HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO202000054 VSMP - SWPPP 2021-03-09oB A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Tel. (434) 296-5832 • Fax (434) 972-4126
�'IRGI1flP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
For Construction Activities At:
Project Name: Monticello Burial Ground for Enslaved People
V SMP/WPO#2020-00054
931 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
Charlottesville, Virginia22902
Prepared by:
Timmons Group
608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Contact: Bryan Cichocki, P.E.
434.327.5380
Prepared for:
Thomas Jefferson Foundation
P.O. Box 316
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Contact: Gardiner Hallock
434.960.6584
SWPPP Preparation Date: March 9, 2021
(This document is to be made publicly available according to 9VAC25-880-70, Part II, section D)
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
CONTENTS: (from Albemarle County Code Sec. 17405)
1. Registration statement
2. Notice of general permit coverage
3. Nature of activity
4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
5. Stormwater Management Plan
6. Pollution Prevention Plan.
7. Discharges to impaired waters, surface waters within an applicable TMDL
wasteload allocation, and exceptional waters.
8. Qualified personnel
9. Signed Certification
10. Delegation of authority.
11. General permit copy
12. Inspection logs
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Section 1. Registration statement
(Provide a signed completed copy of the DEQ registration statement)
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PERMIT #:
GENERAL VPDES PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES OF STORMWATER FROM PLAN/ID #:
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (VAR10) TECHNICAL CRITERIA: 1113 ❑ IIC ❑
REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019
Application type. ❑ NEW PERMIT ISSUANCE
(CHOOSE ONE) ❑ MODIFICATION WITH ACREAGE INCREASE
❑ MODIFICATION WITHOUT ACREAGE INCREASE
❑ EXISTING PERMIT RE -ISSUANCE
Section I. Operator/Permittee Information.
A. Construction Activity Operator (Permittee). The person or entity that is applying for permit coverage and will have
operational control over construction activities to ensure compliance with the general permit. A person with
signatory authority for this operator must sign the certification in Section V. (per Part III. K. of the VAR10 Permit).
Operator Name:
Contact person:
Address:
City, State and Zip Code:
Phone Number:
Primary and CC Email:
B. Electronic correspondence. To receive an emailed coverage letter or to pay by credit card, you must choose YES
and include a valid email. May we transmit correspondence electronically? YES ❑ NO ❑
Section II. Construction Activity Information.
A.
Include a site map showing the location of the existing or proposed land -disturbing activities, the limits of land
disturbance, construction entrances and all waterbodies receiving stormwater discharges from the site.
B.
Project site location information.
Construction Activity Name:
Address:
City and/or County and Zip Code:
Construction Activity Entrance Location
(description, street address and/or
latitude/longitude in decimal degrees):
Latitude and Longitude
(6-digit, decimal degrees format):
C.
Acreage totals for all land -disturbing activities to be included under this permit coverage. Report to the nearest
one -hundredth of an acre.
Total land area of development (include entire area to be
disturbed as approved in the Stormwater Management Plan):
Primary estimated area to be disturbed (include portions with
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan approval only):
Off -site estimated area to be disturbed (if applicable):
D.
Property Owner Status:
FEDERAL ❑ STATE ❑ PUBLIC ❑ PRIVATE ❑
E.
Nature of the Construction Activity Description (i.e. commercial,
industrial, residential, agricultural, environmental, utility):
F.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) name(s) (if the
site is discharging to a MS4):
G.
Estimated Project Dates (MM/DD/YYYY).
Start Date:
Completion Date:
H.
Is this construction activity part of a larger common plan of
development or sale?
YES ❑ NO ❑
Rev 11/2020 PAGE 1 1 6
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR10) REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019
I. 6" Order Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) and Receiving Water Name(s). Include additional areas on a separate page.
HUC NAME(S) OF RECEIVING WATERBODY
Section III. Off -site Support Activity Location Information.
List all off -site support activities and excavated material disposal areas being utilized for this project. Include additional
areas on a separate page.
Off -site Activity Name:
Address:
City or County:
Off -site Activity Entrance Location (description, street
address and/or latitude/longitude in decimal degrees):
Latitude and Longitude (6-digit, decimal degrees format):
Is this off -site activity an excavated material disposal
area?
YES ❑ NO ❑
If this off -site activity is an excavated material disposal
area, list the contents of the excavated fill material:
Willa separate VPDES permit cover this off -site activity?
YES ❑ NO ❑
Section IV. Other Information.
A.
A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
General VPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities prior to submitting the
Registration Statement. By signing the Registration Statement, the operator is certifying that the SWPPP has been
prepared.
B.
Has an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan been
submitted to the VESC Authority for review?
YES ❑ NO ❑
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval Date (for
the estimated area to be disturbed MM/DD/YYYY):
C.
Has land -disturbance commenced?
YES ❑ NO ❑
D.
Annual Standards and Specifications. If this project is utilizing approved Annual Standards and Specifications
(AS&S), attached the completed AS&S Entity Form.
AS&S Entity Name (if different from the Operator
identified in Section I):
E.
Billing information (leave blank if same as the Operator identified in Section I. above). This entity will receive
Annual Permit Maintenance and Permit Modification Fee invoices (if applicable).
Billing Name:
Contact Name:
Address:
City, State and Zip Code:
Phone Number:
Primary and CC Email:
Rev 11/2020 PAGE 2 16
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR10) REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019
Section V. Certification. A person representing the operator as identified in Section I. A. and meeting the requirements
of 9VAC25-880-70. Part III. K must physically sign this certification. A typed signature is not acceptable. Please note that
operator is defined in 9VAC25-870-10 as follows:
"Operator" means the owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to the Act and this chapter. In the context of stormwater
associated with a large or small construction activity, operator means any person associated with a construction project that meets
either of the following two criteria: (i) the person has direct operational control over construction plans and specifications, including
the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications or (ii) the person has day-to-day operational control of those
activities at a project that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other state
permit or VSMP authority permit conditions (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers at a site to carry out activities required by the
stormwater pollution prevention plan or comply with other permit conditions). In the context of stormwater discharges from
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), operator means the operator of the regulated MS4 system.
9VAC25-880-70. Part III. K. Signatory Requirements. Registration Statement. All Registration Statements shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this chapter, a responsible corporate officer
means: (i) a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or
any other person who performs similar policy -making or decision -making functions for the corporation, or (ii) the manager
of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided the manager is authorized to make management
decisions that govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major
capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long-term
compliance with environmental laws and regulations,• the manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or
actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for state permit application requirements; and where authority
to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures,
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively' or
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
For purposes of this chapter, a principal executive officer of a public agency includes: (i) the chief executive officer of the
agency or (ii) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the
agency.
Certification: "I certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand this Registration Statement and that this
document and all attachments were prepared in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage
the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best
of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting
false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Printed Name:
Signature (signed in ink):
Date Signed:
Section VI. Submittal Instructions. Submit this form to the VSMP Authority. If the locality is the VSMP Authority, please
send your Registration Statement submittal directly to the locality; do NOT send this form to DEQ. A list of local VSMP
Authorities is available here: VSMP Authorities.
If DEQ is the VSMP Authority, please send to: If the locality is the VSMP Authority, please send to:
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Stormwater Management Suite 1400
PO Box 1105
Richmond VA 23218
constructiongp@deg.virginia.gov
Rev 11/2020 PAGE 3 16
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR10) REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019 INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE DO NOT PRINT OR SUBMIT
This Registration Statement is for coverage under the General VPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities. This form
covers the following permit actions: new permit issuance, existing permit modification with an increase in acreage, existing permit modifications
that result in a plan modification but do not result in an increase in disturbed acreage, and reissuance of an active permit coverage.
Application type. Select NEW PERMIT ISSUANCE to obtain a new permit coverage. Modifications are for modifying an existing, active permit
coverage. Select MODIFICATION WITH ACREAGE INCREASE when the previously approved acreage(s) increases (permit modifications are not
performed for decreases in acreage unless they result in plan changes — see Modification WITHOUT Acreage Increase). Select MODIFICATION
WITHOUT ACREAGE INCREASE when there is a change to the site design resulting in a change to the approved plans with no increase in acreage(s)
Select EXISTING PERMIT REISSUANCE to extend an expiring permit coverage for the next permit cycle and include the existing permit number.
Section I. Operator/Permittee Information.
A. Construction Activity Operator (Permittee). The person or entity that is applying for permit coverage and will have operational control over
construction activities to ensure compliance with the general permit. For companies, use the complete, active, legal entity name as registered with
a state corporation commission. Entities that are considered operators commonly consist of the property owner, developer of a project (the party
with control of project plans and specifications), or general contractor (the party with day-to-day operational control of the activities at the project
site that are necessary to ensure compliance with the general permit). If an individual person is listed as the operator, that person (or a legal
representative of) must sign the certification in Section V. An operator may be one of the following:
9VAC25-870-10. Definitions.
"Operator" means the owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to the Act and this chapter. In the context of stormwater associated with a
large or small construction activity, operator means any person associated with a construction project that meets either of the following two
criteria: (i) the person has direct operational control over construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those
plans and specifications or (if) the person has day-to-day operational control of those activities at a project that are necessary to ensure compliance
with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other state permit or V5MP authority permit conditions (i.e., they are authorized to direct
workers at a site to carry out activities required by the stormwater pollution prevention plan or comply with other permit conditions). In the context
of stormwater discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), operator means the operator of the regulated MS4 system.
"Owner" means the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions including, but not limited to, sanitation district commissions and authorities,
and any public or private institution, corporation, association, firm or company organized or existing under the laws of this or any other state or
country, or any officer or agency of the United States, or any person or group of persons acting individually or as a group that owns, operates,
charters, rents, or otherwise exercises control over or is responsible for any actual or potential discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, or other
wastes or pollutants to state waters, or any facility or operation that has the capability to alter the physical, chemical, or biological properties of
state waters in contravention of § 62.1-44.5 of the Code of Virginia, the Act and this chapter.
"Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a state,
governmental body, including a federal, state, or local entity as applicable, any interstate body or any other legal entity.
B. May we transmit correspondence electronically? If you choose YES to this question and provide an email address in Section I. A., all
correspondence, forms, invoices and notifications will be transmitted by email to the operator. This will also give the operator the ability to pay by
credit card and to receive Dermit coverage aooroval letters immediately uoon Dermit aooroval.
Section II. Construction Activity Information.
A. A site map indicating the location of the existing or proposed land -disturbing activities, the limits of land disturbance, construction entrances
and all water bodies receiving stormwater discharges from the site must be included with the submittal of this form. Aerial imagery maps or
topographic maps showing the required items are acceptable. Plan sheet sized site maps are not required. Please consult your VSMP authority if
you have additional questions regarding site map requirements.
B. Construction Activity Name and location. Provide a descriptive project name (it is helpful to use the same naming convention as listed on the
Stormwater Management plans), 911 street address (if available), city/county of the construction activity, and the 6-digit latitude and longitude in
decimal degrees format for the centroid, main construction entrance or start and end points for linear projects (i.e. 37.1234N/-77.1234W).
