances beyond just stormwater regulations is necessary to remove barriers and develop vibrant places to live, work, shop, and play. The environmental and ensure coordination across all development codes for better storm water impacts of development, however, can make it more difficult for communities management and watershed protection. Local policies, such as landscaping to protect their natural resources. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the and parking requirements or street design criteria, should complement strong U.S . population will reach 400 million people by about 2040, which will add storm water standards and make it easier for developers to meet multiple continued development pressure on local communities and the environment. requirements simultaneously. Many communities are asking where and how they can accommodate this growth while maintaining and improving their water resources. EPA's Water Quality Scorecard was developed to help local governments identify opportunities to remove barriers, and revise and create codes, Land development directly affects watershed functions. When development ordinances, and incentives for better water quality protection. It guides occurs in previously undeveloped areas, the resulting alterations to the land municipal staff through a review of relevant local codes and ordinances, can dramatically change the transportation and storage of water. Residential across mUltiple municipal departments and at the three scales within the and commercial development creates impervious surfaces and compacted jurisdiction of a local government (municipality, neighborhood, and site), I to soils that filter less water, which increases surface runoff and decreases ensure that these codes work together to protect water quality goals. The two groundwater infiltration. These changes can increase the volume and velocity main goals of this tool are to : (1) help communities protect water quality by of runoff, the frequency and severity of flooding, and peak storm flows. identifying ways to reduce the amount of storm water flows in a community and (2) educate stakeholders on the wide range of policies and regulations that have water quality implications.
The scorecard is for municipalities of various sizes in rural, suburban, and urban settings, including those that have combined sewers, municipal separate storm sewers, and those with limited or no existing storm water infrastructure. It can help municipal staff, storm water managers, planners, and other stakeholders to understand better where a municipality 's2 land development regulations and other ordinances may present barriers or opportunities to implementing a comprehensive water quality protection approach. The scorecard provides policy options, resources, and case studies to help communities develop a comprehensive water quality program.
While the watershed scale is the best scale at which to look regionally at water quality protection strategies, it can be difficult to align poliCies, incentives, and regulations across political boundaries. For purposes ofimplementation, the largest scale the scorecard uses is the municipality. 2 The term "municipality '" as used by the International City/County Management Associa tion (leMA) refers to local government at both the city alld county levels.
1 Many communities are already struggling with degraded water bodies and generated significant increases in stormwater runoff. However, the amount failing infrastructure. For example, EPA:S National Water Quality Inventory: of development in the watershed is not simply the sum of the sites within it. 1996 Report to Congress indicated that 36 percent of total river miles assessed Rather, total impervious area in a watershed is the sum of sites developed plus were impaired.3 In EPA's 2004 Report to Congress, that percentage increased the impervious surface of associated infrastructure supporting those sites, such to 44 percent.4 Further, a report by the National Academy of Sciences found as roads and parking lots. urban storm water is estimated to be the primary source of impairment for 13 percent of assessed rivers, 18 percent of lakes, and 32 percent of estuaries Second, federal stormwater regulations focus on reducing pollutants in the significant numbers given that urban areas cover only 3 percent of the land runoff-the sediments from roads, feltilizers from lawns, etc.-and not on mass of the United States.s the amount of stormwater coming from a site. Neveltheless, the increased volume of runoff coming into a municipality's water bodies scours streams, Urban runoff also affects existing wastewater and drinking water systems. dumps sediments, and pushes existing infrastructure past its capacity limits. EPA estimates that between 23 ,000 and 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows Failure to consider the cumulative impact-this loss of natural land. increased occur each year in the United States, releasing between 3 and 10 billion imperviousness, and resulting stOlmwater runoff volumes- on regional gallons of sewage annually.fi Many of these overflow problems stem from water quality and watershed health has led communities to seek stormwater poor stormwater management. Many municipalities-both large and solutions that look beyond site-level approaches. small-must address the impact of existing impervious areas, such as parking lots, buildings, and streets and roads, that have limited or no stormwater Communities are recognizing the importance of managing water quality management while at the same time trying to find effective and appropriate impacts of development at a variety of scales, including the municipal, the solutions for new development. neighborhood, and site levels. A range of planning and development strategies at the municipal and neighborhood scales is necessary to address stormwater These water quality impairments exist, in part, because historically stormwater management comprehensively and systematically. At the same time that management-and indeed stormwater regulation-has focused primarily at stOlmwater management is moving beyond the site level, it is also evolving the site leve\. The reasoning was sound: manage stormwater well at the site, beyond hardscaped, engineered solutions, such as basins and curb-and-gutter and water bodies in the community will be protected. However, as the findings conveyance, to an approach that manages storm water through natural processes. of EPA's National Water Quality Inventory demonstrated, this strategy has not been effective for two main reasons. A green infrastructure approach provides a solution to thinking at all three scales as well as addresses the need to change the specific types of practices First, the site-level approach does not take into account the amount of off used on the site. Green infrastructure is a comprehensive approach to water site impervious surfaces. During the development boom from 1995-2005, quality protection defined by a range of natural and built systems that can rain-absorbing landscapes, such as forests, wetlands, and meadows, were occur at the regional, community, and site scales. At the larger regional transformed into large areas of houses, roads, office buildings, and retail or watershed scale, green infrastructure is the interconnected network centers. This development created vast areas of impervious cover, which of preserved or restored natural lands and waters that provide essential environmental functions. Large-scale green infrastructure may include habitat corridors and water resource protection. At the community and neighborhood 3 US EPA National Water Quality Inventory 1996 Report to Congress: Ilffp:llwlVw.epa. scale, green infrastructure incorporates planning and design approaches such gOl'13 OShl 96report/i nde:.:.11Iml as compact, mixed-use development, parking reductions strategies and urban 4 US EPA National Water Quality Inventory: 2004 Report to Congress: Ilffp:/lwlVw.epa. forestry that reduces impervious surfaces and creates walkable, attractive govlowowI305bI2004rl'p0r/1 communities. At the site scale, green infrastructure mimics natural systems by absorbing storm water back into the ground (infiltration), using trees and 5 Urban Stormwater Management in the United State s. National Research Council ojthe National Academy ojSciences. 2008. http://dels.llas.edu/dels/rpt_hriejs/stormwater_dis other natural vegetation to convert it to water vapor (evapotranspiration), and cllOrge.Jinal.pdj using rain barrels or cisterns to capture and reuse storm water. These natural 6 US EPA National Water Quality Inventory: 2004 Report to Congress.' hllp:llwww.epa. processes manage storm water runoff in a way that maintains or restores the gOl'lowow/305bI2004rep0r/1 site's natural hydrology.
2 At the municipal scale, decisions about where and how our towns, cities, These processes represent a new approach to storm water management that is and regions grow are the first, and perhaps most important, development not only sustainable and environmentally friendly, but cost-effective as well. decisions related to water quality. Preserving and restoring natural landscape features (such as forests, floodplains, and wetlands) are critical components Municipalities are realizing that green infrastructure can be a solution to the of green infrastructure. By choosing not to develop on and thereby protecting many and increasing water-related challenges facing municipalities. including these ecologically sensitive areas, communities can improve water quality flood control, combined sewer overflows, Clean Water Act requirements, and while providing wildlife habitat and opportunities for outdoor recreation. In basic asset management of publicly owned treatment systems. Communities addition, using land more efficiently reduces and better manages storm water need new solutions and strategies to ensure that they can continue to grow runoff by reducing total impervious areas. Perhaps the single most effective while maintaining and improving their water resources. This Water Quality strategy for efficient land use is redevelopment of already degraded sites, such Scorecard seeks to provide the policy tools, resources, and case studies to both as abandoned shopping centers or underused parking lots, rather than paving accommodate growth and protect water resources. greenfield sites.
At the intermediate or neighborhood scale, green infrastructure includes planning and design approaches such as compact, mixed-use development, THE WATER Q1}ALITY SCORECARD narrowing streets and roads, parking reduction strategies, and urban forestry 3 that reduce impervious surfaces and better integrate the natural and the built environment. EPA worked with numerous water quality experts, local government staff, developers, urban designers, and others working on land use and water quality At the site scale, green infrastructure practices include rain gardens, porous issues to develop this Water Quality Scorecard. The purpose of the scorecard pavements, green roofs, infiltration planters, trees and tree boxes, and rainwater is to address water quality protection across multiple scales (municipality, harvesting for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing and landscape irrigation. neighborhood, and site) and across multiple municipal departments. This scorecard can help municipal staff, stormwater managers, planners, and other stakeholders to understand better where a municipality's land development regulations and other ordinances may present barriers or opportunities to implementing a comprehensive green infrastructure approach. The tool's two main goals are to: (I) help communities protect water quality by identifying ways to reduce the amount of storm water flows in a community and (2) educate stakeholders on the wide range of policies and regulations that have water quality implications.
Communities throughout the U.S. are implementing stonnwater regulations that require or encourage the use of green infrastructure for managing storm water on site. These cities and counties are finding that, to better manage stormwater and protect watersheds. green infrastructure policies require a review of many other local ordinances to remove barriers and ensure coordination across all development codes. Local policies, such as landscaping and parking requirements or street design criteria, should complement strong storm water standards and make it easier for developers to meet multiple requirements simultaneously. At the same time, if these policies support water quality goals, they can independently reduce and better manage storm water runoff.
3 How to Use the Scorecard • Heigh/limitations limit the number offtoors in a building. Limiting height can spread development out if square footage is unmet by vertical density. This scorecard is a locally controlled self-assessment and guide for better incorporating green infrastructure practices at the municipal, neighborhood, • Open space or natural resource plans detail land parcels that are or will be and site scales. While one department or agency could complete the tool, the set aside for recreation, habitat cOITidors, or preservation. These plans help effectiveness of this tool will increase if an interagency process is established communities prioritize their conservation, parks, and recreation goals. to review all local codes and policies that might affect water quality. • Comprehensive plans may be required by state law, and many cities, towns, Completing the Water Quality Scorecard requires different documents, and counties prepare comprehensive plans to support zoning codes. Most plans, codes, and guidance manuals. While the legal structure for stormwater comprehensive plans include elements addressing land use, open space, management and land development regulation varies among municipalities, natural resource protection, transportation, economic development, and the following list contains the most common and relevant documents to housing, all of which are important to watershed protection. Increasingly. complete this scorecard and describes how they can create impervious cover. local governments are defining existing green infrastructure and outlining opportunities to add new green infrastructure throughout the community. • Zoning ordinances specify the type and intensity ofland uses allowed on a given parcel. A zoning ordinance can dictate single-use low-density An initial step in using this tool is to convene appropriate staff to review zoning, which spreads development throughout the watershed, creating various sections of the tool and coordinate to both identify opportunities considerable excess impervious surface. for change and address the potential inconsistencies between policies. The approaches described in this scorecard may be under the control of a number • Subdivision codes or ordinances specify development elements for a parcel: of different local government agencies, including: housing footprint minimums, distance from the house to the road, the width Parks and Recreation of the road, street configuration, open space requirements, and lot size-all of which can lead to excess impervious cover. • Public Works • Planning • Street standards or road design guidelines dictate the width of the road, turning radius, street connectivity, and intersection design requirements. • Environmental Protection Often in new subdivisions, roads tend to be too wide, which creates excess • Utilities impervious cover. • Transportation • Parking requirements generally set the minimum, not the maximum, number of parking spaces required for retail and office parking. Setting The scorecard's review ofland use and development policies provides minimums leads to parking lots designed for peak demand periods, such guidance for implementing a range ofregulatory and non-regulatory as the day after Thanksgiving, which can create acres of unused pavement approaches, including land use planning elements, land acquisition efforts, during the rest of the year. and capital investment policies that can help various municipal agencies integrate green infrastructure into their programs. Internal agency policies and • Setbacks define the distance between a building and the right-of-way or lot practices, such as maintenance protocols or plan review processes, may be line and can spread development out by leading to longer driveways and potential barriers as well. larger lots. Establishing maximum setback lines for residential and retail development will bring buildings closer to the street, reducing impervious Each policy or approach is described in the context of its potential for cover associated with long driveways, walkways, and parking lots. providing water quality benefits, although most of the policies have many additional benefits for community livability, human health, air quality, energy use, wildlife habitat, and more. This tool does not provide model ordinance
4 language. It emphasizes best practices and helps municipalities understand the A Note about the Point System incremental steps for changing specific policies and inte111al agency practices. The scorecard divides the tools and policies into four categories: The tool includes a point system to make it easier to evaluate and improve 1. Adopt planslEducate local programs. The municipality can decide whether to use the point system at all. If the point system is used, municipalities can set locally appropriate 2. Remove barriers thresholds and goals. 3. Adopt incentives Governments could choose to use the point system in many different ways, 4. Enact regulations including:
These four categories provide greater structure to the compiled tools by State governments could require municipalities to complete the Water organizing the policies or approaches as incremental changes and updates. Quality Scorecard and establish measures for improvement over different These categories may help municipal staff prioritize which tools to work on permit cycles. For example, a municipality might have to improve its score based on local factors like resources, time, and political support. For example, by some number of points before the next permit cycle. an appropriate first step in the process of updating local regulations may be to remove a barrier rather than enacting a new regulation. Most policy options • Local governments could determine a score based on existing programs avoid specific perfornlance guidance so that the tool is useful to a range of and policies and then set goals from this baseline. Local targets may municipalities in different contexts. However, the case studies and resources include incremental yearly improvements or achieving additional points provide locally appropriate performance measures where possible. in a pal1icular section, such as "Encourage Efficient Parking Supply" or "Protect Natural Resources and Open Space." To highlight the diverse nature of green infrastructure approaches, as well as the fact that oversight over these policies resides in various municipal • Stakeholders such as watershed groups or environmental organizations agencies, the scorecard has five sections: could complete the scorecard and then provide feedback and information 1. Protect Natural Resources (Including Trees) and Open Space assistance to the local government about sections within the scorecard that received few points and might be an area for improvement. 2. Promote Efficient, Compact Development Patterns and Infill
3. Design Complete, Smart Streets that Reduce Overall Imperviousness • The total score or scores in certain sections could educate elected officials, decision makers, and others about the importance of these issues and the 4. Encourage Efficient Provision of Parking role of local policies in addressing them. 5. Adopt Green Infrastructure Storm water Management Provisions • A lack of points in one section may alert a municipality that a certain area, The five sections organize green infrastructure approaches based on drivers such as parking, lacks local ordinances that support green infrastructure and of impervious cover at the municipal, neighborhood, and site scales. Yet all may be ripe for improvement. three scales may be in any single section. For example, the parking section will have questions that address the municipal, neighborhood and site level • Variation in the number of points achieved across the five sections may considerations. help a municipality to better assess local sources of impervious cover and potential for the introduction of green infrastructure. The scorecard describes alternative policy or ordinance information that, when implemented. would support a comprehensive green infrastructure approach, Because the scorecard is intended for use by a range of community types and and will allow the municipality to determine where, in the broad spectrum of sizes in locations throughout the U.S., please note that no single municipality policy implementation, their policies fall. will be able to receive every point. Some questions and points may only be
5 available to urban municipalities while others may only be available to those in a suburban or rural setting.
Tips for Building Relationships Between Stormwater Managers. Land Use Planners, and Other Local Officials
Effective storm water management requires coordination and collaboration across many different municipal departments and processes. Below are some ideas for incorporating stormwater management in traditional planning processes and programs.
• Include both land use planners and stormwater managers in pre-concept and/or pre-application meetings for potential development projects.
• Use local government sites (e.g., schools, regional parks. office buildings, public works yards) as demonstration projects for innovative land use strategies and storm water management. Form a team that includes land use planners, storm water managers, parks and school officials, etc. to work out the dctai Is.
Include stormwater managers in the comprehensive plan process to incorporate overall watershed and stormwater goals.
• Make sure that both land use planners and stormwater managers are involved in utility and transportation master planning.
• Allow stormwater managers to be involved in economic development planning, especially for enterprise zones, Main Street projects, and other projects that involve infill and redevelopment. Encourage storm water managers to develop efficient watershed-based solutions for these plans.
• Develop cross training and joint activities that allow land use planners, storm water managers, and transportation, utility, and capital projects planners to explore the improved integration ofvarious land use and storm water processes.
• Hold staff trainings with speakers that are knowledgeable about smart growth and storm water management. Alternately, encourage land use planners, storm water managers, and other local officials to attend trainings on this topic as a team.
6 Table 1: Water Quality Scorecard Quick Reference Guide
Incorporating Green Infrastructure Practices at the Municipal, Neighborhood, and Site Scales (SUMMARY)
Are development policies. regulations. and incentives in place to protect natural resource Protect natural resource areas le.g.. forests . prairies) and critical habitat le.g.. conservation areas and critical habitat? corridors. buffer zones. wildlife preserves) from future development.
Are no-development buffer zones and other protective tools in place around' wetlands. riparian Protect critical areas such as wetlands. floodplains. lakes. rivers. and estuaries with a areas. and floodplains to improve/protect water quality? mandatory no-development buffer.
Does the community have protection measures for source water protection areas through land Protect source water areas from current or potential sources of contamination. use controls and stewardship activities?
Does the local government have a comprehensive public urban forestry program? Protect and maintain trees on public property and rights-of-way and plant additional trees to enhance the urban tree canopy.
Has the community taken steps to protect trees on private property? Preserve trees on private property and require replacement when trees are removed or damaged during development.
Do local codes encourage or require street trees as part of road and public right-of-way Leverage existing capital funds to plant more street trees and add multiple benefits to the capital improvement projects? public right-of-way.
Are mixed-use and transit-oriented developments allowed or encouraged? Revise codes and ordinances to allow for the "by right" building of mixed-use and transit oriented developments.
7 Incorporating Green Infrastructure Practices at the Municipal, Neighborhood, and Site Scales (SUMMARY) continued
Policy Question Goal
DESIGN COMPUTE, SMART STREETS THAT REDUCE OVERALL IMPERVIOUSNESS 3A. STREET DESIGN Do local street design standards and engineering practices encourage streets to be no wider Appropriate street widths allow narrower lanes for certain street types. thereby reducing than is necessary to move traffic effectively? Do policies allow narrow neighborhood streets overall imperviousness. designed to slow traffic and create safer conditions for pedestr,ians and bicyclists?
Are sha~ed driveways. reduced driveway widths. two-track driveways. and rear garages and Encourage alternative forms and decreased dimensions of residential driveways and parking alleys encouraged for all Single-family developments?
3B. GREE N INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND STREET D ESIGN Are major street projects required to integrate green infrastructure practices as a standard Formally integrate green infrastructure into standard roadway construction and retrofit part of construction. maintenance, and improvement plans? practice.
Do regulations and policies promote use of pervious materials for all paving areas, including Build and retrofit these surfaces with pervious materials to reduce stormwater runoff and its alleys, streets. sidewalks, crosswalks. driveways, and parking lots? negative impacts.
Are green infrastructure practices encouraged as legal and preferred for managing Make all types of green infrastructure allowed and legal and remove all impediments to using stormwater runoff? green infrastr·ucture (including for stormwater requirements). such as limits on infiltration in rights-of-way. permit challenges for green roofs. safety issues with permeable pavements, restrictions on the use of cisterns and rain barrels, and other such unnecessary barriers.
Do stormwater management plan reviews take place early in the development review Incorporate stormwater plan comments and review into the early stages of development process? review/site plan review and approval. preferably at pre-application meetings with developers.
8 Incorporating Green Iinfrastructure Practices at the Municipal, Neighborhood, and Site Scales (SUMMARY) continued
Do local building and plumbing codes allow harvested rainwater use for exterior uses such as Ensure that the municipality allows and encourages stormwater reuse for non-potable uses. irrigation and non-potable interior uses such as toilet flushing?
Are provisions available to meet stormwater requirements in other ways, such as off-site Allow off-site management of runoff while still holding developers responsible for meeting management within the same sewershed or "payment in lieu" of programs, to the extent that stormwater management goals. on-site alternatives are not technically feasible?
Does your stormwater ordinance include monitoring, tracking, and maintenance requirements Incorporate monitoring, tracking, and maintenance requirements for stormwater management for stormwater management practices? practices into your municipal stormwater ordinance.
9 GETTING STARTED
Below are suggested steps to help complete the Water Quality Scorecard:
Step 1. Review the scorecard to identify which agencies, departments, or personnel will be required to complete each section.
Step 2. Convene appropriate stafTto review various sections of the tool, and work together to ensure that updates and changes to codes, policies, and internal processes align well with other agency changes.
Step 3. Collect existing ordinances and policies that will be necessary references to complete the scorecard.
Step 4. Coordinate between appropriate agencies or departments to complete the scorecard.
Please indicate by your signature that you have reviewed the tool with all co-signees of this document (name, department, and date):
Jr~ ...... sc..o~~ f."'OIIVlf}llf''''-O'"\. ...J ..J
D c-. I , '"l ,~ \1\1\. ~ U.... £. U\ ~L~ ~ ~- -- - ~.J J
R. u ~ '" ~, ... V\J It.. L <>..vt Iiv\ ..a~ ~ ~ "\.J _ 0 .. " ..J--0 D, VVl LV\ ~ Mo,u S,,",ip\t'9 (o...., ..... "'iL) Q(vflnpVVHII\~
Step 5: Identify sections of the scorecard and/or specific policy questions that should be prioritized for immediate revision or update.
Step 6: Identify short-, medium-, and long-tenn goals and strategies for revising local policies to better support green infrastructure.
Getting St. " . " 10 1 PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING TREES) AND OPEN SPACE
Sensitive Natural Lands/Critical Area Protection
QUESTION: Are development policies. regulations. and incentives in place to protect natural resource areas and critical habitat?
GOAL: Protect natural resource areas (e.g.. forests. prairies) and critical habitat (e .g.. conservation corridors. buffer zones. wildlife preserves) from future development.
WHY: Protection of significant tracts of critical lands and wildlife habitat will aid in protecting and improving water quality by increasing infiltration and groundwater recharge. preventing erosion and contamination of ground water and surface water resources. and protecting sources of drinking water.
Identify and map critical natural resource areas (e.g.. steep slopes. wildlife 'q"'i.,c1 .oS ,., fl, " .. ~ habitat, forests , drinking water source areas). ,.~ ... (.. l\o""'.). ('~",~c'.J
The local comprehensive plan contai ns a natural resource protection element L. ..",.l cI pi ..", •.l;.. (I. with goals calling for preservation of identified critical natural resource areas . us~ ..... ""V1"'r"'~.~;.'" "'.30. ... ",_"ou.s peli~' b. Identify key natural re source areas for protection in jurisdiction's parks and I, open space plan.
