§ 86A-4 Stormwater Management Officer's responsibility for administration.
§ 86A-5 Discharge prohibitions; exceptions.
§ 86A-6 Prohibition of illicit connections.
§ 86A-7 Prohibition against activities contaminating stormwater.
§ 86A-8 Use of best management practices to prevent, control, and reduce stormwater pollutants.
§ 86A-9 Suspension of access to MS4.
§ 86A-10 Industrial or construction activity discharges.
§ 86A-11 Access to facilities; monitoring of discharges.
§ 86A-12 Notification of spills.
§ 86A-13 Penalties for offenses corrective actions.
§ 86A-16 Violations deemed public nuisance.
§ 86A-17 Remedies not exclusive.
Flood damage prevention — See Ch. 33.
Grading — See Ch. 35.
Coastal erosion hazard areas — See Ch. 76.
Water resources — See Ch. 78.
Stormwater management and erosion control — See Ch. 86.
Subdivision regulations — See Ch. SR.
Management practices designed to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to stormwater, receiving waters, or stormwater conveyance systems; schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to stormwater, receiving waters, or stormwater conveyance systems. Such practices may include pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage.
Activities requiring authorization under the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, GP-0-15-002, as amended or revised. These activities include construction projects resulting in land disturbance of one or more acres. Such activities include but are not limited to clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition.
Material, including any substance, waste, or combination thereof, which, because of its quantity, concentration, physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
A drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land use to the MS4 or private property, which has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by an authorized enforcement agency.
Any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the MS4, except as exempted in § 86A-5 of this chapter.
Activities requiring the SPDES Permit for Discharges from Industrial Activities as defined by the SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit, GP-0-12-001, as amended or revised.
A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains) that is owned or operated by the Town and designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; the MS4, as defined, is not a combined sewer or part of a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
Any discharge, through overland flow or direct conveyance, to the MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater.
Any individual, owner, lease holder, entity, corporation, agent, company, parent company, subsidiary, limited-liability company, substantially owned affiliated entity, successor, partnership, joint venture, association, legal representative, agent, or any other form of doing business.
A substance that may cause or might reasonably be expected to cause pollution of the waters of the state in contravention of the standards, including, but not limited to: dredged spoil, filter backwash, solid waste, incinerator residue, treated or untreated sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, soil, industrial, municipal or agricultural waste, and ballast discharged into water.
Sediment or a water quality measurement that addresses sediment (such as total suspended solids, turbidity or siltation) or any other pollutant, including, but not limited to, nitrogen, phosphorus or pathogens, that have been identified as a cause of impairment to any water body that will receive a discharge from the land development activity.
Any individual, group of individuals, company or corporation having certain rights and duties over the property.
NYSDEC-published list, and any amendments thereto, of all surface waters in the state for which beneficial uses of the water (i.e., drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and fisheries) are impaired by pollutants, as required by Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. 303(d) listed waters include estuaries, lakes, and streams that fall short of state surface water quality standards and are not expected to improve within the next two years from date of publishing.
Discharge compliance with water quality standards: The condition that applies where a municipality has been notified that the discharge of stormwater authorized under its MS4 permit may have caused or has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to the violation of an applicable water quality standard. Under this condition, the municipality must take all necessary actions to ensure future discharges do not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) strategy: The condition in the municipality's MS4 permit where a TMDL, including requirements for control of stormwater discharges, has been approved by the EPA for a water body or watershed into which the MS4 discharges.
A permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state.
The Superintendent of Highways or his/her authorized designee, having responsibility for the overall implementation of the Town's Stormwater Management Program.
The maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to be released into a water body so as not to impair uses of the water, allocated among the sources of that pollutant.
Water that is not stormwater, which is contaminated with pollutants and is or will be discarded.
Shall be construed to include lakes, bays, sounds, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Atlantic Ocean within the territorial seas of the State of New York, and all other bodies of surface water, natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or salt, public or private, which are wholly or partially within or bordering the state or within its jurisdiction.
Any natural or artificial fresh or marine body of water commonly known as a stream, river, creek, lake, pond, estuary, bay, harbor, ocean, or the like. A waterway includes those areas defined as lands under water.
Areas that meet the definition of "tidal wetland" or "freshwater wetland" as defined in Chapter 81 of the Town Code.
The requirements under this chapter shall be applicable to all water entering the MS4, or private property, generated from any developed or undeveloped lands, unless explicitly exempted by an authorized enforcement agency.
The Stormwater Manager shall serve as the Stormwater Management Officer, as defined under this chapter.
The Stormwater Management Officer (SMO) shall be authorized to administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Stormwater runoff, natural drainage, or any means of stormwater conveyance shall not be diverted to other private or public real property, unless previously approved by an authorized body.
Prohibition of illegal discharges. No person or constructed system shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the MS4 any materials other than stormwater, except as provided herein. The commencement, conduct or continuance of any illicit discharge to the MS4 is prohibited except as described herein.
Water line flushing or other potable water sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, existing diverted stream flows, rising groundwater, uncontaminated groundwater infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped groundwater, foundation or footing drains, crawl space or basement sump pumps, air-conditioning condensate, irrigation water, springs, water from individual residential car washing, natural riparian habitat or wetland flows, chlorine-free swimming pool discharges, residential street wash water, water from fire-fighting activities, and any other water source not containing pollutants. Such exempt discharges shall be made in accordance with an appropriate plan for reducing pollutants, as approved in writing by the SMO.
Dye testing in compliance with applicable state and local laws, provided the SMO receives written notification of the test location and duration 48 hours prior to the discharge.
Discharge authorized pursuant to a SPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the NYSDEC, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations.
The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of illicit connections to the MS4.
This prohibition expressly includes, without limitations, prior illicit connections, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection.
A property owner shall be in violation of this chapter if a connecting line or overland flow conveying wastewater to the municipality's MS4 is found on the property; or allows such a connection to continue.
Causes or contributes to a violation of the Town's MS4 SPDES permit.
Causes or contributes to the Town being subject to the special conditions as defined by this chapter.
Upon notification to a property owner that an activity is causing or contributing to violations of the Town's MS4 SPDES permit, that property owner shall take all reasonable actions, within 30 days of written notification, to correct such activities such that the activity no longer causes or contributes to violations of the municipality's MS4 SPDES permit authorization. If special conditions warrant a delay in corrective action, a request for an extension of time must be made in writing to the SMO. The granting of an extension shall not be construed as permission to violate conditions set forth in this chapter, nor shall it be used to set precedent for future extension requests.
The owner or operator of private property or a commercial or industrial establishment to provide, at his/her own expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the MS4 or to private property through the use of structural and nonstructural BMPs.
Any person responsible for a property or premises which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge or an activity contaminating stormwater, to implement additional structural and nonstructural BMPs to reduce or eliminate the source of pollutant(s) to the MS4.
The SMO may, without prior notice, suspend MS4 discharge access to a property owner when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present imminent and substantial danger to the environment, to the health or welfare of persons, or to the MS4. The SMO shall notify the responsible party of such suspension within a reasonable time thereafter, in writing, of the reasons for the suspension. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the SMO may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the MS4 or to minimize hazardous conditions which may adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, and property of Town residents and the general public.
Termination due to the detection of illicit discharge. Any property owner conveying a discharge to the Town's MS4 or private property in violation of this chapter may have his/her MS4 access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The SMO will notify a violator in writing of the proposed termination of its MS4 access and the reasons therefor. The violator may petition the SMO within 15 calendar days for reconsideration and an abatement conference or hearing. The SMO may grant access if he/she finds that the illicit discharge has ceased and the discharger has taken steps to prevent its recurrence. Access may be denied if the SMO determines in writing that the illicit discharge has not ceased or is likely to recur. A property owner commits an offense, punishable by fines, if the property owner reinstates MS4 access to premises terminated pursuant to this section without the prior approval of the SMO.
Applicability. This section applies to all facilities that the SMO must inspect to enforce any provision of this chapter, or whenever the authorized enforcement agency has cause to believe that there exists, or potentially exists, in or upon any premises any condition which constitutes a violation of this chapter. The SMO is authorized to make or cause to be made inspections to determine compliance with the Town's MS4 permit and provisions of this chapter; and to determine the cause of illicit discharge in order to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the Town residents and the general public. The SMO or his/her designated representative is authorized to enter, upon the consent of the owner or facility operator, any premises at any reasonable time or at such other time as may be necessary in the event of an emergency, without the consent of the owner or facility operator, for the purpose of performing his/her duties under this chapter.
The SMO shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities subject to regulation under this chapter as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. If a discharger has security measures in force, which require proper identification and clearance before entry into its premises, the discharger shall make the necessary arrangements to allow access to the SMO.
Facility operations and/or property owners shall allow the SMO ready access to all parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling, examination and copying of records as may be required to implement this chapter.
The Town shall have the right to set up on any facility subject to this chapter such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the SMO to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facility's discharge points.
The Town has the right to require the facilities subject to this chapter to install monitoring equipment as is reasonably necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. The facility's sampling and monitoring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition by the discharger at its own expense. All devices used to measure stormwater flow and quality shall be calibrated to ensure their accuracy.
If the SMO has been refused access to any part of the premises from which an illicit discharge is suspected, and the SMO has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, or that there is a need to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program designed to verify compliance with this chapter or any order issued hereunder, then the SMO may seek issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction. The refusal to allow access to any part of the premises shall be presumptive evidence that a violation exists.
Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation, has information of any known or suspected release of materials which results or may result in illegal discharges or pollutants discharging into the MS4 or private property, said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the source and discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release. In the event of such a release of hazardous materials, said person shall immediately notify NYSDEC of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services or 911. In the event of a release of nonhazardous materials, said person shall notify the SMO in person, by telephone, or email no later than the next business day. Notifications in person, by telephone, or email shall be confirmed by written notice addressed and mailed to the SMO within three business days of the notification. If the discharge of prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or industrial establishment, the owner or operator of such establishment shall also retain an on-site written record of the discharge and the actions taken to prevent its recurrence. Such records shall be retained for at least three years.