C. Acreage totals for all land -disturbing activities, on- and off -site, to be included under this permit. Acreages are to be reported to the nearest
one -hundredth acre (two decimal places; i.e. 1.15 acres). Provide the total acreage of the primary development site as approved on the
Stormwater Management Plans and the primary on -site estimated acreage to be disturbed by the construction activity as approved under the
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. The off -site estimated area to be disturbed is the sum of the disturbed acreages for all off -site support
activities to be covered under this general permit. Do not include the off -site acreage totals in the primary, on -site total and estimated disturbed
acreage totals. Permit fees are calculated based on your disturbed acreage total for all on- and off -site areas being disturbed under this permit
coverage (the sum of all on -site and off -site disturbed acreages).
D. Property owner status. The status of the construction activity property owner. Any property not owned by a government entity or agency (i.e.
federal, state or local governments) is PRIVATE.
Rev 11/2020 PAGE 4 16
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR10) REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019 INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE DO NOT PRINT OR SUBMIT
E. Nature of the construction activity description. Choose the designation that best describes the post -construction use of this project (you may
choose more than one). (i.e. Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural, Environmental, Educational, Oil and Gas, Utility, Transportation,
Institutional, etc.). Describe the post -construction use of the project (i.e. Commercial — one new office building and associated parking and
utilities; Transportation — Linear roads, sidewalks and utilities; Agricultural-3 Poultry Houses, etc.).
F. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) name(s) if discharging to a MS4. If stormwater is discharged through a MS4 (either partially or
completely), provide the name of the MS4(s) that will be receiving water from this construction activity. The MS4 name is typically the town, city,
county, institute or federal facility where the construction activity is located.
G. Estimated project dates. Provide the estimated project start date and completion date in Month/Day/Year or MM/DD/YYYY format (i.e.
07/30/2019).
H. Is this construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development or sale? "Common plan of development or sale" means a contiguous
area where separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules per 9VAC25-870-50.
Definitions. Le. a subdivision, commercial development, business park, etc.
I. 6th Order Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) and associated Receiving Water Name(s). Provide all 6th order HUCs and receiving waterbody names, for
the primary site and any Off -site areas included under this permit coverage, that could potentially receive stormwater runoff discharging from this
activity. The HUC can be either a 12-digit number (i.e. 0208010101) or 2-letter, 2-number code (i.e. JL52). Include additional HUCs or receiving
waters on a separate page. You may utilize DEQ!s web -based GIS application, VEGIS, to obtain this information.
• VEGIS application link: DEas VEGIS Mapping Application
• Instructions for utilizing DE(Xs VEGIS application link: CGP-GIS HUC Instructions
Section III. Off -site Support Activity Location Information.
This general permit also authorizes stormwater discharges from support activities (e.g., concrete or asphalt batch plants, equipment staging yards,
material storage areas, excavated material disposal areas, borrow areas) located on -site or off -site provided that (i) the support activity is directly
related to a construction activity that is required to have general permit coverage; (ii) the support activity is not a commercial operation, nor does
it serve multiple unrelated construction activities by different operators; (III) the support activity does not operate beyond the completion of the
construction activity it supports; (iv) the support activity is identified in the Registration Statement at the time of general permit coverage; (v)
appropriate control measures are identified in a SWPPP and implemented to address the discharges from the support activity areas; and (vi) all
applicable state, federal, and local approvals are obtained for the support activity.
Off -site activity name and location information. Provide a descriptive off -site project name, 911 street address (if available), construction entrance
location (address or decimal degrees coordinates and description), city/county and the 6-digit latitude and longitude in decimal degrees (i.e.
37.1234N, 77.1234W) of all off -site support activities. Indicate whether the off -site support activity will be covered under this general permit or a
separate VPDES permit.
If excavated material (i.e., fill) will be transported off -site for disposal, the name and physical location address, when available, of all off -site
excavated material disposal areas including city or county; 6-digit latitude and longitude in decimal degrees (i.e. 37.1234N, 77.1234W) and the
contents of the excavated material.
List additional off -site areas to be included under this permit coverage on a separate page. Off -site areas not included on this registration will need
to obtain coverage under a separate VPDES permit.
Section IV. Other Information.
A. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be prepared prior to submitting the Registration Statement per 9VAC25-880. See
9VAC25-880-70. Part II. of the General Permit for the SWPPP requirements.
B. If the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the estimated area to be disturbed listed in Section II. C. has been submitted to the VESC Authority
for review and plan approval, choose YES. If you are submitting this application to reissue an existing permit coverage, please provide the date that
the VESC Authority approved the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the estimated area to be disturbed.
C. If land disturbance has commenced, choose YES. "Land disturbance" or "land -disturbing activity" means a man-made change to the land surface
that may result in soil erosion or has the potential to change its runoff characteristics, including construction activity such as the clearing, grading,
excavating, or filling of land per §62.1-44.15:24. Definitions.
D. If this project is using approved Annual Standards and Specifications (AS&S), attach the completed AS&S Entity Form.
If the AS&S Entity is different from the operator identified in Section I. A., list the AS&S Entity Name. The AS&S entity is the entity or agency that
holds the approved annual standards & specification. Please indicate if this project is also requesting a plan waiver.
• AS&S Entity Form link: Annual Standards and Specifications Entity Information Form
Rev 11/2020 PAGE 5 16
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR10) REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019 INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE DO NOT PRINT OR SUBMIT
E. Billing information. If the person or entity responsible for billing/invoicing is different from the operator, please complete this section. If they
are the same, leave this section blank.
Section V. Certification.
A properly authorized individual associated with the operator identified in Section I. A. of the Registration Statement is responsible for certifying
and signing the Registration Statement. A person must physically sign the certification, a typed signature is unacceptable. State statutes provide
for severe penalties for submitting false information on the Registration Statement. State regulations require that the Registration Statement be
signed as follows per 9VAC25-880-70 Part III. K. 1.:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this part a responsible corporate officer means:
(i) A president secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who
performs similar policy -making or decision -making functions for the corporation, or
(H) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided the manager is authorized to make
management decisions that govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major
capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long-term compliance with
environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather
complete and accurate information for permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures.
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For purposes of this part
a principal executive officer of a public agency includes:
(i) The chief executive officer of the agency, or
(ii) A senior executive officer having responsibility far the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency.
Section VI. Submittal Instructions.
Submit this form to the VSMP Authority that has jurisdiction for your construction activity. The VSMP Authority maybe either DEQ or your locality
depending on the location and type of project. If your project is under the jurisdiction of a Local VSMP Authority, please contact the locality for
additional submittal instructions. A blank area is provided for the Local VSMP Authority's mailing address.
Who is the VSMP Authority for my orofect? DEQ or the locality?
• DEQ: DEQ is the VSMP Authority and administers permit coverage for land -disturbing activities that are:
➢ within a locality that is not a VSMP Authority;
➢ owned by the State or Federal government; or
➢ utilizing approved Annual Standards and Specifications.
• The Locality: The local government (locality) is the VSMP Authority and administers permit coverage for all other projects not covered by DEQ
as listed above. For these projects, please submit permit forms directly to the Local VSMP Authority. A list of Local VSMP Authorities is
available on DEQ's website here: Local VSMP Authority List.
www.deg.virginia.gov/Progra mslwate r/Sto rmwaterM a nageme nt/VSM PPerm its/ConstructionGenera I Perm it. aspx
Email the completed and signed form to:
constructiongp@deg.virginia.gov
Rev 11/2020 PAGE 6 16
Section 2. Notice of general permit coverage
(This notice is to be posted near the main entrance according to 9VAC25-880-70, Part II, section C.)
(Provide a copy of the DEQ coverage letter when obtained)
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Section 3. Nature of activity
(Provide a detailed narrative of the construction activities. Include or reference a construction schedule
and sequence. Include any phasing.)
This project includes the construction of new walking paths and landscaping around and associated site
work. Erosion and sediment control limits of disturbance area is 0.76 acres.
The property is bounded a residential parcel to the east, Thomas Jefferson Parkway to the south and
west, and a Monticello Historic District parcel to the north.
All construction shall take place in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Sequence of
Installation on plan sheet C3.0. Estimated construction dates are as indicated on the Registration
Statement.
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Section 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
(Provide a reduced, 11x17 copy of the latest Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Do not reference
only.)
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE MINIMUM STANDARDS:
TABLE 3.11-e
ACCEPTABLE TEMPOEARY SEEDING PLANT MATERIALS
SEDIMEINGCRNTCO, TROL BY DISTRICT OR LOCALITY MUST BE CONSISTENT
N ANDFOLLOWING
gUICK REFERENCE FOR ALL REGIONS'
1 1 /� A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION WITHAN
TECHN0.0GMMADMETED
TXEFOLLOWING CRITERIA,YSOIL TECHNIQUES HODS:
ME
/V_H
TXISPROIECTINCLUDES NEW WALKING PATHS AND LANDSCAPING AROUND AND ASSOCIATED SIZE MI SHALLAPPLIED.TEMPORARY TO DENUDED SEVEN
MS-1. PERMANENT ORAL
PLANTING RATE$ SPECIES RATE IIBSJAChFW
GRAD ISREACHED ONM MULOL O
WOW. ME LIMIT$OF DISTURBANCE I$D.]6 ACRES. DAY$AFTERFINAL GRADE I$REACHEDON MY PORTIONOF TXE$TIE. TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION
SOILSWIIHINMPOIN
11H
SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS TO DENUDED AREAS THAT MAY NOT BE AT FINAL GRADE BUT
_
JveFreu¢ii0rt
KEPT 15 5b50 MIX OF
ADJACENT PROPERTY WILL REMAIN DORMANT FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAIS. PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL BE
oe�
.1-FEB.
ANNUAL RYEGRASS
THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING MADE WITHIN TIE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. TIE PROPERTY IS APFUEDTOAR STHATARETOBELEFr DORMANT FORMORETHANONEYMR.
(LOLIUM MULE-FLORUM)
U Cohen C¢ner, PIGEW Sphe 10
CURRENTLY BOUNDED BY A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TOTHE EAST, THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAYTO ME MI WRING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, SOIL STOCKPILES AND BORROW AREAS SHALL BE STABIFIRD
_>£ (cv
q 5y1C0
glevOntlT'a Virginia22316
SOUTH AND WEST, AND A MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT PARCEL TO THE MOM. OR PROTECTED WITH SEDIMENT MAPPING MEASURES. THE APPLICANT 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
z..�M
- I
C R)RYE
T¢¢phOn¢J03.336.T/06
TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND PERMANENTSTABILZATION OF ALL SOIL STOCKPILES ON STIE AS WELL
USEA(E CEREALS)
($ECALE CEREPIE)
EXISTING SUE CONDITIONS AS BORROW AREAS AND SOIL INTENTIONALLY TRANSPORTED MOM THE PRmECE SITE.
THE SUE IS CURRENTLY A HISTORICAL SITE WITH EXISTING AFRICAN AMERICAN BURIAL GROUNDS AS MS-3. A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ON DENUDED AREAS NOT OTHERWISE
c
FEB. 16-APR. 30 ANNUAL RYEGRASS �1C0
WELL AS ASPHALT PATHS AND PARKING AREAS. PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED UNTIL A
PROF Fa
(LOLIUM MULTI-FLORUM)
OFF-SM AREAS GROUND COVER IS ACHIEVED THAT IS UNIFORM, MANTLE ENOUGH TO SURVIVE AND WILL INHIBIT
EROSION.