Assist landowners in identifying sensitive natural areas and laying out "~II: H.~ (,,,-.o<.o.J p ... u.s.) ~o, ..suba;,,;~;o"" .:.;~, ¥'",,,,.l ... developments to avoid such areas . of !c..
Local plans establish and enforce areas which are available for development &.._d ".)c T.r " .. ,J, .."""", .. ,."".s ~o li~, ... .1 ;'" c:; .... and which lands are a priority for preservation. ::."It •• ~ ... , • ..,v;,••0"/· .,t ...., ~.'f ;"'" ..It~id( :J1Z.-I .
, ...., 10. v~,cI l • .s .... ;~fo.., ., .... ; ..,a 0"" .s;p.<~ ~(J, cl.,:S 'I
Provide financial support to or collaborate with land trusts to acqu ire critical natura l areas. W/A Establish a dedicated source of funding for open space acquisition and 2 -;-". 10 __ ./I.c:... ~.s f ...... &.£ ...... " ..(l'j f.., .f'''''' c,/I.... l,,, ..t... management (e.g .. bond proceeds, sales tax). I I s, .... - Adopt a transferable developments rights program to provide an incentive for :;: .. u.•• o,,~i o~)"'Ill Zo"';"'j cI;.>~.i~ts ;'" zO <:.1., 3. oS(C. landowners to preserve sensitive natural lands and wildlife habitat. .5 Cl!.,e J, __ .. ;.~ ;""Ct" • .sc..s ., ..sc.J~_(k le""'·""' ·''''1II:) - 7.5 7 .5 PAGE TOTAL ~ CAB.BllIil5..S..U.BIllTAL TO NEXT PAGE =
Section 1: Prote ct Natural Res ources (lnclucling Trp.c s) and Op en Spac e 11 z. .... ;'" ., opt'" ~P"'t "",;,,~J (s ~ 0fO'" s,eet (.,S. _ ..... cI .. ~ • .$5"/, "t .... .s'4'. i c:: lu.s~.(i ... , of-
Adopt regulations to protect steep slope, hillsides, and other sensitive natural 2 ; c) ..... ~;~; , ~ I", IQ" ~ ... .s. l' I'" ..... lands (e.g .. by limiting development on slopes> 30% or reqUiring larger lot sizes in sensitive areas). ,5 ... I..);,,;.)io'" II...!J~ Arl;
Adopt wildlife habitat protection regulations aimed at preserving large 2 contiguous blocks of habitat areas. N/A
Create agriculture/natural resource zoning districts (e .g., minimum lot size of 2 "'.\. I .... ~ .. Cl/\CI ... ~\., 80 acres and larger) to preserve agricultural areas and forests . N/A
SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE T CARRYTHIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE 2. 7.S PAGE TOTAL + = 9·5
Sec tion 1: Protect Na tural Resourc es (lncllJ ding Trees) und Op en Spit ce 12 1.A.2a Protection Of Water Bodies/Aquifers
QUESTION : Are no-development buffer zones and other protective tools In place around wetlands, riparian area s, and floodplain Sthat improve/protect water quality?
GOAL Protect critical areas such as wetlands, fl oodpla ins, lakes, rivers, and estuaries with a mandatory no-development buffer.
WHY: The use of these practices will reduce pollutant loads and hydrologiC alterations to water bodies.
Identify and map critical water resource areas.
The local comprehenSive plan contains a water quality protection element with goals calling for protection of identified water bodies and other water ,:](.5, "'v""Hrov.» ,,_I; ".~ ; .... .:1.0 " .~ LLlTpr resource areas such as wetlands .
Identify key critical water resource areas for protection in jurisdiction's parks , to,,,\-? £. •• '" ~. J .lO ...... r ... Q ~ L. ( ( ~ . 1 ...." .... ~Q' ':) O{. • "'''i ''''''. and open space plan. - r<~ , Cooperate in developing regional approaches to watershed protection and , ~T"'}f\s4 CoJ •• k;",,", G•• ,,!' • 1N.5J'. stormwater management.
I;1t.s, tL..,u ... "",s Protected water bodies and buffer areas qualify for twice the credit (or more! against open space requirements set by the municipality. Restoration of degraded riparian/wetland areas qualifies for additional open space credit within the local municipal system. rv/A "or-.cr tit .. .!> ....s. t'1\J~ Riparian and wetland buffer areas required by local land use regulation s 1 to A1 .... ~:C. ""I-h.•• ,c:I;"' ..... c~ ...... s. .. ~ .... ~f..r _I 2.5' t.,. .F 4 .... 1.. ... ~ · Buffer is at least 50 feet (as measured from the top of bank! =1 point 3 2£" .ff. H.G fl._~ .....'3. _"'."'\.o .... c ; .. -'"....., 0"" ""'c"''l" l"';~ .ji,\Js · Buffer is at least 100 feet (as measured from the top of bank! = 2 points ... ..!o."llo.. ,1,... > 5Q'· A& ".,~.f ~\" ..... ,- N'O~!!> _w .. ;dl""l r~.-;~ H",. · Buffer is greater than 100 feet (as measured from the top of bank! = 3 points ",;11 c\.c .. ",,~q ~o '0' Critical water resource areas cannot be counted in calculating allowable density on a site (e.g .. on a 200-acre site with 50 acres of wetlands , only 150 acres can be used to calculate density under zone district regulations. and N/A only those 150 acres may be developed!. 7 SU BTO TAL FROM PREVIOU S PAGE ... CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + '1.5 = lle.S Secti on I Prole ct Natural Res ources (In cl uding Tro es) anr! Oll .. n Space 13 Pts. Pts. Implementation Tools and Policies Avail. Rec. or N/A Notes and Local References Development in floodplains IS prohibited or must demonstrate no adverse 2 ~:II 1..1-- •• '" f 100.) _''') IS~"'· .... 4 Sao ;:" F tooa c:."" ~t , impacts upstream and downstream (See resources below for details on "no z..",:",-~ or~ c.L. 4 ~e,," .::2!} adverse impact"" approach to floodplain management), 1 F- .. " ...~ .. ~ NI"",i, C(o.l. ~ .. ""'~~e (,.,. I '= .:n f- Stormwater quality and quantity performance standards exist for development 1 So c 1"-Slb ~WO(J ~.V\. ""-rf---.... n c:.,;t-rrltA ... , oS"" M~_\-. sites le,g., restrictions on sedimentation levels, pre/post development flows). I 1 1 local regulations require restoration of degraded riparian/wetland areas on a 1 l ' S." 1'i-l..o1 fr,,,,,,H<;.l1v~., 0 r~ ~"'Q",(a I development site. ~ I I Compensation for damage to riparian/wetland areas must be on a minimum 1 I'i) ....~ -,... ~. """ , ..... _ll I 2:1 basis on· or off-site. NIA Performance standards exist and are well enforced for stormwater discharges 1 I to wetlands that protect the hydrologic regimes and limit pollutant loads. NfA I I SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE T CARRYTHI S SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE P~OTAl + ,',.5' = 1'.5 Scc(iop I " Protect NmurHI R c ~o u rr. r. s (Incl uding Tree sl ,11111 Opnn Spac e 14 1.A.2b Protection Of Water Bodies/Aquifers QUESTION: Does the community have protection measures for source water protection areas through land use controls and stewardship activities? GOAL: Protect source water areas from current or potential sources of contamination. WHY: These practices will help safeguard community health. reduce the risk of water supply contamination. and potentially reduce water treatment costs. Local land use plans identify aquifer recharge/source water areas and R. 1 ",i •• .1 '". lot j"'''.... \-or;.J''' ~.. Io"., .. ZoO. "",..",:(~J~ recommend protective measures. :.•• ~ .. "ho",~ ,.f· ;'" f'l " Require that all stormwater inlets carry a notice regarding discharge to receiving waters. N/A AJ') I"~'U"'-'l~ • .s"'-l OrJ • .s.lC 1"I~Slb * Map and publish wellhead and aquifer recharge areas to alert developers to potential restrictions . N/A Identification of drinking water source protection and aquifer recharge areas with a dedicated funding source in place to purchase and protect such areas. N/A Protection of critical water source areas qualifies for additional credit towards local open space requirements. N/A Adopt well·head protection regulations/zones to prevent incompatible ,~.~ of )O·.",lcl...r. or~. ~".p~.J '':l 70...... 5 .. ". ,1/- Cf07 development and uses. Adopt aquifer protection regulations/zones to prevent incompatible 2 ." development and uses. 2 A .. ., .~;< 8." ff, r " /'1-2'0 Ll SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE T CARRYTHIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGETOTAl + ~ = 2;.5 Seclion 1: Protect Natural Rc,our cC5 (including Trces) and Op CIl Space 15 1.B.1 I QUESTION: Does the Jurisdiction have adequate open space in both developed and greenfield areas of the community? GOAL: Create open space networks throughout a community that serve a dual function of providing recreational areas and assisting in the management of stormwater runoff. WHY: In addition to providing open space throughout a community as an amenity, such a network can provide large areas that contribute little to stormwater loads and can provide large areas for the infiltration and purification of stormwater. i"'_ jI... PAl~ ..... 2,008-2,018 "I1/>t N/A P..\oli. I..... ~ ;~ "'O~ ... q,-ir,J _/0 ... U~f: II/A N/A lo~ C"lItc"'!l( • ~( •• .." (oof (.JU(~ lo~ co,,*r,,:;? ( • Adopt neighborhood policies and ordinances that work to create :) .. 10, ~,Ld( .1lI 6· ., (, .. ..,i,,~ <.. __ ... "'i~'1 0,.", ~{'a.'L " neighborhood-not development site--- Adopt an open space impact fee to purchase passive open space that can assist in stormwater management. N/A 10'1. (. Adopt open space dedication and/or set aside requirements based on the demand generated by the development. As a baseline, use the average open I Ib'!, {"'tv; c ~~ space requirements adopted by the National Recreation and Park Assn. (e .g., 10 acres of community and neighborhood parks for every 1,000 persons in a development or fraction thereof). .. SUB TOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE .... CARRYTHIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE ~;o~1 + 45.- = .Z7 Sectiun 1: Protect Natural Rusou rces {In clu dll lg Tr eesj anrl Or' l'l' n SP"cc 16 1.C.1 I QUESTION: Does the local government have a comprehensive public urban forestry program? GOAL: Protect and maintain trees on public property and rights-of-way and plant additional trees to enhance the urban tree canopy. WHY: Mature trees provide mUltiple community benefits. reduce overall stormwater runoff. and improve stormwater quality. Survey and inventory existing trees on public lands and street rights-of-way. i ...... "' .. So "'...... cI.,~.d T"f pi .. ", \'-0' P ..... I,'c. Pcot ..!-; • ..! ..... J ..... ca .. ",v~\ Oocument the characteristics and location of street trees and urban tree /,'03''' :", H•• E-_Il ro, r.fl... c. ....::;1 "Ie,) I::r".)_ canopy to inform public tree planting. adoption. and maintenance programs. Select tree species based on known performance for managing stormwater T.... "" "'...... cI.,t-,d "<.,,...... , .....J pl .. ..,~ liJof H.ot- is Qvcail.bl( runoff. Publish list and make widely available for homeowners/others that oV\1 i"" , f C F-o c~ q"" c f ;'" Q ..... ," "' ... ~.H-i"" j. ~i...", cOIofJoiJ.,,"iok plant street trees. Conduct education and outreach about tree protection. proper maintenance. ::r ... .., .. ~i". "'f'c"',s. b,oct...",ce " '>i~", f.o, "I.;I;~~ I,,,,, Q,loor~~v"",. and replanting opportunities through printed materials. workshops. events. .1 "1 ... 50 ", ... ",J .. u~~ ·fl .... !- • .) h .. _.If (-Cft..J l"'Q~i",.) "'ft,op,,'~lc-f I • and signage. ....\".,. oH ubli~i.l , Adopt a policy to protect existing trees on local government development " •• pr.I-'c.l-iolA. ordi~."'lt sites (e.g .. municipal parking lots. municipal buildings). ~w &~.. f.f. ,)0'''' ~I..I-.s __..h\"i ... ~, ("v",i"." f!-C.· j",..l.<.i Maintain an active 'tree maintenance program for public trees. including pest control. pruning. watering. and similar measures. ..""ir.d ... ~ I'Qri-or 1...,,,-,,.(,, ,f.vo e~vi • .,.J , .. I ..... ,) ... cQ/'(> ord· Require any public trees removed or damaged during construction associated with private development to be replaced on- or off-site with an equivalent It'r\.. u~clM ~""~ , .. " ..... ;,.d P" Ie.. fr~r,c.lJ·o", OrJ · amount of tree caliper (e.g .. remove a 24-inch diameter tree/replace with 6 .s- c.. lY - 108 four-inch diameter trees). Adopt construction protection rules for all public trees (e .g.. fenCing. no I J .!> .. c. I~-Il storage of hazardous materials. avoid cutting into root zones). I'--'" fo.i! .. ",.l SqW'Ot , .. I ,. SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE T CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOlJl.L + M2.7 = .&~ Section 1: Prote ct Natural Rp.suur~e s (Including l' ee s) and Op l ~1l Spn ce 17 QUESTION : Has the community taken steps to protect trees on private property? GOAL: Preserve trees on private property and require replacement when trees are removed or damaged during development. WHY: Mature trees provide multiple environmental. economic. and community benefits. including improved water and air quality. reduced heat island effects. lowered energy costs. and improved community aesthetics. Community plans specifically include tree preservation and replacement as i .. , plcoL o,~ .s. c. ILl - /01 ... L ..... J~c.pi ... .,0,.) c.", !.I, ~.. c.~ community goals. Conduct educational sessions for builders and developers regarding ,..'1 ..... ,(1'.) p('~CG~ '(~fl f·• .f..",\-ioVl """" .. a....su"j. appropriate tree protection techniques and/or publish a technical tree ..,;I~1C ·I",fo,,,,,,~.) of- i_po,J-.... c.~ or+((l" protection manual. 'i).,,". Follow maintenance and inspection timelines and meet canopy goals and ";0...,'" ...sl-.. ~f c..""~ ... <-l.-.> <4 ...... "" .. 1 c."i,,,,, of !"wlol,-c +,. r.l c. .. r milestones by ensuring old trees survive. replacing dead or diseased trees. ..'1 .. < • .,...."'1- r _ ... ;"'\- . •~c. To...,,,, [." ... i".> Z·~·Q( t.. ""J~<,,~ W\ ..i .. ~ · and planting new trees. NIA Support local non·profits that plant trees and provide educational services. Provide financial incentives for tree purchases and planting. Nt A tree fund has been established to receive in-lieu payments when trees must To ~ r' q OJ; cf 3 r.,. (.. 1I ...... 1- (or T'O , ... - log be removed from a development site to accommodate permitted projects. Trees of a spei;itied minimum size count towards a percentage of stormwater management requirements (e.g.. partial credit given for each mature tree exceeding a specified height or canopy size). N/A Trees over a specified minimum size (e .g.. 3-inch caliper) protected during 1 to \oj (->, T.p.o Su: 1'-(-{01 development are credited towards landscaping requirements. 2 . meeting the established landscape requirement = 1 point 2 . exceeding the established landscape requirement =2 points 8 SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ~ CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAG ETOTAL + .3.6 = •• 4~ Seclion 1: Protect Na lural Resources ililcl ulling Trr,csl and Op"" SpeC R 18 Require permits before removing trees on proposed development or ipo . .su:. 1'-1-111./ .. I'-I-Ilfo redevelopment sites. Provide fines and/or stop-work authority for permit violations. Set minimum tree preservation standards for new development sites. l\Ai'oM.vlI'IfII' Require site plans or stormwater plans to include tree preservation. TPO.5.(; /1./ -/05 Require/allow tree replacement off-site for infill sites. TPo .::HC 1'-/ - loS y SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ..... CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + 4114 = 'iStil Section 1: PrOlCCt Natura l Resources (Inclu ding lrccsi and Open Spacf! 19 t.C.3 I QUESTION: Are st reet trees encouraged or required as part of road and public right-of-way capital improve ment projects? GOAL: Leverage existing capital funds to plant more street trees and add multiple benefits to the public right-of-way. WHY: Street trees can help manage and reduce stormwater runoff while providi ng mUltiple public and environmental benefits. TLUPP p=,. <4 ~ -r.-", ~h .... ~:> 0'" I'"t. I"" pl ....\:, ... 'j t..R ~<<. O.l. d (f.. -~ ~ .. ,J hu rr'fv;(,,,,,,"o,b) ~, .... 1.~'" pr-j. ~.. II ..... I __ ,).. c." .... r~,vi / ~yW'I."'?J z.o. " .... ~ !><.:.J:il... +:sz::rr. i"" QSR. T PO ,. < , .. oJ; \-:. ., ...... 2 All private and public developments are required to plant street trees in .. ...... ".~.i. o~ p ,,4, ..,lo." -.bo\l('" accordance with size, spacing, and other local government requirements. New street designs and redesigns of existing streets take into account space T, ••~ + ... " .. ;L .. IoI. I'(.\A~;""'!) .sf''''c~ "",,. .. '" .. .".."...... (-i .. for tree development and require necessary surfac e area and volume of soi l co.... ~;.),,""l-i .. - ;'" lA ...... oS !r~,.1- J ... ;~ .... .> ~ (,.-J.~i", ... .s dependent on type of tree species selecte d(this includes lateral root growth !l'.... ~ S~,,'I".) ..... 1.0 .. ,,. ~{.,..3 """. or~'''' p, .... /.J as well as direct downward growth to accommodate mature tree canopy and r"'. Lot • \I' ~ c· ...... t ( ~ COIt...s (J . roots without adversely affecting other utilities). r. •• .:;,R. A,I-.m &.z. Street specifications require perm eable paving for sidewalks and other surfa ces to redu ce stormwater runoff and allow street trees to benefit from N/A the available water. T Total score for SECTION t: PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING TREES) 5 AND OPEN SPACE PAGETOTAL + This section has been review ed and scored by Department name ~ .."\.!..., 10121'11'1") ~ C ..... WI,,"'i~'? 'D,v- Signee JO.... 1<1 S caH :c MA'~ ::;'lnifl,~ Sect ion 1: PrOlecl Natural Rcsourcc~ (In cludi ng Trr.esl anrl Open Space 20 2 PROMOTE EFFICIENT, COMPACT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND INFILL 2.A.1 I QUESTION: Are policy incentives in place to direct development to previously developed areas? GOAL: Municipalities implement arange of policies and tools to direct development to specific areas. WHY: Municipalities can realize a significant reduction in regional runoff if they take advantage of underused properties, such as infill, brownfield, or greyfield sites. Redeveloping already degraded sites such as abandoned shopping centers or underutilized parking lots rather than paving greenfield sites for new development can dramatically reduce total imp ervious area while allowing communities to experience the benefits and opportunities associated with growth. Local plans identify potential brownfield and greyfield sites, and support their ~ .... (~ redevelopment. NIA (~-J r"tl0l'.....,..l- . Capital improvement plans include infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, road, sidewalk, etc. upgrades) for identified brownfield and greyfield sites. rJ/A Educate lending and financial institutions about benefits and local priorities of directing development to existing areas. N/A Conduct outreach to the community to ensure support for local forms and patterns of development. TV/ A- • N/A Provide incentives such as density bonuses and accelerated permitting for brownfield and greyfield sites. N/A Adopt funding mechanisms for remediating/redeveloping brownfield and greyfield sites. N/A Streamline permitting procedures to facilitate infill and brownfield redevelopment plan review. N/A Establish tax increment financing (TlF) districts to encourage redevelopment. fA In local codes , ordinances, and policies, the municipality differentiates e. between greenfield and infill development. N/A o PAGE TOTAL I ... CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE = o Sec tion 2: Pro mot e Ei llelent. Co mpAct Development Panerns and Il1 lill 23 2.B.1 I QUESTION: Does the municipality direct growth to areas with exi sting infrastructure. such as sewer. water. and roads? GOAL: Adopt policies. incentives. and regulations to direct new development to areas that have infrastructure. such as water and sewer. However. in situations where development is in areas with no sewer infrastructure. permitting alternative treatment options that can allow for higher density development or clustering of houses will reduce the overall water quality impact. WHY: Sewer and water authorities can playa major role in directing a region's growth by determining when and where new infrastructure investment will occur. Well-drafted facility planning areas can direct growth by providing sewer service in areas least likely to impact water resources. Local plans recommend/establish urban growth areas and urban growth ",""O'l(.II'llf - t:"""'!l yl • k,,,,o,, Go' G< ...... ~'" Pol;c'::) PI .. .., boundaries. Development is encouraged within urban growth boundaries and discouraged outside of them. Analyze which areas within the Jurisdiction are appropriate for higher density 2 \J.>. p.,I,'c.':) pi.. ", development based on existing infrastructure capacity, cost of providing new ~ .... , ... ~"'~ I .. ",,') L·.... "" ... f'0(l-oal-i .. "'" ~ services, and access . 2 Capital improvement plans for public infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.l 2 ~;~<...\ '1 .... r 2..0'2 <-"f';~ Development standards addressing landscaping. buffering, parking, and open 2 space are tailored for infill areas to avoid creating,unnecessary hurdles to deve'lopment (e.g .. imposing suburban parking requirements in high-density Nj A infill areasl. Remove prohibitions on accessory dwelling units in infill areas to increase 2 density of development. N/A Off-site. regional water retention/detention encouraged/allowed to avoid 2 .AlloVJ~~ . ..sl-o,_"",.. ~' ( o,J costly on-site retention in densely developed infill areas and to provide benefit to priority retrofit sites, such as schools. Package plants and other wastewater treatment trains are encouraged for ,I... 'Tof. J •• ~ ",o~ ""' ...... ,,:/, loc.. [ ~ ....s.I- .. "" ... ~a, f-(' ...... ~"""• ."l-. fUI) development in limited circumstance areas where growth is appropriate but N/A sewers/treatment capacity does not exist. ,-'" 1-"' .. .!> ..... ;~ .. '''J ~ • ...,., f' C""\~'H. No ~ ... <-k..~~ ~I .. ",,~~. b SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE '" CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGETOTAl + C> = b Sewon 2 Promot e El li cicnI, Compa cTD cvel op mem Pali N '" al1 n Il1lill 24 Pts. Pts. Implementation Tools and Policies Avail. Rec. or N/A Notes and Local References - - - Technical,information and analysis on the effectiveness of various treatment 1 systems are readily available to developers. Local governments have determined which systems work best for their soil conditions and topography N/A and have made this information available to the development community. I Allow a wide variety of housing types and sizes within infill areas and reduced 1 I minimum lot sizes. N/A I ADOPT INCENTIVES: ~ Increase development densities and allowable height in infill areas. 1 N/A I Reduce impact fees for infill development based on less demand for new 1 I infrastructure. N/ A I Create development incentives for green roofs le.g., increased floor area ratio 1 NIA [FAR] bonus. additional building height). I *' Include provision in stormwater management requirement that reduces 1 on-site management requirements for projects that decrease total N/A imperviousness on previously developed sites. ~ ENACT REGULATIONS: Zoning and land development regulations implement urban service areas/ 1 urban growth boundary policies by restricting development in outlying areas. N/A Adopt adequate public facility and concurrency ordinances that require 1 Z ...;""':) o,J; ..... "'''' c. c;.