Any property owner who violates any provision of this chapter or the conditions imposed by the SMO or his/her designated representative shall, in addition to administrative sanctions, be guilty of a violation punishable by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $3,000 and for a second and each subsequent offense be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $3,000 nor more than $10,000 or a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 days nor more than six months, or both.
Each offense shall be a separate and distinct offense, and, in the case of a continuing offense, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.
Partaking in an environmental restoration project.
Equitable relief. The Town of Brookhaven shall have the right to seek equitable relief to restrain any violation or threatened violation of any of the provisions of this chapter.
It shall be unlawful for any person or property owner to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter. If a person or property owner has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this chapter, the SMO may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction restraining the person or property owner from activities which would create further violations or compelling the person or property owner to perform abatement or remediation of the violation. In addition to any other available remedy at law or as provided under this chapter, the Town may institute a suit in equity, injunction relief, to restrain, correct or abate such violations of this chapter.
Any provision contained in the Town Code to the contrary notwithstanding, the Town Attorney, or his/her designee, in consultation with the Stormwater Management Officer, in addition to or in lieu of seeking criminal penalties or seeking to restrain or enjoin activity in violation of this chapter, may enter into a civil compromise, whereby the person or property who or which committed such violation agrees to pay to the Town a civil penalty in an agreed amount. The payment of a civil penalty must be made in conjunction with an agreement on consent whereby the violator agrees to take steps to comply with the requirements under this chapter.
The environmental damage was minimal.
The violator has acted expeditiously to remedy the violation.
The violator has cooperated in the investigation and resolution.
A payment to the Joseph P. Macchia Environmental Trust Fund in an amount determined by the SMO or Town Attorney in an amount not to exceed $20,000.
The remedies listed in this chapter are not exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable statute, law and/or rule and regulation; and it is within the discretion of the Town to seek cumulative remedies.


§ 11.10 Scope and applicability.
§ 11.12 Biennial review of regulations.
§ 11.15 What damages may a trustee recover?
§ 11.17 Compliance with applicable laws and standards.
§ 11.18 Incorporation by reference.
§ 11.20 Notification and detection.
§ 11.22 Sampling of potentially injured natural resources.
§ 11.23 Preassessment screen — general.
§ 11.24 Preassessment screen — information on the site.
§ 11.25 Preassessment screen — preliminary identification of resources potentially at risk.
§ 11.30 What does the authorized official do if an assessment is warranted?
§ 11.31 What does the Assessment Plan include?
§ 11.32 How does the authorized official develop the Assessment Plan?
§ 11.33 What types of assessment procedures are available?
§ 11.34 When may the authorized official use a type A procedure?
§ 11.35 How does the authorized official decide whether to use type A or type B procedures?
§ 11.36 May the authorized official use both type A and type B procedures for the same release?
§ 11.37 Must the authorized official confirm exposure before implementing the Assessment Plan?
§ 11.38 Assessment Plan — preliminary estimate of damages.
§ 11.40 What are type A procedures?
§ 11.41 What data must the authorized official supply?
§ 11.42 How does the authorized official apply the NRDAM/CME or NRDAM/GLE?
§ 11.43 Can interested parties review the results of the preliminary application?
§ 11.44 What does the authorized official do after the close of the comment period?
§ 11.60 Type B assessments — general.
§ 11.61 Injury determination phase — general.
§ 11.62 Injury determination phase — injury definition.
§ 11.63 Injury determination phase — pathway determination.
§ 11.64 Injury determination phase — testing and sampling methods.
§ 11.70 Quantification phase — general.
§ 11.71 Quantification phase — service reduction quantification.
§ 11.72 Quantification phase — baseline services determination.
§ 11.73 Quantification phase — resource recoverability analysis.
§ 11.80 Damage determination phase — general.
§ 11.81 Damage determination phase — restoration and compensation determination plan.
§ 11.82 Damage determination phase — alternatives for restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, and/or acquisition of equivalent resources.
§ 11.83 Damage determination phase — use value methodologies.
§ 11.84 Damage determination phase — implementation guidance.
§ 11.90 What documentation must the authorized official prepare after completing the assessment?
§ 11.91 How does the authorized official seek recovery of the assessed damages from the potentially responsible party?
§ 11.92 Post-assessment phase — restoration account.
§ 11.93 Post-assessment phase — restoration plan.
42 U.S.C. 9651(c), as amended.
51 FR 27725, Aug. 1, 1986, unless otherwise noted.


text:
From inside room 701 of the Edinburgh Sheraton Grand, I wonder when the Twins’ free fall is going to stop. I wonder if the switch to batting practice jerseys before the June 23 afternoon game against Detroit will stop the free fall.
In 2003 and 2004, the Twins went into similar free falls around the end of June/beginning of July. My fingers are crossed that they will snap out of it once again.
The time difference as well as the lack of Baseball Tonight and Sports Center make each loss seem worse. It’s difficult to get a sense of the team’s play by reading game reports online.******, I really miss ESPN. Thank God ESPN mostly limits Chris Berman to football.
The big sports news in the UK is the upcoming England v. Australia Ashes cricket series. Cricket is a little like baseball in the fact that there is pitching (bowling), batting and fielding. Other than that, I have no idea what the **** goes on during a cricket match. It seems to involve umpires in lab coats and men in sweater vests running, fielding and batting. You’ve got to love a sport with a tea interval.
Before the end of the summer, I will vow to learn more about cricket. It’s only fair that I learn about UK sports as the Brits I work with know a lot about US sports.
Interleague play starts once again… HOO-HA if the games involve natural rivals like the Angels v. Dodgers, Mets v. Yankees, Cubs v. White Sox, A’s v. Giants, etc. I can see the Twins playing former World Series foes such as the Dodgers, Braves and Cardinals. The Twins v. the Brewers??? Rivals? Hardly. Who cares? I’d rather see the battle for Texas or Chicago or the Bay Area instead of a contest between two teams whose first name start with the letter M. Lets save the interleague games for former World Series foes and geographic rivals.
Hats off to the Arizona State University Sun Devils who came **** close to the College World Series finals. DEVILS!!!
Since you last heard from me, I’ve been to Oslo, Huddersfield, Stoke, Bolton, Nottingham, Coventry, Glasgow, London and Cardiff… What a long (fill in the blank) trip its been.
I’ve seen a few games on MLB.tv. It’s the only way to see baseball in Europe. Due to the time difference, it’s much easier to catch the early games on Sunday.
Roy Halladay looks unbeatable… He’s got some NASTY stuff.
Brad Radke, what was going on inside your head when you gave up THREE solo home runs to Hee-Seop Choi??? Come on Brad, you’ve been in the league long enough to know better.
Congratulations to AL player of the week TORII HUNTER!!! It’s an honor that’s well deserved and long overdue.
Thank God for Jesse Crain! He takes a lot of heat off the rest of the bullpen. With a 6 – 0 record, a trip to the All-Star game is warranted. Joe Nathan also deserves a trip to Detroit.
My depression over the Suns’ loss to San Antonio was offset by Torii Hunter’s grand slam! I played the highlight from the Twins’ web site over an d over and at maximum volume. I wanted to make sure that Elton percussionist and Indians fan, John Mahon, heard it.
Due to the time difference, I was unable to watch the game on MLB.tv. I wish I could have heard Torii’s 5 for 5/6 RBI performance discussed on Baseball Tonight.***** EuroSport!
Torii Hunter is my favorite Twin and MLB player. Why don’t Bud and company do more to promote Torii? He’s an amazing player and an all-around nice guy. Forget Jeter and Pay-Rod, give the Torii and the Twins some love!
Howdy friends and neighbors…As I type this, I’m nursing a luke warm Diet Coke in room 125 of the Hotel Danube in Bratislava. I’m on tour with Sir Elton John and this is our latest stop.
Thanks to MLB.TV I’m able to watch Twins games at will. Sometimes the time difference gets in the way of watching baseball on my PowerBook.
Over the course of this this season I’ll do my best to share my thoughts on being a Twins fan that lives in the Seattle area and never, ever lived in the great state of Minnesota.
I need to thank a few people before I sign off: Melissa Brody at MLB Advanced Media, Noah Garden at MLB.com and Twins GM Terry Ryan for replacing the parts that leave at the end of each season.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.


The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Trujillo v. Regional Transportation Dist. on Thursday, December 28, 2018.
In this governmental immunity case, the key issue is whether a certain walkway is a “sidewalk” as described in section 24-10- 103(6), C.R.S. 2018, which would exempt the Regional Transportation District from the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act’s immunity provisions. Under that statute, sidewalk is defined as “that portion of a public roadway between the curb lines or the lateral lines of the traveled portion and the adjacent property lines which is constructed, designed, maintained, and intended for the use of pedestrians.” § 24-10-103(6). Thus, the court must determine whether the road adjacent to the walkway is a “public roadway.” A division of the court of appeals concludes that a road qualifies as a “public roadway” as that term is used in section 24-10-103(6) where, even though private vehicles are not permitted to drive thereon, its purpose is for transporting the general public via public buses.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Hernandez v. City & County of Denver on Thursday, October 18, 2018.
Negligence—Willful and Wanton Conduct—Colorado Governmental Immunity Act—Public Employee—Waiver of Sovereign Immunity—Jail Operation.
Hernandez sustained injuries while a pretrial detainee at the Denver Detention Center. She sued six of the jail’s employees, including Deputy Sheriff Dodson, alleging, as relevant to this appeal, willful and wanton conduct. Following an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993), and pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), the district court found that Dodson and another defendant had not engaged in willful and wanton conduct and therefore enjoyed immunity from suit on those allegations.