OTHER
NO OFF -SITE AREAS WILL BE DISTURBED fSAPART OF THIS PR0]ER. MS -4. SEDIMEMTRAPS, PECONTRUCTEDS,SAFIRST BEP
m urv_
MAY 1-AUG. 31 GERMAN MILLET 50
p5 BETARN ITALIC+ 3.31
( ) O
Byrd VI
IIERSAND
DDISURBING ACTIVITY AND BE
AN SHALL
x_
Landscape Architects
ape
TAKES PEACE.
BEFORE SHALLBE LAND DISTURBANCE TAKES PLACE.
MADEFUNCTHALLBECFORE LESIONS LAND DISTURBANCE
TICALCRITICAL
EROSION AREAS MADELIZATI
1
xN
�•, � _ +' `e
TEA1PORARY SEEDING PLANT MATERIALS
NO
xo eamrAL EROSION AREA EXIST. Ms-s. NNME SHALL eEAPPLIED3D FAaTn6ry STRUCTURES SUCH AS DAMS, DIKES AND
LAN08G1PEARCXITECT
xo Bale
DIVERSIONS NS IMMEDIATELY PETER INSTALLATION.
DIVERSIONS IMMEDIATELY
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURESMAPS RAIL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BASED UPON TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA TO
MS-6. SEDIMENTSERVEBY
RFr x`
UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL VEGETATIVE AND SIRUCNRAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT BE SERVED BY THETRAP.
n r
K 'E'Mx
ffm
NELSON MD WORZ
CONTROL SEE STRUCTED MINIMUM A.THEMINIMUM SIOMGECAPACUYOFASEOIMEMTMPSMA BE134CUBICYARDSPERAC OF
DINGVIRGI
1
310 E MARKET STREET
SAND SSSHALL
ATIONS OF ADDITIMAINTAIN OF IA
STANDARDS AND SPL-0F[CATIOHS OF THE CURRENT ADDITION I]F THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND DRAINAGE AREA AND THE TRAP SHALL ONLY CONTROL DRAINAGE AREAS LESS MAN THREE ACRES.
TABLE3.32-D
CHARLOTLESVLLE, VA 22902
SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDPAOK. TIE MINIMUM STANDARDS OFTIE VESCH SHALL BE ADHERED TO MS-J. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMZE
UNLESS OTHERWISE WANED OR APPROVED BY A VARIANCE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVING EROSION. SLOPES THAT ARE FOUND TO BE ERODING EXCESSIVELY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF PERMANENT
_ - - - PMitvt Mwnucf
SITE SPECIFIC SEEDING MIXTUREB FOR PIEOMONTPAE4
(g34)E94-1359
DISSECTION. STABILEATON SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ADDITOML SLOPE STABILIZING MEASURES UNTILTHE
wceT= rv. [.es ! mxASCMVErvrYT
TOTAL LBS. MR ACRE
PROBLEM IS CORRECTED.
'F[Rnie�x+
MINIMUM CARE LAWN
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MAINTENANCE MS-8. CONCENTRATED RUNOFF SHALL NOT ROW DOWN CUT OR ELL SLOPES UNLESS CONTAINED WITHIN AN
PUN
COMMERCIAL OR RE$IDEMIAL 175200 LOS.
ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADEQUATE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT CHANNEL, FLUME OR SLOPE DRAIN STRUCTURE.
KENUI31 OR FILMSTYPETALL FESCUE III
••
eeiwa
VESOI AND THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE, INCLUDING THE INSPECTION OF ALL MEASURES AFTER MS-9. WHENEVER WATER SEEPS FROM A SLOPE FACE, ADEQUATE DRAINAGE OR OTHER PROMOTION SHALL BE
IMPROVED PERENNIAL RYEGRAS$ 0.5%
ALL PAIN EVENTS. PROVIDED.
"
KEN RRI BLUEGRASS 05%
TIMMONS GROUP
MS-10. ALL STORM SEWER INLETS THAT ARE MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED 50
PRACTICES THAT SEDIMENTDOWNWATER CANNOT ENTER THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST BEING
_"r�IH'"
GENERAL SLOPE (3:1 OR LESS)
EMML
1. TEMPORARY
L TPORARRYY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE-3.@ATEMMRPRY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE TREATED REMOVE SEDIMENT.
-- - T - -
KENIOD" 31 FESCUE 128 LBS.
CMLENGINEER
AT ELOUGHONECONSTEDTION. ON PLANS.OSEISTO IF IS THAT THIS
PROVIFILTEREDEW YCONSTRUCTED H ANCE OR PIPES
MS-11. BEFORE NEWLYADEQUAEOUTLEOPROTEC
2LOS
RIEDUETHEAOUNTOFATIVIS
M
BEMA TAINEDD BY. ITS PURM5EI5 TO REDUCE TiEAMOUNT OF MUD OPERATIONAL ON AND MY RY OR
AND ANY TEMPORAS
.,
r -T_ / -
SEASONAL NURAVER
SEASONAL CROP' 20 LBS.
TIMMONSGROUP
TRANSPORTED ONTO
TRANSPORTED PUBLIC ROAM RUNOFF. CHANNEL LINING SHALL REINSTALLED IN RECEIVING
UNING SHAABEINST INSTALLED IN NOUN CONVEYANCE CHANNEL AND 0.KTOMINIANNEL
GCT
SECTION A -A
150 L&4'
NAV
SIX ON AVENUE
Z. SILT FENCE SORRIER-3.O551LT FENCE SEDIMENT BARRIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED DOWNSLOPE MS-12. WHEN WORK IN A WATERCOURSE IS PERFORMED,
ERFORME,PRESEANCECHANALL
PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE
LOW-MNMENANCE SLOPE (STEEPER THAN 3:11
'SEE
SUITE
AREAS WITH MINIMAL ARGUES TFILTERYMOTORVELAE. RUNOFF
OF AREAS WITH MIN[MALGMDESTO FILTER SETTLEMENT LADEN RUNOFF FROM SHEET FLOW AS ENCROACHMENT, CONTROL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND STABILIZE THE WORK AREA TO THE GREATEST
ON AN
SLOPE STABILIZATION SEED MIX
INDICATED. ITSWTPROISTOPREVENT SEDIMENT MOM LEAVING THESITE. EXTEMUCTIONPOSSIBLE NONERODIBLE BE
b with aCHARLOTTE$V
ILu.'IO..""oe
gxwIN
OT LIE, VA 22SU3
3. DRAW SEDIMENT IMPOUNDING EA RTHEINFNALSHALL
DR OFDURING CAUSEWAYS
MUSE WA EARTHEN FlLL MAY BE USED FOR THESE
CONSTRUCTION RARTHER
O0. ANEXCAVATEDIS
ire Aap,EA,Am4II r'Nend.If o¢Lex for
eF.hrinAFAAH, lSvcnwer44nxexlxL....d-of
g3482]53PL
TO
AREA AROUND ASTORM GRAIN DROP INLETORCURB INLET. ITS W0.PO5E I5 TO PREVENT
ACA ASTURM GRAIN DROP OR CURB BEEN S IF RU NONEROOWE DIBLE DOWN MATERIALSCONSTRUCTION
r.h
vwlnl:Lpmgve.\Vxdrwala nm36e am»etivwxawdom the m,enH.eloan
t. Ole
SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING MESTORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM PRIOR TO PERMANENT STABNZAnON. WHEN+STRUCTME WATERCOUMORED RSE MUST BE CROSSEOVER
MS-13. IVEWATERIOD, BY ICLE TWICE IN
MPORARY
yryrotetl nNtlmx aea Wenumzek.a.. .ABsNwxur ah�I6elan'axed Gau
4. DUSTCONTROL-3.39DUSTCONTROLISMBEUSEDTHROUGHTHESUEINAUASSUWEUM STREAMURSSING
ANY SIX MONTH PERIOD, A TEMPORARY VEHICULAR STREAM CROSSING CONSTRUCTED OF NONERODIBIE
ANN SIX A VEHICUARD CONSTRUCMORE DOF
en[nine A. Minn. NMes m' waLwrorvwe.+.
SURFACEAIR MOVEMENT MATERIALSHALLBEPRAL,
NALBELL NURSE CROP IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEEDING DATES
AS STATED BELOW:
AS
THOMAS
STA.
Ms-14. ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO WORKING IN OR CROSSING
PRACTICES:
VEGETATIVE PRACTICES:
PAVE WASH RACK
FEBRUARY IBM ANNUALFEW
WATERCOURSES MET.RCO
S. TEMP30DAYSSHALLBORARY SEEDING - 3.EI DENUDED EASWTINGTMPORAHICH WILL BE WDORMATIONNT 0.E
n-s's[
UGHAUGUST IBL MILLET
I STIBMTH
JEFFERSON
ME OFSHALL WAE
EDWITHFASTGALL Ms-1STHEBEOAND BANKS DFAWATERCOURSESHALL BESTABILIZED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WORK INTHE
30 DAYS BE SEEDED WITH FAST GERMINATING TEMPORARY VEGETATION
AUGUMAY ..........................F...ANN
AUGUST I6TH THROUGH OCTOBER NJNWLRVE
THROUGH
WATERCOURSE IS CON PLETED.
INN
IMMEDTATELYFOLLOWINGGRADINGOFTIOSEAREAS. SELECTION OFTHE SEED MIXTURE SHALL MS-16. UNDERGROUND UTILITY UNIS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS
NOVEMBER THROUGH FEBRUARY I5TH..... ................... WINTER RYE
FOUNDATION
DEPEND ON THE TIME OF YEAR IT IS APPLIED. IN ADDITION TO OTTER APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
"SUBSTITUTE(M
6. PERMANENTSEEDING-3.32FOLLOWINGGMDINGARIVUIESESTP USHPERENNIAL A, NO MORE THAN 500 UNFAIR FEET OF TRENCH MAY BE OPENED AT ONE TIME.
PCE
FAST F
PEDEPTEMBEO, FOR RUSE
931 T1i0M43 JEFFERSON PKWY
VEGETATIVE COVER BY PLANTING SEED W REDUCE EROSION, STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS, AND B. E\UVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OFTRENCHES.
THRCIUEA
HULCDSERICH
FPAMVILLE,Vq(M4T THROUGH BEPTEMBER USE HULLED SERICE4,ALL
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
ENHANCE NATURAL BEAUTY. CEFFWENT FROM DEWATEa1NGOPERATIONS SHALL BE FILTERED O0. PASSED THROUGH AN APPROVED
OTHER PERIODS, UNHULLEO MUSKAT IF FLATPEA IS USED IN LIEU
30
NVETCHLYINOCULATEDE
PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SEDIMENT MAPPING DEVICE, OR BOTH, AND DISCHARGED IN A MANNER THAT WES NET ADVERSELY
w8®Ie
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AFFECT FLOWING STREAMS OR OFFSITE PROPERTY.
