Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan FOR CHESTER COUNTY

Act 167

Stormwater Management

Plan FOR

CHESTER COUNTY

Phase I REPORT

(including the Scope of study – Phase II)

Chester rs County Board of CommissioneCarol Aichele Terence Farrell Kathi Cozzone

Prepared by: Chester County Water Resources Authority and Gaadt Perspectives, LLC Chester County, Pennsylvania Prepared for: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection SAP Document #4100040946 FILE #SWMP: Chester County Plan

June 25, 2010

Act 167


Plan FOR

CHESTER COUNTY

Phase I REPORT


Chester County Board of Commissioners Carol Aichele Terence Farrell Kathi Cozzone

Prepared by: Chester County Water Resources Authority and Gaadt Perspectives, LLC Chester County, Pennsylvania Prepared for: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection SAP Document #4100040946 FILE #SWMP: Chester County Plan

June 25, 2010

Acknowledgements This Phase I Report (including the Phase II Scope of Work) concludes the first of two phases to complete a County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan. Phase I was funded in part by a grant (SAP Document 4100040946) from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and by the Chester County Board of Commissioners. The project was coordinated by staff from the following Chester County departments: Chester County Water Resources Authority, Chester County Planning Commission and Chester County Conservation District. The County also received assistance from their planning consultant, Gaadt Perspectives, LLC.

Success of the project relied heavily on the support of Chester County’s municipalities. Their interest and participation in the project were greatly appreciated. The project team is grateful for the guidance and assistance received from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Staff from the Stormwater Management and Planning Section: Barry Newman, Chief and Jennifer Kehler, Project Manager and Water Program Specialist deserve special recognition. The project team met throughout Phase I and their assistance was greatly appreciated. The Phase I project team included the following members:

• Dani-Ella Betz (CCWRA) • Jan Bowers (CCWRA) • Carrie Conwell (CCPC) • John Gaadt (Gaadt Perspectives, LLC) • Emily Gallo (CCWRA) • Jake Michael (CCPC) • Carolyn Oakley (CCPC) • Chottie Sprenkle (CCCD) • Carol Stauffer (CCPC) • Craig Thomas (CCWRA) • Tom West (CCPC).

CHESTER COUNTY ACT 167 PLAN – PHASE I REPORT As REVISED on 7/6/2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Part A. Overview ……………………………………………………………………………….… 1

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….…. 1 2. Use of Watersheds for County-wide 167 Plan for Chester County ……..…. 2 3. Geographic Scope of Plan ..…………………………………………………....... 3 4. Process …………………………………………………………………………….…. 5 5. Objectives and Desired Results of the County-wide Plan ……………….…. 6 6. Planning Team and Team Meetings ……………………………………………. 7 7. Confirmed Municipal Support for Watersheds as a County-wide Plan …. 8

Part B. Completion of Phase I Scope of Work ……………………………………………… 9

1. Introduction …………………………………………………….……………………. 9 2. Project Administration ………………………………………….………………….. 9 3. Preparation of Phase II Scope of Work ……………………………………….… 9 4. Phase I WPAC Meetings Held ……………………………………………………. 10 5. Preparation of Model Ordinance Revisions …………………………………… 12 6. Statement of Eligible Costs for Preparation of Watersheds ………………… 15 7. Phase II Scope of Work (see also Part D) …………………..……………….…. 16 8. Conclusions of Phase I Work Completed ……………………………………… 16

Part C. Comparison of Watersheds to Phase II and Plan Requirements …………..….. 18

1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………..… 18 2. PA Act 167 Requirements ……………………………………………...………..… 18 3. Phase II Requirements Listed in Phase I Grant ………………………………... 21 4. Phase II Tasks from PADEP Phase I Grant Scope ……………………………… 21 5. PADEP Phase II Checklist Comparison with Watersheds ………….………… 25 6. Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………….…. 25

Part D. Phase II Scope of Work …………………………………………………………..….… 28

1. Introduction to the Final Product ……………………………………………..….. 28 2. Tasks to Complete the County-wide Act 167 Plan ……………………….….. 29 3. Project Administration ………………………………………………………….….. 33 4. Proposed Plan Development Schedule …………………………………….….. 33 5. Phase II Costs …………………………………………………………………….….. 35

Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………….….…... 39

1. Municipal Stormwater Questionnaire, May 2008 2. Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC) Representatives 3. Matrix of Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions, April 2010 4. Stormwater Ordinance Provisions Evaluation Questionnaire, April 2010 5. Municipal Ordinance Provisions Comparison Checklist, April 2010 6. Municipal Feedback Summary, June 2010 7. Updates to Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions Table, June 2010

i

CHESTER COUNTY ACT 167 PLAN – PHASE I REPORT

As REVISED on 7/6/2010

8. Updates and Clarification of Selected Draft Proposed Mandatory Minimum Ordinance Provisions, June 2010

9. Watersheds Plan, 2002 (included by reference) 10. Statement of Eligible Costs for the Preparation of Watersheds (see

separately bound Appendix 10)

PAGE Tables Table 1. Summary of Eligible Costs for Reimbursement of Watersheds Plan ……… 15 Table 2. Schedule of Reimbursement of Eligible Costs for Watersheds Plan ……… 16 Table 3. Completion of All Deliverables of Phase I Grant …………………………….. 17 Table 4. Comparison of Watersheds and its companion documents to PA Act 167 Sections 5(b) and (c) Requirements …………………………………………… 19 Table 5. Phase II Requirements from Phase I Scope …………………………………… 22 Table 6. Comparison of Watersheds to PADEP Act 167 Checklist of Plan

Requirements …………………………………………………………………….… 26 Table 7. WPAC Meeting Topics and Schedule ………………………………………….. 29 Table 8. Proposed Phase II Plan Development Schedule …………………………….. 34 Table 9. Cost Allocation by Category ……………………………………………………. 36 Table 10. Professional Planner Consultant Phase II Responsibilities ………………… 37 Table 11. Phase II and Level of Effort Cost Estimate for County-wide 167 Plan …… 38 Figures Figure 1. Watersheds of Chester County map ……………………….………………….. 4

ii

CHESTER COUNTY ACT 167 PLAN – PHASE I REPORT As REVISED on 7/6/2010

Part A. OVERVIEW 1. INTRODUCTION Prior to the initiation of Phase I, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) contacted Chester County and recommended that the County submit Watersheds: An Integrated Water Resources Plan for Chester County, Pennsylvania and Its Watersheds (Chester County Board of Commissioners, 2002) as a county-wide Act 167 Plan for Chester County. The County submitted Watersheds and its companion documents for PADEP review in 2006. PADEP determined that Watersheds met the requirements of Pennsylvania Act 167 (PA Act 167). Chester County then requested a PADEP Phase I grant to conduct initial outreach to municipalities regarding the concept of pursuing adoption of Watersheds as a county-wide Act 167 Plan. This Phase I Report presents the results of that outreach and a scope of work for Phase II to complete the effort and adopt Watersheds as a county-wide Act 167 Plan. The County-wide PA Act 167 Plan for Chester County will consist of Watersheds: An Integrated Water Resources Plan for Chester County, Pennsylvania and Its Watersheds, and its accompanying documents, plus an Addendum to be prepared in Phase II. The County-wide Act 167 Plan will include: A. Watersheds and Companion Documents (completed):

1) Watersheds (2002) 2) Watersheds Executive Summary (2002) 3) “Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium” (2001) 4) 15 individual Watershed Action Plans (2002) 5) Fact Sheet: “Reducing Stormwater and Flooding – 10 Principles

of Effective Stormwater Management” (2004) 6) Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance (2005).

B. Addendum (to be completed in Phase II): 1) Purpose 2) Overview of County-wide Act 167 Plan 3) WPAC members and summary of activities 4) Minimum stormwater management standards 5) Applicability to (or standards for) State-funded projects 6) Eligible costs for Watersheds 7) Provisions for Adoption, Implementation and Update 8) Resolution of Adoption by County Commissioners 9) WPAC comments and response summary 10) Public Hearing Announcement 11) Summary of Public Hearing 12) Revised Model Ordinance 13) Appendices (as needed).

As part of the development of Chester County’s Watersheds and its companion documents, much of the work typically incorporated into Phase I and Phase II of the PA Act 167 Plan process have already been completed. Outstanding tasks to be completed include additional municipal updates, input and outreach; public notice

1



and a public hearing process; updates to the standards for stormwater management; and a revised model ordinance. Watersheds was previously adopted by the Chester County Board of Commissioners under Act 247, the Municipalities Planning Code, as part of the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan Landscapes 2 and was intended for voluntary implementation. Adoption under Act 167 will necessitate the completion of outstanding tasks and formal adoption pursuant to Act 167. Watersheds and its companion documents, prepared by Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), are available for review at the CCWRA website www.chesco.org/water, except for the “Water Resources Compendium” (available only on CD). Copies can be provided to PADEP (along with a CD of the “Compendium”), if desired. 2. USE OF WATERSHEDS FOR COUNTY-WIDE 167 PLAN FOR CHESTER COUNTY At the suggestion of PA DEP, Chester County examined the feasibility of adopting Watersheds as a county-wide 167 plan pursuant to the plan requirements outlined in PA Act 167 of 1978, the Storm Water Management Act and further defined by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). In June 2006, the County submitted Watersheds for PA DEP review and it was determined by PADEP that Watersheds indeed meets the requirements of a county-wide 167 plan. As an integrated water resources management plan, Watersheds planned for all of the County’s 21 watersheds and subwatersheds, undertook a comprehensive analysis of issues affecting flood carrying capacity, examined natural stormwater runoff regimes, ground and surface water quality, identified groundwater recharge and protection strategies, and developed Watershed Action Plans as tools for local municipal and county management of stormwater. To address water resource issues, the County undertook detailed analyses and surveys of runoff characteristics, stream stability, alternative land development patterns, projected development, peak flows, drainage problems, water quality, groundwater recharge, existing and proposed storm water systems, alternative runoff control techniques, existing and proposed county-wide flood control projects, county-wide flood plains, local and regional environmental and land use plans, standards for new development, standards to protect public health, priorities for implementation, and provisions for plan revisions and updates. The Watersheds companion document, the “Water Resources Compendium”, contains a technical report and data documentation that includes a stream vulnerability analysis, problem overview and evaluation of water resources data and response summaries from questionnaires. The individual Watershed Action Plans provide local watershed prioritization and strategies for water resource improvements. The Post Construction Stormwater Management Ordinance was developed in 2005 with stakeholder input and it was used by or adopted by several Chester County municipalities. The stormwater standards contained in this ordinance were also used by Chester County Conservation District (CCCD) as requirements for NPDES permits prior to the publication of the PADEP Best Management Practices Manual. The stormwater Fact Sheet was distributed to

2



municipalities and a series of Best Management Practices Workshops were presented to promote sound stormwater management. These accomplishments and comprehensive resources for municipalities and other stakeholders collectively comprise all that has been already accomplished as part of the development of Watersheds. The County sees great value in using and expanding the application of Watersheds as a county-wide Act 167 stormwater management plan. Among the benefits are:

• provides a framework for the County and its municipalities to speak with a collective voice to PA DEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

• streamlines the Act 167 planning process saving the time and costs associated with preparing individual plans for the County’s watersheds;

• provides guidance and design standards for reducing the impact of land use on water resources;

• improves and protects water quality; • provides consistent minimum stormwater control standards that are

applicable throughout all of the County’s watersheds; and • provides up-to-date watershed-based planning for all watersheds of the

County. Water quality protection and impairments will be addressed through revised stormwater standards and the revised model ordinance to be completed in Phase II. Much was already accomplished through Watersheds, including municipal implementation of revised and improved stormwater standards and ordinances. A potential component of the county-wide 167 plan may be a voluntary TMDL implementation strategy that may be developed for the Christina Basin to address water quality impairments and municipal TMDL requirements. Due to the lack of information available for the upcoming NPDES MS4 application cycle, the various technical issues of the Christina TMDLs (that are currently under discussion by PADEP, USEPA, CCWRA and CCCD), and what may be required regarding implementation strategies, it is difficult to determine if this component will need to be prepared prior to initiation of Phase II, or if such a strategy will be needed. An implementation strategy may be developed outside of the Act 167 Plan, prior to the funding of Phase II. More than fifty percent of Chester County is located within the Christina River Basin watershed and this implementation strategy may help address Chester County’s TMDL-affected municipalities and related MS4 issues. This Phase I report is the first step in supporting and building upon Watersheds to ultimately serve as a County-wide Act 167 Plan. Collectively, Watersheds, the outcomes of Phase I, coupled with the Phase II effort outlined herein, will fully satisfy the PA DEP’s County-wide Act 167 Plan requirements. 3. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF PLAN Chester County consists of approximately 1,300 miles of streams and 780 square miles of land and underlying groundwater aquifers, comprising portions of 21 watersheds. (See Figure 1. Watersheds of Chester County map). Nearly all of these watersheds

3

Drainages

Sucker Run

French Creek

Octoraro Creek

Brandywine CreekWest Branch

Brandywine CreekEast Branch

White Clay Creek

Big Elk

Creek

Pickering Creek

Red Clay Creek

Valley Creek

Chester Creek

Ridley Creek

Brandywine CreekMain Stem

Pigeon Creek

Crum Creek

Little Elk

Creek

Stony Run

Pequea Creek DarbyCreek

Trout Creek

Northeast Creek

Schuylkill River

Christina River

Conestoga Creek

Gulph Creek

Crow Creek

ELK

WARWICK

WESTCALN

PENN

CALN

HIGHLAND

TREDYFFRIN

NEWLIN

WILLISTOWN

FRANKLIN

WALLACE

WESTVINCENT

NEWGARDEN

LOWEROXFORD

LONDONGROVE

WESTBRADFORD

EAST NOTTINGHAM

UPPEROXFORD

UWCHLAN

EASTNANTMEAL

HONEY BROOK

EASTVINCENT

EASTBRADFORD

NEWLONDON

CHARLESTOWN

KENNETT

WESTGOSHEN

EASTFALLOWFIELD

WESTNANTMEAL

WESTMARLBOROUGH

VALLEY

LONDONDERRY

EASTTOWN

WESTTOWN

NORTHCOVENTRY

POCOPSON

SCHUYLKILL

EASTMARLBOROUGH

WESTWHITELAND

WEST NOTTINGHAM

EASTGOSHEN

WESTBRANDYWINE

UPPERUWCHLAN

EASTWHITELAND

WESTSADSBURY

WESTPIKELAND

LONDONBRITAIN

EAST BRANDYWINE

EASTPIKELAND

SADSBURY

BIRMINGHAM

SOUTHCOVENTRY

EASTCALN

THORNBURY

OXFORD

DOWNINGTOWN

COATESVILLE

MALVERN

ATGLEN

ELVERSON

WESTFALLOWFIELD

EASTCOVENTRY

PHOENIXVILL E

WESTCHESTERPA RKESBURG

SOUTHCOATESVILLE

VALLEY

SPRING CI TY

WESTGROVE

AV ONDALE

MODENA

KENNETTSQUARE

HONEYBROOK

BOROUGH

PENNSBURY

μ

CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN

Watershed BoundaryStreams

Municipal Boundary

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

DELAWARE BAY BASIN

Figure 1. Watersheds of Chester County

Watersheds to be included inCounty-Wide Act 167 Plan

(except those for which Act 167 Plans have been approved when Phase II is initiated)

* Watersheds for which PA Act 167 Plans are required.

4 Chester County Water Resources Authority

Chester County Board of CommissionersChester County Planning Commission

August 2006Revised: July 8, 2010

DelawareRiver Basin

ChesapeakeBay Basin

DelawareBay

AtlanticOcean

ChesterCounty

M a r y l a n d

P e n n s y l v a n i a

Delaware RiverD

el

aw

ar

e

Ma

ry

la

nd

N e w J

e

rs

ey

Pe

nn

sy

lv

an

ia

ChesapeakeBay Basin

DelawareRiver Basin

Che

sape

ake

Bay

OtherAtlantic Ocean

Watersheds

Susquehanna River TributariesConestoga Creek *Octoraro Creek *Pequea Creek *

Chesapeake Bay Tributaries

Northeast Creek *

Big Elk Creek *Little Elk Creek *

Christina River Tributaries

Christina RiverSucker Run *

Brandywine Creek, Main Stem *Brandywine Creek, East Branch *

Brandywine Creek, West Branch *

Red Clay Creek *White Clay Creek *

Delaware River TributariesChester Creek *Crum Creek *Darby Creek *Ridley Creek *

Trout Creek

Schuylkill River Tributaries *Crow CreekFrench Creek *Gulph CreekPickering Creek *Pigeon Creek *Schuylkill River DrainagesStony Run

Valley Creek *



originate in Chester County and drain to either the Delaware Bay or the Chesapeake Bay. Watersheds was prepared to address the needs of Chester County and its municipalities, and as the County’s watersheds extend across political boundaries, it was necessary to expand the original study area beyond the bounds of Chester County to fully assess and plan for the portions of those watersheds that lie within Chester County. The study area used for Watersheds includes the drainage areas of the 21 watersheds as they extend across Chester County and into Lancaster, Berks, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania; New Castle County in Delaware; and Cecil County in Maryland. In all, the County’s original planning effort involved assessment of all or portions of 160 municipalities located in 8 counties and 3 states. For the purposes of this County-wide 167 planning effort, the County intends to confine the planning area to the 21 watersheds existing within the boundaries of Chester County and focus its planning efforts towards the County’s 73 municipalities. Because three watershed-based Act 167 plans are completed and two are underway in portions of the County, the geographic scope of the county-wide plan will be determined when Phase II is initiated. At present all watersheds except Conestoga River and Darby Creek will be included, although the Crum Creek and Valley Creek Act 167 Plans will be honored should they be approved prior to initiation of Phase II of the County-wide Plan. All of the County’s efforts and recommendations concerning the county-wide planning effort, from community outreach and assistance to stormwater management standards and ordinance recommendations, will be focused on the watersheds and municipalities contained within the County’s boundaries (see Figure 1). 4. PROCESS It is the County’s intent that Watersheds and its companion documents plus an Addendum, be used to comply with the planning requirements of Act 167 and be submitted for approval by PA DEP as a county-wide Act 167 plan. Toward that end, the County is using Watersheds to fulfill the requirements as part of Phase I and intends to utilize the Phase II Scope of Work herein as the basis for additional work supportive of this effort and to meet outstanding requirements. Efforts under the Phase I Scope of Work resulted in significant outreach to the County’s 73 municipalities to assess their support for potential adoption of Watersheds as a County-wide 167 Plan. Municipal outreach as part of Phase I also allowed the County to assess municipal interest through an initial questionnaire. Then, the County introduced municipalities to a set of draft proposed stormwater ordinance provisions and requested municipal feedback through a second questionnaire. This feedback will be used in Phase II to update the minimum ordinance provisions and prepare a revised model county-wide stormwater management ordinance. Municipal outreach and feedback would continue as the ordinance provisions and county-wide model ordinance are refined and finalized and the Addendum is prepared in Phase II. The next steps would then include the public hearing, adoption and approval process. Municipal adoption of the model ordinance or inclusion of the mandatory minimum ordinance provisions within their

5



existing ordinances would be achieved following the completion of the Phase II process and approval by PADEP. 5. OBJECTIVES AND DESIRED RESULTS OF THE COUNTY-WIDE ACT 167 PLAN A. Overall Objectives - The overall objectives of the County-wide Act 167 Plan are

based on the inter-related management needs of Chester County’s watersheds as follows:

1) Reduce stormwater runoff and flooding, 2) Improve water quality, and 3) Engage and Educate individuals, communities and governments in

watershed stewardship.