On appeal, Hernandez alleged that the district court erred in finding Dodson was entitled to immunity. The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act provides that a public employee may not assert immunity in an action for injuries resulting from the negligent operation of a jail, regardless of whether the employee engaged in willful and wanton conduct. Because the allegations of willful and wanton conduct here do not raise an issue of sovereign immunity, the district court erred in dismissing them before trial via Rule 12(b)(1) and a Trinity hearing.
The order was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Amparan v. Lake Powell Car Rental Companies on February 13, 2018.
Edmundo and Kimberly L. Amparan appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lake Powell Car Rental Companies on the Amparans’ claims for negligent entrustment and loss of consortium. The claims arose from a vehicle accident involving a motorcycle operated by Mr. Amparan and a Ford Mustang rented by Lake Powell to Denizcan Karadeniz and operated by Mevlut Berkay Demir. Because the Amparans failed to come forward with evidence from which the jury could find an essential element of their claim for negligent entrustment, the appeals court affirmed.
On July 14, 2014, a group of Turkish nationals, including Mr. Karadeniz, visited Lake Powell to rent two vehicles. Mr. Karadeniz produced a valid Turkish driver’s license and a valid credit card. Mert Tacir, another member of the group, produced a valid Turkish driver’s license. The owner and operator of Lake Powell, Paul Williams, asked the remaining individuals in the group if they possessed valid driver’s licenses. Mr. Demir responded that he possessed a valid driver’s license. At the time of the rental, all three individuals were 21 years old. Although Mr. Williams recognized that Mr. Karadeniz and Mr. Tacir were under the age of 25, he nonetheless agreed to rent to rent a Dodge Caravan and a Ford Mustang to Mr. Karadeniz and to permit Mr. Tacir as an additional authorized driver for the Ford Mustang. None of the other members of the group, including Mr. Demir, completed an “Additional Driver Application/Agreement.” However, Mr. Demir testified that he understood Mr. Williams’ inquiry into whether he possessed a driver’s license as a signaling that he had Lake Powell’s implicit permission to operate the vehicles. Because a reasonable jury could adopt Mr. Demir’s understanding, the Tenth Circuit proceeded under the assumption that Lake Powell implicitly entrusted the rental vehicles to Mr. Demir. Evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Mr. Williams’ decision to rent two vehicles to an individual under the age of 25 and to permit an additional driver under the age of 25 violates internal policies propagated by Lake Powell’s licensor, Avis Rent A Car Systems, LLC.
During the course of the rental, Mr. Demir operated the Ford Mustang. Mr. Demir, unfamiliar with the traffic rules governing left turns at intersections, turned left on a solid green light without yielding to oncoming traffic. Mr. Amparan, traveling in the oncoming direction, unsuccessfully attempted to swerve to avoid hitting the turning vehicle operated by Mr. Demir and the two vehicles collided. As a result of the collision, Mr. Amparan alleges he suffered multiple broken bones, a punctured lung, and various other injuries.
The Amparans filed complaint in New Mexico state court, naming Mr. Demir, Mr. Karadeniz, and Avis as defendants. Avis removed the action to federal court, where, after an initial round of discovery, the district court granted the Amparans leave to amend their complaint to add Lake Powell as a defendant. The amended complaint raised claims against Lake Powell for negligent entrustment, loss of consortium, and negligent supervision and training. Lake Powell moved for summary judgment, arguing, in part, that even if it implicitly entrusted the Mustang to Mr. Demir, it neither knew nor should have known that Mr. Demir was likely to operate the vehicle in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. In response to Lake Powell’s motion for summary judgment, the Amparans filed a notice of testifying expert on both the risk posed by young drivers and standards of care in the car rental industry. The Amparans also contested Lake Powell’s motion for summary judgment, arguing in part that Lake Powell’s violation of internal policies regarding renting to, or approving as additional drivers, individuals under age 25 constituted sufficient evidence to permit the finding that Lake Powell knew or should have known that Mr. Demir was likely to operate the Ford Mustang in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
The district court indicated it would not consider factual assertions in the Amparans’ response to summary judgment that did not comply with District of New Mexico Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1)(A). The district court denied Lake Powell’s motion to strike as moot. The district court deemed the motions to strike moot based on its conclusion that the Amparans’ evidence regarding Lake Powell’s alleged violation of internal policies was insufficient, on its own, to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Lake Powell knew or should have known that Mr. Demir was likely to operate the Mustang in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. The district court concluded that the disputes of fact with respect to whether Lake Powell entrusted the Mustang to Mr. Demir and whether Lake Powell violated any internal policies were not material because resolution of the disputes in favor of the Amparans did not alter the summary judgment decision.
On appeal, the Amparans argued that the district court failed to perform a proper analysis, in that a New Mexico court would view evidence of a violation of internal policies, which are also allegedly industry standards, sufficient to advance a claim for negligent entrustment. Alternatively, the Amparans urged the Tenth Circuit to address the merits of Lake Powell’s motions to strike. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lake Powell on the Amparans’ claims for negligent entrustment and loss of consortium.
In an effort to overcome the extensive body of case law supporting the conclusion that the New Mexico Supreme Court would reject the proposition that evidence of a car rental company’s violation of internal policies is sufficient to establish the third element of a claim for negligent entrustment even where the entrustee possesses a valid driver’s license, the Amparans argued that their expert witness would testify on car rental industry standards regarding rentals to individuals under age 25. But the fact that evidence of a violation of an internal policy is probative on the question of negligence does not establish that the evidence is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence. It cannot be said that the driver’s young age, on its own, makes it likely that the driver will cause an accident, will operate the vehicle in an incompetent manner, or will operate the vehicle in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. For, if such were true, no individual in New Mexico could grant a person under the age of 25 permission to drive a vehicle without facing liability for negligent entrustment based solely on the entrustee’s youthful age.
Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit held that the New Mexico Supreme Court would conclude that evidence of a car rental company’s violation of internal policies on the minimum age of renters and drivers is, on its own, insufficient to establish the third element of a claim for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle. Thus, the Amparans failed to advance sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of negligent entrustment.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lake Powell on the Amparans’ claims for negligent entrustment and loss of consortium.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Forfar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on Thursday, August 23, 2018.
Insurance—Collateral Source Rule—Medicare Benefits—Premises Liability.
Forfar, a Medicare beneficiary, slipped and fell at a Wal-Mart store. He filed a premises liability case. Before trial, Wal-Mart moved to exclude evidence of Forfar’s medical expenses owed under agreements he had with his medical providers. Forfar moved in limine to exclude evidence that he had received Medicare benefits. The trial court ruled that Wal-Mart could not present evidence to the jury as to the amount of the Medicare limits and that Forfar could not present evidence of private contracts between himself and any third-party medical providers. Forfar was allowed to present evidence of the reasonable value of medical services, for which he sought $72,636. After trial, Wal-Mart moved to reduce the damages under C.R.S. § 13-21-111.6, arguing that the economic damages awarded for medical expenses should be reduced to Medicare accepted rates. The trial court denied the motion, holding that Medicare benefits fall within the contract exception to the collateral source rule in C.R.S. § 13-21-111.6. The judgment entered on a jury verdict included $44,000 in economic damages for the reasonable value of medical services that Forfar had received.
On appeal, Wal-Mart contended that the trial court should have reduced the damages, arguing that the amounts paid by Medicare are dispositive of the necessary and reasonable value of medical services provided to Forfar. Pre-verdict, the collateral source rule, C.R.S. § 10-1-135(10)(a), bars evidence of collateral source benefits, and the correct measure of damages is the reasonable value of medical services. A benefit is not excluded from the definition of a collateral source simply because it comes from a government program. The trial court properly held Medicare benefits to be a collateral source inadmissible as evidence based on C.R.S. § 10-1-135(10)(a).
Wal-Mart also challenged the trial court’s holding that Medicare benefits fall within the contract exception to the collateral source rule. Post-verdict, the trial court is required to reduce a plaintiff’s verdict by the amount the plaintiff “has been or will be wholly or partially indemnified or compensated for his loss by any other person, corporation, insurance company or fund.” The exception to this prohibits trial courts from reducing a plaintiff’s verdict by the amount of indemnification or compensation that the plaintiff has received from “a benefit paid as a result of a contract entered into and paid for by or on behalf of the plaintiff.” Medicare benefits fall within the contract exception to the collateral source rule of C.R.S. § 13-21-111.6. The trial court properly applied the contract exception to Medicare benefits.
Wal-Mart further contended that the trial court violated the Supremacy Clause by failing to apply the Medicaid statutes and regulations over the collateral source rule, asserting that no person may be liable for payment of amounts billed in excess of Medicare approved charges. The Medicare statutes Wal-Mart relies on do not preempt Colorado law holding it liable for the reasonable value of Forfar’s medical services.
The court of appeals declined to award Forfar attorney fees because the issues presented by Wal-Mart were novel and supported by some out-of-state authority.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Lopez v. City of Grand Junction on Thursday, July 12, 2018.
Negligence—Colorado Governmental Immunity Act—Waiver—Independent Contractor—Maintenance Work.
The underground maintenance of a public traffic light in Grand Junction breached a natural gas line. Gas from the ruptured line leaked into the surrounding ground and a sewer main and migrated to a house, resulting in an explosion. Lopez, Pierson, and Gimmeson (plaintiffs) brought negligence claims against the City of Grand Junction (City) for their resultant personal injuries and property damage. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges, among other things, that the City breached its duty of care to safely maintain its utility, electric, and sewer lines. As pertinent here, the complaint alleged that the City contracted with Apeiron Utility Construction (Apeiron) to upgrade utility lines that powered a traffic light; during this maintenance project Apeiron ruptured a gas line; and the leaking gas resulted in the house explosion. The complaint further alleged that Apeiron’s conduct should be imputed to the City. The City moved to dismiss these negligence claims for lack of jurisdiction under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), asserting governmental immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA). The court granted the motion.