MUSTOF
LOVEE.ASS MAYLEGBE
WEEPINTO
MUST BE PROPERLY INOCULATED. WEEPING LOVEGRAS$MAY BE
BE G
BURIAL
1. PROVIDE SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES AS A FIRST STEP IN GRADING, SEED AND MULCH D. NATION L USED FOR BACKFIWNG TRENCHES SHALL BE PROPERLY COMPARED IN ORDER TO
ADDED TO MY SLOPE OR LOWMAINTENANCEMIX DURING WARMER
+
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. MINIMIZE EROSION AND PROMOTE STABILIZATION.
SEEDING PERIODS; ADD 10-GO LBBJACRE IN MIXES.
GRO U N D
GROUND
2. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING OR OMER STABILIZATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADINGE. RESTABILLYTION5HALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
TRENCHING
3. ISOLATEENCHING MR UWI ST TILIMS AND DRAINAGE MOM WNREM CONVEYANCES N ORDER F. APPLIM&E SAFETY REGULATIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH.
FOR
TO MINIMIZE PERIMETER CONTROLS. Ms-1]. WHERE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED OR PUBLIC ROADS, PROVISIONS
O 3.32
4. ALLSICKED I AND RUPERT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL THEY ARE NO SHALLBE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT BY VEHICULARMAI ONTO ME PAVED
ENSLAVED
PERMANENT SEEDING MIX FOR PIEDMONT AREA
LONGER REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR STATE LAW. SURFACE. WHERE PAVED PUOuc ROAD ROAD
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE
BE CLEMENT THOROUGHLY AT THEONTO DOFCH
SURFACE SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE
PRIVACY SCREEN ON
CHAIN LINK SAFETY
PEOPLE
WBwM1
PERMANENT STABILIZATION ORSWEEPINGNANOTMNSNRTENTI AEMOVEE
REMOVED FROM TXEROADS8YING
ALL NON PAVED AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH PERMANENT
FENCE WHICH 18 GREEN IN
FENCE
DSHALL IN
ISPOSAL AREA. STREET WASHING SHALLBE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED In RG
SEEDINGIMMED SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCOR MANNER. TXI$PROVI$IOH SHALL APPLYTO IHDNIDUPL DEVELOPMENT IAT$A$WELLA$TO LARGER
COLORANDHASA MINIMUM Y Ta
2, PERMANENT SEEDING. SEEDRTYPES IMUM CARE
AWNS' AND 'GENERAL SLOPES SEEDING. HANDBOOK MR ALL BESEEM L SS CIFIEDMAN31. FOR (MUM CARE
AND000K 5 TiAN 3: FOR SLOPE$ ALLTEMPORARY EROSION AND
MS-18. ALLTE EROSIONANDSEDIMENTREMOVEDWITHIN DAYS
BLOCWIGE OF 85%
TH QF
ti
TEAM SEED TYPE SHALL BE FOR SLOW THE TEMEASURESSHALLBE
G EATER AS SPECIFIED FORMAINTENANCE IN TABLELONGER E
AFTER FINALS NON OR AMEREOCAL TEMPORARY
0.THEHI:NDBOO
AREPE
aT wBLGt'E
taFTTx[ +r&a uaONG THE
MS MULH(STRAWORFI EUSDONALLOPED
3R32 D THE HANDBOOK. MR STMWORFIBER)SHALL USED UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED AUTHORITY. SEDIMENEEDED,
OTHERWISTAUTHO TRAPPED SEDIMENT AND ME
BY THE LOCAL PROGRAMAUTHORITY.OF
LINE OF TIMES
�I
��
BE ALLIEDED
SURFACES OPERATIONS TIME RESUZED
TEMPORARY
SURMCES. IN ALL SEEDING OPERATION$SEED, FERT[LLZER ANDL[ME SHALL BE APPLIED PRIOR TO DIMMEDSOILSTABILIZED TO TINGNTFURTTHE REROSIONND SEDIORARATION. MEASURES SHALL BE
MULCHING PERMANENTLY EROSION
PREVEDOWNSFUREAM
PERSPECTIVEVIE\^/
�� _
/
0. ReM1¢ti
FROM
MS-19.P0.0IMENT AND WATERWAYSIOWNST FROMDEVELOPMENTSITESSHALLBEPROTECTED FROM
AND WATERWAYS SEEM SHALL BE
YS
SEQUENCE OF INSTALLATION
- % %
e
li["1y1.-'S ll a
DAM
SEDIMENT DEPOSITION, FSTOMWATER RUN FF DAMAGE ANTED FREQUENCY
PHASEI ROW DUE EE UENCY STORM OFE, VELOCITY RATION I
FOR THESTATEDFED OF 24HOURGINIA RATION IN
(If
U��y� g
A LLT COUNTY E EI INSPECTOR, DANCE IFETHEASTANDA STANDARDS
ANDARW AND CRITERIA LISTED IN SECTION 19 OF VIRGINIA
IN SECTION 19
1. A PRECONSTRUCTIONMEETING IS REQUIRED WRXNG SHALL
CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND ENGINEER. THIS MEETING SHALL TAKE PEACE EUHER AT ME ACCORDANCE WITH THE
FLOW
`+9J Ql
, V
OFFICE OR VIA CLFARMG LLMII$MUST BE ADMINISTRATNECWE9VAC25-84040 MINIMUM STANDARDS.
COGGED
^ "
FLTFRFEMEµTO AII¢BArvo COMVPCTme
8NTOWE
I/Wcc 0nA4
PRORTOTMEME
TING WIEONE(1)WEE OF NO
FLAGGED PRIORTOMEETING WIFE NOTICE.
I
M:tExonlxrolxe TLuxcH. oXavnlEDsoIL.
EXHAVATEDWI
ENO DESCRIPTION DATE
2. FENCE, AND
ENTRANCE, SAFETY FENCE, AND SILT FENCE. GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:
3. ROUGH GRADE PROJECT ARM
ROUGHINSTALLGOODS
01
10096CD3
1120.R0
4. SEED ALL DENUDED AREAS PER OMERSTANDARDS. IS 1: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL VEGETATIVE AND STRUCTURAL
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES ACCORDING TO MINIMUM STANDARDSAND
xerozrr
02
PERMITSET
031P,1CH
PHASE IT SPEaRUnONS OF THE UTEST EDITION OF THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
e' xax-.ixm�1i01'ouxe
1. FINE GRADE PROJECT AREA. APPLY PERMANENT SOIL STABILIZATION TO THESE AREAS WITHIN HANDBOOK AND VIRGING REGULATIONS V0.625-02-OO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
"e' rvRrvan o
Ww�
REGULATIONS.
SEVEN DAYSAMERFlNALGMDE IS ZATION TO EAS
TO SEWN S AFTER
2. APPLY PIS
PERSPECTIVE VIEMV PERSPECTIVE VIEW
O
FLOW
ACHENTs0ILTTFENCE MUST MAINTAESE INEDTHROUN GRADING AND WILL A
CONSTRUCTION. IS 2: TXEEW
SEDIMENT CONTROAND
GNCE
PLASTIC FENCE METALFENCE 3.10
E,Sr CONL FULUN ARMS RE STANGAND
3. CONSTRUCTIONEROSIOAKE
CO STRUCIO. IS COMPLETE, AREAS ARE STAeIuzeD, <oxnucroR REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ME METHODS ArvO EFFErnv6NESs OF ME Eaoslory mrvmoL
EFFECTIVENESS
AND ENGATIONOF ME S N CONTROL
SHEET FLOW INSTALLATION
CHAIN LINK SAFETY FENCE WITH GREEN PRIVACY SCREEN
SHALL ALL DEBRIISFnoncre SYYSTEEM5WnNG
MEAN
(AFL:sPFCTIVF VIFwI
4. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CAN BE REMOVED UPON APPROVAL FROM ME EIS$ INSPECTOR.
ES-3: PEACE ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PRIOR TO OR AS THE FIRST STEP IN
CLEARING, GRADING, OR LAND DISTURBANCE.
ES<: MAINTAIN A COPY OF THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ON TIE SUE AT
1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4'XP 2. STAPLE WIRE FENCING
Al �B
ALL TIMES.
TRENCH UPSLOPE ALONG TIE LINE OF TOTXEPOSTS.
- -
POSTS.
ES-5: PRIOR TO COMMENCING LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IN AREAS OTHER THAN INDICATED ON
SE PLANS (INCLUDING, BEEF NOT LIMITED TO, OFFSRE BORROW OR WASTE AREA), SUBMITA
TIEIn
%
SUPPLEMENTARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER AND ME CONTROLLING
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY MRREVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE.
- � �
M71 -_
POINTS EFOULD BE HIGHER THAN POINT a.
ES-6: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EROSION COMROLMFPSURES NECESSARYTO PREVENT EROSION MD
FL / /
J l
DFAINAGEWAY INSTALLATION
isau.w muanaa.
axinoar-432O-OOi-OO
SEDIMENTATION AS DETERMINED BYTiE RESPONSIBLE LAND DLSN0.BER.(MODIFIED NOTE)
(FRONT ELEVATION)
SF OS2
I{G`A hJO;
ES-]: ALL DRUM APPROVED SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AT ALL TIMES
3. ATTACH THE FILTER FABRIC TO 4. BACKFILL AND COMPACTME
SILT FENCE(W/O WIRE SUPPORT)
DURINGTURBEDARFAS URBINGSHALL
ITIES
DURING LWo-DIsnRBIxGArnvmEs grvD DuamGSITE DEVELOPMENT.
DDURINGS
THE WIRE FENCE AND EXTEND U EXCAVATED SOIL.
EROSION AND
ES-0: DURING DEWATENNG OPERATIONS, PUMP WATER INTO AN APPROVED FILTERING DEVICE.
INTO TIE TRENCH.
SEDIMENT
AAILY IRSR AND AFTER EACHRUNOFF INTAINPRODUCING
CONTROL NECESSARY
ES-9: INSPECT EVLL ENT. IONMAKE
ES REPAIRSOR CLEANUP TO MAINTAIN THE EFFECfIVENE55-
ANY
1110
OF ME ROSIONCONT DEVICES IMMEDIATEL
DFTHEERDSIDNEDNIRDLDEVICESINMEDWTELY.
�
CONTROL
R��
NOTES AND
EXTENSION OF FABRIC AND WIRE INTO THE TRENCH.
DETAILS
DATE: November 20, 2020
FILTER FABR
wIR
SF
CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS
3.OS1
C3.0
CONSTRUCTION OF A SILT FENCE
NO9rale
O
CD
TL"I
z
z
W
u
O
0
z
V
U)
Z
O
(COPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHA MSON, INC.
2X6 WOOD SILT FENCE DROP INLET PROTECTION DRO......
FRAIAE W DROPTH
FRAME
r MIN.
GATHER
4, EXCESS
AT
CORNERS
PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
STAKE 0
GETAILA
ELEVATION OF STAKE AND FABRIC ORIENTATION
SPECIFIC APPLICATION
THIS METHOD OF INLET PROTECTION IS APPLICABLE WHERE THE
INI DRAINS A RELATIVELY FLAT AREA (MOPE NO GREATER THAN
5%)WHERETHE INLETEHEETOROVERIANDR-OWs(NOT
EXCEEDING 1 C F.S.IARE TYPICAL, THE METHOD SHALL NOT APPLY
TO INLETS RECEIVING CONCENTRATED FLOWS. SUCH AS IN STREET
P OR HIGHWAY MEDIANS.