B. Phase I Objectives - To develop a County-wide Act 167 Plan, the following Phase I Objectives have been achieved:

1) Determine the objectives and expected outcomes of Phase I of the County-wide Plan. a. Determine level of municipal support for the potential adoption of

Watersheds – An Integrated Water Resources Management Plan for Chester County and its Watersheds as a county-wide PA Act 167 plan. Clear municipal support to pursue a county-wide plan would be essential for Chester County to move forward with the development of a County-wide 167 Plan.

b. Determine what, if any, required components are not met by

Watersheds and its accompanying documents. c. Determine the extent of revisions needed to the 2005 Post

Construction Stormwater Model Ordinance. 1. Determine the relative level of stormwater regulations currently

in place at the municipal level within Chester County. 2. Obtain feedback from municipalities regarding potential

updates to standards of the 2005 Post Construction Stormwater Model Ordinance.

3. Determine whether one or more ordinances may be needed to address municipal or watershed needs.

2) Determine the necessary Scope of Work and level of effort necessary

for Phase II. 3) Determine the Phase II objectives and expected outcomes of the

County-wide Plan.

4) Determine if objectives of Phase I Scope of Work were achieved.

The objectives stated above to be achieved during Phase I of the county-wide 167 plan process have been completed. Part B addresses the results of each objective.

6



Phase I Report Phase I Objective 1.C.2 was adapted from the original Scope during Phase I. The majority of municipalities in Chester County already have sophisticated stormwater ordinances in place. Therefore, municipal feedback was solicited from a matrix of draft stormwater ordinance provisions and not directly from a draft model ordinance. This alternative approach was deemed necessary to better identify municipal needs through the review process. It was anticipated (and confirmed) that the majority of municipalities would choose to update their own current stormwater ordinance rather than adopt a County-wide Model Ordinance. The County-wide Model Ordinance will be updated and distributed to municipalities for their review and input in Phase II.

C. Phase II Objectives - To develop a County-wide Act 167 Plan, the following Phase

II Objectives will be achieved: 1) Determine the final set of mandatory minimum ordinance provisions. 2) Prepare a revised County-wide Stormwater Model Ordinance

consistent with the final set of standards. 3) Achieve final adoption of the County-wide Act 167 Plan by Chester

County. 4) Obtain PADEP approval of County-wide Act 167 Plan. 5) Facilitate municipal implementation of the County-wide 167 Plan. 6) Determine whether the intended outcomes and objectives of Phase II

were achieved. 7) Potential Objective: Prepare a Voluntary TMDL Implementation Strategy

for the Christina River Basin, if not already completed.

6. PLANNING TEAM AND TEAM MEETINGS The Phase I County-wide 167 Planning Team consisted of County staff from Chester County Water Resources Authority, Chester County Planning Commission and Chester County Conservation District and a consultant, Gaadt Perspectives, LLC. The Team met 12 times from 2008 to June 30, 2010 as follows:

• 2008 - February 1, February 15, March 5, April 2, May 12, and June 2; • 2009 - April 20; • 2010 - February 23, March 16, April 6 (after WPAC Meeting), May 17, and

June 7. The Team also attended WPAC meetings, other stakeholder meetings and workshops to gather input regarding the County-wide 167 Plan (listed below in Part B.4). Additional meetings were held between PADEP and CCWRA/Planning Team to discuss grant administration and state stormwater planning policies:

• 2008 - April 18, August 13; • 2009 - January 21, May 11 (Meeting at DEP Norristown with DEP, CCCD and

CCWRA discuss Christina River Basin TMDL Implementation Strategy),

7



August 10, November 24, and December 23 (DEP meeting at DEP Harrisburg to discuss Christina River Basin TMDL Implementation Strategy and interpretation of the TMDL);

• 2010 - February 3 (DEP meeting). CCWRA worked with a consultant professional planner throughout Phase I. Eighteen working meetings were held between CCWRA and their consultant Gaadt Perspectives, LLC as follows:

• 2009 - March 31, June 4 and 30, July 21 and 28, August 11, and December 22;

• 2010 - January 28, February 10, March 24, April 22, May 7 and 26, June 1, 2, 8, 9, 21 and 22.

7. CONFIRMED MUNICIPAL SUPPORT FOR WATERSHEDS AS A COUNTY-WIDE 167 PLAN

A questionnaire was distributed to all municipalities, and meetings were held to gather municipal feedback on the concept of pursuing a County-wide PA Act 167 Plan based on Watersheds. The Municipal Stormwater Questionnaire was distributed May 2008 with a follow-up Questionnaire sent to non-responding municipalities May 2009 (See Appendix 1 for a copy of the Municipal Stormwater Questionnaire). Results are posted on the CCWRA website www.chesco.org/water). The results of the Questionnaire showed that municipalities were in favor of pursuing a County-wide 167 plan using Watersheds to address Act 167 requirements and supported working on a consistent approach on a watershed basis, applicable to all municipalities.

Municipal input was also gathered from various meetings (meeting summaries are posted on the CCWRA website):

• Municipal Stormwater Summit (June 3, 2008), • Chester County 2020 Event (December 16, 2008), • Chester County Association of Township Officials - 2009 Spring Conference

Stormwater breakout session (March 12, 2009), • PADEP MS4 Listening session (March 25, 2009), • PADEP MS4 Public Meeting and Public Hearing (June 18, 2009), • Christina River Basin Policy Committee Meeting - Christina Basin MS4/TMDL

Implementation Strategy (September 18, 2009), and • Christina River Basin Municipal MS4/TMDL Meeting (January 27, 2010).

This feedback was considered along with other input received from meetings listed in Part B.4. The results from the Questionnaire and the input gathered at various meetings indicated that municipalities were favorable to pursuing a county-wide Act 167 Plan based on Watersheds. A significant majority of municipalities expressed desire for a unified approach to address stormwater management and supported moving forward with the County-wide 167 Plan.

8



Part B. COMPLETION OF PHASE I GRANT SCOPE OF WORK 1. INTRODUCTION

The Phase I Grant Scope of Work provided a list of work elements to be completed as part of Phase I. In this section, the Phase I work elements have been identified, with a description of the completed activities provided. These completed work elements are as follows:

• project administration, • preparation of Phase II Scope of Work, • Phase I Watershed Plan Advisory Committee meetings, • preparation of the model ordinance revisions, and • statement of the eligible reimbursable costs for the preparation of

Watersheds.

2. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION The County is responsible for the overall administration of the project. The Phase I administrative work included the following activities: A. Meetings Held

Some of the project team meetings listed above (see Part A.6) focused efforts on project administration of the grant, development of a project work schedule and organization of the Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC) meetings.

B. Preparation of Plan Framework The previous section (Part A.1): “Introduction” presents a framework for the County-wide Act 167 Plan. The Phase II Scope of Work (Part D) presents a description of the tasks associated with the preparation of the final County-wide Act 167 Plan.

C. Invoice Submissions

Quarterly Invoices were prepared and submitted to PADEP. D. Status Report Submissions

Phase I Progress Reports were prepared and submitted to PADEP, as required. E. Additional Project Administrative Activities Conducted

Additional activities related to Phase I project administration including budgeting, executing the Agreement (and Amendment) between Chester County and PADEP, and Chester County and its consultant and other related administrative activities were completed as part of Phase I.

3. PREPARATION OF PHASE II SCOPE OF WORK

The preparation of the Phase II Scope of Work is discussed in more detail in later sections. In Part C: “Comparison of Watersheds to PADEP Phase II Plan Requirements”, the content of Watersheds was examined and compared with Plan requirements, thereby shaping the Phase II Scope of Work (Part D).

9



4. PHASE I WPAC MEETINGS HELD As part of the original Phase I Grant Scope of Work, the County established a county-wide Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC). The Grant originally called for up to two rounds of meetings in Phase I: however, Grant Amendment Number 1 increased this number of meetings to 5 rounds of WPAC meetings and 5 meetings with other stakeholders. These tasks were completed as follows:

A. Established Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC)

The WPAC is comprised of representatives of 73 municipalities, the Chester County Water Resources Authority, the Chester County Planning Commission, and the Chester County Conservation District. Municipalities were asked to submit the name of their official representative and alternate to serve on the WPAC (list presented in Appendix 2).

B. Five WPAC Meetings Held The meeting summaries of the following meetings have been posted on

CCWRA website (www.chesco.org/water). 1) Municipal Stormwater Summit (June 3, 2008)

Chester County Water Resources Authority, Planning Commission and Conservation District co-hosted a municipal summit with 77 attendees (46 municipalities represented) to determine municipal response to the concept of pursuing adoption of Watersheds as a county-wide Act 167 plan. At the conclusion, municipal representatives in attendance indicated that they were nearly unanimous in support for the concept with only three abstaining and no representatives indicating they were not in support.

2) Chester County Association of Township Officials - 2009 Spring Conference Stormwater breakout session (March 12, 2009)

CCWRA presented and discussed with 33 municipal attendees stormwater management issues and the potential county-wide approach to stormwater management.

3) Chester County Association of Township Officials - 2010 Spring

Conference Stormwater breakout session (March 11, 2010) CCWRA presented and discussed with 39 municipal attendees the

county-wide Act 167 planning process and the upcoming April 6 meeting.

4) WPAC Introduction to Draft Ordinance Provisions and Request for

Municipal Feedback (April 6, 2010) CCWRA updated 77 attendees (56 municipalities) on the county-wide

Act 167 process, introduced draft proposed stormwater provisions, requested municipal feedback through an Evaluation Questionnaire and a Stormwater Standards Comparison Checklist, and announced the next WPAC meeting date of June 10. They were asked to submit their feedback by May 28, and results would be discussed at the June WPAC meeting.

10



5) WPAC Discussion of Municipal Input on Ordinance Provisions and Next Steps (June 10, 2010) CCWRA presented the results from the municipal Questionnaire and Comparison Checklist to 78 attendees with 64 municipalities represented. The County received significant municipal feedback with 86% or 63 municipalities submitting a Questionnaire and/or Comparison Checklist, as of June 7. The municipal responses helped the County understand the overall impressions of municipalities regarding the draft provisions. The feedback assisted the County in establishing the level of effort needed to complete the County-wide 167 Plan in Phase II. The majority of participating municipalities were agreeable with some concerns to the draft proposed ordinance provisions provided at the April 6 WPAC meeting.

C. Five Meetings with Other Stakeholders Held Five additional meetings with other stakeholders were held as follows:

1) Municipal Managers Consortium (May 20, 2008) CCWRA and CCCD attended the meeting to present to municipal

managers and receive feedback on the concept of pursuing adoption of Watersheds as a county-wide Act 167 plan. At the conclusion, the municipal representatives indicated nearly unanimous support in favor of the County proceeding with the county-wide approach. A meeting summary has been posted on the CCWRA website.

2) Water Resources Task Force Meeting (May 28, 2008) Hosted by CCWRA, this meeting served to update the Water Resources

Task Force on the concept of pursuing adoption of Watersheds as a county-wide Act 167 plan and discuss the pros and cons of this approach. The Task Force is comprised of various stakeholders that had participated in the development of Watersheds. A meeting summary has been posted on the CCWRA website.

3) Chester County 2020 Event: Clean, Fresh Water: Connecting Costs and

Challenges (December 16, 2008) This Chester County 2020 event was co-hosted with the Chester County

Commissioners, CCWRA, and CCPC. This county-wide community conversation sought input from active stakeholders to discuss stormwater issues. Some of the input received included the need to work at the watershed level, support for Act 167 planning and the need for strong stormwater ordinances. A meeting summary has been posted on the CCWRA website.

4) Christina River Basin Policy Committee Meeting - Christina Basin

MS4/TMDL Implementation Strategy (September 18, 2009) CCWRA attended the meeting and presented information on the

conceptual approach to integrate Pennsylvania’s three stormwater management programs (TMDL implementation, MS4 program, and PA Act 167) and source water protection for drinking water supplies

11



through a county-wide 167 Plan. Chester County is heavily involved in Christina River Basin initiatives because more than 50% of the land area in Chester County is located within the basin. This Implementation Strategy may be included as part of the Phase II of the County-wide Act 167 Plan, if the need still exists to prepare such a Strategy when Phase II is undertaken.

5) Christina River Basin Municipal MS4/TMDL Meeting (January 27, 2010) CCWRA, CCCD and Brandywine Valley Association co-hosted a

meeting for Chester County municipalities located within the Christina River Basin that are affected by the Christina high flow TMDLs. CCWRA and CCCD presented to 44 attendees (representing 26 municipalities) on streamlining municipal implementation of the MS4 requirements, preparing for future TMDL requirements, and the County-wide Act 167 Plan and process. The municipal input gathered at this meeting helped shape the concept and approach for addressing water quality standards within the county-wide plan, and provided insights regarding developing a TMDL Implementation Strategy that may be included as part of Phase II of the County-wide Plan.

5. PREPARATION OF MODEL ORDINANCE REVISIONS

As part of the work completed for the Phase I Grant Scope of Work, the County prepared ordinance revisions, provided these revisions to the WPAC, solicited their input, compiled and evaluated their responses, and presented a summary of the municipal feedback at the June 10, 2010 WPAC meeting. Based on feedback received during these efforts, it was concluded that only one model ordinance will be needed for Chester County municipalities. A. Development of a Matrix of Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions

During the Phase I process, it became apparent that it would be more productive to receive feedback on the technical components of a stormwater management ordinance than on the legal components. Therefore, rather than revise the County’s existing model ordinance during Phase I, the County concluded that a more productive effort would be to develop a list of proposed draft mandatory and recommended minimum ordinance provisions for consideration by the County’s 73 municipalities. The County developed a Matrix of Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions (with 3 Attachments) (Appendix 3) that compares the standards currently in the County’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance (2005) with draft proposed ordinance provisions that could be incorporated into the County-wide Act 167 Plan. In selecting the draft proposed provisions, Chester County’s draft Valley Creek Act 167 stormwater standards were considered as the basis for the proposed draft county-wide ordinance provisions. It is recognized that the Valley Creek watershed is an Exceptional Value watershed and its standards may be more restrictive than the standards appropriate for county-wide stormwater ordinance provisions. Components

12



of the draft Crum Creek Act 167 Plan (currently underway) were also reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.

B. Municipal Review of Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions The County’s municipalities were asked at the April 2010 WPAC to respond to a Questionnaire and provide written feedback of their impressions of the draft proposed ordinance provisions. A Comparison Checklist was also completed by most municipalities so that the County could assess how current municipal standards relate to the draft proposed ordinance provisions. (See Appendices 4 and 5 for copies of the Questionnaire and Checklist).

C. Summary of Municipal Feedback The following sections present a summary of the municipal input gathered through the Questionnaire and Comparison Checklist.

1) Obtained Municipal Feedback from Proposed Revisions to Model Ordinance (Municipal Questionnaire) Approximately 85% of municipalities submitted a Questionnaire (62 out of 73 municipalities). Three municipalities responded that they did not have a stormwater ordinance. A majority of municipalities plan to participate in Phase II once initiated (54 out of 56 responses). When municipalities compared their current standards to the provisions proposed, 25 of 58 who responded have similar or more restrictive standards, though 17 have less restrictive standards. The overwhelming majority, 50 out of 56, responded they were agreeable or agreeable with some concerns to the proposed provisions. There were 6 of 56 who were not agreeable. The least agreeable proposed provisions included peak rate runoff for small storms, no waivers and applicability thresholds. At the June WPAC meeting, were presented with the municipal input received. The municipalities were also informed of updates and clarifications to the original proposed draft provisions as a result of work underway in the Valley Creek Act 167 Plan; municipal concern for no waivers and the applicability threshold may have been alleviated by these clarifications. (See Appendices 6, 7, and 8 for copies of the Municipal Feedback Summary, Updates Table, and Updates and Clarification of Provisions; additional information posted on CCWRA website.) The majority of respondents, 31 of 56, are only interested in incorporating the provisions into their existing ordinances, while 16 of 56 were interested in adopting a complete Model Ordinance. Nine were undecided at the time. The municipal feedback was positive and it is anticipated that municipal concerns can be further explored and resolved in Phase II with the intended result that a county-wide Act 167 Plan will be agreeable to the majority of municipalities in Chester County.

13



2) Evaluated Provisions of Existing Municipal Ordinances (Comparison Checklist) Municipalities were asked to compare their current stormwater standards with the county-wide proposed draft stormwater ordinance provisions. There were 59 of 73 municipalities (81%) who responded. For the applicability threshold of 500 to 999 square feet, only 19 of 58 have similar or more restrictive measures. For the minimum infiltration volume of 1 inch, 27 of 57 have less restrictive standards. For the peak runoff rate for smaller storms and reducing the peak of the two and five year storm to the one year storm, 38 of 57 had less restrictive standards. There were some favorable responses to some of the recommended (not mandatory) provisions included in the county-wide Matrix. For the waterways and wetland non-disturbance zone, 34 or 58 already have similar or more restrictive standards. For the required contents of a Stormwater Management Plan, 49 of 58 have similar standards in place. They responded that 40 of 57 have similar or more restrictive standards for additional floodplain management.

The municipal feedback gathered in Phase I, coupled with new PA DEP requirements for municipal stormwater management ordinances, ongoing Act 167 watershed-based planning efforts, and TMDL and MS4 requirements, have led the County to conclude that revisions to the 2005 Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance are necessary. Discussions of such revisions comprise a portion of the municipal outreach component of Phase II. While the County intends to revise the Model Ordinance (particularly for those municipalities without a stormwater ordinance or the desire to adopt a new ordinance), it places even greater weight on the list of standards reflected in the attached Matrix and Checklist. The County has found through its outreach efforts that most municipalities have fairly sophisticated ordinances that they would prefer to modify rather than rewrite. As such, the County will prepare a final list of mandatory and recommended minimum ordinance provisions for incorporation by municipalities as fulfillment of the 167 plan adoption requirements. According to municipal input gathered from the Questionnaire, at least 55% of municipalities who responded plan to adopt ordinance provisions only, rather than adopting an entire county-wide model ordinance.