On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erroneously concluded that Apeiron’s conduct in maintaining the traffic light was not attributable to the City for purposes of waiving the City’s immunity under C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(f). For purposes of the immunity waiver in C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(f), a public entity maintains a public facility even if it hires an independent contractor to perform the maintenance. Here, plaintiffs met their burden to establish a waiver of immunity as to their negligence claims against the City.
Plaintiffs next asserted that the district court erred when it dismissed their negligence claim against the City as to its operation and maintenance of its sewer main. Plaintiffs asserted that the City’s failure to keep the main free of invasive roots was a failure to maintain that waived liability under the CGIA. Based on the record, plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to prove a waiver.
The dismissal of plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the City as to its operation and maintenance of its sewer main was affirmed. The dismissal of the negligence claims against the City for Apeiron’s maintenance work on the traffic light was reversed and the case was remanded.


§ 19-302 Permit Requirements by Other Government Entities.
§ 19-303 Erosion and Sediment Control During Regulated Earth Disturbance Activities.
§ 19-304 Nonstructural Project Design (Sequencing to Minimize Stormwater Impacts).
§ 19-305 Groundwater Recharge (Infiltration/Recharge/Bioretention).
§ 19-306 Water Quality Requirements.
§ 19-307 Streambank Erosion Requirements.
§ 19-308 Stormwater Management Districts.
Applicants proposing regulated activities in the Schuylkill River watershed which do not fall under the exemption criteria shown in § 19-402 shall submit a drainage plan consistent with the Schuylkill River Watershed Stormwater Management Plan to the Borough of Shillington for review. These criteria shall apply to the total proposed development even if development is to take place in stages.
The applicant is required to evaluate practicable alternatives to the surface discharge of stormwater, the creation of impervious surfaces and the degradation of waters of the commonwealth and must maintain as much as possible the natural hydrologic regime.
The drainage plan must be designed consistent with the sequencing provisions of § 19-304 to ensure maintenance of the natural hydrologic regime and to promote groundwater recharge and protect groundwater and surface water quality and quantity. The drainage plan designer must proceed sequentially in accordance with Part 3of this chapter.
Existing points of concentrated drainage that discharge onto adjacent property shall not be altered in any manner which could cause property damage without permission of the affected property owner(s) and shall be subject to any applicable discharge criteria specified in this chapter.
Areas of existing diffused drainage discharge shall be subject to any applicable discharge criteria in the general direction of existing discharge, whether proposed to be concentrated or maintained as diffused drainage areas, except as otherwise provided by this chapter. If diffused drainage discharge is proposed to be concentrated and discharged onto adjacent property, the applicant must document that adequate downstream conveyance facilities exist to safely transport the concentrated discharge or otherwise prove that no erosion, sedimentation, flooding or other impacts will result from the concentrated discharge.
Where a development site is traversed by existing watercourses, drainage easements shall be provided conforming to the line of such watercourses. The terms of the easement shall conform to the stream buffer requirements contained in § 19-306, Subsection 1D, of this chapter.
Any stormwater management facilities regulated by this chapter that would be located in or adjacent to waters of the commonwealth or wetlands shall be subject to approval by PaDEP through the joint permit application process or, where deemed appropriate by PaDEP, the general permit process. When there is a question whether wetlands may be involved, it is the responsibility of the applicant or his agent to show that the land in question cannot be classified as wetlands; otherwise approval to work in the area must be obtained from PaDEP.
Any alteration that affects stormwater flow directly or indirectly toward a PennDOT facility shall be subject to PennDOT regulations.
Minimization of impervious surfaces and infiltration of runoff through seepage beds, infiltration trenches, etc., are encouraged, where soil conditions permit, to reduce the size or eliminate the need for detention facilities or other structural BMPs.
Roof drains shall not be connected to impervious surfaces in order to promote overland flow and infiltration/percolation of stormwater where advantageous to do so. When site conditions preclude infiltration/percolation, then it shall be permitted on a case-by-case basis by the Borough of Shillington.
All stormwater runoff shall be treated for water quality.
Transference of runoff to or from an EV/HQ watershed is prohibited unless otherwise authorized by the DEP, DRBC or SRBC.
Permits must comply with any and all applicable local, county, state and federal regulations.
No regulated earth disturbance activities within the Borough of Shillington shall commence until the Borough of Shillington receives an approval from the Conservation District of an erosion and sediment control plan for construction activities.
DEP has regulations that require an erosion and sediment control plan for any earth disturbance activity of 5,000 square feet or more, under 25 Pa. Code § 102.4(b).
In addition, under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 92, a DEP NPDES construction activities permit is required for regulated earth disturbance activities.
Evidence of any necessary permit(s) for regulated earth disturbance activities from the appropriate DEP regional office or County Conservation District must be provided to the Borough of Shillington. The issuance of an NPDES construction permit [or permit coverage under the statewide general permit (PAG-2)] satisfies the requirements § 19-303, Subsection 1.
A copy of the erosion and sediment control plan and any required permit, as required by DEP regulations, shall be available at the project site at all times.
Areas proposed for infiltration BMPs shall be protected from sedimentation and compaction during the construction phase to maintain maximum infiltration capacity.
Infiltration BMPs shall not be constructed nor receive runoff until the entire contributory drainage area to the infiltration BMP has achieved final stabilization.
For projects disturbing one acre or more, the design of all regulated activities shall include evaluation of practicable alternatives to the surface discharge of stormwater, the creation of impervious surfaces, and the degradation of waters of the commonwealth and must maintain as much as possible the natural hydrologic regime of the site.
An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes and other municipal requirements.
All practicable alternatives to the discharge of stormwater are presumed to have less adverse impact on quantity and quality of waters of the commonwealth unless otherwise demonstrated.
Prepare an existing resource and site analysis map (ERSAM), showing environmentally sensitive areas, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, ponds, lakes, streams, wetlands, hydric soils, vernal pools, floodplains, stream buffer zones, Hydrologic Soil Groups A and B (areas conducive to infiltration), special geologic features, any existing recharge areas and any other requirements outlined in the Municipal Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.
Establish appropriate buffers for each of the delineated environmentally sensitive areas per the Municipal Zoning Ordinance [Chapter 27]. (See § 19-306, Subsection 1D, for stream buffers and § 19-310, Subsection 2B, for special geologic feature buffers).
Prepare a draft project layout avoiding sensitive areas identified in § 19-304, Subsection 2A.
Identify site-specific existing conditions' drainage areas, discharge points, recharge areas and Hydrologic Soil Groups A and B.
Evaluate Nonstructural Stormwater Management Alternatives.
Break up large impervious surfaces.
Satisfy infiltration objective (§ 19-305) and provide for stormwater pretreatment prior to infiltration. Pretreatment may not be necessary for rooftop runoff which enters the infiltration facility directly from a roof leader.
Satisfy water quality (§ 19-306) and stream bank erosion protection objectives (§ 19-307).
Determine what management district the site falls into (Appendix D) and conduct an existing conditions' runoff analysis.
Editor's Note: Appendix D is included as an attachment to this chapter.
Prepare final project design to maintain existing conditions' drainage areas and discharge points, to minimize earth disturbance and impervious surfaces, and, to the maximum extent possible, to ensure the remaining site development has no surface or point discharge.
Conduct a proposed conditions' runoff analysis based on the final design and to meet the release rate and in turn the overbank flow and extreme event requirements (§ 19-308).
Manage any remaining runoff through treatment prior to discharge, as part of detention, bioretention, direct discharge or other structural control.
Maximizing the groundwater recharge capacity of the area being developed is required. Design of the infiltration stormwater management facilities shall give consideration to providing groundwater recharge to compensate for the reduction in the percolation that occurs when the ground surface is disturbed or impervious surface is created. It is recommended that roof runoff be directed to infiltration BMPs which can be overdesigned to compensate for the infiltration losses due to parking areas. It is recommended that roof runoff be directed to infiltration BMPs which may be designed to compensate for the runoff from parking areas. These measures are required to be consistent with § 19-103 and take advantage of utilizing any existing recharge areas.
Infiltration may not be feasible on every site due to site-specific limitations such as soil type. If it cannot be physically accomplished, due to seasonal high-water table, soil permeability rate, soil depth or setback distances from special geologic features, then the design professional shall be responsible to show that this cannot be physically accomplished. If it can be physically accomplished, then the volume of runoff to be infiltrated shall be determined from § 19-305, Subsection 2A(3), depending on demonstrated site conditions and shall be the greater of the two volumes.
Regulated activities will be required to infiltrate, where site conditions permit, a portion of the runoff created by the development as part of an overall stormwater management plan designed for the site. The volume of runoff to be infiltrated shall be determined from § 19-305, Subsection 2A(3)(a) or (b), depending upon demonstrated site conditions.
A minimum depth of 24 inches between the bottom of the BMP and the limiting zone.
An infiltration and/or percolation rate sufficient to accept the additional stormwater load and drain completely as determined by field tests conducted by the applicant's design professional.
The infiltration facility shall be capable of completely infiltrating the required retention (infiltration) volume within four days (96 hours).
Pretreatment shall be provided prior to infiltration.
The NRCS runoff equation shall be utilized to calculate infiltration requirements (I) in inches.
SCS (NRCS) curve number of existing conditions contributing to the infiltration facility.
This equation is displayed graphically in, and the infiltration requirement can be determined from, Figure 305.1.
It has been determined that infiltrating 0.46 inch of runoff from the impervious areas will aid in maintaining the hydrologic regime of the watershed. However, the rounded number 0.5 inch will be used.
Annual Recharge - Water Budget Approach.
If the goals of § 19-305, Subsection 2A(3)(a), cannot be achieved, then 0.5 inch of rainfall shall be infiltrated from all impervious areas, up to a an existing site conditions' curve number of 81. Above a curve number of 81, Equation 305.1 or the curve in Figure 305.1 should be used to determine the infiltration requirement.