FENCE ATTACHED TO POSTS (PRE -WEATHERED WOOD,
GALVANIZED STEEL, IRON OR THICK WC PLASTIC), AT LEAST
40-ABOVE FINISH GRADE WITH SPAN BETWEEN POSTS NO
GREATER THAN S' ON CENTER. EVERY NINTH POST SHALL
CONTAIN A WARNING SIGN THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THE
FENCE AS ATREE PROTECTION FENCE.
P
NO SCALE
1@N'A��G�P�Op14
YRe p ! RRRl4 1 A�nAC®n �r PILTOI PU0<
u �la' tlRi�
i ^ f 7-7 s^
ffi
�i� CPO@NR®
L RmnR
a. MITI GRGVNO
ELEVATION VIEW a0
pmc TvxcR m
SECTION VIEW
SUPER SILT FENCE
.o xsrY
FENCING
CXetn L. levee mua ee .' eba.e peas wlu Y emeeaa[a mr
e byl hArN, wldW W 411 Th. put mart be I.- above peda
nEEb RG" 'i ... erode (.10i [on E.) ON, . In.. Levetb
NOTES
1. LTJv 1I our. mva be ft..." a[orely ro fan[e It.. vrkM wlre
Ile..
z. Hlter nbrl[ muel be I-I-eN!th. ee[urelr to -ti link nn[. wIEE ue.
pv��a Lorl:ovtelLy .1 A.
Ibe lop eve ml.1 -1 .
R. Pbyel[sl 1 THEM® or Lbe e . E.
m [ovrorm W I.wl
Ni..o[ THE — of bir .N Y SROMRNP COMTBOL 9LYGXOXC
4. ev Lwo ee[ttave or Xller (.br1[ edtaW exb olLee. )Ley mart be
wrmnmt by 0
5. Mawtmenee be era nd . amnet
wd vmmt 4.fidvroolmm F f thahl(ht t Etehe
rvp®t ..ce.
u
Im 3AT
GRAVEL AND WIRE MESH
DROP INLET SEDIMENT
FILTER
I� MIN. GpAVR (IYNIN DEPM)
NTH E WATER
R1TN SEDIMENT
milli d
5.11 ME NEE.
9LTERED
NATFR
SPECIFIC APPUCAMON
THIS METHOD OF INLET PROTECTION IS APPLICABLE
WHERE HEAVY CONCENTRATED FLOVS ARE EXPECTED.
BUT NOT A'HERE POW➢ING AROUND THE STRUCTURE
MIGHT CAUSE EXCESSIVE INCONVENIENCE OR DAMAGE
TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND UNPROTECTED AREAS.
" GRAVEL $HALL BE VDOT M3. d357 OR )5 CORPSE
AGGREGATE.
Sauce: V. Dew Ri 3AT-2
TEMPORARY RIGHT-OF-WAY DIVERSIONS
woT u+A
STCIE MIN-
fi
MINIMUM
TYPICAL CRAVELSTRucruRE
HGA
Canal Center Plaza. Suite i(
Alerantlriq Virginia 22314
Telephone 703.$36.A66
NBI3011 Byrd III
Landscape Architects
LANOSCAPEARCHITECT
NELSON BYRD WOTIZ
310 E MARKET STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA22902
(OH 984-1358
TIMMONS GROUP
CIMLENGINEER
TIMMONSGROUP
608 PRESTON AVENUE
SUITE 00
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903
(4 HU75380
THOMAS
JEFFERSON
FOUNDATION
931 THOMAS JEFFERSON PEW
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
BURIAL
GROUND
FOR
ENSLAVED
PEOPLE
he 6 C z
'0qo S�'LI a
zl
l
V•TrT44 rONA4�
\NO DESCRIPTION DATE
IHGA NO: 4320-001-001
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT
CONTROL
NOTES AND
DETAILS
)ATE: November 20, 2020
CONSTRUCTION
SSF
C3.1
SOIL TYPE:
71C
HGA
FROM WWASSOCN iES CONFORMED' LAYDOWN AND MATERIAL UMOS OF CLEARING AND GRADING - JJ Canal Center PlpID, Suite 10C
PLAN PROVIDED BY CUE" STORAGE AS NEEDED. / _ Alexanduq Vlr22314
ANTICIPATED CTHAN 3 O N SOIL AREA FENCE
9inio7766
DURATIONLESSTHAN3 CC S
Telephone T03.836.TT66
$AF RAF— snrErc fEx¢ 3.O1
\ r / SOIL TYPE: "^'• cE �'�' �' CDNSTRUCr10N ENTRANCE 3.02
72D3 m BE 3f SILT FENCE 3.05 Nelson V"V VI
\ - Landscape Architects
SSE — EJPER SILT fENCE 3.05
\ I 9 UNDERGROUND POWER(/YP)
IN -AS BULL TPLAN(TRwENERGv) IF ® wLET PROTECTION 3.DT LANDSCAPEARCHRECT
\ I @ CARD? ADACARI(PROVlDEW D 6Y ONER)
\ SAF I e/� / TS 'PrOVARr SE®IMG 3.31 NELSON BYRD WOTLZ
\ I r 310 E MARKET STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
I TAXMAP NO 7&23 P$ PERMANENT REEDING 3.32 4 13S
TNOMASJEFFERBONMEMORIAL ( I�_
0 FOUNDATION MU AL ING 3.35
N 80MONTICELLOLWP
I I TP TP ` AN SAF e1 r / PARCEL TP —TIP— TREE VRmECr10N 3.38
apMeV' I l
De RAW PG le
Iz'WP/E/tLME
CUree 1 $F r �N l / (B."B sl/ J LINE
AI �
pG DURT CDXRCL 3.39
j lipI I \ �\a F Ib d / �W / / TIRELI GOBEE,wLINE TIMMONS GROUP
IN Y LI ymlrs qF `\\ \ ; R g� / 9qv M ® ....�� RlGxrorwAr ol\ERslox 3.11 CIVIL ENGINEER
DRAIN • SEE sA'3 SSW gLT6 ncgP�Nce x ^ Dc
TS• / ra / �v $D INLETW/ AT�
gg 1 ¢Op=6 / W i DD �� DIV95ION DIRE 3.09 TMMON$GRGUP
is \\ V % y/ / DC /rrvvl Bo6NA, 1s� (NWJ R W WOPRE$TONAVENUE
ry��\ \ /"NPGIHIA E0.05IOX AND SEDIMENT CGWIRGL XAHDBOOF'EL4CIF[UIIOH NUMBER SUITE 200
ER
4 ^ Gi' m TP / I ' / l� l N CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903
cone / 11T5� I r W 'ry warERUNEB FORCEMaINprP)
\ r B LET W/GRATE I p. r FROMWWA880CNTE5'CONFORMED' (434)32T53W
����M///
,� TP w` { 'fit PLAN PROVIDED ercuENr
Izt —1'�L_ Yv' r' vour �fil 'v�RCP[ �$ II— I I ,/ w
��-� I I I / Wp rER VpLK.WIOWN EROI, NRVASPOGAr[E THOMAS
'poxwa1IVLT VLa .1LLVI +r
r�arvBExoroesc«nc-D:r/r+nDr JEFFERSON
IF it °WwR" FOUNDATION
IF 4 l i A/ o-6 931 THOMAS JEFFERSON PONY
g, R 1 IW I ,A ,eo n, N auerA EA I m F°� v / CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
BURIPL GROUNDSHALL BE \LlMR5,O BALL gyp, I n I
PROTECTED THROUGHOUT \ P rrRGP \ �` Im9Cl.` `I g / W BURIAL
6., >t x ��,j \ e YI 13� T��' CONSTRUCTION ANO REMAIN p r QrJ° 'hAi 5 \ P �F UNDIBTURBEO I � a a fI y L I II II Ntl RIPS GROUND
II, W 1 FOR
ORAIMIS.
ENSLAVED
W 1V/I II TP N`� :DUI`. rTP v ISF I� II?:w`,`,�, g I - {p„:'6r PEOPLE
lex` - \w F, @ EXIe'T�%yT}�NORTH FTHI9 LINE 1 6 33 a p
WITHINUMds LLBE Al6R£DIN� 0r m 3gA.1 / h
PANDAS MAINTENANCE
ONTRACTOR TO UIrLI2£ \1k _ N
PAVEMENT t \ _ 9 Ep y: C� I „_
PAVED consTRl(CT�,IF \ TP _p � {A I � , �.�e 4/ Ao.4kh[Li i
�NTRANCE. PARKI CDT` .. / _ s TP $F \ n'"N R #3�P
)BED
AFEtt FEN MAY \ '- �i$ r / / / /
B UBEO h6A 6TAGING PN�` 2 P �„-pll�j E LIMITE FV ` yp Cp
STYEAGT REMOVE pt \ 3 SSF [...1a ` P \ DISTu - v vE TP 15'P sOINL£0P_6AET£ l
HPLT AS LAST PHM1SE OF \ 5 ECAOvfS � � m FM \ dnr/� � � � ` _ ` ,�a !!s��1 �` b � r TOP- �l (cw,s./ \� C I !a I%MxO \ - 4�A TP m I TM -sJe�s 4�MK axA>.
OONSTRUCTI6N AND I _I g
ABILIZATION T`t� � ` g �� INV OUT=63S65'1C ROP
\ \ I SSF i /•_'_ --- T $ $ DD �`\ iRa$ \ 5 I e m Fq I TOP=6330Ts ffi^RCPlvwl (s£)
AND DESCRIPTION DATE
p \ 1 01 100%CDS 11/?ttfID
$AF 1 I INVIN 6T65P1T' CMP(NE)
I fr lNvouT=eTfin'u'Rcv (swl 02 PERMIT SET 03I03121
M5,`ar
T q 3 1 g ,yam
INDQUT 558 f$yRCP 1 �,gjry SOINL6T Wl ORATE
F
V -so-YL INvour-ra9ae lrCMP(sw)
SSF — Ep \ / i SAF
m2mnuy V T g e / 'j 'r I
V SD INLET w/GRATE „ v: 6 I 1 Iv v' 11 A \ LI Iv i II II A I RI
v TOP=
\ INVIN-56810'15"CMP(SW) \T lJ
YNVOUT=8861P1B'RLP RE) A I1 l / 11
/I A I
\ fiTIrlc°i�9ur'\I' _'_I 1T v. \ \ iaxMavNO ISTJ
THOM98 JEFFEftBON MEMORIAL
,\
FOUNDATION
1050 TNOMAS JEFFERSON PANVY \ \
O.B. ffil PG 161 \ ',i
Pg, �` \\ `\� HGA NO, rE 4320-001-00
EROSION AND
\ mIIII /r \ 91 r ARCHAEOLOGY NOTE \ ` SEDIMENT
PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBANCE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SET UP AN ONSITE \ \
\ „ MEETING WITH REPRESENTATION FROM THE THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION \
SHOULD DISCOVERY SEFOUNDTHECOUREEOFCONTROL -
CONSTRUCTIONTHECONTRACTOR ANY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTRL ARCHAEOLOGY\\
SHALL IMMEDIATELY STOP HALINO RESUMETTXEAPPOINTEDROII GIVEN OLOGY
By THE \ PHASE 1
\ II ARCHAEOLOGYVEWORK$TATI NOT RESUME UNTIL APPROVPL IS GIVEN By THE \
\ II II r
ARCHAEOLOGY REPPESEMATIVE. \\
DATE: November 20, 2020
CONSTRUCTION
\ NaD es DOCUMENT$
C3.2
II � -_16CMP A\ SCAlE 1"40'
-� BL /NCETW/GRATE `
15'CMP 0 TDP=592A1' 20' b'
INVIN=53181'18"RCP NW
QW` YRIGXT IWMMEL GREEN ANDABnAXAM50N.INC.