D. Determination that Only One Ordinance will be Needed As part of the Phase I Grant Amendment Number 1, the County project team discussed whether more than one model stormwater management ordinance would be needed and determined that one would be sufficient. Because PADEP has established mandatory minimum standards for many of the essential provisions, it was determined that it was not necessary to create different technical standards for Chester County’s watersheds. Depending on their individual watershed concerns, municipalities can choose to address their issues by adopting provisions that may be more restrictive than those

14



listed in the final County-wide Act 167 Plan, and/or adopting recommended provisions. The lack of need to create individualized ordinance provisions for different watersheds, and the demand by municipalities for the opportunity to incorporate only the necessary standards into their current ordinances, coupled with existing locally sophisticated ordinances, eliminates the need for more than one model ordinance to be produced. This single County-wide Model Ordinance will be further revised with municipal input and completed in Phase II.

6. STATEMENT OF ELIGIBLE COSTS FOR PREPARATION OF WATERSHEDS A. Statement of Eligible Costs

As provided for under PA Act 167, PADEP will reimburse counties for 75% of the eligible costs incurred by the county in preparing an Act 167 Plan. Chester County’s County-wide Act 167 Plan will be the Watersheds Plan and companion documents, and an accompanying Addendum with appropriate updates for stormwater management standards, ordinance, and accompanying materials. The costs incurred by Chester County for preparing the Watersheds Plan and companion documents have been documented, and a portion of those costs were reimbursed through other previous state and non-profit grants. The remaining costs incurred by the County for the preparation of the Watersheds Plan and companion documents are eligible for reimbursement by PADEP through the PA Act 167 program (see Table 1)as indicated in the Phase I grant and are to be included for reimbursement in Phase II (see Part D.5). This reimbursement cost has been included in the cost estimate for Phase II. The remaining eligible costs to produce Watersheds are documented and attached as Appendix 10 (separately bound appendix). Table 1. Summary of Eligible Costs for Reimbursement for Watersheds Plan

Description

Total Costs

Other Grant

Reimbursements

Net Total Eligible Costs for PA Act 167

25%

Local Match

75% Costs Eligible for PADEP

Reimbursement Staff and Administrative Costs

$222,846 $0 $222,846

$55,711 $167,135

Direct Costs, Consultants

$693,662 $375,000 $318,662

$79,666 $238,996

Total $916,508 $375,000 $541,508 $135,377 $406,131**** 75% Costs Eligible for PADEP Reimbursement results from the Total Costs less $375,000.00 of additional grants received for direct/consultant costs for the project from other sources, then multiplied by 0.25 (local match) and 0.75 (eligible for PADEP reimbursement).

15



B. Reimbursement Schedule Reimbursement of Chester County’s eligible costs for preparing this Phase I report, for future preparation of the Addendum to Watersheds, and for future completion of the Plan adoption and approval process are anticipated to be reimbursed under the current Phase I grant and an anticipated Phase II grant (when future state funding is available). The remaining eligible County-incurred costs for preparing the Watersheds Plan and companion documents will also be reimbursed as part of the Phase II grant. The remaining eligible costs for preparation of the Watersheds Plan and companion documents are presented in Table 1. The requested schedule for reimbursement of those remaining eligible costs is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Schedule of Reimbursement of Eligible Costs for Watersheds Plan

Reimbursement Payment

Reimbursement Amount

State Fiscal Year

No. 1 $406,131 2010‐2011

Total $406,131 7. PHASE II SCOPE OF WORK

The Phase II Scope of Work has been completed and can be found in Part D.

8. CONCLUSIONS OF PHASE I WORK COMPLETED All work as listed in the Phase I Scope and Grant Amendment Number 1 has been completed (Table 3). As stated above, all required tasks have been completed associated with:

• project administration, • Phase I WPAC meetings (5 WPAC and 5 with other stakeholders), • preparation of model ordinance revisions, • determination that only one ordinance would be needed, • preparation of eligible costs for the preparation of Watersheds and

reimbursement schedule, and • Phase II Scope of Work (see Part D).

16



Table 3. Completion of All Deliverables of Phase I Grant

PADEP Phase I Grant Deliverable Required

Completed Components

1. Project Administration of the County‐wide conducted by Chester County Water Resources Authority

Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part B.1 Project Administration

2. Preparation of the SCOPE: A. Watersheds (to be the foundation of the County‐

wide Act 167 Plan)

B. Plan will use/incorporate existing Act 167 plans in Chester County

C. Plan consistent with comprehensive PA DEP Stormwater Managment Policy

D. Meets Section 5b and 5c of Act 167

A. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Tables 4

and 6. B. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part B. 5

Preparation of Model Ordinance Revisions C. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part C.2.C

PADEP Comprehensive Stormwater Management Policy

D. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Table 4

3. WPAC Meetings for Preparation of the SCOPE : Phase I (and Grant Amendment 1) required 5 WPAC meetings and 5 meetings with other stakeholders

Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part B.4 Phase I WPAC Meetings Held

4. Prepared Model Ordinance revisions and presented them to WPAC for review and comments.

5. Determine if more than one ordinance is needed.

Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part B.5 Preparation of Model Ordinance Revisions Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part B.5.D Determination that Only One Ordinance is needed.

6. Statement of Eligible Costs for Preparation of Watersheds and a proposed schedule for payments to the County

Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part B.6 Statement of Eligible Costs for Preparation of Watersheds; See Appendix 10

7. Progress Reports and Quarterly Invoices Submitted to PADEP.

Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part B.2 Project Administration

8. Phase II Scope of Work includes: A. Estimate Level of Effort B. Estimate Project Cost (billing rates, classifications of

employees engaged, work hours, breakdown of costs by task, total administrative cost, total cost for technical work, total direct costs, total cost)

C. Work schedule, completion time, relative to start date for each milestone/task

A. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part D

Phase II Scope of Work B. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part D Phase

II Scope of Work

C. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part D Phase II Scope of Work

17



Part C. COMPARISON OF WATERSHEDS TO PHASE II AND PLAN REQUIREMENTS 1. INTRODUCTION

The County compared all that was already accomplished as part of the development of Watersheds and its companion documents with PADEP Act 167 Plan requirements and applicable guidance documents. Watersheds and its companion documents were compared with the following:

• PA Act 167, • Phase II requirements as listed in the Phase I Grant Scope of Work, • Phase II tasks as described in the Phase I Grant Scope of Work, and • PADEP Phase II checklist (October 6, 2009).

2. PA ACT 167 REQUIREMENTS

The County examined the PA Act 167 and concluded that Watersheds and its companion documents meet the purpose and policy stated in Section 3 of the Act, that being to:

(1) encourage planning and management of storm water runoff in each watershed which is consistent with sound water and land use practices; (2) authorize a comprehensive program of storm water management designated to preserve and restore the flood carrying capacity of Commonwealth streams; to preserve to the maximum extent practicable natural storm water runoff regimes and natural course, current and cross-section of water of the Commonwealth; and to protect and conserve ground waters and ground-water recharge areas; and (3) encourage local administration and management of storm water consistent with the Commonwealth’s duty as a trustee of natural resources and the people’s constitutional right to the preservation of natural, economic, scenic, aesthetic, recreational and historic values of the environment.

The County also carefully reviewed the plan requirements of Act 167 Sections 5(b) and (c) and compared them to work completed in the development of Watersheds (Table 4). Regarding Item #9 Section 5(b), in general only the urbanized municipalities (such as the City of Coatesville and boroughs) represent areas of Chester County where there are municipal stormwater systems serving to collect stormwater from extensive areas and multiple properties. For the remainder of the rural and suburban areas of the County, stormwater systems tend to be limited to specific subdivisions or individual properties and are designed and constructed in conjunction with proposed land development projects. Therefore, it is impossible to designate areas to be served by new stormwater systems in the next ten years because those areas will be determined by land development interests and won’t become apparent until the development proposal is submitted for municipal review and approval. Any stormwater facilities that would be designed and constructed will have operation and maintenance arrangements if they were required to obtain an NPDES permit. Taking this into consideration, Table 4 demonstrates that Watersheds and its

18



companion documents fulfill all the requirements for stormwater management plans indicated in Sections 5(b) and (c) of the Act.

Table 4. Comparison of Watersheds and its companion documents to PA Act 167

Sections 5(b) and (c) Requirements. Items listed in PA Act 167 Sections 5(b) and (c)

Citation of Where in Watersheds and Companion Documents (see expanded list below) the Item is

Addressed

Section 5(b): Each watershed storm water plan shall include, but not limited to:

1. A survey of existing runoff characteristics in small as well as large storms, including the impact of soils, slopes, vegetation and existing development;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 1‐3, 5, 6; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 2‐4, 9‐11, 16, 17; and Part 2, Section 1; see Watershed Action Plans.

2. A survey of existing significant obstructions and their capacities:

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 3, 5, 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 10 and 11; see Watershed Action Plans.

3. An assessment of projected and alternative land development patterns in the watershed, and the potential impact of runoff quantity, velocity and quality;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 3 ‐8, 10; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 2, 3, 9‐13, 17; see Watershed Action Plans.

4. An analysis of present and projected development in flood hazard areas, and its sensitivity to damages from future flooding or increased runoff;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 1‐5, 7, 8, 10; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11; and Part 2, Section 1.

5. A survey of existing drainage problems and proposed solutions;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 3‐5 and 8, 10; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 2, 3, 8, 10, 11‐13; and Part 2, Section 1; see Watershed Action Plans.

6. A review of existing and proposed storm water collections systems and their impacts;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 3, 5, 7, 8, 10; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 3, 9‐11, 17; see Watershed Action Plans.

7. An assessment of alternative runoff control techniques and their efficiency in the particular watershed;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 3‐ 5, 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16. See Phase I Report and Draft Ordinance Provisions.

8. An identification of existing and proposed State, Federal and local flood control projects located in the watershed and their design capacities;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 3, 5, 10; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 4, 11, 14‐16; see Watershed Action Plans.

19



Table 4 (Continued)

Items Listed in Act 167 Sections 5(b) and (c)

Citation of Where in Watersheds and Companion Documents (see expanded list below) the Item is

Addressed 9. A designation of those areas to be served by

storm water collection and control facilities within a ten‐year period, an estimate of the design capacity and cost of such facilities, a schedule and proposed methods of financing the development, construction and operation of such facilities, and an identification of the existing or proposed institutional arrangements to implement and operate the facilities;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 5, 7, 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 4, 9‐16. (See explanation in Phase I Report Part C.2.)

10. An identification of flood plains within the watershed;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 2‐3; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 2, 3, 10, 11.

11. Criteria and standards for the control of storm water runoff from existing and new development which are necessary to minimize dangers to property and life and carry out the purposes of this act;

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 3, 7, 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 3, 8, 13. See “Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance” CCWRA 2005; See Phase I Report, Model Ordinance Revisions (revisions pursuant to Phase I municipal survey responses).

12. Priorities for implementation of action within each plan; and

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 4‐ 8, 10; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 12‐16; and Part 2, Section 5; see Watershed Action Plans.

13. Provisions for periodically reviewing, revising, and updating the plan.

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 7‐9; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 12‐16. See Phase II Scope of Work.

Section 5(c): Each watershed storm water plan shall: (1) Contain such provisions as are reasonably

necessary to manage storm water such that development or activities in each municipality in the watershed do not adversely affect health, safety and property in other municipalities within the watershed and in basins to which the watershed is tributary; and

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 4, 5, 7, 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 8, 12, 13; and Part 2, Section 5. See “Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance” CCWRA 2005; See Phase I Report and Model Ordinance Revisions (revisions pursuant to Phase I municipal survey responses).

(2) Consider and be consistent with other existing municipal, county, regional and State environmental and land use plans.

Requirement Fulfilled ‐ See Watersheds Parts 1, 3, 7; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 1, 17, 18, Appendix A; and Part 2, Section 5.

Table 4 references Watersheds and its companion documents (published by Chester County and Chester County Water Resources Authority) that consist of: 1. Watersheds (2002); 2. Executive Summary of Watersheds (2002); 3. “Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium” (2001); 4. 15 individual Watershed Action Plans (2002); 5. Fact Sheet: “Reducing Stormwater and Flooding – 10 Principles of Effective Stormwater Management” (2004); and 6. Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance (2005).

(Documents 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 can be found online at www.chesco.org/water. Contact the Chester County Water Resources Authority for a copy of #3, the “Compendium”.)

20

http://www.chesco.org/water



3. PHASE II REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN PHASE I GRANT In the Phase I Grant Scope of Work, Section II.B.a. (page 2 of Grant Scope) lists three required elements that must be incorporated into the preparation of the County-wide 167 Plan. These requirements have been addressed, as follows (see Table 5): A. Watersheds

Watersheds and its companion documents will be the foundation of the County-wide 167 Plan and will be utilized and incorporated into the final Plan as previously described.

B. Existing Act 167 Plans The status of other approved Act 167 Plans was considered by the project team in defining the geographic planning area and in drafting the scope for Phase II. Because three watershed-based Act 167 plans are completed and two are underway in portions of the County, the geographic area of the county-wide plan will be determined when Phase II is initiated. At present, all watersheds except Conestoga River and Darby Creek will be included, although the Crum Creek and Valley Creek 167 Plans will be honored should they be approved prior to initiation of Phase II of the County-wide Plan.

C. PADEP Comprehensive Stormwater Mangement Policy (2002) The County has reviewed and confirmed that Watersheds and the proposed Phase II scope are consistent with the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Policy. Watersheds discusses the integration of post construction stormwater planning and the use of best management practices to promote ground water infiltration, maintain stream base flows, and protect the waters of the Commonwealth with the goal of mimicking pre-development infiltration and runoff rates. The development of Watersheds and its companion documents, and the preparation of the revisions to the county-wide model ordinance focus on upholding the PADEP Stormwater Management Policy through the development of stormwater planning initiatives and the promotion of BMP implementation that minimize the adverse effects of stormwater discharges.

4. PHASE II TASKS FROM PADEP PHASE I GRANT SCOPE

The PADEP Phase I Grant Scope (pages 4-7 of Grant Scope) identifies three tasks that are to be considered in the preparation of the Phase II Scope of Work (see Table 5). As described below, these tasks have been previously completed during the development of Watersheds. A. Task 1 Data Collection and Analysis

1) Subtask 1 Solicit Municipal Input As part of the development of Watersheds, the County undertook extensive municipal outreach through meetings, forums and feedback questionnaires. Detailed questionnaires were distributed to municipalities, watershed organizations and private citizens. Top perceived problems by municipalities included the pollution entering streams from nonpoint pollution. Outreach efforts were also undertaken during Phase I and additional municipal input was gathered through

21



two questionnaires (see Part B.5). Municipal input will continue to be gathered at WPAC meetings in Phase II and comment response documents.

Table 5. Phase II Requirements and Tasks from Phase I Scope

Phase II Requirements and Tasks as listed in Phase I Grant Scope

Status of Completion

A. Watersheds (to be the foundation of the County‐wide Act 167 Plan)

B. Plan will use/incorporate existing Act 167 plans in Chester County

C. Plan consistent with comprehensive PA DEP Stormwater Managment Policy

D. Meets Section 5b and 5c of Act 167

A. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Tables 4 and 6.

B. Final Completion in Phase II ‐ See Phase I

Report: Part B.5 Preparation of Model Ordinance Revisions (geographic scope will depend on status of Valley Creek and Crum Creek Act 167 Plans)

C. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Part C.3.C

PADEP Comprehensive Stormwater Management Policy

D. Completed ‐ See Phase I Report: Table 4

E. Task 1 Data Collection and Analysis subtask 1 Survey municipalities subtask 2 Data collection subtask 3 Hydrologic modeling

Completed ‐ See Phase I Report; Part C .4.A Task I Data Collection and Analysis

F. Task 2 Technical Analyses subtask 1 Evaluate water quality, peak flows,

stream stability and groundwater recharge requirements

subtask 2 Detailed hydrologic modeling subtask 3 Management Strategy

Completed ‐ See Phase I Report; Part C.4.B Task 2 Technical Analyses

G. Task 3 Public/Municipal Participation through WPAC subtask 1 WPAC Meetings subtask 2 Education and Promotion of Initiative

Completed Phase I Requirement; Fully Fulfilled in Phase II ‐ See Phase I Report; Part C.4.C Task 3 Public/Municipal Participation Through WPAC; See Phase II Scope of Work

22



2) Subtask 2 Collection of Data Watersheds involved the collection of a significant amount of data, as well as comprehensive analyses and map development. Included were evaluations of land use, land cover, population, existing municipal stormwater ordinances, impervious cover, ground and surface water quality, biological diversity, flooding, pollutant runoff, watershed water budgets, and groundwater balances. In Phase I, additional data were collected on current existing municipal ordinances and municipal impressions and concerns regarding stormwater ordinances and stormwater management. The review of Watersheds conducted in Phase 1 determined that all necessary data collection and analyses has been completed.

3) Subtask 3 Hydrologic Modeling

No “packaged” hydrologic modeling was done; however, extensive GIS/Access/Excel modeling was conducted to assess existing runoff volume and nonpoint source pollutant loads, and to establish watershed and subbasin hydrologic balances. Historic records for all (8) United States Geologic Survey stream gages, and all precipitation records for Chester County were analyzed to establish hydrologic trends and conditions. Based on these analyses, Watersheds established stormwater management strategies for runoff control. The approach presented in Watersheds provides sufficient volume, infiltration and peak rate controls without the need and expense of computer modeling. This approach was confirmed by extensive engineering analyses and modeling conducted for the Valley Creek Act 167 Plan. The County will consider hydrologic modeling at a later date, if it is determined it would be essential to further improving stormwater management on a watershed basis.

B. Task 2 Technical Analysis

1) Subtask 1 Evaluate Water Quality, Peak Flow, Stream Stability, Groundwater Recharge Watersheds and its accompanying technical supporting document, the “Water Resources Compendium undertook detailed studies, analyses and mapping of the water resources of Chester County. Analyses were conducted to estimate volumes of runoff based on current and projected 2020 land use conditions. Water quality impacts were studied using the pollutant loading model Watershed Management Model. In addition to those discussed above in 3.A.3, analyses were completed to determine the improvements in total suspended solids that could be gained with BMP installation. Impaired streams were studied, watersheds with elevated nitrate levels in groundwater were mapped, estimates of percent cover of impervious surface on a watershed-basis were determined, and groundwater balances were calculated. Peak rate controls were established based on the overall hydrologic conditions of the County’s watersheds and historic flood conditions.

23



2) Subtask 2 Detailed Hydrologic Modeling Unlike traditional watershed-based Act 167 planning efforts, Watersheds did not undertake peak release rate modeling for the entire County. The County determined that no detailed hydrologic modeling is needed at this time in Phase I or II, as sufficient peak rate controls can be provided based on the previous work completed in Watersheds and for the Valley Creek Act 167 Plan. Detailed hydrologic modeling on a county-wide basis would require many years, would be cost prohibitive, and the true benefit realized from this intensive effort is unknown. As demonstrated by the analyses conducted for the Valley Creek Act 167 Plan, the draft proposed provisions for volume control, peak rate control and infiltration rate standards will work in concert to manage stormwater runoff more effectively in Chester County’s watersheds.