Analyze hydrologic soil groups as well as natural and man-made features within the site to determine general areas of suitability for infiltration practices. In areas where development on fill material is under consideration, conduct geotechnical investigations of subgrade stability; infiltration is not permitted to be ruled out without conducting these tests.
Provide field tests, such as double-ring infiltrometer or hydraulic conductivity tests (at the level of the proposed infiltration surface), to determine the appropriate hydraulic conductivity rate. Percolation tests are not recommended for design purposes.
Design the infiltration structure for the required retention (Rev) volume based on field-determined capacity at the level of the proposed infiltration surface.
If on-lot infiltration structures are proposed by the applicant's design professional, it must be demonstrated to the Borough of Shillington that the soils are conducive to infiltrate on the lots identified.
The design of all facilities over Karst shall include an evaluation of measures to minimize adverse effects.
Stormwater Hotspots. Following is a list of examples of designated hotspots. If a site is designated as a hotspot, it has important implications for how stormwater is managed. First and foremost, untreated stormwater runoff from hotspots shall not be allowed to recharge into groundwater where it may contaminate water supplies. Therefore, the Rev requirement shall NOT be applied to development sites that fit into the hotspot category (the entire WQv must still be treated). Second, a greater level of stormwater treatment shall be considered at hotspot sites to prevent pollutant washoff after construction. The EPA's NPDES stormwater program requires some industrial sites to prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan.
Vehicle salvage yards and recycling facilities.
Vehicle service and maintenance facilities.
Vehicle and equipment cleaning facilities.
Fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.).
Industrial sites (based on Standard Industrial Codes).
Facilities that generate or store hazardous materials.
Other land uses and activities as designated by an appropriate review authority.
Residential streets and rural highways.
Pervious areas, except golf courses and nurseries [which may need an integrated pest management (IPM) plan].
While large highways [average daily traffic volume (ADT) greater than 30,000] are not designated as a stormwater hotspot; it is important to ensure that highway stormwater management plans adequately protect groundwater.
Caution shall be exercised where infiltration is proposed in source water protection areas as defined by the Borough of Shillington or Water Authority.
Infiltration facilities shall be used in conjunction with other innovative or traditional stormwater control facilities that are found within the PADEP State BMP Manual.
Caution shall be exercised where salt or chloride (municipal salt storage) would be a pollutant since soils do little to filter this pollutant and it may contaminate the groundwater. The qualified design professional shall evaluate the possibility of groundwater contamination from the proposed infiltration facility and perform a hydrogeologic justification study if necessary.
The infiltration requirement in high-quality or exceptional-value waters shall be subject to the Department's Chapter 93 Antidegradation Regulations.
Dependant upon certain land uses or hotspots, an impermeable liner will be required in detention basins where the possibility of groundwater contamination exists. A detailed hydrogeologic investigation may be required by the Borough of Shillington.
The Borough of Shillington shall require the applicant to provide safeguards against groundwater contamination for land uses that may cause groundwater contamination should there be a mishap or spill.
One hundred feet from water supply wells.
Ten feet downslope or 100 feet upslope from building foundations.
Fifty feet from septic system drainfields.
Fifty feet from a geologic contact with carbonate bedrock, unless a preliminary site investigation is done in the carbonate bedrock to show the absence of special geologic features within 50 feet of the proposed infiltration area.
One hundred feet from the property line, unless documentation is provided to show all setbacks from wells, foundations and drainfields on the neighboring property will be met.
The applicant shall comply with the following water quality requirements of this Part.
Developed areas shall provide adequate storage and treatment facilities necessary to capture and treat stormwater runoff. The infiltration volume computed under § 19-305 may be a component of the water quality volume if the applicant chooses to manage both components in a single facility. If the infiltration volume is less than the water quality volume, the remaining water quality volume may be captured and treated by methods other than infiltration BMPs. The required water quality volume (WQv) is the storage capacity needed to capture and treat a portion of stormwater runoff from the developed areas of the site.
Total contributing drainage area to the water quality BMP (acres).
0.05 + 0.009(I), where I is the percent of the area that is impervious surface [(impervious area/A)*100].
This volume requirement can be accomplished by the permanent volume of a wet basin or the detained volume from other BMPs.
Release of water can begin at the start of the storm (i.e., the invert of the water quality orifice is at the invert of the facility). The design of the facility shall provide for protection from clogging and unwanted sedimentation.
For areas within defined special-protection subwatersheds which include exceptional-value (EV) and high-quality (HQ) waters, and cold-water fisheries (CWF), the temperature and quality of water and streams shall be maintained.
To accomplish the above, the applicant shall use innovative or traditional stormwater control facilities that are found within the PADEP State BMP Manual.
If a perennial or intermittent stream passes through the site, the applicant shall create a stream buffer extending a minimum of 50 feet to either side of the top-of-bank of the channel. The buffer area shall be maintained with appropriate native vegetation (reference to Appendix H of the Pennsylvania Handbook of Best Management Practices for Developing Area for plant lists). If the applicable rear or side yard setback is less than 50 feet, the buffer width may be reduced to 25% of the setback to a minimum of 10 feet. If an existing buffer is legally prescribed (i.e., deed, covenant, easement, etc.) and it exceeds the requirements of this chapter, the existing buffer shall be maintained. This does not include lakes or wetlands.
Evidence of any necessary permit(s) for regulated earth disturbance activities from the appropriate DEP regional office must be provided to the Borough of Shillington. The issuance of an NPDES construction permit [or permit coverage under the statewide general permit (PAG-2)] satisfies the requirements of § 19-306, Subsection 1A.
In addition to control of the water quality volume, in order to minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on downstream streambank erosion, the primary requirement is to design a BMP to detain the proposed conditions' two-year, twenty-four-hour design storm to the existing conditions' one-year peak flow using the SCS Type II distribution. Additionally, provisions shall be made (such as adding a small orifice at the bottom of the outlet structure) so that the proposed conditions' one-year storm takes a minimum of 24 hours to drain from the facility from a point where the maximum volume of water from the one-year storm is captured, (i.e., the maximum water surface elevation is achieved in the facility). Release of water can begin at the start of the storm (i.e., the invert of the water quality orifice is at the invert of the facility).
The minimum orifice size in the outlet structure to the BMP shall be a three-inch-diameter orifice, and a trash rack shall be installed to prevent clogging. On sites with small contributing drainage areas to this BMP that do not provide enough runoff volume to allow a twenty-four-hour attenuation with the three-inch orifice, the calculations shall be submitted showing this condition. Orifice sizes less than three inches can be utilized, provided that the design will prevent clogging of the intake.
The Schuylkill River watershed has been divided into stormwater management districts as shown on the Management District Map in Appendix D.
In addition to the requirements specified in Table 308.1 below, the groundwater recharge (§ 19-305), water quality (§ 19-306), and streambank erosion control (§ 19-307) requirements shall be implemented.
Standards for managing runoff from each subarea in the Schuylkill River watershed for the two-year through one-hundred-year design storms are shown in Table 308.1. Development sites located in each of the districts must control proposed conditions'; runoff rates to existing conditions' runoff rates for the design storms in accord with Table 308.1.
All areas, regardless of the release rate, must still meet the requirements of the groundwater recharge criteria (§ 19-305), water quality criteria (§ 19-306), and streambank erosion criteria (§ 19-307).
General. Proposed condition rates of runoff from any regulated activity shall not exceed the peak release rates of runoff prior to development for the design storms specified on the Stormwater Management District Watershed Map (Appendix D) and in § 19-308 of this chapter.
District Boundaries. The boundaries of the stormwater management districts are shown on an official map that is available for inspection at the municipal office. A copy of the official map at a reduced scale is included in the Appendix D. The exact location of the stormwater management district boundaries as they apply to a given development site shall be determined by mapping the boundaries using the two-foot topographic contours (or most-accurate data required) provided as part of the drainage plan.
Sites Located in More Than One District. For a proposed development site located within two or more stormwater management district category subareas, the peak discharge rate from any subarea shall meet the management district criteria for which the discharge is located, as indicated in § 19-308. The calculated peak discharges shall apply regardless of whether the grading plan changes the drainage area by subarea. An exception to the above may be granted if discharges from multiple subareas recombine in proximity to the discharge site. In this case, peak discharge in any direction shall follow Management District A criteria, provided that the overall site discharge meets the management district criteria for the district in which the discharge is located.
Off-Site Areas. Off-site areas that drain through a proposed development site are not subject to release rate criteria when determining allowable peak runoff rates. However, on-site drainage facilities shall be designed to safely convey off-site flows through the development site.
Site Areas. Where the site area to be impacted by a proposed development activity differs significantly from the total site area, only the proposed impact area utilizing stormwater management measures shall be subject to the management district criteria. In other words, unimpacted areas bypassing the stormwater management facilities would not be subject to the management district criteria.
Stormwater runoff from all development sites with a drainage area of greater than 200 acres shall be calculated using a generally accepted calculation technique that is based on the NRCS Soil Cover Complex Method. Table 309-1 summarizes acceptable computation methods, and the method selected by the design professional shall be based on the individual limitations and suitability of each method for a particular site. The Rational Method shall be used to estimate peak discharges from drainage areas that contain less than 200 acres. The Soil Cover Complex Method shall be used for drainage areas greater than 200 acres.
Note: Successors to the above methods are also acceptable. These successors include WINNTR55 for TR55 and WINTR20 for TR20 and SWMM.
All calculations consistent with this chapter using the Soil Cover Complex Method shall use the appropriate design rainfall depths for the various return period storms according to the region in which they are located as presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B of this chapter. If a hydrologic computer model such as PSRM or HEC-1/HEC-HMS is used for stormwater runoff calculations, then the duration of rainfall shall be 24 hours. The rainfall distribution should reference to NOAA Atlas 14.
For the purposes of existing conditions' flow rate determination, undeveloped land shall be considered as "meadow" in good condition, unless the natural ground cover generates a lower curve number or Rational "C" value (i.e., forest), as listed in Table B-1 or B-2 in Appendix B of this chapter.