C
0
0
T--I
z
Z
cw
G
O
0
Z
O
H
U
Of
Of
I
0
EX STING PARKING LOT AREA MAY
BE UFILIZEG FOR COMPACTOR
LAYDOWN AND MATERIAL
STORAGE AS NEEDED.
ANTICIPATEDCONSTRUCTION
DURATION LESS THAN 3 MONTHS
I
1 /
1 I
' SAF
M 1
1
SF
IP 1 1
1IMITs ({F
TRENCH MU {y3 gISTU" CE'
GRAIN
Acp
1 i
rw-13i1
I
��� I
Y
SA
I
I
SSE �\
44kk1
1
•
\ 1
j I
IP
A
k.
R N6H
DRAIN\
PCE
EROSION CONTROL LEGEND
UNITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING
F� SOILH
AREA DMDE -
GA
SAF —sp1— AXEM FENCE 3.01
CE CDNSTRIICTION ENTRANCE 3.02
UCO nal Center PlO]O, SVITE IOC
Alexa ndria, Virginia 22314
SF — 3E % SURER SILT HDOE 3.05
Telephone]03.S36.T]66
`
rn
SSE
�)81— .1 EENG,
3.05
IP
® MOTPRG1ECTlgi
3.07
_
tZ
TS
reNPoMAr 5ee0[nG
3.31
Landscape
Ld0d5Cd{IC AEChI[dC15
PS
PERMANENT SEIGUNG
SEE A PLAINS
3.32
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
—
v / /
MU
FLdmG
See wA-A
3.35
NELSON BYRO WOTLZ
/
310 E MARKET STREET
TP
—TP TREE PROTECr10n
3.38
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA22902
TAxMAVNO
434 984-1358
( )
I
1
/
'+
THOMASJOUMDAONMEMOFIAL
ME
FOUNDATION
DC
DUET CONROL
3.39
600ON
�'
SUN
2�PG 76
*"WRWNM EROSION AND SEWMEMCONIROL NANDBO]K" UPSIEIUTION NUMBER
PARCEL
LINE
LINE
l
.'•��A•
TIMMONS GROUP
dd
CMLENGINEER
TIMMONSGROUP
608 PRESTON AVENUE
SUIM200
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903
MD
PS
1
KKW) 3275380
MUD-
w I\ i g1 THOMAS
JEFFERSON
a1
FOUNDATION
931 THOMAS JEFFERSON PM
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
eualAL.tkEA BURIAL
' BURIAL GROUND SHAD DE N \uMITE,GE 2uL UP i��31��{� I / , I , I
°I` • J_V N: CONSTRUCTION ANO RE'MV • 1 '1 _ /I \ `'`'
C I '11 11 I GROUND
•Wlll(JI n0 UNDIGTURBED `
' 1
sAF a �E I FOR
ENSLAVED
m 1 •0I, �{ to � s � ®m 4� '• `. `. ^R' \ `\ r
7P \ N S '\ M y `\ \ d / -R n I' , PEOPLE
ENTRANCE PARKING LOT
WITHIN SAFCI FEN MAY [ -
BEUSEOASASTAGINGAND ) 1 d \
STGRQGE,REA. REMOVE
ASPHALT ASIAJIBEASE QF
CONSSTTkR1I1ICTIN.,I AND
ABILVATION A /
,s'sF / o l
\ _EU0/
i
oarsevs 'i
P EX' PA NORTH FTHISLINE / 1cp f� E" BR
_�`��`• \ `• WRHMALIMIT$ LL BE LACEDINA
�i3ND,AS QW`TTENANCE WItttttiHI lk �' ,• zeR ,qy T� J
'NR
Ll �y�Fr$oE d�ryry,, ' _ wR
ITIIR RULE
ENO DESCRIPTION DATE
1 ,
$AF1 1 1 11 ° TR III 100%CM 11120/20
02 PERMIT SET 03103ft1
� 6AF
4 \ \ I I I
cwa\LT I 1 1
THOMAS JEFF EMOFIAL
1 \ •p FOUNDATIONDATiON 1 A
IOSOTNOMASJEFF PHWV N
O.B. 33]PG 161 161
HGA NOµc 4320-001-00
I Z
\ 11 EROSION AND
ARGHAEOLOGVNOTE ;9t
1 PRIORTO ANY LAND DISTURBANCE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SET UPAN ONSRE SEDIMENT
MEETING WITH REPRESENTATION FROM THE THOMASJEFFERSON FOUNDATION
1 ARCHAEOLOGY. SHOULD ANY EVIDENCE OFAPOTENTIALARCHAECLCGY CONTROL -
DISCOVERV BE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR
$HALL IMMEDIATELY STOP WCRKAND CONTACTTHE APPOINTED ARCHAEOLOGY PHASE 2
REPRESENTATIVE, WORK$HALL NOT RESUME UNTLAPPROVAL IS GIVEN BY THE
ARCHAEOLOGY REPRE$ENTATVE.
DATE: November 20, 2020
VECONSTRUCTION
rvao 83 1 DOCUMENTS
SCALE
D 20 CO C3.3
®PYRIGHT HAMMEL GREEN AND ABRAHAMSCN. INC.
O
Section 5. Stormwater Management Plan
(Provide a reduced I Ix17 copy of the latest stormwater management plan. Do not reference only.)
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
M
I I e,OSt' e,5ee' W -1�- y AMA I I I 0.bs f SAN
04
, I ,
I I
I \ SANS I I' I 1 g
enar srvrc q , -- _ I
I I ew.ar elm ai,�
l i pP°A' �mTe m mm , -1?o% See . I T. AM, a elza A
Role,
K
/ ,\ A �eliAm' T \ I
Jp ; SMTG9 M=5 \ /I nm ¢faM� IZ.R' o6j% 1
/Vth ®�
ll wM / A' \ III
.a. z ei°� , $� / e,s.TC ae. / \ \ iANN I
lift
Ami
r"� Imxr °
ARCHAEOLOGY NOTE e°I,r a°am I ' i' // x, Mzx "
PRIOR70 ANY LAND DISTURBANCE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SET UP AN ONSRE awx
MEETING WITH REPRESENTATION FROM THE THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION $ n D. I I _ _ — J M \Q
ARCHAEOLOGY. SHOULD MY EVIDENCE OF A POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGY II s I I T R. 11pV0°a IS, ` \
DISCOVERY BE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR I ^� , Bee$ I I \ T•
SHALL IMMEDIATELY STOP WORK AND CONTACT THE APPOINTED ARCHAEOLOGY
REPRESENTATIVE. WORKSHALL NOT RESUME UNTIL APPROVAL IS GIVEN BY THE
ARCHAEOLOGY REPRESENTATIVE. DETAILED SPOT SHOTS \ K II / 1
SCALE V=19
SED ASPHALT \ ` `` -1V
.14% ; I \
re TO EXISTING PALEMENT IN
M I / ACCGRDANOE KITH PAVEMENT
\ M REP(ACEMENT' DETAIL eP.1 \ I `9,I15'
HE AT-
\ . I" I I III i �s`Ir ,/
L"e/VV�J
LIMITS`E_9_/ I / m \G~���I,wv�•��"""
1 Y ,CA m I ,I ITUR rNOE
■e 14:"' „, IG'AlCI I / u'JR.P .yvINLErwr r�l ," \ ova%
Borso,15i A awx 1 1 \ LY
i
I
=6o5 GuNan' cn+v /sEl 2e M°.?a \ \
I IF ei
CETW/GRi
n / ■ % I / I 22 )d+ '' Doi LEGEND
�s — 4 DETAILED SPOT SHOTS
III �II IIVVV�JJJJ ,y YX1�/ _I 11 ♦All
m%X,@ u i 91 ACCESSIBLE RESUME SCALE ISIT 0'
AP' —
PROPOSED FENCE. SEE
1 I .A20o aA o3 FOR DETAILS
BURIAL
III I W BURIAL GROUND SHALL BE \ LIMITS. GE/�EFALLN
I • I \ IPROTEGTEOTWOUGHOUT \ ' Im. 9Y �1
N '\' ONSTRUCTIONANDREMAIN 'I ?1 TAmT a iii 1 M I I I I I
1 I ` L,
[L*�I. ° O% unolsrQlRBEo \IAA�I-�-T,I 1 , I Iµ /
? 1 I I NVS
0 Iu• 3 V V 1 ',� [ o N \ I 9 1 \ 1 1 I I I
-ts [$�,
uA'_Se � I °i R� cnl �< �9�� Ig � � I� 1 ``3 vat`
PAyp'rvIORTH FTHISLwE
WIIMTS NV BE MAfEDIN r'
��RF°A"SgaMMnaeRplaL�KAi
ez5--Irc
[�A� l"""'\OF
sg1- I Fb°. SAC) DISTUR II L� m C 16 GP SDINLETW/GRATE
_ At pI _ R
\l P 1CPE6 11 )
RRIMn lII / ' \ (076 A13 /\I 1 TOP=G18iZ6
\ry ST 1_aj I�, I 111 IV III �m I P+INrc[° 1 Ry, '4' %a` I �1► MHO INVOUr 635.&5')5'RCPDl
ry I I `® I� R3 I I Y P e C TOP 6330I
INV1N=62FAn15-RCP(N0E
1NV1N=6265rf2'CMP(NE)
cETWGRaryL i I I y[ m i I _ ` WVOUT=EEATr lsROP($W)
II ,
B'NYIN-60S.63'15'i�MP MWS / P `I``I 50/NLETW/GRRTE
'M UT=�656 A`1RGP ( ) r WWW
yy I TOP= $239'
S � reef svoPEs I 4 '�Pa '�\ �` 11 \ / p I I I � i I x, 4?� I '�`'"''
\t`N %BBB f� / 8\I\I NV OUT =6293413'cMP (SW)
iIv A 1 � II i I '�r°ar II I i � \\
\ SUINLETW/G21 TE'3
\ TOP=55990' I\I' BF9 �t11 1e�1
\ INVIN=5%10'fYCMP (SW/ 1 ' 1/ \ \\
yNVOUT=5B6T0'f8"RCP ME) II
trp}t q@k \ I` Asmu
\\ ST[ry MOrcd' tryM1 ry{E yY A, 1T U+`P I a, A + TA%MAP NO. lB.