3) Subtask 3 Management Strategy

Watersheds developed and summarized management strategies including strategies to address stormwater runoff, non-point source pollution control, protection strategies for groundwater and groundwater resource areas, Low Impact Development or Conservation Design, stream channel erosion, and flooding. Watershed Action Plans were prepared for each watershed and explicitly details recommended management strategies.

C. Task 3 Public/Municipal Participation Through WPAC

1) Subtask 1 WPAC Meetings Public/municipal participation occurred through five Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC) meetings. Watersheds had also placed significant emphasis on municipal and community outreach and participation, encouraging participation of all Chester County municipalities through three series of four county-wide meetings and many Water Resources Task Force meetings to obtain input. WPAC meetings will continue in Phase II.

2) Subtask 2 Education and Promotion

Extensive outreach efforts occurred as part of the development of Watersheds and as part of Phase 1. As part of Watersheds, a series of public informational meetings occurred, and a second series of public meetings were held to solicit comments on the draft Watersheds Plan. In addition, a Water Resources Task Force met continuously throughout the project and consisted of a wide range of stakeholders that served as the steering committee. Further, a quarterly Watersheds newsletter was published and distributed to all municipalities and stakeholders throughout the development of Watersheds. After Watersheds was completed a county-wide series of Watershed 101 Implementation workshops were conducted and provided information on Best Management Practices.

24



A BMP workshop is not necessary in Phase II. So much BMP information is widely available and numerous BMP educational opportunities have been provided in Chester County by CCCD, CCWRA and others in recent years. Information on a CCCD BMP tour is currently posted on the CCCD website (www.chesco.org/conservation). Instead an Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan Implementation workshop will be held in Phase II. At this workshop, the County would assist municipalities in understanding the adoption process, provide an explanation on how to incorporate the mandatory ordinance provisions, and present information on the PADEP reimbursement process.

5. PADEP PHASE II CHECKLIST COMPARISON WITH WATERSHEDS PADEP distributed a Phase II checklist (dated October 6, 2009) to provide

guidance regarding the contents of Act 167 Plans. The County created Table 6 to indicate where in the Watersheds documents the requirements of the PADEP checklist are addressed and indicate which components are yet to be completed in Phase II. According to Table 6, the following will be completed as part of Phase II: additional project administration, preparation of a model ordinance (B.8 Implementation of Technical Standards), final plan preparation (Task C, Sections C.1, C.2 and C.3 – plan preparation, adoption and submission to PADEP), and Item III (WPAC meetings, public participation and workshops).

6. CONCLUSIONS

Given what has been accomplished in Phase I, and all that Watersheds accomplished towards fulfillment of Phase I and Phase II, it has been confirmed that Watersheds and its companion documents fulfill all requirements of PA Act 167 except the following, which will be conducted in Phase II (see Tables 4, 5 and 6):

• Final set of updated municipal technical stormwater ordinance standards • Revised Model Ordinance (only one needed) • WPAC meetings as needed to finalize the standards and model ordinance • Preparation of the Addendum document • Public Notice and Public Review Period, and Public Hearing • Chester County Commissioners Adoption • PADEP Approval • Implementation Workshop • Potential development of a Voluntary Christina River Basin TMDL

Implementation Plan Strategy (if still needed once Phase II is initiated). All data collection and technical work has been completed, and only a final set of stormwater standards, a revised model ordinance, associated WPAC meetings and a public notice and public hearing process are needed to fulfill all requirements for a County-wide PA Act 167 Plan.

25



Table 6. Comparison of Watersheds to PADEP Act 167 Checklist of Plan Requirements Note: This document compares Chester County’s Watersheds Plan and accompanying “Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium” to the requirements for PA Act 167 plans as referenced in Act 167, as described in the DEP Plan Phase II Checklist dated October 6, 2009, and as contained in a draft Agreement Stormwater Management Plan Phase II (July 2009 Wayne County, PA as provided by PADEP).

PADEP Requirements for County‐wide 167 Plans – Phase II

Watersheds Plan documents

I. Project Administration Manage project; manage county budgeting/expenses/work schedule; hire and manage consultant; initiate contract w/ state and coordinate periodically; organize and/or attend meetings; Phase II start‐up meeting.

All project administration activities consistent with a County‐wide 167 Plan were performed for Watersheds with the exception of a formal contract with the state and a Phase II start‐up meeting; state and county coordination did occur as part of the Watersheds planning process. Phase I completed; Phase II to be done.

II. Plan Preparation (including Act 167 Sections 5(b) and (c))

Task A. Data Collection

A.1 Data Collection; Data Review; Data Analysis; Goals, Objectives, and Requirements

Data Collection, Review, Analysis – See Watersheds Parts 2, 3, 5 and 6; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 1‐7, 9‐11 and 17; and Part 2, Sections 1‐5 ‐ Completed Problems and Solutions – See Watersheds Parts 1, 5 and 6; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 3‐7, 9‐11 ‐ Completed Review of Existing Plans – See Watersheds Parts 1 and 3; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 1, 3 and 5 ‐ Completed Goals & Objectives, Reference to PA Law ‐ See Watersheds Part 4; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 3, 12 and 14 ‐ Completed

A.2 Municipal Ordinance Review & Evaluation See Watersheds Parts 7 and 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 8 and 13 ‐ Completed

A.3 Data Preparation for Technical Analysis (GIS mapping and delineation of subwatersheds)

See Watersheds Figures 1‐1 – 6‐4; See “Compendium” Part 1, Section 17; Figures 1‐1 – 15‐6 ‐ Completed

Task B. Technical Analysis

B.1 Evaluate Water Quality Requirements See Watersheds Parts 3, 4 and 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 4, 5, 7, 9 ‐13, 15; and Part 2; See Phase I Analyses ‐ Completed

B.2 Establish Groundwater Recharge/ Infiltration Requirements

See Watersheds Parts 3, 4 and 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 4, 6, 11‐13, 15; and Part 2: See Phase I Analyses – Completed

26



Table 6 (Continued)

DEP Requirements for County‐wide 167 Plans – Phase II

Watersheds plan documents

B.3 Volume and Peak Rate Requirements See Watersheds Parts 3, 4 and 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 4, 6, 11‐13, 15; and Part 2; See Phase I Analyses ‐ Completed

Modeling – set‐up, calibration, runs Determine additional needs given: “Compendium” Parts 1 and 2, Phase I Analyses, existing Watershed 167 Plans, Watershed Action Plans ‐ Completed

B.4 Streambank Erosion Requirements See Watersheds Parts 3, 4 and 8; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 4, 5, 9‐13, 15; See Phase I Analyses ‐ Completed

B.5 & B.6 Problem Areas and Obstructions See Watersheds Parts 3, 5‐7; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 4‐6, 9‐11, 15; and Part 2; See Phase I Analyses; see existing Watershed 167 Plans; see Watershed Action Plans ‐ Completed

B.7 Compilation of Technical Standards See Watersheds Parts 3, 5‐8, 10; See “Compendium” Part 1, Sections 12‐13, 15‐16, 15; and Part 2; See Phase I Analyses (revisions pursuant to Phase I municipal survey responses); see existing Watershed 167 Plans; see Watershed Action Plans ‐ Completed

B. 8 Implementation of Technical Standards (Model Ordinance)

See “Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance” WRA 2005; See Phase I Analyses(revisions pursuant to Phase I municipal survey responses) ; see existing Watershed 167 Plans – Partial completion; to be finalized in Phase II

Task C. Plan Preparation and Implementation

C.1 & C.2 Plan Report Preparation and Outline See Watersheds Executive Summary, Plan, and “Compendium” Parts 1 and 2; plus Addendum document ‐ Partial completion; to be finalized in Phase II

C.3 Plan Adoption and Submission to DEP Public hearing and Re‐adoption – Phase II III. Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC),

Public Participation and Implementation Workshops

See Watersheds Part 3 and Table 3.1; Anticipate numerous (up to nine) WPAC meetings to discuss Watersheds Addendum efforts and document; public and municipal implementation workshop; providing guidance to municipalities and public on implementation activities ‐ Phase II

27



Part D. PHASE II SCOPE OF WORK 1. INTRODUCTION TO FINAL PRODUCT The overall objectives of the County-wide Act 167 Plan are based on the inter-related management needs of Chester County’s watersheds as follows (previously discussed in Part A.5):

• Reduce stormwater runoff and flooding • Improve water quality • Engage and Educate individuals, communities and governments in watershed

stewardship. Watersheds: An Integrated Water Resources Plan for Chester County and Its Watersheds and its accompanying documents and an Addendum will serve as Chester County’s County-wide Act 167 Plan. An Addendum to Watersheds will complete the remaining Act 167 requirements not completed as part of Watersheds or Phase I. The County-wide Act 167 Plan for the County of Chester will include: A. Watersheds and Companion Documents (completed):

1) Watersheds (2002) 2) Watersheds Executive Summary (2002) 3) “Chester County, Pennsylvania Water Resources Compendium” (2001) 4) 15 individual Watershed Action Plans (2002) 5) Fact Sheet: “Reducing Stormwater and Flooding – 10 Principles

of Effective Stormwater Management” (2004) 6) Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance

(2005)(to be updated and included in Addendum).

B. Addendum (to be completed in Phase II): 1) Purpose 2) Overview of County-wide Act 167 Plan 3) WPAC members and summary of activities 4) Minimum stormwater management standards 5) Applicability to (or standards for) State-funded projects 6) Eligible costs for Watersheds 7) Provisions for Adoption, Implementation and Update 8) Resolution of Adoption by County Commissioners 9) WPAC comments and response summary 10) Public Hearing Announcement 11) Summary of Public Hearing 12) Revised Model Ordinance 13) Appendices (as needed).

Potentially, the Phase II Scope of Work may include the development of an implementation strategy for municipalities to address Christina River Basin TMDL requirements, if one has not been completed prior to initiating Phase II. The final Plan will meet the requirements of the Act 167, will address municipal needs regarding stormwater management, will provide municipalities with stormwater standards and a Model Ordinance, and will assist with a number of MS4 requirements related to ordinance standards.

28



2. TASKS TO COMPLETE THE COUNTY-WIDE ACT 167 PLAN The Addendum, as summarized above, will complement Watersheds and its companion documents, and fulfill all outstanding PA Act 167 requirements. The process and level of effort anticipated to complete the Addendum and meet the requirements of the Act 167 will be conducted as follows. A. Public/Municipal Participation - WPAC Meetings to be Held

Coordination efforts and meetings will continue throughout Phase II and will include the meetings listed in Table 7. A Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC) formed in Phase I will be re-engaged and two subcommittees will be developed as part of the Phase II planning process, if needed: Municipal Engineers Committee (MEC) and the Legal Advisory Committee (LAC). Up to 9 meetings will be held including WPAC, Legal Advisory Committee and Municipal Engineers Committee meetings. The WPAC and subcommittee meetings will be coordinated as necessary to develop and finalize the Plan components. Meeting agenda and summaries will be prepared for all WPAC meetings.

Table 7. WPAC Meeting Topics and Schedule (up to 9 meetings will be held if needed)

Meeting

Purpose of Meeting

Meeting Schedule

1st WPAC Phase II Kick‐off Meeting Inform WPAC of Phase II planning process. Introduce 1st revision of standards based on feedback from Phase I WPAC meeting. Provide a WPAC meetings schedule.

Middle of Month 2

2nd WPAC Feedback gathered on stormwater standards. Month 3, Week 3 3rd WPAC Feedback gathered stormwater standards. Month 4, Week 2 4th WPAC Feedback gathered stormwater standards. Month 4, Week 4 5th WPAC Provide revised stormwater standards and

introduce revised Model Ordinance. Request written feedback.

Month 6

6th WPAC Provide written feedback summary, and a copy of revised draft standards and Model Ordinance in advance.

Month 8

7th WPAC Introduce state‐funded roadway standards and discuss complete First Draft Addendum (standards, Model Ordinance, supporting text and updates).

Month 9

8th WPAC WPAC to discuss Comment Response Log and provide updates. Discuss Second Draft of Addendum and concurrence process.

Month 11

9th FINAL WPAC WPAC Concurrence on Plan Month 12

Depending on the purpose of a WPAC meeting, it may consist of the Watershed Plan Advisory Committee, the Municipal Engineers Committee or the Legal Advisory Committee.

29



B. Final Minimum Stormwater Ordinance Standards Phase II efforts to complete the Plan will focus on continued dialogue among municipalities, the County and PADEP at WPAC meetings to discuss, refine and finalize the minimum stormwater standards that will be incorporated into the final Model Ordinance and County-wide 167 Plan. In Phase I, a Matrix of a set of Draft Proposed Stormwater Standards was developed that incorporated standards and provisions from Chester County’s Valley Creek 167 Plan, Chester County’s 2005 Post Construction Stormwater Model Ordinance, and Delaware County’s Crum Creek 167 Plan. This Matrix was distributed to the WPAC for comment. As a result of continuing work on the Valley Creek 167 Plan significant advances have been made to clarify standards. These further refinements were shared with municipalities at the June 10, 2010 WPAC. It’s recognized that Valley Creek is an Exceptional Value watershed and its final standards may be more restrictive than agreeable to municipalities for the county-wide plan, so the county anticipates that municipalities may favor less restrictive standards. From the written responses and the discussions that took place at the June 10, 2010 Phase I WPAC the draft proposed stormwater standards were considered generally agreeable to the majority of municipalities, with some concerns expressed regarding some of the more restrictive measures. Once Phase II is underway, these Phase I draft proposed standards would be revised with municipal feedback from Phase I incorporated. These revised standards would be presented at the first Phase II WPAC meeting. In order to bring a reasonable consensus among the 73 municipalities and PADEP on complicated standards and provisions, it is anticipated that up to nine meetings (see Table 7) may be needed to allow municipalities and the county to discuss and debate the ordinance provisions that are least agreeable and come to resolution. Supporting text will provide an explanation of what is mandatory and what is recommended, and provide guidance to municipalities that will incorporate and adopt the mandatory ordinance provisions into their current ordinance.

C. Revised Model Ordinance

One County-wide Model Ordinance will be developed to be consistent with the requirements of PADEP’s NPDES Phase II and PA Act 167. After the stormwater standards have been finalized, a draft of the County-wide Model Ordinance will be prepared to include these standards. It is anticipated that recommended standards will continue to be included. The draft County-wide Model Ordinance will be distributed to the WPAC for comments, and written responses will be requested. After careful review of municipal and PADEP feedback, a revised draft will be prepared. Supporting text will provide an explanation of what is mandatory and what is recommended, and provide guidance to municipalities that will adopt the Model Ordinance.

30



D. State-funded Roadway Stormwater Standards It is anticipated that PADEP will work with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to determine the state-funded roadway stormwater standards for incorporation in the Chester County County-wide Act 167 Plan. Approximately 40% of the county land area drains to Exceptional Value and High Quality streams. According to PADEP stream assessments, 35% of Chester County’s stream miles are impaired. PADEP and the transportation agencies will need to determine how state roadways stormwater controls will be addressed in the Plan.

E. Statement of Eligibility of Watersheds Costs for Reimbursement As specified in the Phase I Scope of Work, the costs incurred by Chester County for preparing the Watersheds Plan and companion documents have been documented. A portion of those costs were reimbursed through other previous state and other grants. The remaining costs incurred by the County for preparation of the Watersheds Plan and companion documents are eligible for reimbursement by PADEP through the PA Act 167 program, as indicated in the Phase I grant, and are to be included for reimbursement in Phase II (see Part B.6). This reimbursement cost has also been included in the cost estimate for Phase II (see Table 11). Reimbursement of Chester County’s eligible costs for preparation of the Addendum, and for future completion of the Plan adoption and approval process are anticipated to be reimbursed under an anticipated Phase II grant (when future funding is available). Any remaining eligible County-incurred costs for preparing the Watersheds Plan and companion documents would need to be reimbursed as part of the Phase II grant.

F. Preparation of Addendum Document The components of the Addendum and supporting text will be prepared and compiled to fulfill the remaining requirements of Phase II PA Act 167. It will include a discussion of the municipal implementation process and prioritization of management strategies. It will also provide provisions for updating the County-wide 167 Plan and a list of issues and concepts to be investigated further in the future. The preparation of the Addendum will involve the preparation of supporting text and supporting materials, focusing on:

1) Purpose 2) Overview of the County-wide Act 167 Plan 3) WPAC members and summary of activities 4) Minimum stormwater management provisions 5) Applicability to (or standards for) State-funded roadway projects 6) Eligible Costs for Watersheds 7) Provisions for Adoption, Implementation and Update 8) Resolution of Adoption by County Commissioners 9) WPAC comments and response summary 10) Public Hearing Announcement

31



11) Summary of Public Hearing 12) Revised model ordinance 13) Appendices (as needed).

It is anticipated that the following drafts will be prepared: a first draft (for review by WPAC), a second draft (for further review and final written comments by WPAC), a public hearing draft (incorporating final WPAC comments and any comments from other county or regional public agencies), a DEP approval draft (incorporating all public comments), and a final draft.

G. Final WPAC Plan Review and Comment Response Log

A completed draft of the Addendum will be provided for review to the official planning agency and governing body of each municipality, the county planning commission and regional planning agencies for consistency with other plans and programs affecting the watershed. The County will prepare a Comment Response Log of the review comments received and responses made to address the comments for final plan revisions. Outstanding issues will be addressed as needed to prepare the final draft Addendum for public review.

H. Public Review of Plan 1) Public Hearing Announcement

A public hearing regarding the Plan will be held. A Public Hearing and public review period Announcement will be published at least two weeks prior to the hearing date, and the final draft Addendum will be made available for public review.

2) Public Hearing and Summary

The Public Hearing will be conducted and the comments received at the hearing will be compiled and reviewed by the County. A meeting summary will be written and included in the Plan.

3) Preparation of Final Plan

The public comments gathered at the Public Hearing and from the public review will be considered and appropriate modifications to the Plan will be made as needed.

I. Resolution of Plan Adoption by Chester County

After incorporating any necessary changes into the final draft Addendum from the Public Hearing, the County-wide Act 167 Plan will be presented to the Chester County Board of Commissioners for their consideration and final adoption pursuant to Act 167. For the purpose of the Plan adoption, a resolution of adoption must be passed by official vote of the governing body of Chester County. The resolution will have to be carried by an affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members of the governing body and should refer expressly to the maps, charts, textual matter, and other materials

32



intended to comprise the Plan. This action will then be recorded in the adopted Plan.

J. PADEP Plan Approval The County will submit the final County-wide Act 167 Plan to PADEP with a letter of transmittal and 3 copies each of the adopted Plan. The letter of transmittal will state that the County has complied with all requirements of the PA Act 167 and will request that the PADEP approve the adopted Plan. Subsequent to PADEP approval of the Plan, the final Plan will be made available to municipalities and the public.

K. Plan Implementation Workshop BMP workshops are not needed as part of Phase II. However, it will be beneficial to conduct an implementation workshop after approval of the Plan. The presentation would cover guidance to assist municipalities in adopting or revising stormwater ordinances and their implementation and provide information regarding PADEP reimbursement process.