\... :s adequate public infrastructure to be available when development comes on line le.g., water, sewer, roads). I Adopt large-lot/agricultural zoning le.g., 1 unit/160 acres) on fringe of city to 1 restrict inappropriate greenfield development. rJ/A Enact transitional compatibility standards to ensure that new denser 1 infill development is compatible with existing neighborhoods/adjacent N/A development. I SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE T CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + {~ = 7 Section 2: Promote EHlCiem , Comp ac t De ve lopment Pattern s an a Infill 25 2.C.1 I QUESTION: Are mixed-use and transit-oriented developments allowed or encouraged? GOAL: Revise codes and ordinances to allow for the "by right" building of mixed-use and transit-oriented developments. WHY: Mixed-use developments allow for the co-locating of land uses, which decreases impervious surfaces associated with parking and decreases vehicle miles traveled-resulting in a reduction of hydrocarbons left on roadways and reduced air deposition. Transit-oriented development (TOO) produces water quality benefits by reducing (1) land consumption due to smaller site footprints; (2) parking spaces and the impervious cover associated with them; and (3) average vehicle miles traveled. which, in turn, reduces deposition of air pollution into water bodies. Comprehensive plans identify appropriate areas for higher-density mixed-use developments (e.g., at transit stops) and recommend policies to encourage N/A A.).)(f.>"S .. J ~'" "" .... I ..... J \I.s.~ p'''''''' p.""~;,,,J .... j op ~;C>..., their development. *" Local capital improvement plans and funding are targeted to areas 2 appropriate for mixed-use development. N/A Zoning ordinances can create by-right mixed-use and transit-oriented T ..... '" ,-,,,,b.( J;.s.~I;d-, zo c.~ 3 .5rc. XxVl\ development districts or overlays through amendments. Initiate map amendments to designate mixed-use and transit-oriented development areas, eliminating the need for developers to secure zoning amendments. N/A Parking requirements are reduced to reflect decreased automobile use. Credit given for adjacent on-street parking, which can count for local parking requirements. Shared parking and alternative parking arrangements encouraged. Mixed-use districts/areas feature increased densities and height. Accessory parking structures are not counted against maximum floor area ratio (FAR) on a site. "fA No f= AR. " "" Ie ~ ~t ( ~ d· y SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ... CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + 7 = II Sectlnn 2' Promot DEfi lc lcm. Compact Development Poop-rlls an d Inlill 26 Zoning code requires a minimum mix of uses and minimum density in de signated mixed-use and tran sit-oriented development areas. 1 .... '" (<<."'\-" ;~Li<-~ Auto-oriented uses and drive-throughs are restricted or prohibited in mixed use and transit-oriented development areas. " (,0.34" .. 1.. • .,) ) T Total score for SECTION 2: PROMOTE EFFICIENT. COMPACT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND INFllL 2 SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE II PAGE TOTAL + = I~ (TOTAL POINTS AVAILABLE : 4~ 1 cli-~3 This section has been reviewed and scored by #< 't4:M7ItlA-f11~~ L! ----~-7 ~ Department name <. Ie,;".." ''''' ~ c.. _-..,... ;b'J 'PIV· Signee J ..._""", s Secllon 2: Promote EHi cienl . Co mnn CI Oev el onment Patterns and Inhll 27 3 DESIGN COMPLETE, SMART STREETS THAT REDUCE OVERALL IMPERVIOUSNESS 3.A.1 I QUESTION: 00 local street design standards and engineering practices encourage streets to be no wider than necessary to move traffic effectively7 00 street designs vary according to: . street type (arterial streets, collector streets, neighborhood streets) and . urban context (urban core, transit station area, suburban cente r, general suburban, rura!)? Do policies allow narrow ne igh borhood streets designed to slow traffic and create safer conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists 7 GOAL: Appropriate street widths allow narrower lanes for certain street type s, thereby reducing overall imperviousness. ------. WHY: The width of travel lanes, parking lanes and sidewalks should be tailored to the urban setting . Where appropriate, narrowing travel lane width to 10-11 feet. rather than the standa rd 12-13 feet , can significantly reduce the total amount of impervious surfaces. Such streets can also substantially improve conditions for walking, biking, and using transit, which reduces automobile use and overall demand for parking spaces. Comprehensive plan/transportation plan emphasizes alternative modes of ·5 rl.. ", ... ",,;.l ... bl( . (".,t dO ~~ ... o~ q"",p\.,~; z.~ transportation (walking, biking, and transit) to reduce vehicle miles traveled and width and prominence of roads/streets. .. Com prehensive/transportation plan calls for distributing traffic across several 'l\,.;~ i~ 'I"""plic;~ ! c...... S..U~~LIo~ ~1 p"u.~i<:.t b... ~ ;.Jo ,,"o!: parallel streets, reducing the need for high capacity streets with wide rights of-way. ·5 5op.ll.a ov~ Comprehensive/transportation planning process brings emergency response All ,{oj.,,\-'> H ... ~ ~o (.0 pl ..... "'i.." u ...... -· ~.u r.. ,,;. """.l and other local government departments (e.g., public works, utilities) to the table early in the process to discuss street design. 10 ~ ~ u ... l V'of\. ~,.. ( • _ • , ~ ... c ~ ,r~, ...... <) * ~ ... "). Adopt formal bicycle/pedestrian master plan. Create "safe routes to school" programs or other pedestrian/bike safety initiatives. -.,g Make consisten t improvements to walking/biking conditions or develop a ,,~. C:."''''.c.~io""",.s ..t ~'V..s..""",,~&.s.. formal bicycle/pedestrian master plan. " I Comprehensive plan endorses context-sensitive street design with narrower \1\." ...... >\ ••• \-~ ~r' .. u" .... J . L.. I "'O~ s,.IIIJ """r streets in appropriate locations. pi ... "" (.",;.:.ioloi' * Improve pedestrian crossing at intersections to encourage walking. ,.... Consolidate utilities in street right-of-w ay to improve sidewalk design and function. .6 PAGE TOTAL Section 3: Design Completl'. Smart Sl(eet~ Th at Rcrltlce Ovcr;jll lmpCfVio ll snp.ss 29 Negotiate with state department of transportation or county transportation j •.s. q~: ~ ... e.o ,., ~ h.".,.. Iv' "".~ C thk. bo No, tl.u\"'o, ( department to allow different design standards for regional roads passing "'TOOi through downtowns or other key areas. +IO~ Promote street standards for fire safety that include attributes of narrow 2 ,::, .. I-.~.., .. '" ", ...,'0",", I.",.~ r,o-ole! .. ! B.d.)~."",Ocr. streets (20 feet widths) while identifying factors relevant to local government departments involved with streets such as public works. engineering. and utilities. 11-", ..\ "",.fcCl <0~ ...1! Take formal control of state or county roads within city boundaries to ensure 2 'T),.. 101:. ~oolt. ."et ""I' .;.."""~., ( ..... a~ (IZ," _il•.;) u,..... ·,u",o'.f'Ordl-r'ovt power over design and operations. ;'" '''3'0 Developments that provide comprehensive pedestrian/bicycle circulation systems allowed reducing number of vehicle parking spaces. (See parking N/A section below for greater detail.l Developments with approved comprehensive mobility/transportation plans allowed building narrower, less costly streets and alleys. N/A Revamp local government technical street specifications to allow context 2 sensitive, innovative street design with narrower travel lanes, without curb , .... ~...... ~."'~ wI C:."'~"-fOr,.(,? ~w poli~., and gutter, etc., in appropriate circumstances (See Institute of Transportation N/A ~ Engineers Recommended Practice document below). Emergency response professionals and other local government departments involved with streets (e,g, public works, engineering, utilities) have endorsed N/A or adopted design standards for narrower neighborhood streets. Development review process involves emergency response early on to reach '1 ...... ;"" re,,"w c..\"."Ic.\,'~+ h....\".),~ f. ••• / .. _L. ...\"''''( t consensus on appropriate project street design and access . ". Development review process requires submittal of project pedestrian/bicycle circulation plans with safe street routes and other pedestrian/bicycle-friendly 05;\. ,1... ", f Pleli"""i"'Q~ pl~~ (0'f'" r""""VI'/" features in addition to traffic circulation plans for larger developments. Apply formal connectivity index' or other measures to ensure adequate 2 F-.,.-_I j""Jo,c "'.~ a'[I'li.,) "v~ "'C>'''''Q~' ~.JI 1./,,:)<.1" internal street and pedestrian/bicycle connections. (."'... <.tio"l~ ....=u v"J Zoning/subdivision regulations require minimum number of connections 2 :r...... , r ...... ,·(V~ .sil-. ,1 .. ", between new project and surrounding developments and neighborhoods. 2 SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE '" CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE 8 .,.-I'-{ PAGE TO,ffih + = ) Connectivity index refers to the directness of links and the density of connections in path or road network. A well-connected road or path network has many short links, numerous intersections, and minimal dead-ends Icul-de-sacs). As connectivity increase s, travel distances decrease and route options increase, allowing more direct travel between destinations, and creating a more Accessible and Resilient system. Source: Online Travel Demand Management Encyclopedia, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdmll6.htm Sec lion 3: Design Complete, Smart Slreet, ThaI Reduce Overalllmp o,vlOu,ness 30 3.A.2 QUESTION : Are shared driveways, reduced driveway widths, two-track driveways, and rear garages and alleys encouraged for all single-family developments? GOAL: Encourage alternative forms and decreased dimensions of residential driveways and parking areas. WHY: Off-street parking and driveways contribute significantly to the impervious areas on a residential lot. Reducing such dimensions can minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from a site. I REMOVE BARRIERS: Allow developments that utilize shared driveways and rear-loaded garages to 1 )1110 .... ~"' .. ,.d o(ilJ.""''''~~ !",cl~Q_o(4!' permit overnight parking in driveways and on-street. ( .... CA".. ' ...~ ....~ ~ .. """,) I f' .. ,1(. Pt... Seclion 3: OeS'9 11 Com plele, Smart Streels ThaI Red uce Overallimpr.rv.ousness 31 QUESTION: Are major street projects required to integrate green infrastructure practices as a standard part of construction, maintenance, and improvement plans? GOAL: Formally integrate green infrastructure into standard roadway construction and retrofit practice. WHY: Consistent projects to improve or repair streets provide opportunities to include green infrastructure retrofits as part of larger project budget, design, and construction. Comprehensive/transportation plans promote green infrastructure practices in street design. N/A Street project cost estimates include green infrastructure designs and assess *" cost savings from reduced hard i~frastructure. N/A Technical street specifications allow/require integration of green GIol\ow. infrastructure elements into street project construction. c>< c..otb,,"I<:) ... ~ f't ""fo•• 1' ... ,1".. Pl..~ .. .n (,J."IJ r_ ,.j",. c..rr.)i ~ ~."".rJ> ~.h",lio'" Adopt green infrastructure retrofit standards for major street projects. N/A Adopt technical specifications and design templates for green infrastructure in private and public rights-of-way. tJ/A ~ All local road projects required to allocate a minimum amount of the total project cost to green infrastructure elements. N/A '1 SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE " CARRYTHIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + 11.4" = 21,. Seclion 3: De sig n Complete. SOlar! Slreels Tilal Red uce Ove rallllllpcrVl ou,ness 32 QUESTION: 00 regulations and policies promote use of pervious materials for all paving areas, including alleys, streets, sidewalks, crosswalks, driveways, and parking lots7 GOAL: Build and retrofit these surfaces with pervious materials to reduce stormwater runoff and its negative impacts. NOTE: While eliminating sidewalks or placing sidewalks on only one side of the road can reduce impervious cover, this strategy is typically most appropriate for rural areas. However, other effective strategies can achieve the same runoff reductions that will not limit residents' options for recreation and transportation . WHY: Streets, sidewalks, and other hard surfaces contribute a large portion to a municipality's total imperviousness. Making these impervious surfaces more permeable protects water quality, reduces flooding, and can recharge groundwater. Sponsor/approve pilot programs to determine appropriate pervious materials '~·hv-.. V... ,\C pL...... ~cr 11.. for different paving areas (e.g., permeable concrete for sidewalks, permeable pavers for driveways), as well as process for installation and maintenance. Pilot project results incorporated into standard practice for all new paved areas and retrofits of existing paved surfaces. N/A Adopt policy to replace Impervious materials with pervious materials where NIA .:.1.,.""'':>' .,.) b:. ... \~...... N/A ~ -;.. Adopt requirement that some percentage of parking lots, alleys, or roads in a T;. ~.. ,.,u.; .. ) 'l'q vi"~ ...f) :K development utilize pervious materials, ~I A Development approvals that allow/require use of pervious materials include -=>+-o/_",,,,\-.r orJ s"crc. 11/ 52'1, S2S ~ S2b requirements far continuing maintenance/cleaning of pervious surfaces. ... Total score for SECTION 3: DESIGN COMPLETE. SMART STREETS THAT REDUCE OVERALL IMPERVIOUSNESS 2 SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE 2.L{ 214 PAGE TOTA..L + = ... (TOTAL POINTS AVAILABLE 501 @D This section has been reviewed and scored by J ....)Oll' ,,)can 'D ....:1)\s ..... ·.~\., i Ruth H"" ...k. Sec tloll 3: Dr- Sign Complr.te, Smart Sireets That Reduce OverallllTlflcrVIOtJs np. s::; 33 4 ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT PARKING 4.A.1 II QUESTION : Does your local government provide flexibility regarding alternative parking requirements (e.g., shared parking, off-site parking) and discourage over-parking of developments? 00 parking requirements vary by zone to reflect places where more trips are on foot or by tran si t? GOAL: Match parking requirements to the level of demand and allow ftexible arrangements to meet parking standards. WHY: Inflexible parking requirements that do not allow for alternative approaches, as well as standards that require too much parking for specific uses increase the amount of impervious surface in a development. Over-parking a development also encourages greater vehicle use and detracts from the overall pedestrian environment. The comprehensive plan recognizes the advantages to reduced parking requirements generally and specifically for mixed-use and transit-oriented developments. N/A The comprehensive plan recommends alternative, flexible approaches to meeting parking demands (e .g., shared parking, counting on-street spaces NfA towards site parking requirements). Comprehensive/bicycle plans recommend provision of bicycle parking P.~, ~ ~i('~\1 ,Icall\ spaces/storage lockers and concomitant reduction in vehicle parking space requirements. Z.oW\i"'~ .or~ ""'" 4 :;'''' ~ Allow flexibility in meeting parking space requirements through shared Z ""':"'C;:) or.) parking, off-site parking, and similar approaches. T ....'" c...",~.( xx:VjJ ~ ¥c..1) Xi5JZI Permit businesses with different peak demand periods to share their required ,'" '" ~.... ;... ~ ord , .rl!-..f l;e:..t.cl parking spaces. rGb' Permit reduction in vehicle parking spaces through the provision of a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces. N/A Allow by-right reduction in required parking spaces (e .g., 25%) in mixed-use and transit-oriented developments and districts. 1 ,,-- <. .. .,~f()SJS37jJ 2."';"'~ o.J Permit developers to undertake parking studies to establish that specific developments (e.g., senior housing, affordable housing) require fewer parking cl., Lj .!i. II, XX p •• I.e.;",") ~ loq,J~"'1 spaces than typical projects. £ ... CAR~TAL TO NEXT PAGE = ,5 Section 4: En cou rage EHl cle nt Pal'klng 36 Revise parking regulations to reduce minimums below standard ITE (Institute 2 of Transportation Engineers) requirements based on analysis of local .s",. ~ r.,ki",,, ~ IO ... ,): .... j developments and actual parking demand/experience. 2 Charge developers for every space beyond parking minimums to oHset environmental impacts. N/A Enact parking standards that allow credit for adjacent on-street parking. Create zones with reduced parking requirements (e.g., transit overlay districts, mixed-use activity centers, multi-modal districts). Waive all parking minimums in downtown and other locations that are pedestrian-oriented and/or have good transit access. N/A Adopt parking standards that reduce requirements based on sliding scale tied to degree of walkability/transit access locations (20% reduction in areas well N/A served by bus, 30% reduction in areas served by rail stations). Require shared parking agreements where appropriate complementary uses s."'- 20 ZO ~ PCl'~ ~ 1..... ~ exist. Adopt maximum parking caps (e .g., 125% above minimum) for multi·family 2 and commercial developments. N/A Reduce minimum parking space size based on analysis of average vehicle size in jurisdiction . Nj A 5 SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ~ CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + 5 = Ie Section 4: Enr. ourage Ef ht l~ : nt Prlrktng 37 4.8.1 I QUESTION: Can developers use alternative measures such as transportation demand management or in-lieu payments to reduce required parking? GOAL: Provide flexibility to reduce parking in exchange for specific actions that reduce parking demands on site. WHY: Incentives such as transit passes, vanpool arrangements, flexible work schedules, market-priced facilities, and separate leasing for spaces in apartments and condominiums have quantifiable impacts on parking demand. Incorporating them into parking requirements creates the opportunity to meet demand with less impervious cover. N/A N/A Allow businesses that offer employee transit passes, provide vans for 2 employee commuting, allow ftexible working arrangements, or charge market rates for parking to 1) provide fewer parking spaces or 2) pay less into a N/A parking district fund for required parking spaces. Allow developers to make in-lieu fee payments for parking. Fees utilized by local government/parking authority to provide off-site parking lots/structures. N/A Provide mechanisms for car sharing in transit-oriented development. Where done, area parking requirements are reduced. N/A Create a parking district and allow/require businesses to support public garages rather than provide their own on-site parking. N/A Require large developments to adopt transportation demand management techniques to lower vehicle use and parking demand. N/ A o SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE T CARRYTHIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE ,~ PAGEIOTAl + = ttl Section 4: Encollrage ENte lont Pa rking 38 4.C.1 I QUESTION: Are there requirements for landscaping designed to minimize stormwater in parking lots? GOAL: Require substantial landscaping to help reduce runoff. WHY: Parking lots generate a large amount of impervious cover. Requiring landscaping reduces the environmental impact of parking and can provide additional community benefits by providing shade and. if appropriately placed. creating natural barriers between pedestrians and cars. No tf..5t"cJiolA> 1;-0 ""H"",.";", 1._J.. c. ... pi .... , sol..,l;o",.s Parking lot landscaping and green roofs on parking structures credited I .... ~..sc.f' • .) "'.GII~ f., c..,f .. j"" towards meeting local stormwater management requirements. ·5 Give additional landscaping credit for preservation of large, mature trees TPo ,oS.,. l'i -Ioct It OJ. C, • .};~ (7,o\li.sio,,", ~ within parking lots. Do not count parking structures with green roofs against the allowable floor area ratio of a site. ~/A Adopt parking lot landscape regulations that require provision of trees, minimum percent of parking lot interior area to be landscaped le.g., 10%), and ZO, L R. (.1.... ~ Sote . .:R!l 'D I L minimum sized landscaping areas (e.g., minimum of 25 square feet for island planting areas). In parking lot land scaping regulations. specify the types and sizes of shrubs " and trees most appropriate for controlling/reducing stormwater runoff. 1 Q<\.s.o {tco"",,,,,,,.,,,~ 1'1 ... ..,.4. /i..lo.h. ,., «rr,or'~~~~ -5<1I.~Jltl~ Adopt standards requiring a minimum area of the parking lot to drain into ,. ,1.e.;"'!J I I ... cI i "', ~.<.\-;.vo 0 f ~o $. landscaped areas. N/A Require the management of runoff from parking lots through green infrastructure practices. including trees, vegetated island s. swales, rain N/A gardens. or other approaches. *' 5·5 SUB TOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE .... CARRYTHIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + La = '~·S Section 4: En co urage EI1t Clo nr Pa,klng 39 Enact specific alternative ,landscaping and parking regulations to support infill 2 development (parking requirements, parking lot landscaping options that focus on perimeter landscaping to encourage smaller lots, etc.). NJA Require parking structures to incorporate green roofs to reduce stormwater runoff. N/A Reduce drive aisle widths in parking lots to decrease the amount of pervious surface. For multi-family developments, drive aisles can be shared. In commercial developments, typical drive aisles can be reduced 5-10%. N/A T Tolal score for SECTION 4: ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT PARKING o SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOU S PAGE ~;:;:~ = L!·.S This section has been reviewed and scored by r Departmentname t-"'!ji ... ,qrj",'9 ~ ( __lM",,,,,iL.,12.,,. Signee JdoY'lS r / Section 4: Enco ll rage EHi cie nt Par king 40 5 ADOPT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS S.A.1 I QUESTION: Are green infrastructure practices encouraged as legal and preferred for managing stormwater runoff? GOAL: Make all types of green infrastructure allowed and legal and remove all impediments to using green infrastructure (including for stormwater requirements), such as limits on infiltration in rights-ol way, permit challenges for green roofs, safety issues with permeable pavements, restrictions on the use of cisterns and rain barrels , and other suc h unnecessary barriers. WHY: Green infrastructure approaches are more effective and cost elficient than conventional stormwater management practices in many instances, and provide other substantial community benefits. Inform the public, through education and outreach programs, that green Tr"';"';II\~.) ~/ FJ'tIIPc. infrastructure practices can manage stormwater runoff on their property. "R ... i",~ 'O.~ Br~"'-off ~ ....;.... B.. ".l Pra (el V"'I Create a green infrastructure workshop or training program for internal and "...... i", ~o .... _ /'>4' external reviewers to ensure that the stakeho lders who use this tool will have ~ the ability to understand and use it effectively. N/A Development and other code s encourage and all ow property owners to adopt 10...... "'~~·.".lj iv\Vo(v .. J -I • c:l. OV~''''GlC.L, v. C-\ home-based green infrastructure practices, such as rain gardens, rain barrels, and other rainwat er harvesting practices. ..s~O(""'w .. !-.' V\I1 .... ~~.r~ flo~r ... "'" f W .. ~or Ov.. l~~':1 f.,(~ Re view and change, where necessary, building codes or other local lob. c.o IN' pl.l ~d ~ '" ~'" V\ .. - p .. r " ••;\ ~ regulation s to ensure that all local government departments/agencies have coordinated with one another to ensure that green infrastructure .. 