TXOMA$JEFFER$ON MEMGRUL N 83
W\ \`11'Y; I I I FOUNDATION +\ \
RSt fGSGTNOMo J27FFERSON PMNV \ \ SCALE 1'=21Y
HGA
5 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 10(
Alexandra. VrMNaM14
Telephone 703.8367766
Nelson Byrd Woltz
Landscape Architects
NELSON BYRD WOTIZ
310 E MARKET STREET
CMRLOTTESVILLE,VA22902
143419W1358
'*ia%
TIMMONS GROUP
CIVIL ENGINEER
71MMONS GROUP
Sol FRESTON AVENUE
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTESNLLE, VA22903
1434132T5380
THOMAS
JEFFERSON
FOUNDATION
931 THOMAS JEFFERSON PR
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
BURIAL
GROUND
FOR
ENSLAVED
PEOPLE
�TH 0 G
B 0 Nisi z
�'/G <SLONAL fi.��t
ENO DESCRIPTION DATE
01 1 100%CDS 1 '1IY(V21
02 1 PERMITSET I 0NOM
C1
O
sau.wcaxnoar-masnaa.
(n
IGA NO 4320-001-00
Z
GRADING AND
�
DRAINAGE
PLAN
LATE: November 20, 2020
)`0
V
CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS
C5.0
0
EL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC
IS,___�
IZ
,
I
s Ek£'y
':B
is::�ifI
\ E.:B aP ) • _m�ba � °'i� `. ���� � axivMi.mxwmiy'" � �
Siiitiji. izi:i:
0 1 i 'Il"', ( � �I V` is y I r i r i ' (•Q
1 %IW IH N 4 PATH SU'RFACE T06E REPLACED AS I
`� MAINTENANCE PE MGEVALLATION
,H ,
LEGEND s : "` s' 1 OF EXISTING 6UBBASE. TO BE
1 CONSERVATVETHISIMPERVIGNS
I,�" \ s s1 �I AORNWATEENINCLUDTIONS. k I
V
s 4's : 1 STORMNATER CALCULATIONS. 1
IMPERVIOUS AREA s1'�ss I :� � ) To-
I �
10.091 SQUARE FEET 1 .xw¢sxa•2uw u,uoa
I
rM
� � I
PATH REPLACEMENT AS 0 yM Q, sNA �
MAINTENANCE2T<2SQUARE FEET J %/'�4+V� A` \ SCALE V=30'
EMSTNG FORESTAREA ,"� °�� �„1 ° PRE -DEVELOPED CONDITION D 30' :o
5.890 SQUARE FEET 1
m
�. II
�aaaallb 1♦
r
r r '
s� STORMNATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE czar¢Nn ��
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED BY AN OVERALL REDUCTION
OF IMPERVIOUS AREA AND REPLANTING EXISTNG DRAINAGE DIVIDES ARE PRESERVED WITH
/, THE PROPOSED GRADING. THE AMOUNT OF FOREST AREA HAS BEEN INCREASED KITH THE
REPAREA OF OF THE REMOVED AROF PARKING. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR REPLANTING
�rqA NI
F.!u\ I OF THIS AREA, THIS REPITING IS NOT NECESSARY TO MEET THE WATER QUALITY OR
T WANTRY FOR THIS PROJECT HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED SO FUTURE PROIECT3
r L UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP MAY USE THE PROBE ORUS REDUCTION OF 0.02 LBIYR
TOWARDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANOTHER PROJECT WITHIN THE GAME HUC PER
avac25870419A5 r r
:
I
Xt
t :1
KM _
` aF.w e6 1
aaen-
44;
-
6SB %asp s Ar 4 MAINTENAACEOF EXISTING Ed=NGEN%LUA IAS
O , I
MAINTENANCE PEN IE.To BEIIATION
\1 H I p
LEGEND `H\ H — y(1s$I sl 1 CCINSEVATIVE THIS IMP,twi
W 1 AREA HAS BIVE INCLUEDINTHE )Ab
AREA HASBHCAUCLUDEDINTHE
s254S SQUARE
aka 4 p,�Ha 1 1 STORMWAIER CALCULATION$.
8.25C SQUARE FEET
1 �5
r �_Lr
MAINTENANCE
CEMENTA6 H /W 1 q \ °fl'�tt1°r 'w 83
MAINTENANCE 2.742 SOUPAE FEET ' � A 1 SS `
\ SCALE 1•�
AS EA OF FOREST CHANGED To �l °` POST -DEVELOPED CONDITION 0 So 1'
MANAGED TURF FROM GRADING i H
11
OH} t5rpinb FunefjRetltt)lon MelM1MReOnelogneMCwnglontt5pmtl)M1eet - Venbn3.0
Om)2 0201Q. WP)aJr4.Mlp�hnM.
nganm::a: Moxno"ExsuvEo aupu6Rauxn e..bw:ral.
oae: ss/v/mxD
UMar Development pr^je[tl NO nkuhllen M•
Site Information
Post -Development Project (Treatment Volume and Loads)
Rrter Tolal Di9urbed Area(ovesf j Ol6 CIRRA
RAI Delp^ Spttlflmtlo^e NY 202)Draft )Itlsa W.
bneorprolecV No
0 )oMwndeduannad odenlpt Xp
Tomla)mroedettome<ee] J
PmAaDeael pmni Lead Cover (aae) rp 1I1ADFWURIW/MDT FED MFm
.1.
es^x
Tbx
psolF
Taaa
DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS(PRE-DEVELOPMENT):
boa,sio'smelAq_vreavW
TINT
Nv
AREA-0.]BACRES O(CFS) V(AGFT
0.13ACRE$(FORE$TCN=53)
wry y -radr -uxmeeggaee
rov.n¢¢.w mv.
TINT
NM
O
031 ACRES (MANAGED TURF LN1YEAR tOt 062
=81) YEAR 1W OW1
0GRACR(S(IMPERNOUS CN=3B)
LIXAPoSITE CN�]d 10YEAR 3.11 RISE
no.avr+ovvWW
n1p
ua
0
lad
Dm
I—new¢w:el¢n
a.:..eTgl.e..^-: aeA waea
Nenen
¢ mtt
nK
sm oivYwl
N.Q•3
Ceelvers
Aal
au.e m rrvllo-nram:wxen
�e�l'�.l om¢"' 1 bp+.mraumarlm.:,n
:n¢m/n.neW:vnn:uwnlbWon
RUWICMRtlerb lM
Tc=10 MIN
DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS (POST -DEVELOPMENT):
AREA =r1.]S ACRES
00' ACRES(FOREST CN=85)
Glen)
DICF3)
V(Ac
V(AGFi
0So ACRES (MANAGED TURF CN=61)
tyEPR
IYEAR
D82
0.052
0,20 AGREE (IMPERVIOUS CN=98)
0.0]3
CIXAPoSRE CN=]t
IDYEM
360
0.on
TreaftentVidurne and
Nuelent Load
Ode,
m M M
1
¢
�H¢^ttiRA¢:1
IPM
* W.—
—
:n
Wlnl
w.
n®
bel Wrd
HGA
nal Cemer Plaza, SW[e 100
6exandrla, V,,Idla 22314
Telephone 703.836.]]66
NelSDr1 Byrd 1 '
L-xtdscape Architects
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
NELSONSYRDWOTLZ
310 E MARMET STREET
CHARLOTTESNLLE,VA22902
(434)981
TIMMONS GROUP
CML ENGINEER
TIMMONSGROUP
E08 PRESTON AVENUE
SUITE200
CHARLOTTESALLE,VA22903
(C31)3215380
THOMAS
JEFFERSON
FOUNDATION
931 THOMAS JEFFERSON PNWY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
BURIAL
GROUND
FOR
ENSLAVED
PEOPLE
H OF G
a CieEaN z
U[ Xp SDII Y
ONO RESMI"M DATE
01 10098C0.R 11i211R0
02 1 PERMITSET I ONWI
HGA NO: 4320.001-00
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
Nods— Loxls (Informational Pugoses Only) PLAN
axRh 16MH arNW soIr^,aerc¢gmem6ne^a d92
WATER QUANTITY CALCULATIONS:
GATE: November 20, 2020
CHANNEL PROTECTION (ENERGY BALANCE): FLOOD PROTECTION: CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS
Qw).¢vrorµ 309'IO)w[cFvws:n'RVmaavl/RVwrx[v POET -DEVELOPED 0. S PRE -DEVELOPED On /••�
DMCFS50.9' QOI US'0.062AC 10.052ACAFT OK 2BO CPS(POST-DEVELOPED OR) 13.11 CFS(PRE-DEVELOPED Ca)
OK I GAO
0.82 US z IN CV
(daoverr,.T u........ ......... ....
0
F-
z
Z
W
U
U
0
Z
y00
V
IY
z
z
0
Section 6. Pollution Prevention Plan.
(reference County Code 17-404 and State Regulation 9VAC25-880-70 part II section A.4)
A. Plan showing pollution activities and prevention practices
(Provide a reduced I Ix17 copy of a site plan on which all of the following activity locations are clearly
marked. Keep this plan up-to-date with ongoing site changes and inspections.)
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
SOIL TYPE:
71C
HGA
FROM WW'SSOCN iES CONFORMED' IAYDOWN AND MATERIAL R� R� UMRS OF CLEMING AND GRADING - JJ Canal Center PIOID, Suite 10C
PLAN PROVIDED BY CLIENT STORAGE AS NEEDED. / _ AleRendria, Vlr
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTI N SOIL AREA DMDE 9ini022110
\ DURATION LED
S SAF SAF— SPFETY FEN¢ 3.01
\ ABOVE GROUND FUEL CONTAINER CONSTRUCTION m T¢I¢ph00¢J03.836.JJ66
WON VORMEABLE HEAVY -MIL TRAILER r / SOIL TYPE: GE CDNSTRUCr10N ENTRANCE 3.02
VI
--- LINER. VOLUME SUFFICIENT TO ''
CONTAIN STORED FUELED / 'rm
TEMPOBARV 72D3 SF -ii I SILT FENCE 3-05 p....1
VOLUME NO%IGA$NEI$Ey / RAIN GAUGE \TOILET$ •'l"'
\ Landscape Architects
SSE — SUPER SILT FENCE 3.05
9 UNDERGROUNOP OI/FIREN
1AM 2ID9 RARA(PROIDED BY C v/ IF ® INLET PROTEEION 3.DJ LANDSCAPE ARCXRECT
I m I I �r — _ DATE0201A0206 /PROVIDED BY CANER)
\ SAFE I e �� / TS renwRARr sElDme $.31 NELSON BYRD WOTLZ
\ r 310 E MARKET STREET
\ M � � I / CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
¢ TAX MAPNO TE P$ PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 434934-13�
,N rNOMASJOUNDAON MEMORIAL ( )
`\ S/H, 0/ FOUNDATION MU MVLGXING 3.35
BCO2A ELLO LOOP
�Da
�I rvuo I TP TP ° aN r SAF / / / vwaTrRLwe DzfiBq PGTe TP ..