L. Potential Phase II Activity: Voluntary TMDL Implementation Strategy for the

Christina River Basin To assist municipalities to address TMDL allocations for the Christina River Basin (Red Clay, White Clay and Brandywine Creeks watersheds), an implementation strategy may serve useful. It will be determined at the start of Phase II whether an implementation strategy is needed. Due to the lack of information available for the upcoming NPDES MS4 application cycle, the various technical issues of the Christina TMDLs (that are currently under discussion by PADEP, USEPA, CCWRA and CCCD), and what may be required regarding implementation strategies, it is difficult to develop a scope of work for this component at this time. An implementation strategy may also be developed outside of the Act 167 Plan, prior to the funding of Phase II. If an implementation strategy is needed, a scope of work for the implementation strategy would be developed prior to the PADEP authorization to fund the Phase II Scope of Work.

3. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

This task covers the administrative work required to negotiate and execute the Phase II Grant Agreement (and any amendments) with PA DEP, and a contract between the County and its consultant. Project administration of the PA DEP grant will also include the preparation of quarterly progress reports, timely submission of invoices and coordination with PA DEP staff, as well as any other relevant administration activities.

4. PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE To complete the Addendum and submit for PADEP approval for the County-wide Act 167 Plan, an anticipated schedule will be followed as outlined in Table 8.

33



Table 8. Proposed Phase II Plan Development Schedule

Anticipated Schedule for Phase II

Plan Development Tasks or Milestones to Complete the County‐wide Act 167 Plan

PADEP Grant Secured • Chester County Execution of Grant • Set up Contractor Agreement • Meet with Contractor to Discuss their Deliverables.

Month 1 • Hold first Phase II Project Planning Team Meeting • Request PA DEP and PennDOT and PA Turnpike Commission Determine

State Roadway Standards • Send Announcement of date of first Phase II WPAC Meeting • Revise Matrix of Standards, in response to Phase I feedback • Begin development of Model Ordinance.

Month 2 • Hold second Team Meeting to discuss upcoming WPAC • Develop materials and presentation to distribute to WPAC • Hold first WPAC to discuss revised Matrix of Standards • Provide WPAC with meeting schedule.

Month 3 • First of three WPAC meetings to discuss and agree on ordinance standards.

Month 4 • Two WPAC meetings (as needed) to continue discussion and resolution of ordinance standards.

Month 5 • Revise ordinance provisions • Draft complete Model Ordinance.

Month 6 • WPAC meeting to introduce revised ordinance standards and Model Ordinance and request written feedback

• Begin receiving written feedback. Month 7 • Revise standards and Model Ordinance in response to written

feedback • Work with PADEP and and PennDOT and PA Turnpike Commission to

finalize draft of state‐funded roadway standards or stormwater management policy.

Month 8 • One week prior to next meeting, provide WPAC with municipal feedback summary, revised ordinance provisions and Model Ordinance

• WPAC meeting to discuss revised ordinance provisions and Model Ordinance based on written feedback

• Continue resolving concerns or issues. Month 9 • Complete First Draft of Addendum (for review by WPAC)

• One week prior to WPAC send Addendum, including State Roadway Standards

• WPAC meeting to discuss Addendum and State Roadway Standards. Month 10 • Prepare Second Draft of Addendum (for further review by WPAC) ‐

request final review and written comments • Review comments and revise Addendum as needed • Prepare Comment Response Log.

34



Table 8. (Continued)

Anticipated Schedule for Phase II

Plan Development Tasks or Milestones to Complete the County‐wide Act 167 Plan

Month 11 • WPAC meeting to discuss Comment Response Log and Addendum. Month 12 • WPAC meeting to seek concurrence

• Prepare Public Hearing Draft of Addendum • Publish Public Notice for Public Hearing and public review and provide

copies for public review. Month 13 • Hold Public Hearing and prepare meeting summary

• Prepare PADEP Approval Draft of Addendum. Month 14 • Final Draft of Addendum (incorporating all public comments) and Full

Plan • Present to Chester County Commissioners for adoption • Submit to PADEP for approval • Conduct Implementation Workshop.

Note: Potential Voluntary TMDL Implementation Strategy for Christina River Basin – schedule to be determined when Phase II is initiated.

5. PHASE II COSTS The completion of the components of the Addendum has been analyzed and the level of effort has been estimated for Phase II of the County-wide Act 167 Plan. A summary total and reimbursement costs (by state fiscal year) is provided in Table 9. Table 11 includes details including cost breakdowns per task and staff person. The total Phase II Scope of Work cost, excluding the potential TMDL Implementation Strategy is $144,819. The PADEP 75% reimbursable cost for the base Phase II Scope of Work would equal $108,614. If the TMDL Implementation Strategy for the Christina Basin is undertaken as part of Phase II, a detailed scope and cost estimate will be prepared at that time. An initial estimate of $50,000 is included here (PADEP 75% reimbursement cost is $37,500) (see Table 9 and Table 11). The cost of Phase I exceeded the total of the Phase I grant funding, and the County requests that PADEP consider reimbursement for those eligible remaining costs as part of the Phase II grant. This remaining Phase I cost to the County of $22,060 (PADEP 75% reimbursable cost is $16,545) has been documented in Tables 9 and 11. In addition, as per the Phase I grant, the County requests the reimbursement of the eligible costs for the preparation of Watersheds in the Phase II grant. The PADEP 75% reimbursable cost for Watersheds is $406,131 and has been included in Tables 9 and 11.

35



The final grand total of costs anticipated to be reimbursed to the County by PADEP (75%) as part of Phase II equals $568,790. Table 9. Summary of Phase II Reimbursement Costs (75%)

Description

Total Cost

Local Match

75% PADEP

Reimbursement

FY

2010/2011

FY

2011/2012 Phase II Base $144,819 $36,205 $108,614 $91,036 $17,578Phase I Carryover

$22,060 $5,515 $16,545 $16,545

“Watersheds” Net Costs*

$541,508 $135,377 $406,131 $406,131

Christina TMDL Strategy

$50,000 $12,500 $37,500 $30,000 $7,500

GRAND TOTAL $758,387 $189,597 $568,790 $543,712 $25,078

*Net Costs After $375,000 of other (non‐Act 167) grants received. A. Chester County Staff

The Chester County team will take the lead on conducting Phase II and perform most of the work with technical support provided by a planning consultant. The County team will be comprised of professional water resources, environmental and community planning staff from CCWRA, CCCD, and CCPC. Chester County Water Resources Authority will continue to serve as the lead agency.

B. Consultant Planner

The use of a consultant AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners) professional Planner will be necessary to assist the county in completing Phase II of the County-wide Act 167 Plan. The consultant chosen will be expected to be certified as an AICP planner with more than seven years of relevant experience in environmental, water resources and community planning, with

36



particular expertise in stormwater management and ordinance preparation. The consultant will be selected when Phase II is initiated. The types of services likely to be performed by the consultant planner may include (but not limited to) the following responsibilities listed in Table 10 in support of the County (final responsibilities to be determined when Phase II is initiated).

Table 10. Professional Planner Consultant Phase II Responsibilities

Category

Responsibilities

WPAC Activities • Assist with coordination activities with WPAC • Attend WPAC meetings • Assist with preparation of technical presentations • Assist with addressing any technical, legal, and/or institutional issues

raised by the WPAC and its subcommittees. Stormwater Standards • Assist with the revisions to the stormwater standards

• Assist with WPAC discussions and presentations regarding the standards and summarizing and analyzing feedback.

Model Ordinance Responsibilities

• Assist with the development of the revised County‐wide Model Ordinance

• Assist in summarizing and analyzing feedback, and incorporate feedback to revise County‐wide Model Ordinance

• Assist in addressing any technical, legal, and/or institutional issues. Project Administration Responsibilities

• Prepare and submit progress reports and invoices to Chester County • Assist County in establishing project coordination roles • Attend project team meetings.

General Responsibilities

• Support County during the Plan adoption process • Support County with development of Addendum as needed • Assist County with public hearing and implementation workshop

activities • Assist in addressing any technical, legal, and/or institutional issues • Other responsibilities as assigned.

37

TABLE 11.Phase II and Level of Effort Cost Estimate for County-wide 167 Plan (revised 7/6/2010)

State Fiscal Year

CHESTER COUNTY STAFF Water Resources Authority (CCWRA) CC Planning Commission (CCPC)

TOTAL HOURS TOTAL COST

Average Billing Rate $/hour

TASK Hours Cost ($) Hours Cost ($) Hours Cost ($) Hours Cost ($) Hours Cost ($) Hours Cost ($) Hours Cost ($) Hours Cost ($) Hours Cost ($) HOURS COST($) HOURS COST ($)FY WPAC Meetings

2010/2011 9 WPAC Meetings, Prep and Mtg Summaries 93 $6,127 162 $6,658 36 $1,582 82 $2,665 132 $4,117 36 $1,315 36 $1,606 12 $758 589 $24,828 72 $7,787 661 $32,615

Finalizing Stormwater StandardsPreparation of Final Stanadards 40 $2,635 50 $2,055 90 $4,690 20 $2,163 110 $6,853Project Team Meetings 48 $3,162 56 $2,302 16 $703 16 $520 16 $584 16 $714 168 $7,985 40 $4,326 208 $12,311

Preparation of Model OrdinanceModel Ordinance revision (2 drafts & Final) 24 $1,581 40 $1,644 10 $312 8 $357 8 $505 90 $4,399 212 $22,928 302 $27,327Project Team Meetings 48 $3,162 52 $2,137 8 $352 16 $520 8 $292 8 $357 140 $6,820 38 $4,110 178 $10,930

State-funded Roadway StandardsPreparation and 4 meetings 30 $1,976 40 $1,644 70 $3,620 70 $3,620

Preparation of Addendum DocumentSupporting text for plan, summary of activities, etc. Prepare 4 drafts and final. 60 $3,953 120 $4,932 70 $2,275 20 $624 270 $11,784 30 $3,245 300 $15,028

Project AdministrationGrant coordination, progress reports, invoices 25 $1,647 25 $1,028 20 $624 70 $3,298 12 $1,298 82 $4,596

Direct CostsRental Hall, mileage, paper, reproduction 0 $7,600 $500 0 $8,100

1,487 $75,025 424 $46,356 1911 $121,381PADEP 75% Share FY2010/2011 $91,036

FY Public Hearing / Public Participation2011/2012 Coordination, Notice, Hearing, Mtg Summary 20 $1,318 40 $1,644 15 $488 12 $374 87 $3,823 6 $649 93 $4,472

Municipal Response Document 6 $395 24 $986 24 $780 24 $749 20.0 $632 98 $3,542 98 $3,542

Chester County Adoption of Final PlanCoordination 10 $659 12 $493 5 $156 27 $1,308 27 $1,308

Plan Submission to PADEPPreparation of Final Plan 15 $988 24 $986 20 $650 59 $2,625 59 $2,625

Plan Implementation WorkshopCoordination and development 20 $1,318 20 $822 12 $374 52 $2,514 20 $2,163 72 $4,677

Project AdministrationGrant coordination, progress reports, invoices 15 $988 15 $617 10 $312 40 $1,917 12 $1,298 52 $3,214

Direct CostsRental Hall, mileage, paper, reproduction 0 $3,500 $100 0 $3,600

363 $19,228 38 $4,210 401 $23,438PADEP 75% Share FY2011/2012 $17,578

SUBTOTAL 454 $29,910 680 $27,948 60 $2,636 243 $7,898 245 $7,642 60 $2,192 68 $3,034 20 $632 20 $1,263 1,850 $94,254 462 $50,565 2,312 $144,819

HOURS COST ($)1 Chester County TOTAL Chester County TOTAL 363 $94,2542 Consultant Planner TOTAL Consultant TOTAL 38 $50,5653 Phase II BASE TOTAL Phase II BASE TOTAL 401 $144,8194 75% PADEP Reimbursement Phase II BASE Total 75% PADEP Reimbursement Phase II BASE TOTAL $108,6145 75% PADEP Eligible Reimbursement Cost for Preparation of Watersheds 75% PADEP Watersheds Eligible Reimbursement $406,1316 75% Phase I Carryover Reimbursement Costs for Completion of of Phase I (through June 2010);$22,060 Total . 75% PADEP Reimbursement Phase I Carryover Costs for Completion of Phase I $16,5457 Potential TMDL Implementation Strategy for Christina Basin (cost to be determined; estimated $50,000) 75% PADEP Reimbursement of TMDL Implementation Strategy $37,5008 GRAND TOTAL POTENTIAL REIMBURSEMENT COST (Sum of lines 4 thru 7) GRAND TOTAL PHASE II POTENTIAL PADEP REIMBURSIBLE COST $568,790

FY 2010/2011 TOTAL

FY 2011/2012 TOTAL

Planning Services Director$63.15

Office Administrator

$31.19

Environmental Planner III

$36.53

Senior Water Resources Staff

$43.94

CONSULTANT PLANNER

$108.15COUNTY SUBTOTAL

Environmental Planner IV

$44.62

Planning Webmaster

$31.58

Senior Water Resources Staff Project Manager

$41.10

Water Resources Specialist

$32.50Executive Director

$65.88

38



APPENDICES

1. Municipal Stormwater Questionnaire, May 2008 2. Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC) Representatives 3. Matrix of Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions, April 2010

4. Stormwater Ordinance Provisions Evaluation Questionnaire, April 2010

5. Municipal Ordinance Provisions Comparison Checklist, April 2010

6. Municipal Feedback Summary, June 2010

7. Updates to Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions Table, June 2010

8. Updates and Clarification of Selected Draft Proposed Mandatory Minimum

Ordinance Provisions, June 2010

9. Watersheds Plan, 2002 (included by reference)

10. Statement of Eligible Costs for the Preparation of Watersheds (See separately bound Appendix 10)

39

CHESTER COUNTY Act 167 Plan – PHASE I REPORT

APPENDIX 1

Municipal Stormwater Questionnaire, May 2008

Municipal Stormwater Questionnaire Please return by June 3, 2008

Please complete the following questionnaire regarding stormwater management issues facing your municipality (use additional pages if needed). Please fax, mail, or email your responses by May 23 to:

Chester County Water Resources Authority 601 Westtown Road, Suite 260, West Chester, PA 19380-0990

610-344-5401 (Fax) [email protected]

Municipality Name:_____________________________________________________ Name/title of person completing questionnaire_______________________________ Phone #_______________________________________________________ Email Address__________________________________________________ 1) What stormwater runoff problems are you experiencing in your municipality? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2) What other stormwater management issues are facing your municipality? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3) Is your current stormwater management ordinance adequately addressing concerns within your municipality about runoff from new development/redevelopment? If not, please explain. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 4) If you are an MS4 municipality, what are your concerns regarding the MS4 requirements and/or TMDL process and the expectations being placed on your municipality? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5) In what ways could Chester County be of assistance in helping your municipality to better meet its stormwater management needs? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please return to CCWRA by May 23, 2008

mailto:[email protected]


APPENDIX 2

Watershed Plan Advisory Committee (WPAC) Representatives

APPENDIX 2 WATERSHED PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WPAC) REPRESENTATIVES

Municipality Municipal Representative Alternate DesigneeName Name

1 Atglen Borough P. Gail Murphy2 Avondale Borough James W. MacCombie, PE PLS Albert F. Bryan3 Birmingham Township William J. Kirkpatrick James W. Hatfield4 Caln Township Jeffrey W. McClintock, PE, CFM Greg Prowant, AICP5 Charlestown Township Linda M. Csete Surender S. Kohli, P.E. 6 City Of Coatesville Kirby Hudson Don Wilkinson7 Downingtown Borough Timothy Frank Jack Law8 East Bradford Township Mark Lucas Mandie Cantlin9 East Brandywine Township Matthew Vanlew Scott Piersol

10 East Caln Township Barbara Kelly Daniel Daley, PE11 East Coventry Township Brady L. Flaharty, PE Bernard A. Rodgers12 East Fallowfield Township Jill Bukata Chris Della Penna13 East Goshen Township Mark Gordon Louis F. (Rick) Smith14 East Marlborough Township Jane R. Laslo Eddie R. Caudill15 East Nantmeal Township Linda Cluck Kathy Brumfield16 East Nottingham Township Ron Ragan Pat Brady17 East Pikeland Township Kim Moretti Mary Anne McCarthy, PE18 East Vincent Township Mary E. Flagg April Barkasi19 East Whiteland Township Terry H. Woodman Surender S. Kohli, P.E. 20 Easttown Township Brady L. Flaharty, PE Gene R. Williams21 Elk Township Stan Corbett Terri Kukoda22 Elverson Borough Lorrie Stolz23 Franklin Township Mary Anne McCarthy Jeff Eastburn24 Highland Township William F. Beers Ron Ragan25 Honey Brook Borough Kathy White Chris Falenchi26 Honey Brook Township Michael Brown Heath Eddy27 Kennett Square Borough Joseph C. Scalise Michael Short28 Kennett Township Robert Johnston Lisa Moore29 London Britain Township Glenn Frederick30 London Grove Township Steven C. Brown31 Londonderry Township Robert Johnston Janice Hearne32 Lower Oxford Township W. Ronald Kepler Ed Fisher33 Malvern Borough Sandra Kelley Daniel Daley, PE34 Modena Borough James Corle Ramona Pluck35 New Garden Township Donald L. Suckstorf Nate Cline36 New London Township Ronald Ragan Trish Fagan37 Newlin Township William Kelsall Barb Forney38 North Coventry Township Kevin F. Hennessey Mary Anne McCarthy, PE39 Oxford Borough Chuck Frantz40 Parkesburg Borough Jim Thomas Phillip Brath41 Penn Township Karen Busby W.A. Finnen42 Pennsbury Township Kathleen Howley Matt Houtman43 Phoenixville Borough Brian Watson E. Jean Krack44 Pocopson Township James W. Hatfield PE Susan Simone45 Sadsbury Township James W. MacCombie, PE PLS Stephanie Silvernail46 Schuylkill Township Mary Bird Mary Lou Lowrie47 South Coatesville Borough Denis E. Forrest Stephanie Smith-Dowridge48 South Coventry Township Millie Donnell Amanda Shaner49 Spring City Borough Thomas J. Motley, PE Dennis Rittenhouse50 Thornbury Township Brody Bovero Mike Conrad51 Tredyffrin Township Stephen Burgo, PE Erin McPherson, EIT52 Upper Oxford Township Ronald Ragan Jane Daggett

APPENDIX 2 WATERSHED PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WPAC) REPRESENTATIVES

Municipality Municipal Representative Alternate DesigneeName Name

53 Upper Uwchlan Township Dave Leh Cary B. Vargo54 Uwchlan Township Dan Daley Bruce McKenney55 Valley Township Karen E. Chandler Mike Ellis56 Wallace Township Betty Randzin57 Warwick Township Charles Jacob Joan Grimley58 West Bradford Township Jack M. Hines, Jr. Daniel Daley, PE59 West Brandywine Township Ronald A. Rambo, Jr. James W. MacCombie, PE60 West Caln Township Gary Dunlap Neil Vaughn61 West Chester Borough Bob Wilpizeski Mary Lou Lowrie62 West Fallowfield Township Bonita Walton Trudi Green63 West Goshen Township Richard J. Craig, PE, CSM Raymond Halvorsen64 West Grove Borough Sharon B. Nesbitt Timothy R. Nichols65 West Marlborough Township Albert J. Giannantonio,PE William W. Wylie66 West Nantmeal Township April Barkasi Susan Ward67 West Nottingham Township Bob Johnston Cindi King68 West Pikeland Township Stephen J. Ross Daniel Daley, PE69 West Sadsbury Township James Landis E. Barry Edwards70 West Vincent Township James Wendelgass71 West Whiteland Township John Weller Denise Serino72 Westtown Township Elaine L. Adler Robert Layman73 Willistown Township Hugh J. Murray, Sr. Michael Conrad74 Home Builders Association Gregory Newell PE, Bo Erixxon75 Mark Mitman76 Chester County Conservation District77 Chester County Planning Commission78 Chester County Water Resources Authority


APPENDIX 3

Matrix of Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions, April 2010

County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan – Phase I

DRAFT – April 6, 2010 – DRAFT

Matrix of Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions (with 3 Attachments)

1 DRAFT – April 6, 2010 – DRAFT

No.