5 c..u,r"",\I~ U"'~OI {PVIIlW implementation is legal, e.g. remove restrict io ns on downspout disconnection. Credit green infrastructure practices towards required controls for stormwater TI... TOF Jo.~ p...... ;\ t\.. i~ ~vlo)"c.~ ~ .. '(Of"c ''''.::>i",''~,i .. ,? runoff. ,,0'; fic",HoV) Establish a '·Green Tape " expedited review program for applications that include green infrastructure practices. N/A Reduce stormwater utility rates based on the use of green infrastructure practices. N/A I NO ..slo(""'\N,,~ol I,)~ili~,? 5 .5 3,5 PAGE TOTAL I ~ CABBYTHIS SIIBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE = Sec!ioll 5: Adop! Green Infraslruclure Stonnwalr.r M,r nagemen! Pro vIsIons 43 Zoning and subdivision regulations specifically permit green infrastructure 1 to facilities, including but not limited to: 11 point for each technique to a 4 no~"';""") p(~Vq",\-~ ~"'«~It f>MP:. , b .... ~ ~\,.j Q" maximum of 4 points) · Green roofs: · Infiltration approaches , such as rain gardens, curb extensions, planter V1o~ ~f .. \I~~ oul -'* gardens, permeable and porous pavements, and other design s where the intent is to capture and manage stormwater using soils and plants: · Water harvesting devices, such as rain barrels and cisterns: and · Downspout di sconnection. Developers are required to meet stormwater requirements using green 1 to infrastructure practices where site conditions allow. Developers must 2 'K.~u"(~.\ .... "'.)" ( ",.vJ provide documentation for sites that do not allow on·site infiltration, reuse, I rt'VVlif I ~ or evapotranspiration to meet locally determined performance stormwater NjA management standards. SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ... CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAG~TAL I + .3·5 = 3.S Sec tion 5: Adopt Gre en In frastructure Storlllwater Manage ment Provisions 44 5_A.2 I QUESTION : Do stormwater management plan reviews take place early in the development review process? ------GOAL: Incorporate stormwater plan comments and review into the early stages of development review/site plan review and approval. preferably at pre-application meetings with developers. WHY: Pre-sit e plan review is an effective tool for discussing with developers alternative approaches for meeting stormwater requirement s. This will incorporate green infrastructure techniques into new projects at early design stag es, well before construction begins. Encourage/re quire a pre-site plan meeting with developers to di scuss 1 to i....h .. «,) 1 -=>"-1 plQ"'I ", ...:s. ~o b~ stormwater management and green infrastructure approaches. 2 &cfocC' lr>ui\Ji"''J f·'''''';~;..5 . Voluntary = 1 point 2. ~ i ~VI • d "f f "VI - V" \V"'~CI '7 pc<-~i~~ J'''Dlop~1 VVlQ'~iVl:::Jl . Mandatory =2 points Include landscape architects in design and review of storm water management w"'.'" "f-f("fr; ..~( , l ... ",).:s.c..,p. coUc.\.;l .. (~ ""''':1 b. ,' ... c..!vd.J ;", plans. 4fl .) • .sj", .... ) (,v,ovoJ .F- .soW ""''O-~ fl.. ",.) Provide accelerated review of projects where developer attended a pre i .... I...., ,...,t-I~ bul- ll..'H application meeting. N/A - to. ~ b ...... f.; Preliminary stormwater plan review occurs contemporaneously with JO preliminary site plan review and before any development approvals. 1 Devel opment applications must include preliminary/conceptual stormwater ... ;.!>...... ;1I "'. "'~c •.ss ... (.., "' .... J .. ~"'. "'<-.If.'''''';\ management plans that incorporate green infrastructure elements and ~ describe how stormwater management standards will be met. NiA SUBTOTAL FROM PREVI OUS PAGE T CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE .. .3.5 ., 7~5 PAGE~OTAL + = SectHln 5: Adopt Grcp.ll lnfra structure Storillwatcr ManflgCnlcnt PrOVI Slon ~ 45 5.A.3 I QUESTION: 00 local building and plumbing codes allow harvested rainwater for exterior uses. such as irrigation. and non-potable interior uses. such as toilet flushing? GOAL: Ensure that the municipality allows and encourages stormwater reuse for non-potable uses. WHY: Stormwater reuse is important for dense. urban areas with limited spaces for vegetated green infrastructure practices. ~/A 7.~. c:.o"",pl~!.j u",J., IA."" plC_;~· *" zo~ .7"'\·I'I""",b;""., ".J, Qc)Jrr.ssr.l ;~ ...!I. "'.~I..i .., p,,,ta;bib. [AOOPTINWmV~ ------J Reduce stormwater management facility requirements for developments N / A i v\.~ .. l ~I.. _."",.",t. but .>0""".4ta·''''j he C.o .....sr"cl .. ( 1* employing comprehensive rainwater harvesting. Reduce stormwater utility rates based on the use of harvest and reuse techniques. til A No -Stol""' ...... ""\- .. ( u(;;I;~VJ Require developments to adopt rainwater harvesting techniques as elements of stormwater management plans. N/A SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ~ CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + • 7.5 = ~.5 Section 5: Adopt Gre en Infrastructure Storillwatcr Man (l~c m cnt Provi sions 46 5.A.4 I QUESTION: Are provisions available to meet stormwater requirements in other ways. such as off-site management within the same sewershed or "payment in lieu" of programs. to the extent that on-site alternatives are not technically feasible? GOAL: Allow off-site management of runoff while still holding developers responsible for meeting stormwater management goals. WHY: In some cases, it is impracticable or infeasible to treat all or even some of the stormwater runoff on site. In such instances. alternative means should be provided through contribution to off-site mitigation projects or off-site storm water management facilities (preferably green infrastructure facilities). For infill and redevelopment areas, off-site green stormwater management 2 plans should be developed in cooperation between local government and landowners/developers. Allowing off-site management of stormwater runoff I( requires sewershed designation within the local government to ensure that N/A :. true mitigation is possible and realize the equal stormwater management and water quality benefits through off-site management. Retrofit projects that will utilize green infrastructure stormwater management '?I.j.c;~ 1;.* ...... ill 10. 2 .",.(~l~ " .... d., -./\GW r.'.-;f.- techniques shou ld be identified and prioriti zed within the sewershed. r-.J/A ttt* Amend stormwater management regulations and development codes as <\"'~!j all....u II necessary to allow off-site stormwater management. especially for infill and ~ redevelopment areas. N/A Establish system that aUows/requires payment-in-lieu fees for off-site stormwater management facilities. Fees shou ld be set sufficiently high as to If cover the true cost of off·site management . Consider limitations on amount of N/A off-site manag ement allowed (more for infill areas. less for greenfield sites). * o SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PA GE ... CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + X.S = ~ Se ctIo n 5: Adopt Green Infrastructu n! SlOr lil water Mr:lIlagemcll{ Provisions 47 S.B.1 I QUESTION : Does your stormwater ordinance ,include monitoring, tracking, and maintenance requirements for stormwater management practices? GOAL: Incorporate monitoring, tracking, and maintenance requirements for stormwater management practices into your municipal stormwater ordinance. WHY: These measures will help ensure that the successful tracking and monitoring of green infrastructure practices remain in proper working condition to provide the performance required by the stormwater ordinance. Develop a system to monitor and track stormwater management practices deployed at greenfield and redevelopment sites. Tracking of management .!)~ .. ~.""" ~..31> (".''''~ ;,-,.I'"",.\I\!-.,) :"'".l"'i ..... ~ SW c. ..>cel. ,,,,, practices should begin during the plan review and approval process with pl .. ",~ ~ ~."'.~ ~ i:. I..'''''j _ ... ; .... l.i ... ~. a database or geographic information system (GIS). The database should ,.v,...... '" ... include both public and private projects. Provide model checklist for maintenance protocols for ease of inspection, tracking. and enforcement. N/A Sponsor demonstration projects for green infrastructure management best * M .soc J'-I-52S".i ItJ-SZ," ':>"'" o,J. N/A Require long-term maintenance agreements that allow for public inspections ;:'*c. 1..j~52'" ",II .. """, for p... ~I;" i",.st'~c.~i,,1., of the management practices and account for transfer of responsibility in leases and/or deed transfers . '::>.c;. 1'-l-~20 %! 7 c.r... ",<,.v... L~ fot t{~"" ... f.{ o~ ,#..s("",... ;/,ilil-j Conduct inspections every 3 to 5 years, prioritizing proper1ies that pose the highest risk to water Quality. inspecting at least 20% of approved facilities NIA t.HAI p,c_;~ annually. * Develop a plan approval and post·construction verification process to ensure S". 11J-.5Zl "''''''~ c .. ",s~· - AJ;·e,..;I~ "."'~" .... ,..s.v,(~ p,,~~ _ COin. compliance with stormwater standards. including enforceable procedures for VQ(;~i< .. ~ ;0"\ J'4-S"zo i SolI ",oVo, ,::,w""'::l'-l ... (,....i.'" c. .. ",/-"I PI"l'l~ bringing noncompliant projects into compliance. (4 5 SUBTOTAL FRO M PREVIOUS PAGE T CARRY THIS SUBTOTAL TO NEXT PAGE PAGE TOTAL + ~.s = ¥ Section 5: Adopt Green Infra structure Stormwater Management Provisions 48 Pts. Pts. Implementation Tools and Policies Avail. Rec. or N/A Notes and local References Inspections of construction sites occur at for at least 25% of permitted ~" ~;~«.s wI • !iDe. ~ 6,.J;",") r~("",,;f Oofl ;"'~f"'(~(~ e,;·""",.,l..I" projects to ensure proper installation of approved practices. Require conservation/green infrastructure bond/escrow in zoning/subdivision ordinances to ensure installation/maintenance of green infrastructure storm ~.c. , ..."SIO 'P .. f-o' ...... "'r • .s~,vr;l:'? ".Il~ f., lI~ .... / .... ~t.s 1- ..( water management facil ities. i",,!,hl\.f f.,- ~ ~.c;,N -52b c,,,,,'> lo... .,-~., ...... "", .. ill\~' T Total score for SECTION 5: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS 2 SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE PAGETOTAL + I3,-. S = Igw 5 ITOTAL POINTS AVAILABLE: 3.21. / ~ 3//· 7'1"/0 This section has been reviewed and scored by /..,..c-: ...r Department name f. '" '!); '" t , c; V\ '9 Signee ..Jca.~Q'" Scalf.. Secti on 5: Ado pt Gf CF.! n Infrastructure SlO flllwater Managt:! nl cnt ProviSIO ns 49 I accessible way 'ater qualityl je, 2010-20/1 water they collect; ns of .A"''''v~l 12. q',,(~ j.",..HC ~ ,700 J;~~,;L\-.J to ..II ~o ..... vr lital ,.s:cl.",l, _/ A",".,..\ '-'felt mr )ff 1er hich ~"'P.:AG';", Day ~ ''" v ~ -Where does it all go?" ~ ~ 3.ffi by artisl Katie Walberg. o :z n I '" localed in Building ~ '" K Codes lobby of ~ ~ Farragut Town Hall. 0• ...... t,.".·... tion, call the : 865-966-7057 lIpful web sites: tyforum.org ls/stormwater g~horm rragut.org 'g/soIid_wastel lfJatfr' .cebook! niT:) i j~ :11 lwatermatters BMP lC - Social Media and New Technology Produce 50+ unique updates annually. Track, document and provide with Annual Report to TDEC. Facebook http://www.facebook.com/stormwatermatters Between July 1 of 2010 and July 1 of 2011, Approximately 259 updates were made Twitter http://twitter.com!#//swmatters Between July 1 of 2010 and July 1 of 2011,5 Tweets were made. YouTube http://www.youtube.com/stormwatermatters Between July 1 of 2010 and July 1 of 2011,3 videos were uploaded to the Town of Farragut's YouTube Channel which is located at This represents a > 500% attainment rate. MP 11) Town of Farragut, Stormwater Drafted by Jason R. Scott Last Updated August 2011 Brief Description of Regulatory Basis: The NPOES Municpal Stormwate Permit which became effective October 1, 2010 calls for the development and implementation of advertising for public involvement opportunities within 30 days of issuance. This is a brief document to formalize the establishment of this process for ease ofregulatory analysis. The Town of Farragut's Methods of advertising Public Involvement will emphasize efficiency and digital accessibility by providing the community with multiple access points/pages on the Town of Farragut website (townoffarragut.org) where the community can access both general programmatic information and have the ability to report concerns / submit an inquiry through this same mechanism. The second component of the Stormwater Matters' method of advertising is social media which will emphasize an ongoing presence/persona on facebook that will allow the community to interact with the program more directly. Occasionally the Stormwater Matters program may enhance the method of advertising by including television, radio, print communications and/or additional digital methods such as twitter, youtube, etc. A) Town of Farragut Website Stormwater Matters Program Webpage http://www. towno (forraq u t. orq/stormwotermotters Responsible Department(s): Engineering This page has content on general water quality info, the 6 minimum measures as well as information on the TOF AmeriCorps Water Quality Assistant program. Stormwater Advisory Committee Page http://www.towno{farraqut.orq/index.aspx?nid=100 Responsible Department(s): Engineering Post agendas and minutes for Stormwater Advisory Committee meetings. SAC meetings are the most direct way for the public to be involved in the policy end of the Town of Farragut's Stormwater Matters Program. Program direction, Capital/Demonstration projects, and Appeals of NOVs and Civil Penalty Assessments are just some of the topics addressed by this committee. News Page (Front Page) http://www.townoffarraqut.orq/ CivicAlerts.aspx Responsible Department(s): Leisure Services The Town of Farragut's Department of Leisure Services maintains the "News" component of the TOF website. Major "events" and press releases can be forwarded to Leisure Services to receive additional prominence on the website. B) Social Media Responsible Department: Engineering & Leisure Services http://www.Facebook.com/StormwaterMatters Responsible Department(s): Engineering Any and all activities may be posted/promoted through this mechanism to optimize communication emphasizing both general awareness and targeted outreach messages. http://www.Facebook.com/TownofFarragut Responsible Department(s): Leisure Services Managed by the Leisure Services Department. Like the "News" page on the Town of Farragut website, the Town of Farragut Facebook is intended to highlight events of significance NEWSSE N TIN E L « Wednesday, July 20,20]] « 3D .·s.,77 !" ·""TUTf'Pn,-u'z.,w"5!,"'"W!fI'fW.,,""'.C.USF ' 7 _...- . THANKYOUI On behalf of the Water Quality Forum and The Rainy Day Brush Off W ith your support we are raising awareness about water conservation and water poliution.Your support has helped us get over 3,000 rain barrels out in the Knox County area. For more information on this program or any of the other greatWater Quality Forum programs, visit our website at W ATERQUALTIYFORUM.ORG ARTISTS: Andrew Cobb-Nicole Swaggerty-MargauxVerdera- Sarah Brobst-Katie Walberg-Sarah Blai r McNally-Powell Middle School Joe Kyte--4H line & Design-jill Sanders-Sima Maleki-Curtis Glover Victoria Ogle-Powell High School-Beto Cumming-Ericka RybaJEarthfare- Pat Joyce-SusanWatson-Olive Gaines- Brandon Douglas-Shelagh Leutwiler Greg Dorsey-Carol Montgomery-The Milisapps Family-Hardin Valley Academy Virginia Pleasant-Martin West-Cynthia Markert Cannon&Cannon,lnc. " C""w!lrn, Ens' ...... f III s..rv..,..", ~.# Jtonn lUatrr lut:liu:1I A-2 • APRIL II, 2011 • FARRAGUT SHOPPER-NEWS - ___•••____i Trash to treasure Artists create 'urban tumbleweed' for town hall Artists Gerry MoIl and it was trial and error," Moll Katie Walberg of TRAsh said. "For a while, we would Collective take dumpster take a broom or mop every diving to a new level. where with us and we would "It really changed the way clean up after it, but now we looked at our trash," Wal we've learned how to pre berg said. ''I'd go through it vent that." and decide what could be re The exhibit will be on cycled, what could be added display through April. The The TRAsh Collective trash ball spends a few minutes in the to the ball and then what artists will share informa sun before its installation in the town hall. Phoro by N. Lesrer could be thrown away." tion on their initiative in two workshops on Thesday, April 26, 6:30 and 7=15 p.m. At the latter presentation, Ijams Nature Center's Kara Remington and Jenny New by will talk about the cen ter's recycling services. Walberg and MoIl recent ly created an art exhibit us ing waste, garbage, refuse, rubbish and junk of all kinds to make a massive trash ball. Then, they installed the ex hibit in the Farragut Town Hall and turned the rotunda into a vortex oftrash. The pair, who worked to gether on a couple of other things before they found their common interest in waste management, began the project as an experi ment. They created a small version of the ball in town hall and put it downtown on Market Square unan nounced. "We just wanted to see how people would deal with it," Moll said. To make the baIl the cur rent size took a couple of weeks. "We'd work a couple of hours every day," Walberg said. "This trash ball defi nitely had many manifesta tions." "When we first made it, "'U'U:I, J. J. ~ - - - -- 0--.... --...... _ ...... 1._...... V4 U J Ul ~.~.~ ..... , ... &vn" nLl.ful:smun or easements m process; Construction start likely ed risks associated with winter weather a well-ventilated area and when . the in early 2011. and to take measures to avoid them. equipment is cool. OrnER PUBUCLY FUNDED PROjEcrS Home heating remains the second In a fireplace or wood stove, only use Concord Road Railroad Bridge Structural Repairs - TOOT project; One lane clo highest cause of fire in the home. The dry, seasoned wood to avoid the build sure on Concord Road just north of Northshore Dr.; Completion date is Oct. 31, 2010. NFPA suggests the following for safe up of creosote, an oily deposit that easily Lovell Road/Kingston Pike Intersection Improvement - TOOT and Knox County heating: catches fire and accounts for most chim project; Addition of dual left turn lanes heading east on Kingston Pil Restrooms located within the Town of Farragut (Anchor, Campbell Station, Mayor Bob Leonard and McFee parks) are open year round. Beginning Monday, Nov. 1 through mid-March 2011, restrooms will be open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. every day. During the winter, park trails, picnic shelters and playgrounds at all Farragut parks will remain open for public use. Shelters may be reserved by calling 966-7057 or may be used on a first come, first serve basis if they have not been reserved. The Town will close playing fields at all parks on Monday, Nov. 1, 2010. The field closures allow the Town's public works crew to perform fall and early spring maintenance and protect the fields during wet and cold weather. Fields will reopen in mid-March 2011. Keeping Parks.Clean of Animal Waste Fall and early winter is a great time to take a walk with your pet at one of the Town parks or greenways. Just remember - Farragut has an ordinance requiring pet owners to clean up their pet's solid waste on public property. To make abiding by this ordinance easier, the Town has pet waste removal stations with biodegradable bags at all Farragut parks and greenways. Help keep our parks clean for our kids and adults - do your part by using the pet waste bags! Jason Scott From: Town of Farragut Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Letter from the Director Town of Farragut Website Welcome to the September edition of "At Your leisure." Farragut's Parks. Athletics & leisure Services Mark your calendars for Friday, Sept. 10 to enjoy the second annual "Taste of Farragut" event sponsored by the Farragut Business Alliance. The event will be held in the old Farragut's Media Center Farragut Kroger parkIng lot (across from lendon Welch Way) from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. The cost is $25 (food and drink) or $20 (food only) for adults; $10 for children ages 7 Farraaut Events 12. Children 6 and under are free A sample of the restaurants include Aubrey's, Season's Cafe, Snappy Tomato and VG's Bakery. Wine will be provided by a variety of local wine distributors. September has several art class offerings - please check out the offerings below. Covenant Health Check, scheduled for Sept 3, has been cancelled by Covenant as part of a move to consolidate the health checks into larger sites. Information about the The Farragut Town Hall will be mega s~es is available on their webs~e at www.covenantheatth.com. dosed Monday, Sept. 6 for Labor Day. Finally, don' forget the upcoming "Picnic on the Pike," the Town's last 30th Anniversary special event. Save the date of 10-10-10 from 1 to 5 p.m. on the s~e of the farragutpress (next to Ingles). Sinoarely, Sue Stuhl Parks and Leisure Services Oiredor Town of Farragut arragut Celebrates 30 Years: 30 Fun Filled Activities The Town of Farragut is oalebrating 30 years of incorporation throughout 2010 by offering 30 ways 10 oalebrate during the year. Here's what is happening in September: Enjoy a Dose of Free Fun at Free Putt Putt Monday, Sept. 20, Noon - 9 p.m. Enjoy a free day of mini goff at Putt Putt Goff & Games of Farragut, located in the West End Center. Help Your Community Stay Clean - Sign Up for Adopt A Mile, Adopt A Greenway or Adopt-A-Stream Programs Volunteers from businesses, civic dubs, churches, neighborhood associations, scouts, school groups, families and other organizations adopt a mile of a Farragut road, a section of 8 farragut greenway or a portion of a Farragut stream and conduct dean-up efforts on a scheduled basis. Each group is identified with a sign at their dean-up s~e . Please visn www.townoffarragut.org for details about each of these great programs! Become a Farragut Folklife Museum Member (Just In Time for the October "Members Only" Dinnerl) Preserve the heritage of the Farragut community by becoming a member of the Farragut Folklife Museum. Those who join in September will be invited to attend the annual membership dinner on Oct. 41 Additional member benefits include a quarterly newsletter, invitations to special events and exhibits , and a 10% discount in the Museum Gift Shop...AND the membership fee is tax deductible! Contact Museum Coordinator Julia Jones at [email protected] or 966-7057 for more information. Vi~ www.townoffarragut.org. call966-7057 or stay tuned to the Town's government access channel (Charter & TOS) for more infonnation. Mark Your Calendars! Upcoming Classes, Programs & Events at the Farragut Town Hall (unless otherwise noted). VIS~ www.townoffarragut.orgformoreinformationand call 966-7057 to register, Wapplicable! Form and Composition When: Tuesdays, Sept. 14 - 28 (3 weeks), 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. Cost: $54 (supply list provided al registration) Registration & payment deadline: Wednesday, Sept. 8 Instructor: Ebru Sahin-Ekici What: Participants will get an introduction to the fundamentals of destgn and composrtion . 