All calculations using the Rational Method shall use rainfall intensities consistent with appropriate times-of-concentration for overland flow and return periods from the NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States (2004, revised 2006). Times-of-concentration for overland flow shall be calculated using the methodology presented in Chapter 3 of Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, NRCS, TR-55 (as amended or replaced from time to time by NRCS). Times-of-concentration for channel and pipe flow shall be computed using Manning's Equation. The NRCS lag equation divided by 0.6 is an acceptable method for Tc in undeveloped areas.
Runoff Curve Numbers (CN) for both existing and proposed conditions to be used in the Soil Cover Complex Method shall be obtained from Table B-1 in Appendix B of this chapter.
Runoff coefficients (c) for both existing and proposed conditions for use in the Rational Method shall be obtained from Table B-2 in Appendix B of this chapter.
Where uniform flow is anticipated, the Manning Equation shall be used for hydraulic computations and to determine the capacity of open channels, pipes, and storm sewers. Values for Manning's roughness coefficient (n) shall be consistent with Table B-3 in Appendix B of this chapter. Full flow shall be assumed for closed conduits.
Outlet structures for stormwater management facilities shall be designed to meet the performance standards of this chapter using any generally accepted hydraulic analysis technique or method.
The design of any stormwater detention facilities intended to meet the performance standards of this chapter shall be verified by routing the design storm hydrograph through these facilities using the Storage-Indication Method. For drainage areas greater than 200 acres in size, the design storm hydrograph shall be computed using a calculation method that produces a full hydrograph (i.e., TR-20, TR-55, HEC-1, PSRM). The Borough of Shillington may approve the use of any generally accepted full hydrograph approximation technique that shall use a total runoff volume that is consistent with the volume from a method that produces a full hydrograph.
Any facilities that constitute water obstructions (e.g., culverts, bridges, outfalls, or stream enclosures), water encroachments, and any work involving wetlands governed by PaDEP Chapter 105 regulations (as amended or replaced from time to time by PaDEP) are subject to PaDEP Chapter 105 regulations.
Adequate erosion protection shall be provided along all open channels and at all points of discharge (DEP Erosion and Erosion, Sediment and Pollution Control Manual).
The Borough of Shillington reserves the right to disapprove any design that would result in construction in or continuation of a stormwater problem area.
All wet basin designs shall incorporate biologic minimization controls consistent with the West Nile Guidance found in Appendix F.
No stormwater detention facility shall be placed within 50 feet of a special geologic feature. No stormwater conveyance facility shall be constructed within 50 feet of a special geologic feature, unless it is constructed of durable pipe utilizing watertight joints.
Privately owned detention facilities and BMPs should be situated such that lot lines do not divide the facility. Maintenance of an individual facility shall be the responsibility of only one lot owner, unless the facility is located in a common area maintained by a homeowners' association.
Any stormwater management facility (i.e., detention basin) designed to store runoff and requiring a berm or earthen embankment required or regulated by this chapter shall be designed to provide an emergency spillway to handle flow up to and including the one-hundred-year proposed conditions and may be subject to PaDEP Chapter 105 regulations. The emergency spillway shall either be placed in undisturbed earth or constructed of concrete.
Minimum grades for turf areas inside detention basins shall be 1%, and maximum side slopes of retention/detention basins shall be 33% (three units horizontally to one unit vertically). Depending upon the location and the intended use of the detention facilities during nonfunctioning times, a side slope of less than 33% for one or both slopes may be required by the Board of Supervisors. Side slopes shall be kept as close to the natural land contours as practical, but when a detention basin is to be maintained by a future residential lot owner, the maximum side slope shall be 25% (four units horizontally to one unit vertically).
Where the outfall point of a proposed detention facility is located at a point subject to tailwater conditions, a tailwater elevation at the outfall point will need to be assumed when performing the detention facility routing calculations. The tailwater elevation assumed shall be based on the frequency of the storm being routed. For example, if a ten-year storm is being routed through the facility, the ten-year water surface elevation needs to be determined at the discharge point and assumed as the downstream tailwater condition.
Outlet structures for underground detention facilities shall be provided within a reinforced concrete junction box. Flows through the junction box shall be attenuated with a concrete weir wall with adequately sized orifices. The dimensions of the weir wall should be designed to allow passage of the one-hundred-year post-development inflow without surcharging the junction box.
Underground detention facilities which propose pipe storage as a means of detention shall be constructed of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) or smooth-lined corrugated plastic pipe (SLCPP).
Water surface area shall not exceed 1/10 of the tributary drainage area.
Shoreline protection shall be provided to prevent erosion from wave action.
Minimum normal water depth shall be four feet. If fish are to be used to keep the pond clean, a minimum of 1/4 of the pond area shall be a minimum of 10 feet deep.
Facilities shall be provided to allow the pond level to be lowered by gravity flow for cleaning purposes and shoreline maintenance.
Aeration facilities as may be required to prevent pond stagnation shall be provided. Design calculations to substantiate the effectiveness of these aeration facilities shall be submitted with final engineering plans. Agreements for the perpetual operation and maintenance of aeration facilities shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Borough of Shillington.
In the event that the water surface of the pond is to be raised for the purposes of storing water for irrigation or in anticipation of the evapotranspiration demands of dry weather, the volume remaining for storage of excess stormwater runoff shall still be sufficient to contain the design year storm runoff.
The height of the dam shall not exceed 15 feet, unless approved by the Borough of Shillington and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
The minimum top width of dams up to 15 feet in height shall be equal to 2/3 of the dam height, but in no case shall the top width be less than eight feet.
The side slopes of the settled earth fill shall not be less than three horizontal to one vertical.
A key trench at least two feet deep, or extending down to stable subgrade, whichever is deeper, of compacted relatively impervious material (Unified Soil Classification CL or ML). Minimum bottom width for the key trench shall be four feet. Maximum side slopes for the key trench shall be one horizontal to one vertical. A compacted impervious core at least eight feet wide at the top, having a maximum side slope of one horizontal to one vertical, shall extend for the full length of the embankment, and the top elevation shall be set at the design year water surface elevation.
All pipes and culverts through dams shall have properly spaced anti-seep collars (minimum six-inch thick).
Whenever a basin will be located in an area underlain by limestone, a geological evaluation of the proposed location shall be conducted to determine susceptibility to sinkhole formations. The design of all facilities over limestone formations shall include measures to prevent groundwater contamination and, where necessary, sinkhole formation. Soils used for the construction of basins shall have low-erodibility factors ("K" factors). The Borough of Shillington may require the installation of an impermeable liner in detention basins.
The following standards shall apply to all low-volume detention basins. A low-volume detention basin is considered any man-made surface impoundment designed to provide no more than 0.10 acre-feet of storage between the lowest outlet elevation to the top of berm elevation and a maximum one-hundred-year ponding depth no greater than three feet.
The minimum berm width shall be five feet.
The side slopes of both the interior and exterior embankments shall be no steeper than two horizontal units to one vertical unit.
Low-volume detention basins shall be designed to accommodate the one-hundred-year post-development storm such that the maximum water surface elevation is less than the emergency spillway elevation.
Emergency spillways shall be designed to safely convey the one-hundred-year post-development basin inflow with a minimum six inches of freeboard above the water surface elevation.
Infiltration testing shall be conducted in accordance with § 19-305, Subsection 2B.
A minimum depth of 36 inches between the bottom of the infiltration facility and the limiting zone.
The infiltration and/or percolation rate sufficient to accept the additional stormwater load and drain completely as determined by field tests conducted by the applicant's design professional.
The infiltration facility shall be capable of completely infiltrating the required retention/detention volume within 24 hours.
When stormwater runoff accesses the infiltration bed or trench via surface flow, the volume of runoff controlled by infiltration shall be limited to 25% of the detention volume required to satisfy § 19-308. This is in consideration of loss of function during freezing weather.
There exists at least 18 inches between the top of the infiltration facility and the ground surface.
An emergency overflow is provided capable of controlling the maximum year design storm for the watershed and district in which the facility is located when the infiltration facility is independent of the detention facility.
The point of discharge of the emergency overflow shall be in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The preferred point of discharge is into a detention or retention facility.
Any proposed roadway drainage facilities shall be designed according to the more restrictive of PennDOT Design Manual Part II or the Borough of Shillington standards.
Storm sewers must be able to convey proposed conditions' runoff from a twenty-five-year design storm without flooding inlets. At the Borough of Shillington's discretion, drainage facilities shall be designed to convey proposed conditions' runoff from the one-hundred-year design storm without flooding inlets in sag areas of streets.
When designing storm sewers that discharge into a detention facility, a tailwater condition at the storm sewer discharge point needs to be assumed where applicable. The assumed tailwater elevation should be the equal to the detention facility water surface elevation resulting from whatever year design storm was used to design the storm sewer. For example, if the storm sewer is being designed to convey a twenty-five-year storm, the downstream tailwater elevation should be assumed as the twenty-five-year stormwater surface elevation of the detention facility.
Subsurface drainage systems shall have manholes spaced at intervals not exceeding 400 feet and located wherever branches are connected or sizes are changed and wherever there is a change in alignment or grade. Inlets may be used instead of manholes when approved by the Borough Engineer.
Storm sewer lines within street rights-of-way shall be located next to the curbline and shall parallel the curbline as far as practical.
Subsurface drainage systems shall have curb inlets located at curb tangents on the uphill side of street intersections and at other locations as may be required by the Borough of Shillington as necessary to intercept runoff. Design and location of curb inlets shall be in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Design Manual Part 2 and be approved by the Borough Engineer.
All proposed inlets within curbed streets shall be designed such that the top of grate elevations are equal to the top of base course elevation to permit proper drainage of the streets prior to wearing course placement.
Inlets shall be designed and located to prevent hazards to vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.