Ordinance Component

Standards Currently in “Post Construction

Stormwater Management Model Ordinance”

(Chester County Water Resources Authority, 2005)

Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions

PROPOSED MANDATORY Minimum Ordinance Provisions (M1. through M22.) (Provisions at least equivalent to these would be required in all municipal ordinances)

M1. Applicability

Thresholds < 5,000 sq. ft.; and certain activities. (see p. 7 of Model Ordinance)

a. All sites with >1,000 sq. ft of proposed impervious area must comply with all requirements and standards of the ordinance. (municipalities may use a smaller sq. ft. threshold).

b. All sites with > 5,000 sq. ft. of proposed earth disturbance must comply with all requirements and standards of the ordinance. (municipalities may use a smaller sq. ft. threshold).

c. All sites with 500 to 999 sq. ft. of proposed impervious area must capture and infiltrate 1-inch of runoff from the impervious area, and must meet the requirements presented in the Simplified Method for O&M plan documents and recordation (see Attachment 1).

d. “Proposed impervious cover” is defined to include new, additional and replacement impervious cover.

M2. “No Harm” Exemption Removed

N/A If the ordinance previously allowed for exemption from the stormwater plan and design standards based on applicant’s claim that proposed project would cause “no harm” to others, or to downstream entities, such exemption must be removed prior to adoption. (See also M3.)

M3. No Waivers from Water Quality

Standard without Prior PADEP

Approval

N/A, included as an option for unique or undue hardships. (see p. 9)

If the municipality desires to include provisions allowing waivers, the following language must be included: “The municipality may, after consultation with PADEP, approve measures for meeting the state requirements of, and do not conflict with, state law including, but not limited to, the Clean Streams Law.” water quality requirements other than those in this Ordinance, provided that they meet the minimum requirements of, and do not conflict with, state law including, but not limited to, the Clean Streams Law.”

M4.

Primary Volume, Water Quality, and Infiltration

Control

a. For New Development Sites - HQ & EV Streams - no net increase in stormwater volume discharged from site for 2-yr.-24-hour storm. All others - No net increase in stormwater volume discharged from site for 1.5 inch -24-hour storm. Step down to retain min. infiltration

a. For New Development Sites, the post-development total runoff volume must not exceed the pre-development total runoff volume for all storms equal to or less than the 2-year 24-hour storm event, where the pre-development runoff is calculated using the New Development Ground Cover Assumptions. (see M7.)





No.

Ordinance Component





(cont’d) M4.

(continued) Primary Volume, Water Quality, and Infiltration

Control

(see p. 26). Minimum capture and treatment of at least 1 inch runoff from all impervious and disturbed areas. (Maryland method) (see p. 28)

b. For Redevelopment Sites - HQ & EV Streams – same as new dev. All others – same as new dev. Step down to retain min. infiltration. Option to achieve 10% reduction in volume discharged for 2-yr. event, existing to post dev. (see p .26). Minimum capture and treatment of at least 1” runoff from all impervious and disturbed areas. (Maryland method) (see p. 28)

b. For Redevelopment Sites, the post-development total runoff volume must be no greater than the pre-development total runoff volume for all storms equal to or less than the 2-year 24-hour storm event, where the pre-development runoff is calculated using Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumptions. (see M7.)

M5. Minimum Infiltration

Volume

Infiltrate a minimum of 0.5-inch runoff from all impervious and disturbed areas to be infiltrated. (see p. 27)

Infiltrate a minimum of 1-inch of runoff from all areas disturbed by construction to protect groundwater recharge and stream baseflows.

M6. Karst / Carbonate Geology

Considerations

Evaluate site conditions, including geology, soils and groundwater conditions, to determine available opportunities for infiltration that will minimize the formation of sinkholes. (see p. 17 and p. 32)

For Municipalities with Carbonate and/or Karst Geology: Evaluate site conditions, including geology, soils and groundwater conditions, to determine available opportunities for infiltration that will minimize the formation of sinkholes.

M7.

Ground Cover Assumptions for Pre-Development Volume, Water

Quality, Infiltration and

Peak Rate Calculations

New Development Ground Cover Assumptions – a. For areas of the site that are wooded, pre-development

volume and peak rate calculations must assume ground cover of “woods in good condition”; definition of “wooded” (see p. 22); agriculture – assume ground cover of “pasture”.

b. All other areas are modeled as meadow. 100% of existing impervious area to be modeled as meadow. (see p. 22)

Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumptions – a. Same as new development (see p. 22). b. Option to reduce impact is to reduce impervious area

by 20%. (see p. 21)

New Development Ground Cover Assumptions – a. For areas of the site that are wooded, pre-development volume and

peak rate calculations must assume ground cover of “woods in good condition”; definition of “wooded” (see p. 22 of 2005 Model Ordinance) must be included in the ordinance.

b. For all other areas of the site (including all impervious areas), pre-development volume and peak rate calculations must assume ground cover of “meadow”.

Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumptions – a. For areas of the site that are wooded, pre-development volume and


b. For areas of the site that are not wooded and not impervious





No.

Ordinance Component





(cont’d) M7.

(continued) Ground Cover

Assumptions for Pre-Development

Volume, WQ, Infiltration and Peak Rate Calc.

surfaces, pre-development volume and peak rate calculations must assume ground cover of “meadow”.

c. For all impervious areas of the site, pre-development volume and peak rate calculations must assume ground cover for at least 20% of impervious surface areas to be “meadow”. (Municipalities may require use of a larger percentage of impervious area – see Recommended Measure R1.)

M8. Peak Runoff Rate – Large Storms

a. For New Development Sites - Reduce the peak rates of runoff of the 2-year through 100-year storm events to not exceed the pre-development peak rate. Where runoff volume is not met, post-development peak up through 10-year event shall meet 2-year event pre-development. >10-year through 100-year, post development peak rate not to exceed to be 90% of pre-development peak rate. (see p. 20)

b. For Redevelopment Sites - One of the following: Reduce imp. area by 20%; achieve 10% reduction in volume discharged for 2-yr. event, existing to post dev.; reduce post dev. peak to 90% of pre-dev. peak, existing to post. (see p.21)

a. Reduce the peak rates of runoff of the 25-year through 100-year storm events to not exceed the pre-development peak rate.

b. All pre-development peak rates must be calculated using: 1. The New Development Ground Cover Assumption for all new

development sites. (see M7.) 2. The Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumption for

redevelopment sites. (see M7.)

M9.

Peak Runoff Rate – Smaller Storms

a. For New Development Sites - Reduce the peak rates of runoff of the 2-year through 100-year storm events to not exceed the pre-development peak rate. Where runoff volume is not met, post-development peak up through 10-year event shall meet 2-year event pre-development. >10-year through 100-year, post development peak rate not to exceed to be 90% of pre-development peak rate. (see p. 20)

b. For Redevelopment Sites - One of the following: Reduce imp. area by 20%; achieve 10% reduction in volume discharged for 2-yr. event, existing to post dev.; reduce post dev. peak to 90% of pre-dev. peak, existing to post. (see p. 21)

a. Reduce the peak rate of runoff of the 10-year storm event to not exceed the pre-development peak rate of the 2-year storm event.

b. Reduce the peak rate of runoff of the 2-year and 5-year storm events to not exceed the pre-development peak rate of the 1-year storm event.

c. All pre-development peak rates must be calculated using: 1. The New Development Ground Cover Assumption for all new







No.

Ordinance Component





M10. Stream Channel Erosion Protection

Attenuate runoff volume of 1-yr. 24-hour storm event for 24 hours. Release rate based on stream channel capacity. (see p. 20)

Provide > 24 hour attenuation of runoff from the 1-year 24 hour storm event.

M11. Erosion and Sediment Controls

N/A, text note recommending municipalities have erosion and sedimentation pollution control ordinances (see p. 6).

Requirements (included within stormwater ordinance or inclusion of reference to other ordinance where standards are presented) for municipal review of erosion and sediment control plans and minimum municipal standards for erosion and sediment controls (if desired by the municipality). OR Requirement to obtain approval from and comply with state and conservation district erosion and sediment control requirements.

M12. Protection of Downgradient

Properties from Off-site

Conveyance

a. There shall be no adverse impact upstream or downstream.

b. Address protection issues in SWM Plan. c. Provide drainage easements.

(see p. 11 & p. 19)

a. Drainage easement (or other legal agreement/approval) must be obtained for conveyance of discharges onto or through adjacent properties.

b. Conveyance must be designed to avoid erosion, flooding or other damage to the properties through which it is being conveyed.

c. There shall be no adverse impact upstream or downstream. d. Address protection issues in SWM plan.

M13. Prohibited Discharges and

Connections

N/A, SW pollution prevention plans for certain uses. (see p. 18)

a. Requirement prohibiting discharge of non-stormwater discharges into stormwater facilities (see Attachment 2).

b. “Dechlorinated swimming pool” water must be deleted from the list of “allowable” discharges (see Attachment 2).

c. Requirement prohibiting roof drains and sump pumps from discharging into stormwater and sanitary sewer systems.

d. Alterations of BMPs prohibited unless approved.

M14. “Hot Spots” Runoff Controls

Specific structural or pollution prevention practices may be required; pretreatment prior to infiltration required; certain uses required to prepare SW pollution prevention plan per EPA Industrial Stormwater NPDES requirements. (see p. 18)

Specific structural or pollution prevention practices may be required at municipal engineer’s discretion (e.g., pretreatment prior to infiltration required; certain activities required to prepare stormwater pollution prevention plan per EPA Industrial Stormwater NPDES requirements, etc.).





No.

Ordinance Component





M15. Municipal Right of Entry

N/A, per Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.

a. Requirement that municipal representatives have the right but not the responsibility to enter any stormwater management facility to inspect and/or repair.

b. Provision to provide an easement for access to stormwater facilities from public roadway.

M16. Municipal Inspections during

Construction

N/A Provision stating municipality has the right, but not the responsibility, to enter and inspect all facilities during construction, including: a. Municipal engineer inspects all phases of construction. b. Cease and desist order option. c. Final inspection.

M17. Long-Term Operation and Maintenance

Responsibilities

Requirements included for: a. Preparation of long-term O&M plan for approval by

municipality (p. 47). b. Designation of a specific entity responsible for

implementing the O&M plan (p. 48). c. Execution and public recordation of O&M agreement

between owner/operator and municipality (p. 48 & Appendix C).

d. Ensure sufficient financial resources are available to cover costs of long-term O&M (p. 46 & 47).

e. Others as shown in model ordinance (see p. 44).

Requirements included for: a. Preparation of long-term O&M plan for approval by municipality. b. Designation of a specific entity responsible for implementing the

O&M plan. c. Execution and public recordation of O&M agreement between

owner/operator and municipality. d. Ensure sufficient financial resources are available to cover costs of

long-term O&M. e. Long-term inspections. f. Performance guarantee.

M18.

Enforcement and Penalties

Per Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.

Provision for enforcement and penalties must be included within the ordinance. Items to be included: a. Enforcement problems and remedies. b. Suspension and revocation. c. Penalties (fines, injunctions, etc). d. Appeals (local, courts).

M19. References to PACD 1998 and

MD 2000 Manuals Removed

N/A All references to previous BMP and stormwater manuals must be removed and replaced with reference to the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (December 2006).





No.

Ordinance Component





M20. As-built Plans and Completion Certificate

N/A a. The applicant shall be responsible for submitting to the municipality as-built plans of all stormwater facilities included in the approved SWM Plan, and an explanation of any discrepancies with the approved plans.

b. The as-built submission shall include a certification of completion signed and sealed by a qualified professional licensed in PA verifying that all permanent stormwater facilities have been constructed according to the approved plans and specifications. If any licensed qualified professionals contributed to the SWM Plans, then a similar licensed qualified professional must also sign the completion certificate.

M21. Calculation

Methodology Present calculation methodologies, instructions such as: prohibiting weighted averaging of runoff coefficients (see pp. 26 & 27); source of rainfall depths for design storms (NOAA ATLAS 14 or equivalent); TR-55 or TR-20 where applicable, rational method up to 20 acres; list of allowable models, manuals, etc.; antecedent conditions, etc. (see p. 21)

Present calculation methodologies, instructions such as: prohibiting weighted averaging of runoff coefficients; source of rainfall depths for design storms (e.g., NOAA ATLAS 14 or equivalent); list of allowable methods, models, manuals, etc.; antecedent conditions; rational method up to 5 acres; etc.

M22.

Approval Required Prior to

Proceeding

N/A Include a statement clearly requiring municipal approval prior to proceeding with disturbance, such as: “Any of the activities regulated by this [ordinance/chapter], the preliminary or final approval of subdivision and/or land development plans, or the commencement of any regulated earth disturbance activity may not proceed until the Applicant or his/her agent has received written approval of a [stormwater management plan] from the [municipality] and an adequate erosion and sediment control plan review by [municipality] and the Chester County Conservation District (if required).”





No.

Ordinance Component





PROPOSED RECOMMENDED Minimum Ordinance Provisions (R1. to R11.)

(Consistency with the following standards would NOT be required, but would be recommended)

R1. Ground Cover Assumptions for Pre-Development Volume and Peak Rate Calculations

N/A It is strongly recommended that the following be used in place of the corresponding minimum measure listed above for Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumptions: c. For all impervious areas of the site,

1. Pre-development volume calculations must assume ground cover for at least 50% of impervious surface areas to be “meadow”. (Municipalities may require use of a larger percentage of impervious area)

2. Pre-development peak rate calculations must assume ground cover for at least 20% of impervious surface areas to be “meadow”. (Municipalities may require use of a larger percentage of impervious area.)

R2. Listed Exemptions Exemptions listed for certain activities. (see p. 7) Exemptions list as presented in Attachment 3.

R3. Long-Term Inspection

Responsibilities

Municipal inspection as deemed necessary pursuant to O&M agreement (see Appendix C).

Requirements included for: a. Inspection of each stormwater facility/BMP over the life span of the

feature. b. Designation of a specific entity responsible for the inspections

(municipality or owner or other). c. Frequency and occurrence of the inspections. d. Documentation and/or reporting of inspection results. e. Timeframe for remedy of deficiencies found during inspection(s). f. Performance guarantee.

R4. Required Contents of Stormwater Management

(SWM) Design Plans

Contents include: site conditions, grading plan, flow pathways, computations, E&S plan, detailed mapping, schedule. (see p. 13)

Include list of required content, and components to be presented in the stormwater management (SWM) design plans and/or specific submittal requirements (i.e., site conditions, grading plan, flow pathways, computations, E&S plan, pollution control BMPs, detailed mapping, schedule, sequencing, proof of required permits, engineer block , etc.).





No.

Ordinance Component





R5. Thermal Impacts Control

N/A Require an applicant to fulfill the requirements of the “Thermal Impact Analysis” for the “PAG-02 Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, NOI for Coverage under General or Individual Permit” if they cannot meet the volume control requirements.

R6. Waterways and Wetlands

Non-Disturbance Zone

N/A Prohibit disturbance of existing ground cover within 50 feet of top-of-bank of all waterways and edge of wetlands, except where otherwise permitted by state or local agencies. At the municipal engineer’s discretion, the non-disturbance buffer may be reduced because of setback or other site constraints, but never to be less than 10 feet.

R7. Design Standards for Stormwater

Practices

Infiltration facilities, open vegetated channels, detention/retention basins, conveyance systems, stormwater facility landscaping; reference MD manual (see p. 30-44)

Include design standards for key BMPs such as infiltration facilities, open vegetated channels, detention/retention basins, conveyance systems, stormwater facility landscaping; reference PA BMP Manual, etc.

R8. Fees – Plan Review and Construction

Inspection

N/A Schedule of fees (or reference to where the schedule of fees can be found if in another ordinance) for municipality review of proposed plans and construction inspections, administrative costs, etc.

R9. Fees – Long-term Inspections / Operations & Maintenance

N/A Schedule of fees for municipal costs associated with long-term inspections and/or maintenance/repair of completed stormwater management facilities.

R10. Forested Riparian Buffers

N/A Include in this ordinance or other ordinance, standards for the protection or creation of forested riparian buffers along all waterways during new development and redevelopment activities.

R11. Additional Floodplain

Management

Maintain flood carrying capacity; do not increase base flood elevations; reference floodplain standards (see p. 11)

Maintain flood carrying capacity; do not increase base flood elevations; reference floodplain standards.





No.

Ordinance Component





PROPOSED MANDATORY DEFINITIONS (MD1. to MD3.) (these would apply if the term is used in the ordinance)

MD1. Earth Disturbance Activity

N/A

A construction or other human activity which disturbs the surface of land including, but not limited to, clearing and grubbing, grading, excavations, embankments, road maintenance activities, land development, building construction, and the moving, deposition, stockpiling, or storing of soil, rock, or earth materials.

MD2. Regulated Activity N/A Any Earth Disturbance Activity or any activities that involve the

alteration or development of land in a manner that may affect stormwater runoff.

MD3. Regulated Earth Disturbance

Activity

N/A Any activity involving Earth Disturbance subject to regulation under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 92, Chapter 102, or the Clean Streams Law.

PROPOSED RECOMMENDED DEFINITIONS (RD1. to RD5.) (these would apply if the term is used in the ordinance)

RD1. Impervious Surface

A surface, which has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is resistant to infiltration by water. It includes semi-pervious surfaces such as compacted clayey soils, as well as most conventionally surfaced streets, roofs, sidewalks, parking lots, and other similar surfaces. Net Increase of Impervious Surface refers to the difference between the existing impervious coverage and the total impervious surface proposed. (see p. 51)

A surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by water, including but not limited to buildings, structures, and paved areas such as driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. For the purposes of determining compliance with [this ordinance], stone surfaces routinely used for vehicle parking and movement shall be considered impervious.