2 c.af ulrt;:;lLVIL I ~pun.sun; nup:IIWWW.J01ox-earmrest.orgtsponsors.phj Reduce Your Footprint Entertainment • EarthFest will not be having onsite entertainment this year. Managers and Entertainers please do not contact us. We will advise when there is a need at future EarthFest events. Thank you. EarthFest, East Tennessee's Earth Day Festival EarthFest would not be possible without the generous support ofour sponsors. Ifyou wish to become an EarthFest sponsor please contact us. Sponsors are encouraged to exhibit at EarthFest and are therefore given free covered floor space. Closer to the festival sponsors will be directed to an online floor space registration process to claim complimentary sponsor floor space. Check back here for details. EarthFest 2011 Sponsors We want to thank the sponsors listed below for their generous support of EarthFest 2011. Global Sponsor $2,500 or More MI):\ ' uunt~ .~ ~ ~tllm1\\' I' I\farul~'t'men t 1~5 ) 215-::S.!O Knox County ",,,' \ \\..'\"1 1 1\ , Jf' l II V' ; .I... .'r WASTE CONNECTIONS EV ENT RENTALS A COA Community Sponsor $1,500 to $2,499 Df4 8/412011 10:23 AM :,armres[ L.V IL. I ~ponsors nttp: IIWWW.!mox-earthtestorgtsponsors.ph. EAST TENNf.SSEE CLEAN FUELS aD 'I. ETCleanFuels.org ROr.K - T[NN EROCK RECYCLING Partners $750 to $1,499 <,'~~t<;:tUJd Bu.utifui radtastic ~ 1 1'1"' P' OI'O I ~~ #IfII!IIJ-SP~R EC V C llNG COilP. EVRer CENT/;'R ~ General Sponsors $500 to $749 of4 8/4/20 11 10:23 AM You".,.,., I SearCh I Browse Upload Create Account Sign In It's My Environment -Instructions !II.IIIIi•••~ II's My Environment -Instructions • " ' l 1:58 ol~im~ . More information about how to enter and what we're looking fo~ httpJIwww.epa.gov/earthdayMdeo . From: USEPAgov Joined: 3 years ago ••••IIII1Ii1111 Show us how YOU proted the environment in a video dip up to 10 Vi deos: 111 seconds long, and post it here a (more) Video Responses (148 Responses) !B Play All Video Responses - -iI..B , ~ .. ~ ~"I , \, .... -=-;-- . ., #. " .,':. .' .,.-.,. ,- ..... ,~ ..•, '1 ... -- .' . II . .# \ ..:., .!".;, .. I f I I {Ie · . ~~,~._ ~O'? .. (111 Otoe.....issourill Tribe h's My Enviroment pis 212.MPG TRAshbal, It's My It's My Environment Irs My Environment "It's My En... Submission V-Kleo Environment! 69 voew s 10 views 2 Vlews 2~ '.tewS l' VieWS 3 views OllTrh Yunekyong brlt22030 slormwelennallers d"",dsms99 RislPCs , .... - ~ .. • • ':";:'1• .,_ ~ ~-.. ~~t · - . ~ .~~ , . l _ I . , - ., ' ~ 1111 u 1; tllIl I) 111 ·My Environmenr The TRAshCollective II's My Environment. II's My Environment. EPA Video II's My Environment BLOOPER & Stormwater... V-Kleo.mp4 .4 views 12 views 8 views S views 7 views 5v.ews stormwalermatters stonnwelermatters )IIdeey101 jadeey101 KIm2671 skott6cj .;,.. .'- ~ ~ i -'"" -,. ilL...... -r .. 1 t ll "'J I (1'11 '. ms ~ 1 \ . I 0:09 11 Video4.wmv It's My Environment Its my envi roment MiC8h EPA Sofia 2 views 1 voews 14 VieWS 16 vIews 10 views 10 VieWS 0032e 812128 jlnwobb« luckykuroglsune kgelneyS sofiabianconi , , I - .. ... t( . ~y :. Iff .. :-:- t" 71e '. . , ~ [ , J \ , . .. , 0·1'-1 II .. .. -..:.~ r, ,. ll'ff! It·s My Environment It's My Environment, It's My Environment It's My Environment estes_es_mi_amb Its my environment Sonja & Sendy original Iente.WlRY 46V!eW9 9 views 14 VieWS 30 VieWS 22 views 9 views slopmolloncrazyman Punnkie22 HeyKelyGrieco n;w..msS3 huertocapeMo lendC4nservllncy - . . ---.. r:-" .. - . , - " \ ~-..."'f( , I - . *-- : _.# II F, "'~ t n ,; - ...... ,.. t)()~ Environmental 11'9 My Environment h'smy It's my environment chase Chrtstl201 Champions environment.avl 33 VieWS 2' vieW S 23 VIews 10 views l' VieWS 23 VieWS RlllT96 NKKlniOlf baishen9i1 PocOel...Rey ipoundmeg/lnfox PbcJechic:645 BMP lE - Hotspot Education and Outreach Deliverable: Offer/Sponsor a class addressing either the food service or automotive industries, document and provide with annual report. """The specific 1 year deliverable calls for food service industry hotspot education but the TOF's program is still working with Knox County on working with the automotive industry. A request to modify this BMP will be made with this report to note food service or automotive industry as opposed to one or the other in any given year. Currently underway. The Town of Farragut is utilizing the Fort Loudoun Lake Association to provided SPAP / Hotspot themed training in conjunction with Knox County. The Town of Farragut received Knox County SPAPS on 7 automotive facilities suggesting participation of 7 sites. The Town of Farragut will continue to deliver these trainings through the FLLA in partnership with Knox County Stormwater Management. This represents a 100% attainment rate. BMP IF - Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) Maintain a Storm water Advisory Committee (SAC) holding quarterly meetings. Track, document and provide with annual report to TDEC. 1/ ofSAC Sessions Held: 9 Month of Meeting Minutes May 2011 http://townoffarragut.org/archives/57/SAC12may11.pdf March 2011 http://townoffarragut. org/archives/5 7/SAC10mar11.pdf February 2011 http://townoffarragut.org/archives/5 7/SAC09feb11 .pdf January 2011 http://townoffarragut.org/archives/5 7/SAC13jan11.pdf December 2010 http://townoffarragut.org/archives/57/SAC09dec10R.pdf November 2010 http://townoffarragut.org/archives/57/SAC11nov10.pdf October 2010 http://townoffarragut. org/archives/5 7/SAC140ct10R.pdf September 2010 http://townoffarragut.org/arch[ves/57/SAC%20Minutes%2020100909.pdf July 2010 http://townoffarragut. org/archives/5 7/SAC%20Minutes%2020100708.pdf This represents a > 200% attainment rate. BMP IG - Water Quality Forum Participation by Staff & SAC. Resource support consistent with annual budget appropriations. Track, document and submit with TDEC annual report. Contribute 75 hours ofsupport, Document & submit with TDEC Annual Report. Month of Meeting Minutes July 2010 4 August 2010 7 September 2010 12 October 2010 9 November 2010 6.5 December 2010 9.5 January 2010 38.5 February 2010 31 March 2010 2.5 April 2010 6 May 2010 24.5 June 2010 13.5 July 2010 11 Total Number 0/ Hours Recorded: 175 Hours This represents a > 200% attainment rate. BMP 2A - Stormwater System Mapping I GIS Develop strategy for mapping project. A strategy has been outlined in the document to follow this sheet. This strategy includes how we will build upon our current GIS resources to add inlets, catch basins, drop structures and other defined contributing points as noted in the Municipal Permit & Approved NOI. This represents a 100% attainment rate. Mapping Strategy for Inlets, Catch Basins, Drop Structures or other defined contributing points. for the purpose of the Town of Farragut's mapping strategy, the Town has been divided into 4 partitions representing the East, North Central, South Central and Western portions of the Town. The AmeriCorps member will walk all roads and parking lots noted on the attached map documenting all inlets, catch lJasins, drop structures or other defined contributing points to the sewershed. 2011-2012 Eastern Partition This section is defined by a heavy concentration of Commercial properties along Parkside Dr., Kingston Pike and Lovell Road. Elevated traffic levels will be of particular concern. This section is inclusive of the following municipal property: Town Hall 2012-2013 South Central Partition This section is largely residential with commercial properties located on Kingston Pike. This section is ir1clusive of the following municipal property: Anchor Park. 2013-2014 North Central Partition This section is largely residential with commercial properties located on Smith Road & Kingston Pike. This section is inclusive of the following municipal' property: Public Works and Campbell Station Park. The North Fork of Turkey Creek which runs through Campbell Station Park is listed for E.Coli impairment. 2014-2015 Western Partition This section represents the largest quadrant by land area while simliitaneously representing the sparsest level of development. Largely residential, there is some commercial property on Kingston Pike. This section is inclusive of the following municipal property: Mayor Bob Leanord Park, McFee Campus Over the next 5 years the Town of Farragut will collect data from all inlets identified in roads and parking lots at a rate of 1 quadrant a year or 25% a year. Safety: The field staff collecting these points will be exposed to heavy traffic conditions at times as well as weather hazards, water hazards, inconsistent footing, tall grass and potential wildlife hazards. Collection staff should at all times wear a reflective vest to assure visibility. A water bottle should be carried at all times to prevent dehydration. Snake Chaps should be worn when working in tall grass & wooded areas. Waders should always be worn when entering a water body. Data Collected: The following data will be collected at each contributing point utilizing a Topcon GMS-2 Inlet Details - Condition Good: In the circumstance where the inlet is free of any notable observed damage or defect. Damaged: In the circumstance that damage is observed, but the inlet remains functional. Na safety hazard to the public or environment are observed. Needs Replacement: In the circumstance that the inlet structure has been severely damaged or had components stolen or missing. Severe damage to an inlet structure includes any sort of damage that leaves the inlet non-functional or presents a safety hazard to the public or environment. -Marker No: There is no "Only Rain to the Storm Drain" style marker affixed to the inlet. Yes, structural: There is an "Only Rain Down the Storm Drain" style marker that is a part of the structure itself. Yes, non-structural: There is an "Only Rain Down the Storm Drain" style marker that has been attached to the inlet that is not a part of the structure itself. -Obstruction No Yes, Partial Yes, Full -Illicit Discharge None Sediment Potential Sources: Construction & Land Disturbance Grease Potential Saurces: Commercial Food Service Operation Foam/Soap/Detergents Potential Sources: Commercial Car wash or Laundromat & Residential Car Washing in Driveway Motor Oil Potential Sources: Commercial Automotive Operation Residential Oil Change/Dumping . ... -'" Gasoline Potential Sources: Commercial Fueling Station, Parking Lot Runoff Trash Potential Source: Any Other -Notes: This item should be used to describe the specifics of any observed Illicit Discharge. Analysis: Utilizing The Town of Farragut' s GIS Consultant (Arcadis), the information collected in the field by AmeriCorps members will be combined with the outfall layer to provide a more complete picture of contributing points, outfalls and the storm sewer system as a whole. Other sewershed information will also be synthesized into this geodatabase to provide a data package that provides a holistic overview of field conditions as they relate to water quality. / JI " 8MP 28 - Dry Weather Screening for Illicit Discharges Annual Inspection of priority areas {Outfalls > 36" located near commercial and industrial areas as well as municipal operations. Track, Document and Provide with Annual Report to TDEC. A total of 30 outfalls were screened during the 2010-2011 reporting period . Only 1 location had an identified concern and it was not an outfall, but rather a deposit near a Laundromat. The business owner was notified and the material was removed within 24 hours. Please see the attached map for more details. BMP 2C - Enforcement Response Plan Create Enforcement Response Plan within 18 months of permit coverage. To be included in 2011-2012 Annual Report. Escherichia coli Analysis on North Fork Turkey Creek in the Turkey Creek Watershed for Town of Fa,rragut Final Report November i8, 2010. CONDUCTED BY: REPORT PREPARED BY: Michael S. Gaugler, Stonnwater Services Program Director DATA PROVIDED BY: Michael S. Gaugler Escherichia coli Analysis on North Fork Turkey Creek in the Turkey Creek Watershed for Town of Farragut Final Report November 18, 2010. INTRODUCTION This document represents bacterial data collected from the Turkey Creek Watershed at two sites on North Fork Turkey Creek in Farragut, Tennessee by Fort Loudoun Lake Association (FLLA) for the Town of Farragut's Engineering Department. At the sites water samples were collected to determine E. coli levels within the creek. Within the document we will state our objectives, describe the study area, explain methodology and present and interpret our findings. OBJECTIVES 1. Collect a water sample at each location to determine E. coli levels. 2. Provide photographic evidence of current stream conditions at each site. 3. Present findings of the sampling and deliver findings to the Town of Farragut Engineering Division. In 2007 - 2008 TDEC monitored 90 randomly chosen wadeable streams across the state for pathogen levels (Graf et. al 2009}. Overall 45% of the surveyed streams exceeded the state's limits on pathogen levels based upon stream recreational use. This use allows citizens the ability to enter, swim and safely eat the fish they catch from any Tennessee stream. This use is chosen because it has the most stringent requirement for pathogen levels and states that the concentration ofE. coli group shall not exceed 126 CFU per 100 ml as a geometric mean of five samples collected within a period of 30 days (Graf et al. 2009). The monitoring results indicated that 40 statewide sites (45%) did not meet criteria for the use of recreation. The geometric criterion was exceeded in 36 ofthe sampled sites and the individua1 sample criterion was exceeded at least once at over half ofthose sites. Four other sites failed due to high single values. Within East Tennessee the results varied greatly and some streams demonstrated highly variable values. This region had the same percentage of streams failing criteria as those passing criteria (47%) with 7% failing to be sampled due to environmental conditions. In Ecoregion 67F, there were 13 sampling efforts that demonstrated highly variable conditions with the geometric mean ranging from 26 to 2325 CFU per 100 ml (Graf et al. 2009). Knox County had one creek sampled. Beaver Creek had a geometric mean of 103 CFU per ] 00 ml and its highest value was 435 CFU per 100 mI. Pathogens include bacteria and viruses that can cause serious health issues when ingested. Their presence influences the public's abilities to use streams in a recreational manner including swimming, wading, and fishing those areas. Though these pathogens can be naturally present from wildlife such as deer, these bacteria are found in the lower intestines of endothenns such as cattle and humans. Because they can survive for a brief time outside the body, they are a good indicator ofpathogen contamination. METHODS AND RESULTS Samples were collected following TDEC's Quality System Standard Operating Procedure (C and D) for the Chemical and Bacteriological Sampling of Surface Water (TDEC 2009). Samples were collected at two sites (see Figure 1 for locations). The upstream sampling site was within the Campbell Station Park on North Campbell Station Road. The sample was collected at the upper most section ofthe stream as it flows into the park. North Fork flows through the subdivision that borders the park. The downstream sampling site was also within the Park and the stream length was walked both downstream from the upstream sampling site and further downstream up until an appropriate site was located. Figure 1. Sampling sites on North Fork Turkey Creek. Bacterial samples were collected on November 2,2010 at each site in the thalweg and facing upstream. Water was collected at mid depth and the container was removed quickly to prevent the preservative washing away. The sample lid was secured and the sample was swirled for thorough mixing. Samples were identified, labeled and stored on ice until they were returned to the laboratory for processing. Samples were returned in less than six hours handling time and samples were maintained according to temperature requirements of less than 10°C. Samples were analyzed using the EPA 1604 method. The Colilert Method detects the presence of enzymes produced by bacteria and quantifies the most probable number (MPN) of bacteria detected. Results were determined and reported in Colony Forming Units per milliliter or CFUIlOO ml. The upstream site's result was 310 CFUIlOO ml and the downstream site's result was 150 CFUIlOO ml. DISCUSSION According to Graf et al. (2009) the concentrations of E. coli shall not exceed 126 CFU/1 00 ml as a geometric mean of five samples collected within 30 days. Though it is a state sampling effort requirement, according to Denton et al. (2010) only 25% of the streams have sufficient pathogen data to be assessed for recreational use. East Tennessee region had 147 stream stations but only 44 of them had the minimum effort of five samples within 30 days for the geometric mean. Overall 45% of the state's streams exceeded the recreational criteria. Ofthe three state regions, East Tennessee region had the highest percentage of streams failing to meet standards though West Tennessee had the highest concentrations of E. coli. One issue with the project and geometric calculations is with the number of samples coupled with the short holding time ofthe samples makes it difficult to monitor a high percentage of streams. Instead the focus is more targeting the known problem areas as was in this effort. Though North Fork Turkey Creek has been placed on the 303 d list (TDEC 2010) for bacterial issues and the findings of this effort continue to support that determination it must be remembered that this was a single sampling effort at two locations. It would be advisable to continue the monitoring of the stream both within the park and in other segments ofNorth Fork. The satellite image of the area is characterized by increased residential development. Because of this, the source of the bacteria is most likely anthropogenic caused by failing sewer systems such as leaking pipes compared to agricultural that could be a cause in other sections of Turkey Creeks. In the future it is recommended that the two sites be sampled again to see if the trend continues or if this sampling was a one-time event. Because it is doubtful that it was a one time elevated count event due to the creek being listed as impaired due to bacterial levels (TDEC 2010), it is further recommended to expand sampling to include sites further upstream above the park to better delineate the bacterial source. In addition it is recommended that geometric sampling (five sample efforts within 30 days) be conducted in order to offset any outliers that could be collected from a single sampling effort. REFERENCES Denton GM, Sparks KJ, Arnwine DH, James RR, and LK Cartwright. 2010 305(b) report. The status of water quality in Tennessee. Nashville, TN. Pp. GrafMH, Arnwine DH, and GM Denton. 2009. 2007 - 8 Probabilistic monitoring of wadeable streams in Tennessee. Volume 5 - Pathogens. Nashville, TN. Pp.36. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control. 2009. Quality system standard operating procedure for chemical and bacteriological sampling of surface water. Nashville, TN. Pp. 135. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control. 2010. Proposed Final Report: Year 2010 303(d) list. Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp. 180. APPENDIX A. PHOTOS OF SITES Photo 1. Upstream site. Photo 2. Downstream site. DAP 2D INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY ON NORTH FORK OF TURKEY CREEK IN THE TOWN OF FARRAGUT FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2, 2010 CONDUCTED BY: REPORT PREPARED BY: Michael S. Gaugler, Stormwater Services Program Director IBI DATA PROVIDED BY: Fish IBI Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler Macroinvertebrate IBI Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler Habitat Analysis Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY ON NORTH FORK OF TURKEY CREEK IN THE TOWN OF FARRAGUT FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2,_lOlO INTRODUCTION This document represents data collected from Turkey Creek at one location in Farragut, TN by the Fort Loudoun Lake Association (FLLA) for the Town of Farragut. North Fork of Turkey Creek was surveyed for the Index of Biotic Integrity for Macroinvertebrates (IBI-M) on October 18,2010. In addition to the IBI-M collection, a physical habitat assessment was conducted following sampling. Within this document we will state our plan, describe the study areas, explain methodology, and discuss results. OBJECTIVES 1. Perform a macro invertebrate survey at the sampling location. 2. Perform a habitat assessment at the sampling location. 3. Perform water quality testing at the sampling location. 4. Provide photographic evidence ofcurrent conditions and environmental pressures at the sampling location. 5. Score the IBI-M and habitat assessment and deliver write-up to the Town of Farragut. STUDY AREAS FLLA assessed one site along North Fork ofTurkey Creek. The site was below the construction near Farragut High School and behind Rural Metro building on Campbell Station Road and upstream of Kingston Pike in Farragut, TeIU1essee (See Figure I for site location). Sampling was conducted after the suitable habitat was located. Please see photos in Appendix A for current habitat conditions. 2 Figure 1. Location for IBI-M on North Fork of Turkey Creek on October 18,2010. 