Reinforced concrete culvert pipe Class III or better, with rubber O-ring joints, shall be used for all storm sewer lines to be constructed within street rights-of-way. Minimum diameter shall be 15 inches. Smooth lined corrugated polyethylene pipe (SLCPP) may be used at the option of the subdivider for lines to be located on private property that will not be offered for dedication to the Borough of Shillington.
If SLCPP is being proposed, as permitted in § 19-310, Subsection 3I, in areas underlain with limestone geology, watertight joints will be required within the storm sewer system. Only pipe joints which are capable of meeting the testing criteria outlined by ASTM D-3212 will be considered "watertight."
All drainage facilities shall be maintained to retain their design capacity.
Drainage facilities, including detention ponds, shall not convey water onto any existing or proposed public road right-of-way.
Pipes and storm sewers shall have a minimum slope not less than 0.005 foot per foot.
Permissible Velocities in Storm Pipe at Design Flow.
Minimum: 2.5 feet per second.
Maximum: 12.0 feet per second.
The inflow inverts of the proposed inlets shall be no less than 0.2 foot above the outflow invert elevation. The inflow pipe(s) crown elevation(s) shall be equal to or above the crown elevation of the outflow pipe. In specific cases, this requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Borough Engineer.
All proposed inlets within curbed streets shall be designed such that the top of grate elevation is equal to the top of base course elevation to permit proper drainage of the streets prior to wearing course placement.
Storm sewer inlets proposed to be sumped shall be a minimum of six feet long and no deeper than six feet.
Open channels shall be designed in accordance with the channel design procedures found in the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual.
All open channels shall be designed to convey the twenty-five-year stormwater flow. In addition, open channels shall be design to convey the one-hundred-year stormwater flow from emergency spillways and areas where damage to property would result.
Open channels located adjacent to residential streets shall be limited to a top width of six feet, depth of 1.5 feet, and, if trapezoidal in cross section, a minimum bottom width of two feet.
Open channels located along nonresidential streets, in side yards, rear yards, or open space shall be limited to a top width of 12 feet, depth of three feet, and, if trapezoidal in cross section, a minimum bottom width of two feet. Open channels located in side yards, rear yards, or open space shall provide a minimum of six inches of freeboard.
The minimum longitudinal slope shall not be less than 0.010 foot per foot nor greater than 0.100 foot per foot.
Any infiltration and water quality facilities proposed to meet the requirements of §§ 19-305 and 19-306 should be designed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the NPDES permit, if one is required. Design of the infiltration and water quality facilities should be in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, latest edition.
All streets shall be designed as to provide for the discharge of surface water from their rights-of-way.
The slope of the crown on proposed streets shall not be less than 1/4 inch per foot and not more than 1/2 inch per foot.
The typical slope of the shoulder areas shall not be less than 3/4 inch per foot and not more than one inch per foot.
Cross drainage in intersections or in tangent sections of roadway will not be permitted.
Gutter flow shall not exceed 1/2 of the travel lane width.


text:
Based on the analysis of the intron polymorphism of β-tubulin genes, the genetic variability of old Quercus robur L. trees from “Holosiivsky” NPP was investigated. The genotyping of 55 old Q. robur trees was carried out; 40 polymorphic and one monomorphic (about 880 bp) TBR fragments were found. High frequency (70–90%) of occurrence of fragments with an approximate molecular weight of 275, 490, 500, and 1110 bp was observed.The genetic polymorphism of old Q. robur trees was assessed as quite high: РІС is 0.22 – 0.39, the effective number of alleles per locus was 1.174–1.268. The Shannon information index was in the range of 0.204–0.269.The geographical differentiation of the genetic structure of centuries-old oak trees from “Holosiivsky” NPP was not pronounced. The share of inter-selection genetic variability (AMOVA) accounts for about 6% of genetic variability, and the geographic component – about 1%. Around 93% of genetic variability is concentrated on the individual level. Using the ТВР method, we found that Q. robur forest stands do not have a stabilized genetic and visible spatial structure, but at the same time they possess a sufficiently large genetic diversity. The absence of a spatial genetic structure may indicate the artificial origin of Q. robur trees from different seed materials, and also that a small number of the plants have survived to this time. In this case, the main influence on the structure of oak stands in “Holosiivsky” NPP was from anthropogenic factors, both in the form of cutting down trees and, possibly, the introduction of alien seed material.
Aldrich, P. R., & Cavender-Bares, J. (2011). Quercus. In: Kole, C. (Ed.) Wild crop relatives: Genomic and breeding resources, forest trees. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Pp. 89–129.
Aldrich, P. R., Jagtap, M., Michler, C. H., & Romero-Severson, J. (2003). Amplification of North American red oak microsatellite markers in european white oaks and chinese chestnut. Silvae Genetica, 52(3–4), 176–179.
Ashley, M. V., Abraham, S. T., Backs, J. R., & Koenig, W. D. (2015). Landscape genetics and population structure in Valley Oak (Quercus lobata Née). American Journal of Botany, 102(12), 2124–2131.
Bardini, M., Lee, D., Donini, P., Mariani, A., Giani, S., Toschi, M., Lowe, C., & Breviario, D. (2004). Tubulin-based polymorphism (TBP): A new tool, based on functionally relevant sequences, to assess genetic diversity in plant species. Genome, 47(2), 281–291.
Benbouza, H., Jacquemin, J.-M., Baudoin, J.-P., & Mergeai, G. (2006). Optimization of a reliable, fast, cheap and sensitive silver staining method to detect SSR markers in polyacrylamide gels. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment, 10(2), 77–81.
Blanco, H., Alberti, M., Forsyth, A., Krizek, K. J., Rodriguez, D. A., Talen, E., & Ellis, C. (2009). Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: Emerging research agendas in planning. Progress in Planning, 71(4), 153–205.
Blume, Y., Yemets, A., Sheremet, Y., Nyporko, A., Sulimenko, V., Sulimenko T., & Draber P. (2010). Exposure of beta-tubulin regions defined by antibodies on an Arabidopsis thaliana microtubule protofilament model and in the cells. BMC Plant Biology, 2010, 10–29.
Braglia, L., Manca, A., Mastromauro, F., & Breviario, D. (2010). cTBP: A successful intron length polymorphism (ILP)-based genotyping method targeted to well defined experimental needs. Diversity, 2(4), 572–585.
Breviario, D., Baird, W. V., Sangoi, S., Hilu, K., Blumetti, P., & Giani, S. (2007). High polymorphism and resolution in targeted fingerprinting with combined β-tubulin introns. Molecular Breeding, 20(3), 249–259.
Brygadyrenko, V. V. (2015). Community structure of litter invertebrates of forest belt ecosystems in the Ukrainian steppe zone. International Journal of Environmental Research, 9(4), 1183–1192.
Chung, M. Y., Nason, J., Chung, M. G., Kim, K.-J., Park, C.-W., Sun, B.-Y., & Pak, J.-H. (2002). Landscape-level spatial genetic structure in Quercus acutissima (Fagaceae). American Journal of Botany, 89(8), 1229–1236.
Coelho, A. C., Lima, M. B., Neves, D., & Cravador, A. (2006). Genetic diversity of two evergreen oaks (Quercus suber L. and Q. (ilex) rotundifolia Lam.) in Portugal using AFLP markers. Silvae Genetica, 55(3), 105–118.
Cummins, S. K., & Jackson, R. J. (2001). The built environment and children’s health. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 48(5), 1241–1252.
Curtu, A. L., Craciunesc, I., Enescu, C. M., Vidalis, A., & Sofletea, N. (2015). Fine-scale spatial genetic structure in a multi-oak-species (Quercus spp.) forest. iForest – Biogeosciences and Forestry, 8(3), 324–332.
Feng, Y., Sun, W., & Romero-Severson, J. (2008). Heterogeneity and spatial autocorrelation for chloroplast haplotypes in three old growth populations of Northern red oak. Silvae Genetica, 57, 212–220.
Fernández, M. J. F., & Sork, V. L. (2005). Mating patterns of a subdivided population of the Andean oak (Quercus humboldtii Bonpl., Fagaceae). Journal of Heredity, 96, 635–643.
Frouz, J., Vobořilová, V., Janoušová, I., Kadochová, Š., & Matějíček, L. (2015). Spontaneous establishment of late successional tree species English oak (Quercus robur) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica) at reclaimed alder plantation and unreclaimed post mining sites. Ecological Engineering, 77, 1–8.
García-Gómez, H., Aguillaume, L., Izquieta-Rojano, S., Valiño, F., Àvila, A., Elustondo, D., Santamaría, J. M., Alastuey, A., Calvete-Sogo, H., González-Fernández, I., & Alonso, R. (2016). Atmospheric pollutants in peri-urban forests of Quercus ilex: Evidence of pollution abatement and threats for vegetation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 6400.
Gaudeul, M., Taberlet, P., & Till-Bottraud, I. (2000). Genetic diversity in an endangered alpine plant, Eryngium alpinum L. (Apiaceae), inferred from amplified fragment length polymorphism markers. Molecular Ecology, 9, 1625–1637.
Gerber, S., Chadœuf, J., Gugerli, F., Lascoux, M., Buiteveld, J., Cottrell, J., Dounavi, A., Fineschi, S., Forrest, L. L., Fogelqvist, J., Goicoechea, P. G., Jensen, J. S., Salvini, D., Vendramin, G. G., & Kremer, A. (2014). High rates of gene flow by pollen and seed in oak populations across Europe. PLoS One, 9(1), e85130.
Green, M. R., & Sambrook, J. (2012). Molecular cloning. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor.
Grivet, D., Sork, V. L., Westfall, R. D., & Davis, F. W. (2008). Conserving the evolutionary potential of California valley oak (Quercus lobata Née): A multivariate genetic approach to conservation planning. Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 139–156.
Hampe, A., Pemonge, M.-H., & Petit, R. J. (2013). Efficient mitigation of founder effects during the establishment of a leading-edge oak population. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 280(1764), 20131070.