RD2. New Development Any activity regulated by this ordinance that is not considered a redevelopment as defined in this ordinance. (see p. 52)

Any new construction or Regulated Activity on previously undeveloped land, and/or any Regulated Activity that is not considered a Redevelopment Activity as defined in this Ordinance. Certain types of New Development Activities may be exempt from certain portions of this Ordinance as described in Section ________.





No.

Ordinance Component





RD3. Redevelopment An existing, developed property and/or a graded, altered and compacted site (as of or after the date of adoption of this Ordinance) that is proposed for reconstruction. (see p. 52)

Any Regulated Activity that involves demolition, removal, reconstruction, or replacement of existing impervious surface(s). Certain types of Redevelopment Activities may be exempt from certain portions of this Ordinance as described in Section ________.

RD4. Undeveloped Land N/A An area of land or portion of a property with no existing impervious surfaces.

RD5. Others Additional definitions listed. (see pp. 49 – 55) All other terms and definitions contained in the Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance (CCWRA, 2005) are recommended for consideration for municipal stormwater ordinances. (pp. 49-55)


APPENDIX 4

Stormwater Ordinance Provisions Evaluation

Questionnaire, April 2010


Send Written Responses to Chester County Water Resources Authority by May 28, 2010 1

Stormwater Ordinance Provisions Evaluation Questionnaire

PLEASE SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS BY MAY 28, 2010 Send via email to [email protected], fax to 610-344-5401 or mail to: Chester County Water Resources Authority, PO Box 2747, West Chester, PA 19380

Municipality: ________________________________________________________________

Name of Individual Filling Out Questionnaire: ___________________________________ Position Title: ________________________________________________________________

1. Does your municipality have an adopted stormwater ordinance? Yes No

a. If the answer to #1 is Yes, 1) what year was it adopted/last revised? ________________ 2) does your current ordinance meet your needs? Yes No

If the answer to 2) is No, what are the shortcomings or problems? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

3) where is the ordinance codified?

Separate/stand alone Ordinance Subdivision/Land Development Ordinance Zoning Ordinance Building Code Other

b. If the answer to #1 is No, do you have other ordinances or regulations

that relate to (check all that apply): Stormwater Management standards Drainage/conveyance of runoff Erosion and Sediment Control Peak Rate control of stormwater runoff Water quality treatment of stormwater runoff Infiltration of stormwater runoff Use of best management practices in site design

2. Can your municipality provide a representative to participate in the future

Phase II development of the County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan (including attending Watershed Plan Advisory Committee meetings, document reviews, etc.)? Yes No

3. After comparing your municipality’s standards with the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions, would you determine that the majority of standards within your current municipal ordinance are: similar to the ones proposed, or less restrictive, or more restrictive, or (continued on next page)



some are less and some are more restrictive, or don’t know, or does not apply (municipality does not have a stormwater ordinance or

regulations).

4. What is your overall impression of the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions? Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions are generally Agreeable Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions are generally Agreeable, but with

some concerns Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions are generally Not Agreeable, but some

Provisions Agreeable Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions are Not Agreeable, with significant

concerns Please briefly share your support, or concerns regarding the draft stormwater standards (if easier, please feel free to type your response on a separate sheet, referring to Question 4):

5. After reviewing the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions, please list the 5 Proposed Provisions that your municipality is MOST agreeable to.

a. 1____________________________________________________________ b. 2____________________________________________________________

c. 3____________________________________________________________

d. 4____________________________________________________________

e. 5____________________________________________________________

6. After reviewing the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions, please list the

5 Proposed Provisions that your municipality is LEAST agreeable to.

a. 1____________________________________________________________

b. 2____________________________________________________________

c. 3____________________________________________________________

d. 4____________________________________________________________

e. 5____________________________________________________________



7. When the County-wide 167 Plan and its minimum stormwater standards and model ordinance are finalized (during a future Phase II), would your municipality likely prefer to (choose one): Adopt a complete, revised County-wide Model Ordinance, or Only incorporate the required provisions within your municipality’s

current stormwater ordinance, or Don’t know. (Reason you don’t know: _______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________)

8. Should the final county-wide minimum provisions include more restrictive

standards for stormwater systems discharging to: EV/HQ streams? Yes No Impaired streams? Yes No Stormwater TMDL streams? Yes No

9. Does your current ordinance include separate requirements for redevelopment, as well as new development? Yes No

a. If the answer to #9 is Yes, comparing your new development standards

with your redevelopment standards, are your redevelopment stormwater standards (choose one): Less restrictive than your new development standards, or More restrictive than your new development standards or Similar to your new development standards.

10. For the County-wide 167 Plan, how should the county-wide stormwater

standards deal with redevelopment standards? (choose one) Less restrictive than the new development standards, or More restrictive than the new development standards, or Similar to the new development standards.

11. Are there any other standards not presented in the Draft Proposed Ordinance

Provisions that your municipality would like to see included in the county-wide minimum standards? Please indicate if the standard(s) should be mandatory or recommended.



12. The Matrix of Proposed Draft Ordinance Provisions contains both proposed mandatory and proposed recommended minimum provisions.

a. Are there proposed “mandatory” provisions you think should be changed to “recommended”? If so, list below:

b. Are there proposed “recommended” provisions that you think should be “mandatory”?

13.Please feel free to provide us with any other comments and feedback you feel

would be important to share with us so that we can develop the future scope of work for Phase II to complete a County-wide Plan that best meets the needs, interests and concerns of all municipalities. (If you wish to type out a response, attach a separate sheet and refer to Question 12.)

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your responses !!!

Your input is essential to our understanding of the municipal perspectives on stormwater standards and stormwater ordinances. With continuing input from municipalities through a

future Phase II a quality county-wide stormwater plan can be developed that will assist municipalities in protecting

public safety, private and public property, and Chester County’s water resources.


APPENDIX 5

Municipal Ordinance Provisions

Comparison Checklist, April 2010


Comparison Checklist – Your Current Municipal Standards compared to the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions

Checklist Completed by:____________________________Municipality_________________Date_______ Please review and complete this Checklist which asks you to compare your municipality’s current stormwater standards with the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions presented in the “Matrix”. Please mark an “X” in the corresponding column if YOUR municipality’s standard is: similar, less restrictive, more restrictive, don’t know or does not apply, than the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions.

Please submit your responses to the Chester County Water Resources Authority by May 28, 2010

When compared with the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions in the adjacent column:

Is Your Municipal Stormwater Standard… (please mark an “X” in the corresponding column)

No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply

Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions (repeated from column four of the “Matrix”)

PROPOSED MANDATORY Minimum Ordinance Provisions (M1. through M22.) (Provisions at least equivalent to these would be required in all municipal ordinances)

M1. Applicability Thresholds





M2. “No Harm” Exemption Removed

If the ordinance previously allowed for exemption from the stormwater plan and design standards based on applicant’s claim that proposed project would cause “no harm” to others, or to downstream entities, such exemption must be removed prior to adoption. (See also M3.)

M3. No Waivers from Water Quality

Standard without Prior PADEP

Approval

If the municipality desires to include provisions allowing waivers, the following language must be included: “The municipality may, after consultation with PADEP, approve measures for meeting the state requirements of, and do not conflict with, state law including, but not limited to, the Clean Streams Law.” water quality requirements other than those in this Ordinance, provided that they meet the minimum requirements of, and do not conflict with, state law including, but not limited to, the Clean Streams Law.”



2 Please submit your responses to the Chester County Water Resources Authority by May 28, 2010



No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


M4.


Control


b. For Redevelopment Sites, the post-development total runoff

volume must be no greater than the pre-development total runoff volume for all storms equal to or less than the 2-year 24-hour storm event, where the pre-development runoff is calculated using Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumptions. (see M7.)

M5. Minimum Infiltration

Volume

Infiltrate a minimum of 1-inch of runoff from all areas disturbed by construction to protect groundwater recharge and stream baseflows.

M6. Karst / Carbonate Geology

Considerations

For Municipalities with Carbonate and/or Karst Geology: Evaluate site conditions, including geology, soils and groundwater conditions, to determine available opportunities for infiltration that will minimize the formation of sinkholes.

M7.

Ground Cover Assumptions for Pre-Development Volume, Water

Quality, Infiltration and

Peak Rate Calculations

New Development Ground Cover Assumptions – a. For areas of the site that are wooded, pre-development volume and


b. For all other areas of the site (including all impervious areas), pre-development volume and peak rate calculations must assume ground cover of “meadow”.






No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


(cont’d) M7.

(continued) Ground Cover

Assumptions for Pre-Development

Volume, WQ, Infiltration and Peak Rate Calc.

Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumptions – a. For areas of the site that are wooded, pre-development volume and


b. For areas of the site that are not wooded and not impervious surfaces, pre-development volume and peak rate calculations must assume ground cover of “meadow”.

c. For all impervious areas of the site, pre-development volume and peak rate calculations must assume ground cover for at least 20% of impervious surface areas to be “meadow”. (Municipalities may require use of a larger percentage of impervious area – see Recommended Measure R1.)

M8. Peak Runoff Rate

– Large Storms a. Reduce the peak rates of runoff of the 25-year through 100-year

storm events to not exceed the pre-development peak rate. b. All pre-development peak rates must be calculated using:

1. The New Development Ground Cover Assumption for all new development sites. (see M7.)

2. The Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumption for redevelopment sites. (see M7.)

M9.

Peak Runoff Rate – Smaller Storms

a. Reduce the peak rate of runoff of the 10-year storm event to not exceed the pre-development peak rate of the 2-year storm event.

b. Reduce the peak rate of runoff of the 2-year and 5-year storm events to not exceed the pre-development peak rate of the 1-year storm event.

c. All pre-development peak rates must be calculated using: 1. The New Development Ground Cover Assumption for all new








No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


M10. Stream Channel Erosion Protection

Provide > 24 hour attenuation of runoff from the 1-year 24 hour storm event.

M11. Erosion and Sediment Controls

Requirements (included within stormwater ordinance or inclusion of reference to other ordinance where standards are presented) for municipal review of erosion and sediment control plans and minimum municipal standards for erosion and sediment controls (if desired by the municipality). OR Requirement to obtain approval from and comply with state and conservation district erosion and sediment control requirements.


Properties from Off-site

Conveyance



c. There shall be no adverse impact upstream or downstream d. Address protection issues in SWM plan.

M13. Prohibited Discharges and

Connections




d. Alterations of BMPs prohibited unless approved. M14. “Hot Spots”

Runoff Controls Specific structural or pollution prevention practices may be required at

municipal engineer’s discretion (e.g., pretreatment prior to infiltration required; certain activities required to prepare stormwater pollution prevention plan per EPA Industrial Stormwater NPDES requirements, etc.).






No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


M15. Municipal Right of Entry

a. Requirement that municipal representatives have the right but not the responsibility to enter any stormwater management facility to inspect and/or repair.


M16. Municipal

Inspections during Construction

Provision stating municipality has the right, but not the responsibility, to enter and inspect all facilities during construction, including: a. Municipal engineer inspects all phases of construction. b. Cease and desist order option. c. Final inspection.


Responsibilities

Requirements included for: a. Preparation of long-term O&M plan for approval by municipality. b. Designation of a specific entity responsible for implementing the

O&M plan. c. Execution and public recordation of O&M agreement between

owner/operator and municipality. d. Ensure sufficient financial resources are available to cover costs of

long-term O&M. e. Long-term inspections. f. Performance guarantee.

M18.

Enforcement and Penalties

Provision for enforcement and penalties must be included within the ordinance. Items to be included: a. Enforcement problems and remedies. b. Suspension and revocation. c. Penalties (fines, injunctions, etc). d. Appeals (local, courts).






No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


M19. References to PACD 1998 and

MD 2000 Manuals Removed

All references to previous BMP and stormwater manuals must be removed and replaced with reference to the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (December 2006).

M20. As-built Plans and Completion Certificate

a. The applicant shall be responsible for submitting to the municipality as-built plans of all stormwater facilities included in the approved SWM Plan, and an explanation of any discrepancies with the approved plans.


M21. Calculation Methodology

Present calculation methodologies, instructions such as: prohibiting weighted averaging of runoff coefficients; source of rainfall depths for design storms (e.g., NOAA ATLAS 14 or equivalent); list of allowable methods, models, manuals, etc.; antecedent conditions; rational method up to 5 acres; etc.

M22.

Approval Required Prior to

Proceeding

Include a statement clearly requiring municipal approval prior to proceeding with disturbance, such as: “Any of the activities regulated by this [ordinance/chapter], the preliminary or final approval of subdivision and/or land development plans, or the commencement of any regulated earth disturbance activity may not proceed until the Applicant or his/her agent has received written approval of a [stormwater management plan] from the [municipality] and an adequate erosion and sediment control plan review by [municipality] and the Chester County Conservation District (if required).”






No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


PROPOSED RECOMMENDED (R1. to R11.) Minimum Ordinance Provisions (Consistency with the following standards would NOT be required, but would be recommended)

R1. Ground Cover Assumptions for Pre-Development Volume and Peak Rate Calculations

It is strongly recommended that the following be used in place of the corresponding minimum measure listed above for Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumptions: c. For all impervious areas of the site,

1. Pre-development volume calculations must assume ground cover for at least 50% of impervious surface areas to be “meadow”. (Municipalities may require use of a larger percentage of impervious area)

2. Pre-development peak rate calculations must assume ground cover for at least 20% of impervious surface areas to be “meadow”. (Municipalities may require use of a larger percentage of impervious area.)

R2. Listed Exemptions Exemptions list as presented in Attachment 3.

R3. Long-Term Inspection

Responsibilities

Requirements included for: a. Inspection of each stormwater facility/BMP over the life span of the

feature. b. Designation of a specific entity responsible for the inspections

(municipality or owner or other). c. Frequency and occurrence of the inspections. d. Documentation and/or reporting of inspection results. e. Timeframe for remedy of deficiencies found during the

inspection(s). f. Performance guarantee.






No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


R4. Required Contents of Stormwater Management

(SWM) Design Plans

Include list of required content, and components to be presented in the stormwater management (SWM) design plans and/or specific submittal requirements (i.e., site conditions, grading plan, flow pathways, computations, E&S plan, pollution control BMPs, detailed mapping, schedule, sequencing, proof of required permits, engineer block , etc.).

R5. Thermal Impacts Control

Require an applicant to fulfill the requirements of the “Thermal Impact Analysis” for the “PAG-02 Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, NOI for Coverage under General or Individual Permit” if they cannot meet the volume control requirements.

R6. Waterways and Wetlands

Non-Disturbance Zone

Prohibit disturbance of existing ground cover within 50 feet of top-of-bank of all waterways and edge of wetlands, except where otherwise permitted by state or local agencies. At the municipal engineer’s discretion, the non-disturbance buffer may be reduced because of setback or other site constraints, but never to be less than 10 feet.

R7. Design Standards for Stormwater

Practices

Include design standards for key BMPs such as infiltration facilities, open vegetated channels, detention/retention basins, conveyance systems, stormwater facility landscaping; reference PA BMP Manual, etc.

R8. Fees – Plan Review and Construction

Inspection

Schedule of fees (or reference to where the schedule of fees can be found if in another ordinance) for municipality review of proposed plans and construction inspections, administrative costs, etc.

R9. Fees – Long-term Inspections / Operations & Maintenance

Schedule of fees for municipal costs associated with long-term inspections and/or maintenance/repair of completed stormwater management facilities.






No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


R10. Forested Riparian Buffers

Include in this ordinance or other ordinance, standards for the protection or creation of forested riparian buffers along all waterways during new development and redevelopment activities.

R11. Additional Floodplain

Management

Maintain flood carrying capacity; do not increase base flood elevations; reference floodplain standards.

PROPOSED MANDATORY DEFINITIONS (MD1. to MD3.) (these would only apply if the term is used in the ordinance)

MD1. Earth Disturbance Activity

A construction or other human activity which disturbs the surface of land including, but not limited to, clearing and grubbing, grading, excavations, embankments, road maintenance activities, land development, building construction, and the moving, deposition, stockpiling, or storing of soil, rock, or earth materials.

MD2. Regulated Activity Any Earth Disturbance Activity or any activities that involve the alteration or development of land in a manner that may affect stormwater runoff.

MD3. Regulated Earth Disturbance

Activity

Any activity involving Earth Disturbance subject to regulation under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 92, Chapter 102, or the Clean Streams Law.

PROPOSED RECOMMENDED DEFINITIONS (RD1. to RD5.) (these would only apply if the term is used in the ordinance)

RD1. Impervious Surface

A surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by water, including but not limited to buildings, structures, and paved areas such as driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. For the purposes of determining compliance with [this ordinance], stone surfaces routinely used for vehicle parking and movement shall be considered impervious.






No.

Ordinance Component

Similar

Less

Restrictive

More

Restrictive

Don’t Know

Does Not

Apply


RD2. New Development Any new construction or Regulated Activity on previously undeveloped land, and/or any Regulated Activity that is not considered a Redevelopment Activity as defined in this Ordinance. Certain types of New Development Activities may be exempt from certain portions of this Ordinance as described in Section ________.

RD3. Redevelopment Any Regulated Activity that involves demolition, removal, reconstruction, or replacement of existing impervious surface(s). Certain types of Redevelopment Activities may be exempt from certain portions of this Ordinance as described in Section ________.

RD4. Undeveloped Land An area of land or portion of a property with no existing impervious surfaces.

RD5. Others All other terms and definitions contained in the Post Construction Stormwater Management Model Ordinance (CCWRA, 2005) are recommended for consideration for municipal stormwater ordinances. (p. 49-55)


APPENDIX 6

Municipal Feedback Summary, June 2010

County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan – PHASE I DRAFT - JUNE 10, 2010

County-wide 167 Plan Municipal Feedback Summary *Response Rate (as of June 7, 2010) for Questionnaire: 62 of 73 municipalities (85%).

Note: 4 only filled in the first couple of questions, such as if they had an ordinance (yes). *Response Rate (as of June 7, 2010) for Comparison Checklist: 59 of 73 municipalities (81%). Note: 1 was minimally filled out. *In combination, a total of 63 municipalities (86%) submitted either a Questionnaire and/or Checklist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

County-wide 167 Municipal Questionnaire Response Summary - Question #1. 59 out of 62 (95%) have a stormwater ordinance; 3 do not. Majority of ordinances date from 2003 -2010; handful date from 1981, 1989 and 1999. Does your ordinance meet your needs? 50 out of 58 said yes; 8 said no

• If no, why: No key themes, but responses were lack of volume control and water quality control, administratively burdensome.