3 METHODS INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR MACROINVERTEBRA TES (lBI-M) FLLA followed the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's (TDEC) Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys (Arnwine 2006) for sampling procedures of collecting biological samples. The biological conditions of Turkey Creek were assessed by collecting and identifying the benthic macro invertebrates (IBI-M) present at one site in the creek. The sampling site was considered suitable based upon the presence of riffles of different flow conditions. A semi-quantitative rime kick (SQKICK) was used to collect samples. A one meter kick net with 500 micron mesh was used to sample the riffles. At the site, four collection kicks were perfonned. Two kicks were perfonned in slower current velocity riffles and two kicks were perfonned in faster current velocity riffles. Sampling was conducted from the downstream riffle to the upstream sample. After each kick approximately one minute passed before removing the net from the riffle to allow all debris to wash into the net. Next all debris collected was washed into a sampling bucket with a 500 micron screen on the bottom. All kicks were combined and all debris was washed into a labeled 1 L (1000 ml) bottle and samples were stored in 70% isopropyl alcohol. Any aquatic macroinvertebrates remaining on the net were removed and placed in the storage container. After sampling both net and bucket were thoroughly washed to prevent contamination at the next sampling site. Before sampling the physical and chemical field sheet was completed. After sampling the top portion of the "Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Data Sheet" (Appendix A-3: Fonn 1 Barbour et at 1999) was completed as well as a habitat assessment for high gradient streams (Appendix A-I Fonn 2 of Barbour et al. 1999). In the laboratory, samples were washed onto a SOO-micron mesh sieve and washed with water to remove additional sediment and residual alcohol. Each sample was processed completely and all macroinvertebrates were removed and stored in a second container for identification purposes. The processed sample was returned to the original container and stored. A random subsample was taken of all macroinvertebrates collected and those from the subsample were identified to the lowest possible taxon, either genus or species. All macroinvertebrates were identified using a Fisher Scientific microscope and several identification keys. These included Brigham et al. (1982) along with recent corrections to this edition, Merritt and Cummings (1995) and Perez et al. (2004). A macroinvertebrate index using seven biometrics was created based upon semi quantitative macroinvertebrate surveys (Arnwine and Denton 2001a). The index is based upon ecoregional reference data and calibrated by bioregion. The seven biometrics are: EPT (Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera Richness) TR (Taxa richness) % EPT (EPT abundance) %OC (% oligochaetes and chironomids) NCBI (North Carolina Biotic Index) % NUTOL (% nutrient tolerant organisms) % Clingers After calculating the seven biometric values, the data are equalized and assigned a score of 0, 2, 4, or 6 based upon the reference database of the bioregion. The seven 4 scores are totaled and the biological condition of each site is detennined. There are three categories of the index score: Non-impaired (supporting) is equal to or greater than 32. Slightly impaired (partially supporting) is 21 - 31. Moderately impaired (partially supporting) is equal to or less than 20. WATER QUALITY Water parameters recorded included dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and conductivity. Parameters were recorded using YSI meters. The YSI pH 100 meter recorded temperature and pH and the YSI 85 was used to compare temperature and to measure DO and conductivity. Before each field day the meters were calibrated per the manufacturer's directions and tested for reading drift at the end of each sampling day. HABITAT ANALYSIS A visual habitat assessment was conducted at the sampling site following Barbour et. al (1999) methodology to evaluate the integrity ofthe habitat. The Physical Characterization and Water Quality Field Data Sheet (Appendix A-I, Fonn 1 of Barbour et al. 1999) and the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet (Appendix A-I, Fonn 2 of Barbour et al. 1999) were used. Because samples were collected in ecoregion 67f, the High Gradient Stream assessment sheet was used to evaluate habitats. In all, ten parameters were evaluated: Epifaunal substrate/available cover Embeddedness VelocitylDepth combinations Sediment deposition Channel flow status Channel alteration Frequency of riffles or bends Bank stability Bank vegetative protection Riparian vegetative zone width Each parameter was individually scored 0 to 20 with 20 being the highest attainable score for a maximum score of200 points. Scores were divided into four categories (Optimal, Suboptimal, Marginal and Poor) with a range of five points per category. After totaling the scores, the final score was compared with the Habitat Assessment Guidelines for ecoregion 67ffrom Tennessee's Department of Environment and Conservation Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys (Arnwine 2006) to detennine ifthe habitat is capable of supporting a healthy macro invertebrate community. Scores for the Habitat Assessment are: Scores greater than or equal to 130 indicate the habitat is not impaired. Scores 103 - 129 indicate the habitat is moderately impaired. Scores less than or equal to 102 indicate the habitat is severely impaired. 5 RESULTS Table 1. Summary of IBI-M and habitat assessment scores of North Fork of Turkey Creek from October 18, 2010. NORTH FORK OF TURKEY CREEK SAMPLING SITE IBI-M score 34 Rating Non-impaired Habitat score 103 Rating Moderately impaired At the sampling site, the scores indicated that the physical habitat has been impacted due to alterations of the area and was rated as severely impaired. However the biological community has not been impacted and scored a 34, which is above the target score of 32 for streams in this area ofTennessee. Table 2. Densities of macroinvertebrates collected on North Fork of Turkey Creek October 18, 2010. TAXA SAMPLING SITE OLIGOCHAETA (Aquatic wonns) Lumbricidae Eclipidrilus spp. 3 ODONATA (Dragonflies and damselflies) Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa 4 EPHEMERO PTERA (Mayflies) Baetidae Baetis jlavistriga 1 Heptageniidae Stenonema pudicum 2 TRlCHOPTERA (Caddisflies) Brachycentridae Brachycentrus lateralis 1 Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp. 80 Hydropsyche demoralvenularis 65 COLEOPTERA (Beetles) Dytiscidae Hydaticus modestus 1 Elmidae Stenelmis spp. 14 Psephenidae Psephenus herricki 2 DIPTERA (Flies) 6 Chironomidae Polypedilum spp. 18 Thienemannimyia spp. 1 Ceratopogonidae Dasyhelea grisea 1 Tipulidae Tipula yamamoto 3 Antocha spp. 4 Dicranota spp. 1 Simuliidae Simulium snowi 6 MESOGASTROPODA (Snails) Pleuroceridae Elimia spp. 3 TUBIFICIDA (Aquatic worms) Naididae Nais spp. 1 AMPHIPODA (Crustaceans) Crangonyctidae Crangonyx spp. 2 Total 213 A total of213 macroinvertebrate species were collected at the North Fork Turkey Creek site on October 18,2010. Specimens from the caddisfly genera, Chematopsyche and Hydropsyche, dominated the biological community at this site. Table 3. Summary Table for Macroinvertebrate Index of Sampling Sites on North Fork of Turkey Creek, October 18, 2010 METRIC Taxa EPT 0/0 0/0 NCBI % % Index Richness Richness EPT OC Clingers NUTROL Score Site Value 20 5 69.95 10.33 5.45 75.12 16.43 I Score 4 2 6 6 4 6 6 34 INDEX SCORE INDEX SCORE RATING SITE 34 Non-impaired The site at North Fork of Turkey Creek scored a 34 for the macroinvertebrate community and was classified as non-impaired. The site met the TMI score of 32 for creeks in the 67f ecoregion (Amwine 2006). 7 Table 4. Summary of water quality analysis taken on North Fork of Turkey Creek on October 18,2010. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Temperature DO (mglL) pH Conductivity (urnls) (OC) Sampling Site 17.8 6.31 7.81 266.3 Water quality values on Turkey Creek are within normal ranges of East Tennessee streams located in Ecoregion 67f. The pH values are within the standard of 6.0 - 9.0 by TDEC (Arnwine and Denton 2004). DO readings were also within the standards set by TDEC (Arnwine et al. 2005) and did not fall below minimum requirement of6.3 ppm for Ecoregion 67f. Water temperatures also met Tennessee' s water quality criteria for the support offish and aquatic life in wadeable streams and did not exceed the maximum allowance of 30.5 °c (Arnwine et al. 2005). Table 5. Summary for Habitat Assessment on North Fork of Turkey Creek on October 18, 2010. Habitat Parameter Latitude (deg) 35°53'04.96" Longitude (deg) -084°09'39.24" Epifaunal Cover 13 Embeddedness 10 VelocitylDepth Regime 10 Sediment Deposition 11 Channel Flow 10 Channel Alteration 10 Riffle Frequency 10 Bank stability (leftlright)* 5/3 Vegetative Protection (leftlright)* , 7/6 Riparian Zone Width (leftlright)* 6/2 Total (200 max.) 103 Total Score Rating Moderately impaired * Scored while facing the downstream direction. The site scored a 103 for the physical habitat assessment given a rating of moderately impaired. Unfortunately the site failed to meet the physical habitat goal for Ecoregion 67f streams (Arnwine and Denton 2001 b). Though the site was wooded with good canopy cover there were numerous pressures impacting the site from the surrounding area. The stream passed under Campbell Station Road and then the stream channel paralleled the road until it passed 8 under Kingston Pike. Within this sampling reach there were the impervious surfaces from the roads as well as from the parking lots such as the LCUB and Rural Metro Ambulatory Service. Upstream from the sampling site major road construction and pipe refitting was occurring. The riparian zone had been disturbed due to current activities (see photos of details). Though this area is being impacted many of the issues found seem to be from past events. For example the level of embeddedness seemed to be constant throughout the reach and the sediment had been deposited over time compared to sand bars that recently formed. Another example was the areas that had exposed and failing banks. There were no recent failures. Exposed root systems were aged and weathered. Because of these observations it is believed that most of the physical habitat issues described are the result of past and current activities along the creek. This is further supported by similar conditions both instream and along the stream banks that were observed during other sampling efforts for Town of Farragut during the same time period. The creek was sampled at the Campbell Station Park at the upper most section as well as two sites further upstream within residential and commercial sections of Farragut. At each ofthese sites similar conditions were evident including levels of sediment deposition and bank stability. One difference between all sites was the riparian zone width within the subdivision was narrower than in other areas. DISCUSSION Streams throughout Ecoregion 67f are characterized by reduced riparian cover, high levels of erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient loading (Arnwine and Denton 2001 b). North Fork of Turkey Creek is listed in the final version ofthe 2010,303 d list for the state ofTennessee (TDEC 2010). The 15.8 impaired miles on Turkey Creek are listed due to loss of biological integrity due to siltation and high levels of Escherichia coli. Impairment sources include discharges from a MS4 area. The findings from the current study are comparable to other urban streams in the area including the Knoxville, Maryville and Alcoa areas from TDEC 2007 - 2008 sampling efforts. The IBI score on North Fork of Turkey Creek was 34 compared to the mean score of 23.88 for other sampling efforts on other East Tennessee creeks by TDEC. The creek met the TMI score of 32 for this region. The overall score was lowered because the overall number of EPT taxa was only 5 that yielded a score of 2 out of 6. This was higher than the mean of 3.53 EPT taxa in this region though far below the optimal 11 or more taxa. The remaining values were higher. No stoneflies were collected in the current study and only three mayflies were collected and identified. The remaining taxa were representatives of hydropsychid caddisflies. These findings have been similar to previous IBI-M surveys in this watershed at other sampling sites. One reason this location was chosen for the current study was the level of road construction, pipe replacement and overall disturbances to the area. These data could provide a baseline and allow us to compare future monitoring efforts in order to determine changes to the community composition as changes occur to the area. Though the area has been heavily impacted due to the current development of North Campbell Station Road it is believed that many of the physical issues were already 9 present in the system and the changes in the corrununity were not a result of the construction. Though these efforts have impacted the physical habitat locally, some of these issues should be reduced or eliminated once the riparian zone can re-establish itself over time. In addition to the current conditions and looking at impacts, Town of Farragut's Stormwater Department has proposed to create an outdoor classroom for Farragut High School's students at this site. The hands on facility will educate students on water quality issues and the biological communities found within this creek system. It will be important to know how the current system is responding to these issues and how changes to the physical habitat will affect the corrununity. Unfortunately the physical habitat has been moderately impaired. Please refer to Appendix A for current conditions. Riparian issues include the stream being adjacent to the roadway and the impacts of storm water runoff to it such as automotive fluids and sediment, the pulse of water from rain events is greater and quicker because of the impervious surfaces and disturbances to the zone as a result of the work though efforts were made by the crews to keep additional sediment out of the creek. The creek crosses and parallels the road and because of this the riparian zone width on the right side has been decreased. Numerous areas had exposed roots or bare soil along the banks. Little to no fine particles were observed in some of the runs rather the stream bed had been scoured down to the clay mix of bare earth such as in photo #5. This issue should continue over time and continue to erode the right stream bank at several locations. This could be the result of the storm pulses. Compared to other creeks within the area this segment scored lower than the average. The mean habitat score for other regional creeks was 112 compared to 103 on North Fork. The difference between the mean score and the current score is related to activities adjacent to the stream. For example though the utility work has been taking the correct steps to prevent additional sediment from entering the stream the riparian zone has been impacted such as in photo #11 . Though the silt fence is preventing additional inputs to the system the riparian zone was impacted. It is believed that once the work has been completed and the area left undisturbed the physical habitat score could increase and the segment's score would improve though it is doubtful if the rating would change from moderately to non-impacted. 10 REFERENCES Arnwine, D.H. 2006. Quality system standard operating procedure for macro invertebrate stream surveys. Tennessee Department ofEnvironment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp. 150. Arnwine, D.H. and G.M. Denton. 2001a. Development of regionally-based interpretations ofTennessee's existing biological integrity criteria. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Arnwine, D.H. and G.M. Denton. 2001 b. Habitat quality ofleast-impacted streams in Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp. 65. Arnwine, D. H. and G.M. Denton. 2004. Development of regionally-based pH criteria for wadeable streams: A criteria development document prepared for the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. NashviHe, TN. Pp.75. Arnwine, D. H., R. R. James and K.J. Sparks. 2005. Regional characterization of streams in Tennessee with emphasis on diurnal dissolved oxygen, nutrients, habitat, geomorphology and macroinvertebrates. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp.286. Barbour, M.T., 1. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and 1.B. Stribling. 1999. 2nd Edition. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA 841-B-99-002. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington D.C. Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham and A. Gnilka (eds.). 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, IL. Merritt R. W. and K.W. Cummins. 1995. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Third Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing Co, Dubeque, IA. Pp. 862. Perez K.E., S.A. Clark, and C. Lydeard, editors. 2004. "Showing your shells" A primer to freshwater gastropod identification. Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Gastropod Identification Workshop. Pp.70. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control. 2010. Proposed Final Report: Year 2010 303(d) list. Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp. 180. 11 APPENDIX A: PHOTOS OF NORTH FORK OF TURKEY CREEK Photo 1. Stream corridor looking upstream from downstream endpoint. Photo 2. Typical riffle and run of the stream. 12 Photo 3. Outfall pipe coming from Campbell Station Road. t Photo 4. Exposed stream bank right side (downstream view (reversed)). 13 Photo 5. Exposed stream bank without sediment. Photo 6. An example of an eroding stream bank site. 14 Photo 7. Run on the upper end of the sampling area. Photo 8. Run on the upper end of the sampling area. 15 Photo 9. Upper most area of sampling area with outfall pipe. Photo 1O. Riparian zone disturbance on left bank (facing downstream). 16 Photo 11. Silt fence installed on right bank (facing downstream). Photo 12. Disturbance in riparian zone along left bank (facing downstream). 17 Photo 13. The area is part of the disturbed riparian zone. To the left of picture is a dual silt fence. The fence was in good condition overall though it should be walked on a daily basis to locate issues. 18 5MP 2D Water Quality Analysis on Three Creeks in ,the Turkey Creek Watershed for the Town of Farragut Final Report November 18, 2010. Conducted by: A SO C IATI O N REPORT PREPARED BY: Michael S. Gaugler, Storrnwater Services Program Director DATA PROVIDED BY: Michael S. Gaugler Water Quality Analysis on Three Creeks in the Turkey Creek Watershed for the Town of Farragut Final Report November 18,2010. INTRODUCTION The document represents water quality data collected from the Turkey Creek Watershed on three creeks and their tributaries at eleven sampling sites in Farragut, Tennessee by Fort Loudoun Lake Association (FLLA) for Town of Farragut's Engineering Department. The three creeks (Little Turkey Creek, North Fork Turkey Creek and Turkey Creek) were sampled on November 2,2010 for total suspended solids (TSS) and settleable solids (SS). In addition to water samples collected, instantaneous water parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity) and flow conditions were recorded at each of the sites. OBJECTIVES 1. Collect a water sample at each location to determine TSS and SS levels. 2. Record instantaneous water parameter values at each site. 3. Record flow conditions at each site. 4. Provide photographic evidence of current stream conditions at each site. 5. Present findings of the field parameters and deliver materials to Town of Farragut Engineering Department. STUDY AREAS FLLA assessed 11 sites within the Turkey Creek Watershed. Four sites were on Little Turkey Creek, three were on North Fork Turkey Creek and four were on Turkey Creek. Sampling sites were chosen prior to the project based upon accessibility and representation of current conditions throughout the watershed by TOF Engineering Department. The watershed is located in Knox County, Tennessee and discharges to Fort Loudoun Lake. Each of the creeks is listed in the Tennessee Department of Envirorunent and Conservation 303(d) list (TDEC 2010). Issues in the watershed include loss of biological integrity due to siltation and Escherichia coli from MS4 discharges. METHODS FLLA followed TDEC's Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Chemical and Bacteriological Sampling of Surface Water (TDEC 2008) for collecting water samples for chemical analysis. At each sampling site, an annual grab sample for total suspended solids and settleable solids was taken in accordance to protocols "C" and "D" as described in the SOP. After collecting water samples protocol "J" of the SOP was followed to record temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity. Finally, stream flows were determined following protocol "L" of the SOP. 2 On November 2, 2010 while standing in the stream thalweg at an upstream run of a riffle, submerging the sample container directly in the water column without disturbing the sediment collected water samples. Containers were filled completely, sealed, labeled and stored on ice until they were submitted to the Microbac Laboratories, Inc. in Maryville, Tennessee for analysis. The chain of custody form was completed and a copy was made for the lab while the original was kept by FLLA. Laboratory analysis of samples used the SM 2540 methodology for both TSS and SS. Settle solids and total suspended solids were analyzed on November 3, 2010. Both tests were within the seven day holding times for routine samples. After water sampling, instantaneous field parameters were recorded upstream of the sampling. The meter probes were placed in the thalweg and were suspended off the stream bottom. A YSI 85 meter was used to record dissolved oxygen and conductivity values and temperature. A YSI pH 100 was used to record pH and temperature. Duplicate parameter readings were taken. Flows were determined after sampling was completed. The width and depth of the creek was determined along a transect and flow velocities were recorded to determine flow conditions at each sampling site. The order of samples collected was based upon the logistics of distance to the laboratory and travel time between sites. Sampling was conducted on Little Turkey Creek followed by Turkey Creek and then North Fork Turkey Creek. 3 RESULTS Table 1. Summary of water sample values, parameter values and flow conditions on the creeks in Turkey Creek Watershed, November 2, 2010. Creek Site LAT LONG pH Temp DO Condo TSS SS Flows # (0C) (mglL) (um/s) (mVL) (mglL) (cfs) Turkey I 35.53520580 -84 .08280633 7.60 15.2 6.41 319.8 24.5 0.21 52 Creek Turkey 2 35.53056107 -84 .09132045 7.64 15 .0 6.65 321 .6 14 .2 0.32 61 Creek Turkey 3 35.52196839 -84.08528680 8.00 14.6 7.07 347.6 NO 0.11 107 Creek Turkey 4 35.52359598 -84.09034241 7.98 15 .5 7.78 306.3 NO NO 93 Creek N. 5 35 .53022930 -8409426564 7.86 15 .6 6.81 300.1 NO NO 78 Fork N. 6 35.5314960 -84.10187599 7.72 15 .0 6.92 333.6 0.16 14.6 80 Fork N. 7 35.53354312 -84.10318254 7.63 15.2 6.00 300.2 NO NO 66 Fork Little 8 35 .51232346 -84.10408567 7.21 13.8 6.75 325.1 NO 43.0 72 Turkey Little 9 35.51393576 -84.11 061826 7.77 13.4 7.5 331.1 NO NO 70 Turkey Little 10 35.51500040 -84.12024054 7.56 14.0 6.63 311.7 NO NO 81 Turkey Little 11 35.52161005 -84.12239284 7.98 14.1 6.60 316.4 0.32 33.3 88 Turkey Mean 7.73 14.67 6.83 319.41 4.83 8.35 77.1 * NO (not detected) is below the detection limit of4.00 mg/L for TSS. For these, a value of2.00 was used for calculating mean. NO is below the detection of 0.11 mVL for SS. For these, a value of0.055 was used for calculating the mean. The instant water parameters, grab sample analyses and flow conditions are listed in Table 1. The pH readings were all above neutral and within state guidelines for this parameter (Arnwine and Denton 2004). Temperatures fluctuated but were lower than in 2009. Station #5 had the highest reading but this was also the last station sampled that day. DO level readings were above state minimum requirements. North Fork Turkey Creek readings also varied among sampling sites as Little Turkey Creek demonstrated. The conductivity readings in the watershed also showed variation throughout but values were consistent with other creek readings in East Tennessee (Arnwine et al. 2005) At seven of the sampling sites TS S levels were below test detection levels and at five sites SS levels were below test detection levels. Turkey Creek Station # 1 had the highest TSS reading at 24.5 mIlL. Little Turkey Creek Station #8 had the highest SS reading at 43 .0 mg/L. 4 Flows were also recorded at each sampling site. Flows ranged 52 cfs at Turkey Creek site # 1 to 107 cfs at site # 3 also on Turkey Creek. These flows were similar to last year's values. Looking at the surrounding physical habitat, these flows seemed normal for the fall season. The streambeds were wetted the entire channel width with flowing water however flows were not past bankfull. DISCUSSION The creeks are listed in TDEC's 2010 proposed version of the 303( d) listing of impaired and water quality limited water bodies within Tennessee. The creeks are a priority because of the loss of biological integrity due to siltation from MS4 discharges. Also Turkey Creek is a priority because of E. coli levels due to discharges from a MS4 area. There are numerous sources of sediment input to the system. Some of the anthropogenic sources include wastewater treatment facilities and stonnwater discharges from impervious surfaces such as parking lots and roadways and construction activities. In addition to these, there are natural occurring sources such as from sheet and rill erosion. Total suspended solids (TSS) and settleable solids (SS) are concerns for many stream systems throughout the state of Tennessee. The solids can be an indicator of the strength of sewage efficiency at a waste treatment plant facility. The solids impact the system in a variety of ways. If levels are high, light may be blocked to the submerged vegetation. This can reduce or eliminate photosynthesis and drive dissolved oxygen concentrations to lower levels. Eventually plants can die, decompose and further degrade water quality. In addition to photo inhibition, the suspended particles can absorb heat from sunlight causing a thermal shift. Another area of concern involves the process of different toxins such as pesticides binding to the particles and being transported downstream. Finally these suspended solids can affect aquatic life in several ways including clogging gills, reduction of growth rates due to a decreased ability to see and catch food, and can affect egg development because once the particles become embedded in the substrate there is a reduction in habitat availability because of the homogenous substrate. At seven sites the TSS values were at or less than 4.00 mg/L. These readings were below the mean of 5.9 mgIL for the fall sampling efforts in East Tennessee and below the mean of 7.3 mg/L for the entire state fall sampling efforts as well as below the mean for the entire yearly effort at 12.0 mglL (Graf and Arnwine 2009). Two sites, #1 and #2 on Turkey Creek were at 24.5 and 14.2 mIll. Both of these sites exhibited the lowest flows and are characterized by impervious surfaces in close proximity to their locations including the heavily used Kingston Pike and high levels of development. Suspended solids were not detected at five sites and at each of these TSS were not detected (# 4,5, 7, 9, and 10). However three sites (#6, #8, and #11) each had elevated readings even though TSS readings at those sites were below detection or well below the means of East Tennessee and statewide testing. 