Hellmanna, J. J., & Pineda-Krch, M. (2007). Constraints and reinforcement on adaptation under climate change: Selection of genetically correlated traits. Biological Conservation, 137(4), 599–609.
Hongtrakul, V., Huestis, G. M., & Knapp, S. J. (1997). Amplified fragment length polymorphisms as a tool for DNA fingerprinting sunflower germplasm: Genetic diversity among oilseed inbred lines. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 95(3), 400–407.
Jensen, J. S., Olrik, D. C., Siegismund, H. R., & Lowe, A. J. (2003). Population genetics and spatial autocorrelation in an unmanaged stand of Quercus petraea in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 18(4), 295–304.
Katičić Bogdan, I., Kajba, D., Šatović, Z., Schüler, S., & Bogdan, S. (2018). Genetic diversity of Pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) in clonal seed orchards in Croatia, assessed by nuclear and chloroplast microsatellites. South-East European Forestry, 9(1), 29–46.
Kremer, A., & Petit, R. J. (1993). Gene diversity in natural populations of oak species. Annals of Forest Science, 50(Suppl. 1), 186–202.
Le Hir, H., Nott, A., & Moore, M. J. (2003). How introns influence and enhance eukaryotic gene expression. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 28(4), 215–220.
Leroy, T., Roux, C., Villate, L., Bodénès, C., Romiguier, J., Paiva, J. A. P., Dossat, C., Aury, J.-M., Plomion, C., & Kremer, A. (2017). Extensive recent secondary contacts between four European white oak species. New Phytologist, 214, 865–878.
Li, J. H., Jin, Z. X., Lou, W. Y., & Li, J. M. (2008). Genetic diversity of Lithocarpus harlandii populations in three forest communities with different succession stage. Frontiers of Forestry in China, 3(1), 106–111.
Li, S.-C., Tang, P., & Lin, W.-C. (2007). Intronic microRNA: Discovery and biological implications. DNA and Cell Biology, 26(4), 195–207.
Lind-Riehl, J., & Gailing, O. (2015). Fine-scale spatial genetic structure of two red oak species, Quercus rubra and Quercus ellipsoidalis. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 301(6), 1601–1612.
McVay, J. D., Hipp, A. L., & Manos, P. S. (2017) A genetic legacy of introgression confounds phylogeny and biogeography in oaks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 284, 20170300.
Morello, L., & Breviario, D. (2008). Plant spliceosomal introns: Not only cut and paste. Current Genomics, 9(4), 227–238.
Neophytou, C., Aravanopoulos, F., Fink, S., & Dounavi, A. (2010). Detecting interspecific and geographic differentiation patterns in two interfertile oak species (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Q. robur L.) using small sets of microsatellite markers. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(10), 2026–2035.
Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & Stevens, J. C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 4, 115–123.
Nowak, D. J., McHale, P. J., Ibarra, M., Crane, D. E., Stevens, J. C., & Luley, C. J. (1998). Modeling the effects of urban vegetation on air pollution. In: Gryning, S.-E., & Chaumerliac, N. (Eds.). Air pollution modeling and its application XII. Plenum Press, New York. Pp. 399–407.
Onyshchenko, V. A. (2013). Lisova roslynnist’ ur. Holosiyivs’kyy lis (m. Kyiv) [Forest vegetation of Holosiyivsky wood (Kyiv)]. Biolohichni Systemy, 2013, 5(1), 93–115.
Onyshchenko, V. A. (2015). Vikovi duby Holosiyivs’koho lisu [Old oaks of Holosiyivsky wood]. Zapovidna Sprava, 21, 19–23 (in Ukrainian).
Oyama, K., Ramı’rez-Toro, W., Peñaloza-Ramirez, J. M., Pedraza, A. E. P., Torres-Miranda, C. A., Ruiz-Sánchez, E., & González-Rodríguez, A. (2018). High genetic diversity and connectivity among populations of Quercus candicans, Quercus crassifolia, and Quercus castanea in a heterogeneous landscape in Mexico. Tropical Conservation Science, 11, 1–14.
Peakall, R., & Smouse, P. (2006). GenAlEx 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Molecular Ecology Notes, 6(1), 288–295.
Petit, R. J., Csaikl, U. M., Bordács, S., Burg, K., Coart, E., Cottrell, J., Dam, B., Deans, J. D., Dumolin-Lapègue, S., Fineschi, S., Finkeldey, R., Gillies, A., Glaz, I., Goicoechea, P. G., Jensen, J. S., König, A. O., Lowe, A. J., Madsen, S. F., Mátyás, G., Munro, R. C., Olalde, M., Pemonge, M.-H., Popescu, F., Slade, D., Tabbener, H., Taurchini, D., de Vries, S. G. M., Ziegenhagen, B., & Kremer, A. (2002). Chloroplast DNA variation in European white oaks. Phylogeography and patterns of diversity based on data from over 2600 populations. Forest Ecology and Management, 156(1–3), 5–26.
Pirko, Y. V. (2011). Issledovaniye geneticheskoy izmenchivosti raznykh vidov rasteniy s pomoshch'yu analiza polimorfizma intronov genov β-tubulina [Studying of genetic diversity different species of plants by analyzing polymorphism of introns of β-tubulin genes]. Industrial Botany, 11, 152–156 (in Ukrainian).
Plomion, C., Aury, J. M., Amselem, J., Alaeitabar, T., Barbe, V., Belser, C., Bergès, H., Bodénès, C., Boudet, N., Boury, C., Canaguier, A., Couloux, A., Da Silva, C., Duplessis, S., Ehrenmann, F., Estrada-Mairey, B., Fouteau, S., Francillonne, N., Gaspin, C., Guichard, C., Klopp, C., Labadie, K., Lalanne, C., Le Clainche, I., Leplé, J. C., Le Provost, G., Leroy, T., Lesur, I., Martin, F., Mercier, J., Michotey, C., Murat, F., Salin, F., Steinbach, D., Faivre-Rampant, P., Wincker, P., Salse, J., Quesneville, H., & Kremer, A. (2016). Decoding the oak genome: Public release of sequence data, assembly, annotation and publication strategies. Molecular Ecology Resources, 16(1), 254–265.
Plomion, C., Aury, J. M., Amselem, J., Leroy, T., Murat, F., Duplessis, S., Faye, S., Francillonne, N., Labadie, K., Le Provost, G., Lesur, I., Bartholomé, J., Faivre-Rampant, P., Kohler, A., Leplé, J. C., Chantret, N., Chen, J., Diévart, A., Alaeitabar, T., Barbe, V., Belser, C., Bergès, H., Bodénès, C., Bogeat-Triboulot, M. B., Bouffaud, M. L., Brachi, B., Chancerel, E., Cohen, D., Couloux, A., Da Silva, C., Dossat, C., Ehrenmann, F., Gaspin, C., Grima-Pettenati, J., Guichoux, E., Hecker, A., Herrmann, S., Hugueney, P., Hummel, I., Klopp, C., Lalanne, C., Lascoux, M., Lasserre, E., Lemainque, A., Desprez-Loustau, M. L., Luyten, I., Madoui, M. A., Mangenot, S., Marchal, C., Maumus, F., Mercier, J., Michotey, C., Panaud, O., Picault, N., Rouhier, N., Rué, O., Rustenholz, C., Salin, F., Soler, M., Tarkka, M., Velt, A., Zanne, A. E., Martin, F., Wincker, P., Quesneville, H., Kremer, A., & Salse, J. (2018). Oak genome reveals facets of long lifespan. Nature Plants, 4(7), 440–452.
Pospíšková, M., & Dostálek, J. (2010). Quercus petraea populations: A case study from the Křivoklátsko Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic). Biodiversity Research and Conservation, 13(1), 37–42.
Rabokon, A. N., Demkovych, A. Y., Pirko, Y. V., & Blume, Y. B. (2015). Polimorfizm dliny intronov genov beta-tubulina kak effektivnyy instrument genotipirovaniya rasteniy [Intron length polymorphism of β-tubulin gene as an effective tool for genotyping of plants]. Molecular and Applied Genetics (Mimsk), 19, 35–44 (in Russian).
Rahman, M. H., Jaquish, B., & Khasa, P. D. (2000). Optimization of PCR protocol in microsatellite analysis with silver and SYBR® stains. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 18(4), 339–348.
Rose, A. B. (2002). Requirements for intron-mediated enhancement of gene expression in Arabidopsis. RNA (New York, N.Y.): RNA Society, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 8(11), 1444–1453.
Semerikov, L. F. (1976). Izmenchivost’ duba chereshchatogo (Quercus robur L.) na vostochnoy granites areala [Variability of the oak quiver (Quercus robur L.) on the eastern border of the range]. Ecology, 5, 13–21 (in Russian).
Sork, V. L., & Smouse, P. E. (2006). Genetic analysis of landscape connectivity in tree populations. Landscape Ecology, 21, 821–836.
Sork, V. L., Davis, F. W., Smouse, P. E., Apsit, V. J., Dyer, R. J., Fernandez, J. F., & Kuhn, B. (2002). Pollen movement in declining populations of California valley oak, Quercus lobata: Where have all the fathers gone? Molecular Ecology, 11(9), 1657–1668.
Vasylyuk, O., Kostyushyn, V., Norenko, K., Plyha, A., Prekrasna, Y. E., Kolomytsev, H., & Fatikova, M. (2012). Pryrodno-zapovidnyy fond Kyyivs’koyi oblasti [Natural reserve fund of the Kiev region]. National Ecological Center of Ukraine, Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
Wenting, W., Yi, R., & Hengyu, Z. (2012). Investigation on temperature dropping effect of urban green space in summer in Hangzhou. Energy Procedia, 14, 217–222.
Wolch, J. R., Byrn, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.
Young, A. G., & Pickup, M. (2010). Low S allele numbers limit mate availability, reduce seed set and skew fitness in small populations of a self-incompatible plant. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 541–548.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.