Question #2. 54 out of 56 (96%) who answered will participate. 6 skipped question. Question #3. Comparison with municipal standards …

3. T he ma jo rity o f s ta nd a rd s within YOUR curre nt munic ip a l o rd ina nce a re (58 a nswe re d , 4 sk ip p e d q ue stio n):

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

sp

on

se

s

Series1 21 17 4 16 0 2

similar less

restrictivemore

restrictivesome less some more

don’t know N/A

• Very few have more restrictive standards than the proposed countywide • 25 of 58 (43%) have similar or more restrictive

1


Question #4. Overall impression of Draft Ordinance Provisions…

4. W ha t is yo ur o ve ra ll imp re ss io n o f the Dra ft Pro p o se d Ord ina nce Pro v is io ns?

(56 Answe re d , 6 Sk ip p e d Que stio n)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

sp

on

se

s

Series1 6 44 5 1

Agreeable Agreeable, with some

concernsNot Agreeable, some

AgreeableNot Agreeable, with significant concerns

• 50 out of 56 (89%) responded that they were “Agreeable”, or “Agreeable with some concerns” • 6 out of 56 (11%) were “Not Agreeable” or “Not Agreeable, but some Provisions Agreeable” • Municipalities who were “Not Agreeable” or “Not Agreeable, but some Provisions Agreeable”

shared these concerns:

o Least agreeable to M1c and d; R8&9 fees for municipal costs should be mandatory; would like CCCD to do E&S and O&M inspections to reduce duplication of efforts, allow the municipality to meet MCM4 and 5; they are awaiting DEP MS4 model ordinance.

o Concerned with the mandatory infiltration rate without consideration of location and local conditions; shared liability with that homeowner if infiltration is forced on properties since municipality enforces the ordinance; concerns with lowest threshold of applicability; no waivers; some of long-term O&M provision burdensome; MD1 road maintenance should not be considered an earth disturbance activity; R1C1 restrict redevelopment; no special consideration should be provided for EV/HQ etc; Simplified Approach a municipal liability.

o Concerned with cost burden; agree to special provisions for EV/HQ streams etc; want mandatory agricultural conservation and nutrient management plans for farms of a minimum size).

o Concerned because of karst geology in their municipality and the will have serious hardships for complying with the current ordinance; currently their ordinance does not meet their needs because they grant too many waivers; unique conditions in a borough.

o Concerned with redevelopment ground cover assumptions. o Concerned that proposed impervious cover definition includes replacement.

2


Question #5. Most Popular Responses for MOST AGREEABLE Provisions:

1. M4 (22 out of 53)– Volume, Water Quality and Infiltration Control (updated to be Thermal Control) 2. M17 (17 out of 53) – Long Term Operation & Maintenance 3. M15 (17 out of 53) – Municipal Right of Entry 4. M20 (14 out of 53) – As-Built Plans 5. M7, M8 and M9 (all had 13 out of 53) – Ground Cover Assumptions; Peak Runoff Rate for Large

Storms; Peak Runoff Rate for Small Storms Question #6. Most Popular Responses for LEAST AGREEABLE Provisions:

1. M9 (26 out of 53) – Peak Runoff Rate for Small Storms 2. M3 (25 out of 53) – No Waivers 3. M1 (20 out of 53) – Applicability Thresholds, particularly M1c or the 500 to 999 sq ft provision. 4. M5 and M17 (both had 15 out of 53) – Minimum Infiltration; Long Term Operation & Maintenance 5. M7 (11 out of 53) – Ground Cover Assumptions, particularly for Redevelopment

Which Provisions are Most and Least Agreeable? (53 Answered, 9 Skipped Question)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

M1Threshold

M3 Waivers M4 Vol WQ M5 Infiltr M7 GroundCover

M8 PeakRate Lg

M9 PeakRate Sm

M15 RightEntry

M17 O&M M20 AsBuiltPlans

Provision

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

Least AgreeableMost Agreeable

• M7, M9, and M17 were chosen as Least and Most Agreeable Provisions by different municipalities. Question #7. Adoption of Ordinance vs. Incorporation of the Required Provisions:

• 16 out of 56 (29%) would adopt a complete Ordinance. • 31 out of 56 (55%) would incorporate provisions only. • 9 out of 56 (16%) were undecided at this time.

Question #8. Should county-wide provisions include more restrictive standards for EV/HQ; Impaired Streams; or TMDL:

• 39 out of 53 (74%) felt more restrictive standards should be included for EV/HQ streams. • 35 out of 53 (66%) felt more restrictive standards should be included for Impaired streams. • 32 out of 53 (63%) felt more restrictive standards should be included for Stormwater TMDL streams.

3


Question #9. Does your current ordinance have separate requirements for redevelopment:

• 41 out of 56 (73%) do not have separate redevelopment standards. Question #10. How should the County-wide plan deal with redevelopment standards:

• 27 out of 52 (52%) want less restrictive standards than new development standards. • 21 out of 52 (40%) want similar standards to new development. • 4 out of 52 (8%) want redevelopment standards stricter than new development standards.

Question #11. Any other standards not presented in county-wide draft proposed provisions that should:

• Credit for net difference in impervious cover if new cover is less than existing cover. • Landscaping provisions for stormwater management facilities (like requirements for screening or

buffers etc). • Water quality standards for agricultural land uses and requirements of landowner to submit

conservation and nutrient management plans to municipality. • Some provision for regional facilities to offset urbanized areas. • Soil testing standards, soil evaluation and infiltration testing requirements.

Question #12. Mandatory provisions that should be recommended:

• M9 (11 responses) – Peak Rate Runoff for Small Storms • M3 (11 responses) – Waivers • M1 (10 responses) – Applicability Thresholds, particularly the lowest threshold • M20 (9 responses) – As-Built Plans and Completion Certificate

Recommended provisions that should be Mandatory: • R4 (9 responses)– Contents of the Stormwater Management Plan • R6 (7 responses) – Waterways and Wetlands Non-Disturbance • R2 (5 responses) – No Harm Exemption Removed • R3 (5 responses) – Long-term Inspection Responsibilities • R10 (5 responses) – Forested Riparian Buffers • R7 (4 responses) – Design Standards for Stormwater Practices • R11 (4 responses) – Additional Floodplain Management

Question #13. Other key themes from feedback, including concerns regarding the proposed provisions:

• Concern that some of these standards would create a financial hardship for homeowners. • Suggestion to incentivize redevelopment with less restrictive standards. • County-wide planning is a good idea, but would still prefer some sub-area release rates. • County-wide Plan should not result in too much or burdensome oversight by DEP. • Urbanized municipalities, especially boroughs, concerned that some of these provisions are too

restrictive and they will be unable to fully comply. (Ex. Roof drain requirements in a borough setting).

4


County-wide 167 Municipal Comparison Checklist Response Summary - When compared with the Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions, municipal stormwater standards are: Please note that some responders marked an “X” for the entire provision and did not respond to subsections, such as providing their response for M1a. versus M1b. and M1c. PROPOSED MANDATORY

M1: Applicability Thresholds (Clarified) ≥ 1,000 sq. ft. must comply - 32 of 58 (55%) municipalities have less restrictive standards 23 of 58 (40%) have similar or more restrictive

≥ 5,000 sq. ft. must comply - 20 of 58 (35%) municipalities have less restrictive 35 of 58 (60%) have similar or more restrictive

500 to 999 sq. ft. with Simplified Method - 30 of 58 (52%) municipalities have less restrictive 19 of 58 (33%) have similar or more restrictive Proposed Impervious Cover definition - 16 of 56 (29%) municipalities have less restrictive 32 of 56 (57%) have similar or more restrictive M5: Minimum Infiltration Volume

27 of 57 (47%) municipalities have less restrictive standards 24 of 57 (42%) similar or more restrictive

N/A – 6 responses M7: Ground Cover Assumptions –

New Development: If wooded, assume “woods in good condition” – 41 of 58 (71%) similar

For all other areas, including impervious, assume “meadow” – 41 of 57 (72%) similar Redevelopment: If wooded, assume “woods in good condition” – 39 of 58 (67%) similar or more For all other areas, excluding impervious, assume “meadow” – 37 of 58 (64%) similar or more For impervious, assume at least 20% meadow – 26 of 58 (45%) less restrictive 24 of 58 (41%) similar or more M9: Peak Runoff Rate for Smaller Storms -

Reduce peak 10 yr. to 2 yr. – 27 of 57 (47%) less restrictive 27 of 57 (47%) similar or more restrictive

Reduce Peak 2 and 5 yr. to 1 yr. - 38 of 57 (67%) less restrictive

12 of 57 (21%) similar or more restrictive M17: Long-Term Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities - (Clarified)

Long-term O&M Plan for approval by municipality - 43 of 58 (74%) similar Responsible party to Implement O&M Plan - 43 of 58 (74%) similar Ensure Long-term O&M financial resources – 23 of 58 (40%) less restrictive 25 of 58 (43%) similar or more restrictive Performance guarantee - 21 of 57 (37%) less restrictive 25 of 57 (44%) similar or more restrictive

5


PROPOSED RECOMMENDED R2: Listed Exemptions - 14 of 54 (26%) less restrictive

29 of 54 (54%) similar or more restrictive 10 of 54 (19%) N/A R3: Long–Term Inspection Responsibilities- Inspection over life span – 34 of 58 (59%) similar or more restrictive Designate Entity to Inspect - 35 of 58 (60%) similar or more restrictive

R4: Required Contents of SWM Design Plans - 49 of 58 (85%) similar R6: Waterways & Wetland Non-Disturbance Zone - 19 of 58 (33%) less restrictive

34 of 58 (59%) similar or more restrictive R7: Design Standards For Stormwater Practices - 38 of 56 (68%) similar or more restrictive R10: Forested Riparian Buffers - 30 of 57 (53%) similar or more restrictive R11: Additional Floodplain Management - 40 of 57 (70%) similar or more restrictive

6


APPENDIX 7

Updates to

Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions Table, June 2010

County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan – Phase I DRAFT – June 10, 2010

Updates to Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions Updates and Clarifications of Selected Draft Provisions

and Provisions Required by PADEP

Ordinance Component PADEP requirement, if applicable: 1 or 2

(see footnotes below)

Updates and Clarifications (see attachment)

M1. Applicability Thresholds 2 With Clarification Proposed M2. “No Harm’ Exemption Removed 1 M3. No Waivers from Water Quality Standard without Prior PADEP Approval 1 With Clarification Proposed

M4. Volume, WQ and Infiltration 1, 2 With Clarification Proposed M5. Minimum Infiltration Volume 2 M6. Karst/Carbonate Geology Considerations

M7. Ground Cover Assumptions for Pre-Dev., WQ, Infiltration, and Peak Rate Calcs. 2

M8. Peak Runoff Rate – Large Storms 1, 2 M9. Peak Runoff Rate – Smaller Storms 1, 2 M10. Stream Channel Erosion Protection 2 M11. Erosion and Sediment Controls 1 M12. Downgradient Conveyance 1 With Clarification Proposed M13. Prohibited Discharges and Connections 1 With Clarification Proposed

M14. “Hot Spots” Runoff Controls M15. Municipal Right of Entry With Clarification Proposed M16. Municipal Inspections during Construction With Clarification Proposed

M17. Long-Term Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities 2 With Clarification Proposed

M18. Enforcement and Penalties 2 M19. References to PACD 1998 and MD 2000 Manuals Removed 1

M20. As-built Plans and Completion Certificate 1 With Clarification Proposed

M21. Calculation Methodology M22. Approval Required Prior to Proceeding 1

1 – Required by PADEP to be included as mandatory, and for which PADEP established the minimum quantitative standard. 2 – Required by PADEP to be included as mandatory, and for which PADEP allows the WPAC to establish the minimum quantitative standard.


APPENDIX 8

Updates and Clarification of

Selected Draft Proposed Mandatory Minimum Ordinance Provisions, June 2010


June 10, 2010 – Updates and Clarification of Selected Draft Proposed MANDATORY MINIMUM Ordinance Provisions

(Underlined text are additions; text crossed out has been removed)

DRAFT – June 10, 2010 – DRAFT 1

No. Ordinance Component

Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions (as presented on April 6, 2010 Matrix)

CLARIFIED on June 10, 2010 Draft Proposed Ordinance Provisions

M1. Applicability Thresholds 2







c. All sites with 500 to 999 sq. ft. of proposed impervious area must capture and infiltrate 1-inch of runoff from the impervious area, and must meet the requirements presented in the Simplified Method for O&M plan documents and recordation (see Attachment 1). [Moved to recommended.]


M3.

Alternative Approach

for Control Measures 1

No Waivers from

Water Quality Standard without

Prior PADEP Approval

If the municipality desires to include provisions allowing waivers, the following language must be included: “The municipality may, after consultation with PADEP, approve measures for meeting the state requirements of, and do not conflict with, state law including, but not limited to, the Clean Streams Law.” water quality requirements other than those in this Ordinance, provided that they meet the minimum requirements of, and do not conflict with, state law including, but not limited to, the Clean Streams Law.

If the Municipality desires to include provisions allowing waivers, the following language must be included in the ordinance: “For any site with proposed regulated earth disturbance equal to or greater than one acre where, after a close evaluation of alternative site designs, it proves to be impracticable to meet the mandatory minimum volume and infiltration control standards of this ordinance onsite, the Municipality may approve measures other than those in this ordinance after consultation with and evaluation by PADEP that the alternate site design meets State water quality requirements and does not conflict with State law including, but not limited to, the Clean Streams Law. For any site with proposed regulated earth disturbance that is less than one acre where, after a close evaluation of alternative site designs, it proves to be impracticable to meet any one or more of the mandatory minimum standards of this ordinance onsite, the Municipality may approve measures other than those in this ordinance.” The term “regulated earth disturbance” is defined to mean any activity involving earth disturbance subject to regulation under 25 Pa. Code 92, 25 Pa. Code 102, or the Clean Streams Law.








M4.


Thermal Control 2


b. For Redevelopment Sites, the post-development total runoff volume must be no greater than the pre-development total runoff volume for all storms equal to or less than the 2-year 24-hour storm event, where the pre-development runoff is calculated using Redevelopment Ground Cover Assumptions. (see M7.)

Same text. This provision was simply re-titled for accuracy.


Properties from Adverse Off-site

Conveyance 2



c. There shall be no adverse impact upstream or downstream. d. Address protection issues in SWM plan.

The following must be accomplished for any location where a proposed discharge of stormwater from any frequency rainfall event, up to and including the 100-year, 24-hour storm event, may potentially cause harm by flowing onto a down gradient property prior to reaching an existing conveyance system or a natural watercourse, or by reducing flow to wetlands, or similar sensitive habitats: a. The conveyance must be designed to avoid erosion, flooding

or other damage to the properties through which it is being conveyed.

b. One of the following must be obtained: b1. Written approval from the property owner(s), such as a drainage easement (or other legal agreement/approval), must be obtained for conveyance of discharges onto or through adjacent properties.

– OR – b2. Proof that the applicant has provided written notification to the down gradient property owner(s) that an application has been submitted to the municipality requesting approval for a permit that may discharge, or alter discharge, of stormwater onto their property, and a statement informing the down gradient property owner(s) how they can obtain additional information.








M13. Prohibited Discharges and Connections 1




d. Alterations of BMPs prohibited unless approved.

e. Requirement prohibiting discharge of non-stormwater discharges into stormwater facilities (see Attachment 2).

a. “Dechlorinated swimming pool” water must be deleted from the list of “allowable” discharges (see Attachment 2).

b. Roof drains and sump pump discharges must be treated by a water quality BMP prior to discharge to storm sewers or surface waters. Roof drains and sump pumps shall not be connected to sanitary sewers. Roof drains and sump pumps shall be discharged to a vegetated area, or shall be first discharged into water quality or infiltration stormwater BMPs (infiltration, vegetative, etc.) to the maximum extent practicable. Requirement prohibiting roof drains and sump pumps from discharging into stormwater and sanitary sewer systems.

c. Alterations of BMPs prohibited unless approved by the municipality.

M15. Municipal Right

of Entry a. Requirement that municipal representatives have the right but

not the responsibility to enter any stormwater management facility to inspect and/or repair.


Include for both during construction and post-construction: a. Provision that municipal representatives have the right but

not the responsibility to enter any stormwater management facility to inspect and/or repair.

b. Provision to allow provide an easement for access to stormwater facilities from public roadway (i.e. by easement or other written permission).

M16. Municipal

Inspections during Construction

Provision stating municipality has the right, but not the responsibility, to enter and inspect all facilities during construction, including: a. Municipal engineer inspects all phases of construction. b. Cease and desist order option. c. Final inspection.

Provision stating municipality has the right, but not the responsibility, to enter and inspect all facilities during construction. a. Municipal engineer inspects all phases of construction. b. Cease and desist order option. c. Final inspection.









Responsibilities 2


municipality. b. Designation of a specific entity responsible for implementing

the O&M plan. c. Execution and public recordation of O&M agreement

between owner/operator and municipality. d. Ensure sufficient financial resources are available to cover

costs of long-term O&M. e. Long-term inspections. f. Performance guarantee.


municipality, b. Designation of a specific entity responsible for implementing

the O&M plan. c. Execution and public recordation of O&M agreement

between owner/operator and municipality, that establishes the financial responsibility for covering the costs of long-term O&M, and establishes the responsibility for long-term inspections.

d. Ensure sufficient financial resources are available to cover costs of long-term O&M.

e. Long-term inspections. f. Performance guarantee.

M20. As-built Plans and Completion

Certificate 1

a. The applicant shall be responsible for submitting to the municipality as-built plans of all stormwater facilities included in the approved SWM Plan, and an explanation of any discrepancies with the approved plans.


a. For any project over one (1) acre of disturbance, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting to the municipality as-built plans of all stormwater facilities included in the approved SWM Plan, and an explanation of any discrepancies with the approved plans.

b. The as-built submission shall include a certification of completion signed and sealed by a qualified professional licensed in PA verifying that all permanent stormwater facilities have been constructed according to the approved plans and specifications. If any licensed qualified professionals contributed to the SWM Plans, then a similar licensed qualified professional must also sign the completion certificate. [Moved to recommended.]

Footnotes: 1 – Required by PADEP to be included as mandatory, and for which PADEP established the minimum quantitative standard. 2 – Required by PADEP to be included as mandatory, and for which PADEP allows the WPAC to establish the minimum quantitative standard.


APPENDIX 9

Watersheds: An Integrated Water Resources Plan for Chester County, Pennsylvania and Its Watersheds, Chester County Board of Commissioners, 2002.

Included by Reference: To view or print out a copy, please visit the Chester County Water Resources Authority website: www.chesco.org/water

dbetz

Highlight

Act 167


Plan FOR

CHESTER COUNTY

Phase I REPORT


APPENDIX 10

Statement of Eligible Costs for the Preparation of Watersheds

Chester County Board of Commissioners Carol Aichele Terence Farrell Kathi Cozzone

Prepared by: Chester County Water Resources Authority and Gaadt Perspectives, LLC Chester County, Pennsylvania Submitted to: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection SAP Document #4100040946 FILE #SWMP: Chester County Plan

June 25, 2010


APPENDIX 10

Statement of Eligible Costs for the Preparation of Watersheds

Not included here. Appendix 10 has been separately bound. For more information, contact Chester County Water Resources Authority.