5 Each of the water parameters; pH, DO, temperature, and conductivity were all within state guideline standards for East Tennessee streams located in Ecoregion 67f. The pH values are within the standard of 6.0 - 9.0 by TDEC (Arnwine and Denton 2004). DO readings were also within the standards set by TDEC (Arnwine et al. 2005) and did not fall below minimum requirement of 6.0 ppm for Ecoregion 67f. Water temperatures also met Tennessee's water quality criteria for the support of fish and aquatic life in wadeable streams and did not exceed the maximwn allowance of 30.5 °c (Arnwine et al. 2005). Flow conditions were similar to flow conditions observed in the 2009 survey of these three creeks. Sites # 3 and #4 exceeded 100 CFS while site #1 was the lowest at 52 CFS. Conditions were typical of streams in this area during the fall. There was variation between stations based upon TSS and SS levels. There were five stations had did not have values for either parameter, two had a single value above the detection limit of the test and four had values above the detection limit for both parameters. Turkey Creek sites #1 and #2 both had high TSS readings and SS above detection limits. Low flows and high levels ofembeddedness of the streambeds characterize these two sites. Site #6 on North Fork had high levels ofSS and recorded TSS levels. Road re-paving and new sewer and water pipes characterize this area. Site #7 is upstream of #6 and in a residential area that is not being impacted by the construction. Site #7 had readings below the detection limit for both parameters. On Little Turkey Creek at sites #8 and #9 SS had extremely high readings (33.3 mg/L and 43.0 mg/L). At #] 1 there is a high amount of residential development surrounding and upstream ofthe sampling site. It is possible that this is influencing the readings. While driving through the areas on Little Turkey Creek there were several construction/development areas. Some were active and some were abandoned. It is unknown the impact levels ofthese areas are having on the creeks. Overall readings were higher in 2010 than in 2009. In 2009, 10 sites had at or below detection limits for both parameters while in 2010, five sites showed similar trends. The maximum TSS reading in 2010 was 24.5 mIll at site #1 compared to site #9 at 23.3 mIJL in 2009. Site #1 levels increased while site #9 level decreased. The SS parameter levels were much higher in 2010. The 2010 mean was 8.35 mg/L while the 2009 mean was only 0.08 mg/L. This change was evident due to readings at three of the sites (#6, #8, and #11). The remaining eight sites demonstrated similar trends between years. It is possible that the development in these areas influenced these readings. If the current sewer system cannot handle the increased needs or if there are locations with failing or broken pipes these readings could indicate this issue. If the readings continue to increase in the 2011 sampling steps should be taken to help alleviate some of the pressures to these systems. 6 REFERENCES Arnwine, D. H. and G.M. Denton. 2004. Development of regionally based pH criteria for wadeable streams: A criteria development document prepared for the TeIUlessee Water Quality Control Board. TeIUlessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp. 75. Arnwine, D. H., R. R. James and KJ. Sparks. 2005. Regional characterization of streams in TeIUlessee with emphasis on diurnal dissolved oxygen, nutrients, habitat, geomorphology and macroinvertebrates. TeIUlessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp.286. GrafMH, Arnwine DH, and GM Denton. 2009. 2007 - 8 Probabilistic monitoring of wadeable streams in Tennessee. Volume 5 - Pathogens. Nashville, TN. Pp.36. TeIUlessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control. 2010. Proposed Final Report: Year 2010 303(d) list. Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp. 180. TeIUlessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control. 2008. Quality system standard operating procedure for chemical and bacteriological sampling of surface water. Nashvi1le, TN. Pp. 130. 7 APPENDIX A: PHOTOS OF CURRENT CONDITIONS AT EACH SITE Photo 1. Site 1: Turkey Creek near Lovell Road Photo 2. Site 2: Turkey Creek near West End Avenue 8 Photo 3. Site 3: Turkey Creek near Campbell Station Road Photo 4. Site 4: Turkey Creek near Anchorage Way 9 Photo 5. Site 5: N. Fork Turkey Creek near North Campbell Station Road and Rural Metro 10 Photo 6. Site 6: N. Fork Turkey Creek near Bellfield Road Photo 7. Site 7: N. Fork Turkey Creek near Grigsby Chapel Road 11 Photo 8. Site 8: Little Turkey Creek near Virtue Road Photo 9. Site 9: Little Turkey Creek below Willow Creek Golf Course 12 Photo 10. Site 10: Little Turkey Creek near Old Stage Road Photo 11. Site 11: Little Turkey Creek near Union Road 13 .. Town of Farragut Stream Corridor Assessment Survey of Little Turkey Creek 2011 CONDUCTED BY: REPORT PREPARED BY: Michael S. Gaugler, Stormwater Services Program Director OUTFALLS DATA PROVIDED BY: Michael Gaugler Introduction Due to the progress made in addressing point source pollution problems and the ability to clean up and implement restoration efforts during the last 40 years the efforts and focus has shifted to addressing nonpoint source pollution such as loading of sediment and nutrients to the aquatic freshwater systems. One method to address these nonpoint issues is based upon the greater ecosystem-based approach to manage, protect and restore these systems. The Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA) survey was created by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) as a tool for hydrologists, ecologists, resource managers, and city planners to quickly assess the overall physical condition(s) of a stream and be able to identify the common environmental problems both instream and along the stream corridors (Yetman, 2001). After the problem is identified and located the SCA allows the investigator to determine the severity of the problem as well as the level of restoration opportunities available. Environmental problems addressed in the SCA include: 1. Erosion sites 2. Inadequate stream buffers 3. Fish migration blockages 4. Exposed or discharging pipes 5. Channelized stream sections 6. Trash dumping sites 7. In or near stream construction 8. Unusual conditions When problem sites are identified, all are evaluated and scored by on a scale of one to five in three separate areas: problem severity, correctability, and accessibility. These values are subjected and simply provide a starting point for future restoration efforts and can determine focus areas chronologically. Data and photographs can further be reviewed to validate the scoring. The severity rating determines how bad a specific problem is relative to other problems in the same problem category. The ratings are 1 (most severe) to 5 (minor problem). The correctability rating provides a relative measure on how easily the problem is to correct. This restoration strategy could focus on the most sever problems that are easily fixed. Another example would be the smaller problems could be corrected using volunteers and minimal equipment such as a large woody debris fish migration blockage. Ratings are 1 (minor problem) to 5 (major restoration problem involving significant amounts of funding and the use of heavy equipment). The final score is the accessibility rating. This rating measures the difficulty in reaching a specific problem site. Factors influencing this score include land ownership, adjacent land use and distance from the road. Ratings are 1 (easy access by car or on foot) to 5 (difficult to reach by car and on foot). Along with these problems the survey may also describe those stream reaches that are in need of environmental protection. These areas are not necessarily a problem yet and could include undisturbed or undeveloped forested areas along the near-stream corridor. In-stream areas for protection could include proper riffle-run sequences or sources of input such as a natural spring. 2 There are four objectives to the SCA. 1. Provides a list of observable environmental problems present within a stream system and along its riparian corridor. 2. Provides sufficient information on each problem so that a preliminary determination of both the severity and correctability of a problem can be made. 3. Provides sufficient information so that restoration efforts can be prioritized. 4. Provides a quick assessment of both in- and near-stream habitat conditions so that comparative assessments can be made of the conditions of different stream segments. The representative site data are used to document the general conditions of both in-stream habitat and the conditions ofthe adjacent stream corridor. The 10 habitat parameters are rated as optimal, suboptimal, marginal, or poor based upon criteria of the SCA protocols. The 10 habitat parameters evaluated are: 1. Attached sites for macro invertebrates 2. Embeddedness 3. Shelter for fish 4. Channel alteration 5. Sediment deposition 6. Stream velocity and depth combinations 7. Channel flow status 8. Bank vegetation protection 9. Conditions of banks 10. Riparian vegetative zone width The representative site evaluations are conducted at specific intervals along the stream corridor. The standard procedure for representative site distances is every V4 to Yz mile intervals. Often in urbanized streams, the V4 mile spacing is used compared to the greater interval in a rural stream system. Materials and Methods The protocol for the assessment followed the Maryland Department ofNatural Resources for Stream Corridor Assessment Survey Protocols (Yetman, 2001) and from the Center for Watershed Protection (Tasillo and Brown, 2009). Little Turkey Creek was surveyed as well as any tributary of the stream. In those areas that were inaccessible because of private landownership the upstream and downstream sections adjacent to this area was evaluated. When an issue was identified, the location was determined using a Garmin GPSmap 60c receiver to record latitude and longitude; the field data sheet description sheet was completed (channel alteration, erosion site, exposed pipes, pipe outfalls, fish barrier, inadequate buffer, in or near stream construction, trash dumping, unusual condition or comment and representative site). The representative sites are used to document the general condition of both instream and adjacent stream corridor habitats. Photographs were taken of each outfall. For those outfal1s that were located but not accessed, locations and photographs were taken and the data sheets were completed. To detennine the survey areas, Town of Farragut Stormwater Department provided maps ofthe area. When a problem or representative site was identified and described a numerical value, starting with 1, was placed on the map to help locate them. 3 The areas surveyed included along 1-40E near Watt Road and the areas between Grisby Chapel Road east to North Watt Road. Results To date 62 sites were identified in the area. A descriptive database was created detailing information for each site. The database will be submitted in a separate electronic report. In addition photographs were taken of each site and they too will be submitted electronically. Of the 62 sites the most common problem identified was pipe outfalls with 48 sites. Many ofthese outfalls were from stormwater drainage systems located on private residences. Many were in above average conditions with few signs of flooding the adjacent properties. At site #21, there was livestock access to the creek. There was evidence of animals along and in the streams due to horse hoof prints and feces here. The number of animals was unknown. While not a severe issue much of the stream below this site would have high levels of algae indicating higher nutrient loading to the system. It is unknown if the impacts are from the livestock and/or other possible issues such as leaking sanitary sewer lines or faulty septic tanks. No flows were observed at site #19 which was adjacent to 1-40E that was west of the Campbell Station Road exit. Sites #3 and # 10 were erosion sites. At #3 the stream bank had been cut over a long period of time and it was evident that the homeowner had been loosing part of his side yard. The eroding stream bank continued past that property line and continued into the next. Site #10 was adjacent to between pastureland and a residence. Most of the loose soils had been eroded away and the downcut streambed was primarily a chert and clay mix. Little threat to infrastructure was evident at either location. One exposed pipe was identified at site #17. The pipe was in good condition with no evidence of discharge. The pipe was above the streambed and should not impact flooding concerns unless a weir formed from fallen trees and limbs and blocked streamflows. A total of 12 representative sites were recorded. Of those, seven had flows. They were #2, 7, 8, 18, 23, 41, and 47. Sites # 18 and 47 scored highest in the suboptimal to marginal categories. The remaining ones were classified in the poor rating. Those sites that were identified as dry or no flows were typical intermittent streams that were narrow, 1 to 2 feet wide. Discussion Overall this area is a typical urbanized setting with most issues centered around impervious surfaces such as roadways and driveways and alteration from a forested setting to landscaped one. Very few areas were identified as serious with the exceptions of the livestock access point at site #21, and the erosions sites at #3 and #10. Each of these sites was on private property and it is unknown what steps the municipality could take to maintain or improve these areas. Many of the areas did not have flows during the survey and is believed that the majority of the sites were used intermittently. For example at sites #1 and #19 no flows were observed and at #19 the site was overgrown 4 with vegetation indicating no flows for an extended period of time. Of the outfall pipes all were in good physical condition with little debris collected. The only area of concern was along Augusta National Way. Many of the houses had more than one pipe per residence and some were showing signs of collapse and debris was being collected. It is believed that over time some flooding could occur in the area experiences another series of storms as observed earlier this year. There were a few areas where oily surface films were present in addition to sewage odors being detected. 5 References Tasillo 1. and T. Brown. 2009. Methods for detecting illicit discharge in the field. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicot, MD. 10 pp. www.cwp.orgIRR_PhotosIPA_SW_Symposium_IDDE.pdf Yetman, K.T. 2001. Stream corridor assessment survey: SCA survey protocols. Maryland Department ofNatural Resources, Watershed Restoration Division, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Services, Annapolis, MD. 68 pp. 6 Sheet1 Date Site Latitude Longitude Photo Type Outfall type Pipe type Location Pipe Diamete Channel Wid Discharge Color Odor Severity Correctabilil) Access 08/24/11 1 3553,169 8412.107 1 -2 Representative No flows 08/24/11 2 3553, 001 8411 .795 3-4 Representative 08/24/11 3 3552,990 8411 ,794 5-6 Erosion downcuning bend steep slope 100 feet 10ft. height residental residental no threat 08/24/11 42552,944 8411 ,856 7-8 Pipe outfall storm water corrug , Meta Head 72 inches 08/24/11 5 3552,897 8411 ,950 9 -10 Pipe outfall x 3 storm water corrug, Meta Head 48, 48, 12 inc 6 inches 08/24/11 6 3552,883 8411 .987 11-12 Pipe outfall x 3 stormwater corrug, Meta Head 48,48,12 inc 5 ft. yes clear none 5 2 08/24/11 7 3552,847 8412.088 13 -14 Representative 08/24/11 8 3552,814 8412,151 15-16 Representative 08/24/11 9 3552,689 8412,275 17 18 Pipe outfall storm water corrug, Meta Head 60 7 yes clear sewage 4 2 1 08/24/11 10 35 52 19,66 84 12 26.86 19 - 20 Erosion widening bend steep slope 40 4,5 residental pasture no threat 3 2 2 08/24/11 11 3552,628 8412,285 21 -22 Pipe outfall storm water conc pipe Head 180 x 60 3 no 5 1 08/24/11 12 3552,628 8412,285 23 -24 Pipe outfall storm water conc pipe Head 180 x 60 4 yes clear oily 5 2 08/24/11 13 3552,597 8412,328 25-26 Pipe outfall stormwater conc pipe Head 180 x 60 4 yes clear sewage 4 2 08/24/11 14 3552,591 8412.331 27 -28 Pipe outfall stormwater conc pipe Head 180 x 60 6 inches yes clear oily 4 2 08/24/11 15 3552.473 8412,507 29- 30 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug , Meta Head 48, 48 9 yes clear none 5 2 08/24/11 16 35 52.462 8412,507 31 - 32 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug . Meta Head 48 , 48 8 yes clear wh film none 5 2 08/24/11 17 3552.433 8412,502 33 - 34 exposed pipe sewer smooth meta above strean 24 in x 35 ft, no none none 4 3 08124111 18 3552.410 8412.491 35 - 36 Representative 08/24/11 19 355348,77 841049,96 37-38 Representative 08/24/11 20 35 52.468 84 11 ,802 39 - 40 Pipe outfall stormwater COfTug, Meta Head 36 2 no 5 5 4 private res, 08/24/11 21355112,18841109.6441-42 Unusual conditiol livestock horses 5 2 2 private res, 08/24/11 22 3552.473 8411 ,798 43 - 44 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 48 6 no 5 2 2 08/24/11 23 3552,474 8411 ,797 45 -46 Representative 08/24/11 24 35 52 48.49 84 11 30,01 47 - 48 Representative 08/24/11 25 355247,56 841131 ,55 51 -52 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 18 1 no 5 private res, 08/24/11 26 355247, 56 841131 ,55 53-54 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 24 2 no 5 private res, 08/24/11 27 355247, 38 841136,36 55-56 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 24 2 no 5 private res . 08/24/11 28 355247,38 8411 36,36 57 - 58 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug , Meta Head 24 2 no 5 private res , 08/24/11 29 355247,02 8411 26,72 59 Pipe outfall storm water corrug, Meta Head 24 3 no 5 private res. 08/24/11 30 355247,02 8411 26,72 60-61 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 24 3 no 5 private res, 08/24/11 31 355244,37 8411 37 ,25 62-63 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 48 4 no 5 2 private res. 08/24/11 32 35 52 44,37 8411 37 ,25 64 -67 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 48 4 no 5 2 private res. 08/24/11 33 355242,79 84 11 39 ,77 68-69 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug , Meta Head 36 3 no 5 2 private res. 08/24/11 34 355242,79 8411 39 ,77 70-71 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug. Meta Head 48 4 no 5 2 private res . 08/24/11 35 355242,79 8411 39 ,77 72-75 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 48 4 no 5 2 private res . 08/24/11 36 355241 ,30 841140,87 76-77 Pipe outfall stormwater COfTug , Meta Head 48 4 no 5 2 private res. 08/24/11 37 355241 ,30 841140,87 78- 79 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug . Meta Head 24 2 no 4 2 private res. 08/24/11 38 355240.21 841142,60 80- 81 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug , Meta Head 48 4 no 4 2 private res. 08/24/11 39 3552 ,507 84 12,037 82-83 Pipe outfall storm water con box Head 60 x 48 8 no 5 1 09/01/11 40 3552.478 8212,042 84 -85 Pipe outfall stormwater con channel Head 96 x 72 7 yes clear none 5 2 09/01/11 41 3552.433 8412,119 86 Representative 09/01/11 42 3552.421 841 2, 139 88 -89 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug. Meta rt, bank 24, 24 <1 no 4 2 09/01/11 43 3552.423 8412,138 na Pipe outfall stormwater corrug. Meta Head 96 yes clear/med br oily 4 2 09/01/11 44 3552,359 8412,242 90-91 Pipe outfall stormwater con channel Head 96 x 72 6 yes clear algae 5 09/01/11 45 3552.309 8412,339 92-93 Pipe outfall stormwater con pipe Head 48, 48 3 yes clear oily 5 09/01/11 46 3552.268 8412,398 94 - 95 Pipe outfall storm water con channel Head 360 x 120 yes clear algae 5 09/01/11 47 355210.85 841217.97 96 - 97 Representative 09/01/11 48 3552,119 8412,938 98 -99 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 48,48 4 no 5 2 09/01/11 49 3552.070 8413,002 100 -101 Pipe outfall 09/01/11 50 3552,069 8413,212 102 - 103 Representative 09/01/11 51 3552,070 8413,236 104 - 105 Pipe outfall stormwater plastic left bank 8 no 5 09/01/11 52 3552,079 8413,271 106 - 107 Pipe outfall storm water corrug Meta Head 72 no 5 09/01/11 53 3552,079 84 13,271 108 - 109 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug. Meta Head 36 <1 no 5 09/01/11 54 3552,123 8413.493 110 - 111 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta rt, bank 12 <1 no 5 09/01/11 55 3552.123 8413.493 112 - 115 Pipe outfall stormwater plastic left bank 24 <1 no 5 09/01/11 56 3552.175 8413,578 116 - 117 Representative 09/01/11 57 3552.182 8413,586 118 -119 Pipe outfall storm water conc box Head 6 retention por no 5 09/01/11 583552,196 84 13,622 120 - 121 Pipe outfall stormwater COfTug , Meta Head 48 <1 no 5 09/01/11 59 3552,516 8412,570 122-123 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug, Meta Head 48 2 yes clear oily 5 09/01/1'1 60 3552,728 8412,575 124 -125 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug. Meta Head 48 2 yes clear, med bl none 4 09/01/11 61 3552,731 84 12,586 126-127 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug. Meta Head 48 2 no 4 09/01/11 62 3553.073 8412,652 128 - 129 Pipe outfall stormwater corrug. Meta Head 24 24 no 5 Page 1 seA 20 II LTC. 005 -SeA 201) eTC 010 SeA 2011 LTC 0 I Cf · "'- j ... Sc..A 2011 LTc.. 03LJ .I , · SeA 20/1 LTC O~9 BMP 2F - Special Pollution Abatement Permit Yr 1 Deliverable: Research Special Pollution Abatement Permit Programs in Region. Currently underway. The Town of Farragut is currently utilizing the Fort Loudoun Lake Association to provided SPAP themed training in conjunction with Knox County. The Town of Farragut currently has Knox County SPAPS on 7 automotive facilities. The Town of Farragut will continue to evaluate best available information, but will likely establish a program largely mirroring Knox Counties SPAP program for the purpose of consistency between jurisdictions. This represents a 100% attainment rate. Special Pollution Abatement Permit Special Pollution Abatement Permit Existing Business Existing Business Automotive & Associated Facilities Automotive & Associated Facilities Polluted s(ormwater funoff is 0 leading conrributof to the de{)(oriotion of streom health in Kno)( County. Rush ing storm Po l/ur ~ stormworer runoff is 0 leading contnbutor to the degrador/on of streom health in Knox Counry. Rushing storm water picks up liner. chemlc.ols, dirt and other pollUfOnts as it flows irHO 0 srormwoter diuh and drain sysrem and is water picks lip liner. ch ffl1iCOls, dirt and other pollutants as it flows into a stormwoter ditch ond drain system ond is depa5ired inta a (oke. sCream, river Of wer/and. Ir Is not dean warerar;d, unlike drinking wot~r and .sewer wastewater, deposited in to 0 (oke, Sf/eorn, river or wecland. It Is nor cleon woter and, ualilie drinking water ond sel'Jer wastewoter, stormw(lfl:r r((ewes no rreotm~nt to remove any pallurants. Instead po/!utonrs are carried into our WOf~fWays where starmwntt::r receIVE'S no rrt.'orment to (emOI/e any po/lurunrs. Instead pollutants Oft! carried into our woter.'lOys wherE' rI)ey harm fish ond w ll dlif~, and ulcimoteiy pollute rhe places. we enjoy for fishing, swimmino, and orher recreolional they harm /Ish and wlldUk, Qnd u/rimotely pollute the places we enjoy lor /tsllillg, swimming, ond otl1u recreational calvities. Because we use surfac~ \'Iater for our drinkIng \Voter source, these cOn(om/n onrs odd fa the coS( of trE"o Cin{) aeeiviries. Bewuse we US " surface worer for our drinkiflg worer SOVITt, these Contamina nts odd to (he coS[ of trearing drinking woCef to make ir safe. drinkino waft'f to mok~ ir safe. Da!e Recelved ~ Fee: $100 Paid On: Reviewer: Date Received: Fe e: $100 Pilid On: Reviewer: Oiltr of (overJgr-: Expiralion Date: Penni: Number: Date of Col,lcfage: Expiratlon Date: Pt:rmit Number; , I. Name of Facility Ie Iut n ·",I/''''',,1 # r. 7 II. Name of Facility 1810" ;::'.. 1 11«1 Jh.21 II. Tvpe of Facility: D vehicle maintenance & repair ~ vehicle fueling vehicle washing II. Type of Facility: 0 vehicle maintenance & repair .I8J. ve hicle fueling ~ vehicle washing 0Q vehicle storace D parking lot maintenance D car lot Dother: ______D vehicle storage D parkln610t maintenance Dcar lot Dother: ______o III. Site Information III. Site Information Ma i ~ ng Addrcn : Ma ili ng AdcrtS1: Phvsical AddtMS: IV, Responsible Party for Name : Title: IV: Responsible Party for Name: Title: BMP Maintenance: t·f? )!Ic. ;' ~y. /" BMP Maintenance: c;.. ,I';." ",,)' 1 117. JI".>'r J<'1 fn.· "'I>(,f..i Jot-l {V;p Address : (st re et . (ity/Slate, zip) ,S-0 11 Lc)f'lJo. ;?" .) , )1- Add ress: ('it ~ e t. ( i ty/nat ~. zip) l];,.I' / " ( 2,. ) k'm _. , -01 I nc" ..r.. W "0,, Pho o" j - ~3t. g e-mail: c·mal!: 84 l'I8 ,," 8r.r- 217 -fill ~"ct , (" f (iJ ~:J\lH-r4l( /{, . · !(.-. (.. ... Pho o" 7..- J18 -7'18'1 ''' : ClJ/ ~-11 7- 17!'? . "" . (p. kf}"..wo,'''. ' V_ Potential Poliutlon.Sources on Site V. Potential Poliutlon.Sources on Site 1. Potential Pollutants: Whot potentiol polluconts arejound ot your{acility? Pleose ,heck all that opply. 1. Potential Pollut(1nts: What potentlol pollutonts are found ot your facility? Please check 011 thor aDDIy. I ffi1 antifreeze!coolant I ~ oil IU grease ~antifreeze/ coolant I ~oil IU grease :U oil filters I!2S.l cleaning solutions r 0 solvents (e.g. pa rt washer) I U 011 fil ters INcleaning solutions IU solvents (e.g. part washer) IU batteries pa. hydraullc(tra nsmission. fo od IU batteries IQg hyd rau l1c( transmission. IU fo od fIT brake, sl ee ring, elc.) brake, steering, etc.) , j SpeCial Pollution Abatement Permit Special Pollution Abatement Permit Existing Business Existing Business Automotive & Associated Facilities Automotive & Associated Facilities POlluted srormwoter runoff is 0 leoding wmribulor to the degrodarian of streom he.olrh in Knox UJunty. Rusfling norm PoI/urN stormwoter runoff is 0 leoding cantflbutof to the degradotion of stream heolth In Knox County. Rusning storm wate'f pi,*s up litter, chemicals, dire ofld orner pollutants os it flowS inro a sr ofmWQt t!f ditch and dfoin syfiem and is worer pICks up Imef, chemicals, dill and olhl!f polfulonrs os it flowS inco a Slormwote( dItch and drain system and is deposited into a toke, sueam, rivef or wetland. It is nor deon woter and, unlike drinking worer and sewer wastewater, d~posir~d Into 0 Joke. strl!om, filler Of wl!t1and. Ir IS not dl!on wOI~r ond, unlike dflnking woter ond ~~r wastewatef, storm water feceives no ueotment 10 remove any pol/utonts. Instead pollutants Ofe com·ed Info aUf waterways where starmwal~f receives no ffl!Ormenr to rema\l~ ony polluront5. Insreod poifutonu ore canied into OUf wart'rways where rhfy hOfm {ish and wildlife, and ultimately pollute the places we enjoy IOf f ishing, swimming, and ornef fweotional rh~ hafm fish ond wlfdlif~, and ultimately pollute the ploces we enjay far fishing. SWimming. and othef recr~rior.ol OCfivities. BecauSt! we use surface woref fOf our drinking woter SDUfce, Illest: confom;nanH odd 10 the cost of 'f"f!"Ofmg ocrNir;es. Bl!rnuse we use surface worer for our dfinkmg wart'f source, lilt's/!! conromtnonrs add to the cost of treating dfinking WOfer fa make it sofe. dfinkinq Woref to make it "iole. Date Racl!k1ed: fee: Sl00 Paid On: Reviewe-r: hplration Date.; P«mit Number: ------~------~ II. Name of Facility IWeigel's #19 II. Name of Facility lweigel's #56 II. Type of Facility: 0 vehicle ma in tenance & repair o vehicle fueling o vehicle washing II. Type of Facility: 0 vehicle maIntenance & repair GZJ vehicle fuelinlii! D veh Icle washing I2Iother: Convenience Store o vehicle storaile D parking lot maintenance Dear lot o vehicle storage o parking lot maintenance Dcarlot f2!0ther: Convenience Siore III. Site Information Waters hed: Turkey Creek III. Site Information Watershed: Turkey Creek MliJins Addnm: P.O. Box 650 Powell, TN 37849 M.mngAddreiJ: P.O. Box 650 Powell, TN 37849 PhyJlulAddnm: 11104 Kingston Pk . Knoxville, TN 37934 Phvslcal Address: 610 Campbell Station, Knoxville TN 37922 nile: IV: Responsible Party for N"me: IV: Responsible Party for Name; Tille ~ BMP Maintenance: BMP MaIntenance: Mark Murphy pollution Prevention Coordinator Addreu.: (street. CItY/nate. zip) 3100 Weiael Lane Powell TN 37849 Addreu: jweet. city/sute. zip) 3100 Wei el Lane Powell, TN 37849 865-938-2042 e-ma11: PI",,,,,, ""865-938-2065 Pho"" 665-938-2042 ""865-938-2065 e-mail : [email protected] V. Potential Pollution Sources on Site v. Potential Pollution Sources on Site 1. Potential Pollutants: What votentiol pallutanrs are found at you r aci/ity? Please cheek 01( that ap, Jy. 1. Potential Pollutants: What potential pollutanrs are found at your facility? Pleose check all thor opply . Illi antifreeze/coolant , 1Zl oil IblJ grease IL.tJ antifreeze /coolant II.LI oil I btJ lii!rease j U oitfilters IliJ cleaning solutions IbLJ solvents (e·iI· part washer) ID oil filters I[:all cleaning solutions TI2f solvents (e.g. part washer) I0 batteries II)l] hydraulic(transmission, II.LI food IU batteries IblJ hydraulic(transmlsslon, I I.LI food brake, steering, etc.) brake, steering, etc .) II.t'J paper I1.i1 plastic I\lJ Styrofoam II.LI paper 1li:J plastic I I.LI Styrofoam r;zr aluminum/steel 1l.Ll cardboard IhlJ glass IIJ:I aluminum/steel ItA cardboard 10 11 1• ss Other: Please explain Other: Please explain Gasoline BMP 2G - Stormwater Ordinance Amend to meet latest requirements in the 2011 Municipal Stormwater Permit. Submit updated sections with Annual Report to TDEC. Completed EPA Water Quality Scorecard . Will continue to review and make updates to be noted in 2011-2012 Annual Report. BMP 3A - Grading and Building Permits Document grading permit issued and provide in annual report to TDEC A total of 9 grading permits were issued during the reporting year to the following : Primrose School Buddy Gregg Parcel Berkeley Park Subdivision Lot Fox Den Country Club 11926 Kingston Pike 625 St John Court Fox Run Clubhouse Construction Farragut Public Market oOld State Road, Wentworth Unit 1 The following Building Permits Were Issued. Commercial - 35 with an estimated value of $4,940,377 Residential - 183 with an estimated value of $20A31,245 BMP 3B - Construction Site Inventory Document grading permit issued and provide in annual report to TDEC A total of 9 permitted construction sites during the 2010-2011 Reporting Cycle. These statistics mirror the information provided by BMP 3A. Primrose School Buddy Gregg Parcel Berkeley Park Subdivision Lot Fox Den Country Club 11926 Kingston Pike 625 St John Court Fox Run Clubhouse Construction Farragut Public Market oOld State Road, Wentworth Unit 1 BMP 3C - Erosion Control Letter of Credit Track, document & provide with Annual Report to TDEC. A total of 12 LOC's were active during the 2010-2011 reporting period. Please see the attached printout for more details. Letters of Credit 9/1/2011 PROJECT LOCATION BOND TYPE ISSUED AMOUNT EXPIRES CUR_STATUS Brooklawn/C.St Brooklawn/C.St St./walks/Det/ LOC-AFB&T 7/1/2010 $6,000.00 3/1/2011 Released Chapel Glen Landscape/roa LOC-HomeFed 7/16/2010 $2,500.00 7/16/2012 Active Fox Run Erosion/Landsc LOC-Clayton Ba 8/17/2010 $8,000.00 8/17/2011 Released Cottages @Pry McFee/Evans Erosion ControllOC-Commerci 11/5/2010 $150,000.00 11/5/2011 Active St. John Neum 625 StJohnCt. Erosion/stabiliz Escrow-Region 12/1/2010 $2,500.00 12/1/2011 Active First Choice Au 11926 K.Pk Erosion/Site Escrow - Clay to 2/1/2011 $7,200.00 2/1/2012 Active Inverness 5/6 Erosion/Compl lOC- BB& T 2/3/2011 $5,000.00 2/13/2012 Active Comfort Suites 811 N. C.Sta.Rd Landscape mai LOC-SmartBan 2/4/2011 $12,000.00 2/4/2013 Active CSW Developm K.Pk/Champion Erosion/Site lOC-UnitedCo 2/25/2011 $5,000.00 2/25/2012 Active CSW Developm K.Pk/Champion landscape Co lOC-UnitedCo 2/25/2011 $12,000.00 2/25/2012 Active B-uddy Gregg M Snyder Rd Erosion/Site lOC-WhitneyN 4/5/2011 $21,000.00 4/5/2012 Active Concord UMC Roane Dr Landscape LOC-HomeFed 4/13/2011 $25,000.00 4/13/2012 Active Concord UMC Roane Dr walking/Det.m LOC-Home Fed 4/13/2011 $9,000.00 4/13/2012 Active Fox Run clubho Norden Dr Landscape Mai LOC-GreenBan 4/20/2011 $2,500.00 4/20/2013 Active Clarity pointe 901 Concord R Tree replacem LOC-lst Florida 4/27/2011 $12,000.00 4/27/2012 Active Clarity pointe 901 Concord R Erosion control loc-1st Florida 4/27/2011 $42,000.00 4/27/2012 Active Clarity pointe 901 Concord R Walking trails LOC-lst Florida 4/27/2011 $28,000.00 4/27/2012 Active Fretz Road Fretz Rd Completion LOC-Amboy ba 5/4/2011 $150,000.00 4/25/2012 Active Fretz Rd Fretz/C.Sta.Rd Erosion/Site LOC-Clayton Ba 5/6/2011 $5,000.00 5/6/2012 Active Holiday Inn Exp 816 N.C.Sta.Rd Landscape mai LOC-SmartBan 5/6/2011 $10,000.00 5/6/2012 Active Fretz Rd Fretz/C.Sta.Rd Completion LOC-Clayton Ba 5/6/2011 $55,000.00 5/6/2012 Active Battery@Berke Erosion/landsc lOC-Comm.So 5/20/2011 $21,000.00 5/19/2012 Active Fretz/NCSta Fretz/N.C.Sta. Tree replacem LOC-ClaytonB& 6/1/2011 $10,000.00 6/1/2012 Active First Choice Au 11926 K.PK landscapeMai Escrow-Clayton 6/21/2011 $22,200.00 6/21/2013 Active KnoxvilieChristi Snyder Rd Erosion Control LOC-lst TN 6/21/2011 $75,000.00 12/20/2011 Active Outlets Drive E Outlets Dr Electrical line r LOC-lstNation 6/22/2011 $12,000.00 6/22/2012 Active Outlets Drive E sidewalk maint LOC-lstNation 6/22/2011 $35,000.00 6/22/2012 Active PrimroseSchoo Coach Rd Erosion/Site EscrowDep - CI 6/22/2011 $18,000.00 7/1/2013 Active Outlets Drive E Outlets Dr Sidewalk compl LOC-lstNation 6/22/2011 $14,000.00 6/22/2012 Active Outlets Drive E Outlets Dr Landscaping LOC-lstNation 6/22/2011 $20,000.00 6/22/2012 Active SummerOaks SidewalkMaint. LOC-BB&T 6/29/2011 $6,000.00 6/10/2012 Active Page 1 BMP 3D - Construction Site Inspection Track, document & provide with Annual Report to TDEC. Priority sites will be inspected, at a minimum, monthly for compliance with Stormwater Ordinance and related standards. Track, Document and Provide with Annual Report. Blast Rock Spoil 7 Inspections Comfort Suites 19 Inspections Concord United Methodist 7 Inspections Cottages at Pryce Farm 7 Inspections CSW Partnership 7 Inspections Everett Hills 24 Inspections Farragut Public Market 5 Inspections Farragut Station 24 Inspections Hampton Inn 22 Inspections Hannover Court 23 Inspections Knoxville Christian School 7 Inspections Lake's Edge Retail Development 7 Inspections Little Turkey Creek Commons 19 Inspections Outlet's Drive 23 Inspections 14 Sites Were Inspected A Total Of 201 Inspections BMP 4A - Subdivision and Zoning Regulations Review and update consistent with changes to latest requirements in the 2010 Municipal Storm water Permit. Submit updated sections with Annual Report to TDEC. Completed EPA Water Quality Scorecard . Will continue to review and make updates to be noted in 2011-2012 Annual Report. 8MP 48 - Stormwater Ordinance Amend to meet latest requirements in the 2010 Municipal Storm water Permit. Submit updated sections with Annual Report to TDEC. Completed EPA Water Quality Scorecard . Will continue to review and make updates to be noted in 2011-2012 Annual Report. BMP 4C - Pre-Development Meeting The Town of Farragut's Department of Engineering and Community Development meet with the development community prior to plan submittalfor any development. During this process applicable water quality concerns will be noted and discussed. Track participation. During FY 2010-2011, Staff/Developer Meetings were held on the following dates: 8/31/10 5 separate agenda items 4 staff and 20 non-staff 10/4/10 5 separate agenda items 4 staff and 9 non-staff 11/30/10 1 separate agenda item 4 staff and 1 non-staff 3/1/11 5 separate agenda items 4 staff and 8 non-staff 5/3/11 3 separate agenda items 4 staff and 4 non-staff 5/31/11 4 separate agenda items 4 staff and 23 non-staff A total of 6 meetings were held with participation by 65 members of the development community. BMP 4D - Off-Site Mitigation Program & Separate Stormwater Fund Provide Redevelopment alternatives to sites unable to meet runoff reduction requirements. This is in the process of being researched and established. During the 2010-2011 reporting period representatives from the Town of Farragut, Knox County, TDEC and other entities traveled to Charlotte Mecklenburg County in North Carolina to speak with their representatives about their long standing multi-tiered mitigation banking program. The Town of Farragut has also met with a Mitigation Specialist at the request of Patrick McMahon (Stormwater Advisory Committee Member) to discuss how a mitigation program might be constructed to work for the Town of Farragut. Research will continue, and this option will be formalized in conjunction with the ordinance changes that are forthcoming. BMP SA - Updated BMP Manual! SWPPP Assemble and adapt a BMP Manualfor Municipal Facilities. Document and provide notice to TDEe when any significant changes occur to the manual. Based on the milestones in the approved NOI, the reconstitution of our currently existing BMP Manual / SWPPP documents is not due until the 2012-2013 reporting cycle although efforts will begin during the 2011-2012 reporting cycle to get this underway. 8MP 58 - Staff Training Develop and implement a training program for staff. Track, Document & Provide with Annual Report to TDEC. Staff Training / Development for fiscal year focused primarily on continued participation in the EPSC Levell & Level 2 programs. In addition Jason Scott, now the Town of Farragut Stormwater Coordinator, undertook additional training to become credentialed as a Certified Stormwater Manager by the American Public Works Association (APWA) in addition to attendance of a variety of professional development sessions and conferences. See attached documentation of current credentialing. h~lS confcrrcd upon jason Roland ~(ott, ([~m thc designation of [:crtiftcd ~tonnmater managcr ([:~m) [:crtificd mgrch 28, 20)} for dcmollstrating 9 high lcocl of compcrencc for stonnmater managcment bg succcssfully completing an aamination, documenting roucation and mork aperiencc, and fulfilling prcscribcd standgrds of condun and perfonnallcc rCQuirro for [:~m. Robert Carr, CSM Chair, Certification Commiss ion Cha ir, CSM Council EPSC Level I Town of Farragut Belcher, Duane Farragut Certification Date: 12/9/2008 Expiration Date: 12/31/2011 Certification Number: 119014 Brewer, Scott Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/912008 Expiration Date: 12/31/2012 Certification Number: 119481 Brown, Chris Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/9/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 119019 Cantwell, Lee Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/912008 Expiration Date: 12/31/2011 Certification Number: 119013 Coker, Steve M. Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 9115/2010 Expiration Date: 12/3112013 Certification Number: 116417 Goudreau, Gary Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/9/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 119020 Haire, Chris Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/9/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 119021 Hammontree, Pete Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/912008 Expiration Date: 12/31/2011 Certification Number: 119022 Hawk, Ruth Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 9117/2009 Expiration Date: 12/3112012 Certification Nwnber: 120724 Householder, John Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 9115/2010 Expiration Date: 12/3112013 Certification Number: 116416 Hughes, John Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 3125/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 117419 Jenkins, Chris Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 3112/2009 Expiration Date: 12/31/2012 Certification Number: 120170 Johnson, Earl Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/9/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification N wnber: 119016 Kennedy, John F. Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/9/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 119018 McKel vey, Bud Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12117/2008 Expiration Date: 12/31/2011 Certification Number: 119615 Norman, Gregg Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 9115/2010 Expiration Date: 12/31/2013 Certification Number: 116398 Rodrigues, Carlos Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12117/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 119613 Schrimpsher, Clint Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/17/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 119614 Scott, Jason Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/17/2008 Expiration Date: 12/31/2012 Certification Number: 119612 Shipley, Mark Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 11/18/2010 Expiration Date: 12/3112013 Certification Number: 116415 Sievers, Elliott Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 9/15/2010 Expiration Date: 12/3112013 Certification Number: 116420 Smith, Darryl Town of Farragut Farragut Celiification Date: 3/12/2009 Expiration Date: 12/3112012 Certification Number: 120160 Sparks, Adam Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 3/12/2009 Expiration Date: 12/3112012 Certification Number: 120164 Ward, David Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/9/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 119017 Wiggins, James Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 12/9/2008 Expiration Date: 12/3112011 Certification Number: 119015 EPSC Level II Brewer, Scott Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 5113/2009 Scott, Jason Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 5113/2009 Smith, Darryl Town of Farragut Farragut Certification Date: 3/29/2005 BIVIP SC - Animal Waste Collection Collect animal/pet waste on public properties. Provide disposal containers and signs. Track, Document & Provide with Annual Report to TDEC. On April 22, 2010, 5 30 roll cases of bags were purchased. Each case contains 6000 bags. 30,000 bags were purchased replenishing last year's supply. This quantity generally lasts 1 calendar year. The stations are resupplied a minimum of once per week. The frequency varies based on user demand. BMP SD - Quarterly Infrastructure Maintenance Conduct quarterly infrastructure maintenance. Track, Document & Provide with Annual Report to TDEC. Quarterly catch basin cleanouts were conducted on 4.6.11, 4.9.11, 7.12.11 & 7.13.11 20 Trouble Drainage Locations were also addressed separately. Monthly street sweeping was also conducted on all noted sections of the attached map. QUARTERLY CATCH BASIN CLEAI\!, OUT NORTH SIDE KINGSTON PIKE SD DATE/INT DATE/INT DATE/INT DATE/I NT ALTAMIRA ANDOVER PLACE 1-'7 I ( 1« 'JlV BALDWIN PARK BERKLEY PARK CAMDEN GROVE CHAPEL POINT COUNTRY MANOR 1.ft?ll( /j.}-z.{,,5 FARRAGUT VIEW FOX DEI\! FOX RUN HICKORY WOODS HOLLY OAKS OAKLEY DOWNS L{ -1.-17 G ~'- J/..,/ ORCHID GROVE POWELL ACRES PRESTWICK PLACE RAMSGATE RIDGELAND SADDLE RIDGE ST.CHARlES PLACE SEDGEFIELD "'l i lt/II IJ-IJ Cf SMITHFIELD STONECREST SWEET BRIAR VILlIAGE GREEN WEATHERLY HilLS WOODCHASE 1&2 WOODLAND TRACE WYNDAM HAll a QUARTERLY CATCH BASIN CLEA J - BELLAIRE BRIDGEWATER BRIXWORTH CONCORD HILLS CONCORD LANDING DERBY CHASE FARRAGUT CROSSING FORT WEST GLEN ABBEY INVERNESS KINGSGATE LA KE HAVEN LI NDA HEIGHTS MC FEE MANOR OLD STAGE HILLS RESERVE OF FARR. ROCKWELL FARMS SAILVIEW SHEFFIELD STEEPLE CHASE SUGARWOOD THE FARM AT WILLOW CREEK THORTON HEIGHTS TURKEY CREEK HARBOUR TURKEY CREEK WOODS VISTA WENTWORTH 1 -12 - 'I J w -/f4# Trouble Drainage Locations Behind BP on NCSR () fA Behind new Kroger's d k.. Virtue Rd. by doctor' s house and sharp corner 0 k Singing Hills Pointe oK.. Turkey Creek at Bricksworth 0 K. Fox Run () Ie. Sweet Briar/Herron Rd. P 1 Red mill II Ie. Russ Gate and S. Monticello Dr. Everett Rd. 0 K - Trouble Drainage Locations BehindBPonNCSR _ ~ '--'\=_u~ CLG-~ ~ - t.1l:~t Virtue Rd. by doctor's hou~e an~ sf:\arp corner ~ N~ ~ LL~ , N - cl~diJI/C,J Singing Hills Pointe __ a K {, 5 rf- "" If Turkey Creek at Bricksworth ~ O K Fox Run - O\~ Sweet Briar/Herron Rd. - ~ Red mill - - D \'L.... Russ Gate and S. Monticello Dr. - ~ <;_F. 0~ L~N - GI~ Everett Rd. - Ok