1 I / PARCEL TP — TREE PRmECr10N 3.38
R wa6 1 SF I / ��(nlcx m[ssuve) LINE .•• '•
pG DUST CONRCL 3.39 •
IP / I I I � I \�\`� a � F Ibd � / .�W / / FIRE/I DOMEs,MLIxE TIMMONS GROUP
I
rvOH . mlrs ql,�u �\ \ ; R g � / 9qy M ME ® ....�� RIGHT or BAY DIVERSION 3.11 CIVIL ENGINEER
°2 DRAIN $$F .��qMMq,��� VGISTUfl CE p r
I""' 14.T6 AC I £ I� S m DC �v $DINLETW/ A
Igg T$ 1, /G ra/ rNP=6 I DIVERSION DIRE 3.09 TIMMONSGRGUP
a AV V �- H r DC /MVI Bo659'16✓ (Nvv W i WSPRESTONAVENUE
•'WRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT OJNIRGL HANDBOOF" SOBIRIGROWN NUMBER SUITE 200
l� N CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903
III I coxs / 11 DC m /o 6 T$F I r W warERUNEB FORCEMAW/nv/
s LEi W/GRATE / (434)32J5330
FROMWWASSOC.... OONFORMED'
PLAN PROVIDED BYCLIENT
wArGA¢xLnEtIBRwNFaR,N„-A6SIRVANF THOMAS
TP T C'vrr� °a a eoxwauFn'auNPaaHxnsrwe+r
,-° P / „p, W RE.TAItTWToARF DtD`A1.eI JEFFERSON
W / HGwAIS FOUNDATION
/ SAF g d N - I A IP r ' i / i o-s CHARL931 OMASTTE VILLER ON A22902 V
v / CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
C� W OURIALTED TH $HALL 6E \LlMIT5,G BALL JI�� I a I
$� Y PROTECTED THROUGHOUT \ P ��RGP \ �` Ifl%L` `I P / W BURIAL
rN >' \e t\ N�'� CONSTRUCTION ANO REMAIN i pE' 1 \
5 ',. JaUll(P UNOISNRBEO SAF , I e I a Ia I `� I Ny rytl5 GROUND
IF,
V x` , i to $ar - v V - p R [�yyp \ ¢ I
Ir TRENCH 1 :. �• Q • m I H - `" h I V e I \ v tb P W FOR
DRAT M r' I 9 ® ENSLAVED
PCE V `, �4--� AP 3 � - � .!r�li TP A e . A 6 M \, �, � 1 Ag � N � � SAF I I � r r
R g , �� PEOPLE
p °^' EXI'T%SlY1 NORTH
_ tiyLL BE RWCEDIN^ h
PROPOSED°oo O AS MOUNT '4N aY m
CONSTRUCTION �r `. V 1: y 11 A.�� Q ji 9/ m
ENTRANCE \• I \ \ o ►: \� l�� DC ` \ 4G� TP _ , - - �ATjGMA3ERIAL N L
orviwieTgRTo u�1.I2E
PAVED corvsTRl�Cn�° � \ \ TP-• � � I �, / EP I"Ae<� I.� 4i v _ ; ---_ A tiemeU 'Z
�rvTRANDE. PARKI LOr _ ' ` n✓ `, TP II ''may` �M'S p�q _ Lc sYNI a
THIN $AFEtt FENC♦•=MAY 1FFTTS$ $F _ _ _ '�^• Y' �� - - -�/'L/
B USEDASASTAGINGAN�` 2 $$F s� ,....plI ME SE , LIMITS F\
ST EAREA REMOVE �\ 3 _ [�bC�a P \ DI$N \ "TP \ - CC 15- SDINLETW/GRATE 1
HALT AS LAST PHASE OF \ 5 E✓SLl''ES \ dnr _ , a !!s��1 TOP- l
lDM>DP I C 1 !a . I% ,..w� - 4� A TP m I TM -6D6�5 4�MK axA>.
CONSTRUCTION AND - I _' g %� INV OUT 63565'1C ROP
ABILIznrloN TY� -8 �' ,A \ AND DESCRIPTION GATE
1 \\ TMHD
CONCRETE. DD �� �" I' I +� I S F. 1 TOP 63901/
- ��;1 WASXOUT IR / /,� 1 , 'q m TP ' INVIN 626 T6'15"RCP /NWI
j TYI i °; 0 ✓ TP / , a SAF mI , p , j ` \ f INVIN=62B5VI2'CMP(NF/ 01 10D%CDS 11/?ttfID
I 'A DUMPBTER TP , // ET MY DRAT / 1 I, m (ry1 R 1 �I 1C.IIF �Y ` f2 /NVOUT=6X7I'15'RCP/SWl N PERMIT SET 03103121
�•MM, m e
N IN 604.63'15r'MP INhl1 / _ I , S M1
T r 3 g INROUT 568'fB�RCP f� I �,gjry SO INLET W/ORATE
/ V 1 P A ^^Tvo I N INVOUT239'
00� MORTM MIXING % Nd , 1 1 / I D I INV DUT=61B1<f2'CMP (SW)
sranON
V 6D INLETW/GRATE
v TOP=�a.66' u A yT y'I I , ^ / A , _� `, / �•� �� `I
\ INVIN-56610'15"CMP/SM \T I} 1 \ I 7
YNV Off 5S61P1B' RCP/NE)
I / E, N \ r �\ \ I \
U IV
6T (CRlrlcul `O, II -I f T 9 • \ \ TaXMAPNO ZX23 so \ �\
THOM95JEFFERSON MEMORIAL \
FOUNDATION
low THOBRAS JEFFERSONPI \ G
\ 1 i O.B. ffil PG 161
HGA NO. rE 4320-001-00
POLLUTION
\ mlll, it \ 91 ARCHAEOLOGY NOTE \ ` PREVENTION
PRIOR TO ANYLAND EPRES NTATION FROM
CONTRACTOR EFFE SO FOUNDATION
ATIONNSTE \ \
\ „ ARCHAEOLOGMEETING WITHY
REPRESENTATION FROM THE THOMAS F A IENTRL ARCHAEOLOGY PLAN
\
DISCOVERY BEFOUNDINTHECOUREEOANY EVIDENCE FCONSTRUCTIONTHECONTRACTOR \\ PLAN -PHASE 1
SMALL IMMEDIATELY STOP WORK NOTRESMEUNTILACT THE APPOINTED ARCHAEOLOGY
REPRIESENTATITHE \
\ II ARCHAEOLOGY E. WORK REPRESENTATIVE
NOT RESUME UNTIL APPROVPL IS GIVEN BY THE \
\ II II ARCHAEOLOGY REPRE$EMATIVE. \\
DATE: November 20, 2020
CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS
"Sort
15'CMP SL/NCETW/GRATE ` \ PPP-1
SCALE 1
rDP=591.e1' 0 Sort b'
INVIN=53181'18"RCP NW
QW` YRIGXT IWMMEL GREEN ANDABRAXAMSON.INC.
C
EROSION CONTROL LEGEND
UNITS OF CLEAWNG AND GRADING F� EOIH GA
L AREA DARDE -
EXISTING PARKING LOT AREA MAY SAF —spl= AAFTY FENCE 3.01
BE UTILRED FOR COMPACTOR
U\YDOWN AND MATERIAL CE CDNSWDRION ENTRANCE 3.02 44 Ca nal C,,EUr Plozq SVIt
STORAGE AS NEEDED.
ANTICIPATEDCONSTRUCTICN Alelephoxa ne Vir3M&T23
DURATION LESS THAN 3 MONTHS SF -3E % SURER SUT PENCE 3.05 Telephone ]03.B36.T)O�
ABOVE GROUND FUEL CONTAINER CONSTRUCTION rn SSF�IZE)BF SILT FEN[E 3.0E
WITH IMPERMEABLE HEAVY -MIL TRAILER /
LINER. VOLUME SUFFICIENT TO / � IP ® INUETPRD1ECTlgi 341
CONTAIN STORED FUELED r' TEMPORARY m p...A
VOLUME- 10%(GAs/DEI$EL) 1 I RAIN GAUGE 'TOILETS NIeI3Dn Byrd Woltz
{{{\\\\\ TS TENMENN SEEOmG 3.31 Landscape Architec
I 1 I P$ sie a"RunsEEowG 3.35 LANDSCNELSON PE BYRD WHITECT
�¢ 'I 1 aryF I \ Im / ^ / MU sEeLOu vunS 3.33 3 0EM MARKET
STREET
TP —TP TREE PROTECDON 3.38 CHARLOTRTESVILLE VA22f
MAS434 984-1358
TAX MAP NO MEA
M B I THOSEA FOUNOATIJEFFERSOMEMORIAL ( )
FOUNDATION DC DEBT CONROL 3.39
BCO MONTILELLOLOOP
SAF Da 2B94 PG'. ]6 *"VIRCilNU EROSION ANDSEDIMEMNI CONIROL NDBO]K"SKLIFIUi10N NUMBER
PARCEL
$F 09 LINE .'•��AM
TIMMONS GROL
O mITS GIF ,}?/ I
TRENCH MU �qM,� GlsiuR cE� rA@ ,/ l a p CMLENGINEER
DRAIN TIMMONSGROUP
608 PRESTONAVENUE
P � 4e)1 TP .� I ' TP SURE00
T , / r ' / d' / CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22E
KKW)3215380
/
P
SA I \ i J, I 1 THOMAS f p JEFFERSON
I 'I 11 � r A.V\� I � I � m I I , I I F✓ I I
FOUNDATIOP
931 SSF w m i \ S
CHARLOTTSVILLERSONF
CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 229
L GROUND SHALL BEBURIAL
® \ PROTECTED THROUGHOUT \LIMITB, GENPRALL P l % I / I 1 1
® 'LIP 11 I3��1\r,� CON$IRUCTIONANDREMNNI _ /I ` \\ \ \\ C 1 , GROUND
i_ •'W+QI n0: UNOIBTURBED xx
` R N5H usAF \ FOR
DRAIM\
T 8� ® ENSLAVED
�P / nil' PEOPLE
FT-\ EX'TPA NORTH FTHI9 LINE M" ) = r f�
CONSBROADTRUCTION\ _ _ \ WRHMALI WB LOBE HQ$AFKILACED NA r BqP`� .yy Hu J
P$ -\.�� �i3N0,PSINNt♦TENANCE WItttttiH.l'.4FIfA lk
ENT FNJCE \\ e ` \ 1 I TP-_w� _ i�yRFAjiGMR3LRIAL 1y i / S�� I1 \Z
CONTFA£iORTO
PAVED consTRLfcTial+ \ SSF+u/' 1l.
EQIuNb
NTRANCE PARKIHG LOT �` _ _ _ \ TR " 'S /
ITHI T, FENC MAr`\ $` _ \ Ll \IITTs of
BE USED AS GTAGING AND d siME �yQTIIR LE LIMIT$OF\
STGR,'GEAREA. REMOVE f ` Srt[a5tt 5 1�p°50. I DI
ASPHALTAS j,FIIASEQF_ Q lrJ+r^U\Y \ \ U` `II 1 (0]
CONsr CTLNABD 5
ABILIUTON \ 8 ► 1 \\$
ENO DESCRIPTION DA
4 I I I SAk 1 '1 TP Of f00%CDS 1112
DumPSTER I` I TP PS E Y T , I i , � "� 11 1 I \ \p 02 PERMIT SET 031C
v o-`v _ L.
rt Y
\ / Bi \ 1 i"1 F �BD' MORTue MIXING 1� 1 i 8\ v 'I 1,
({J STATICH
,rGemU4 /t/ 1 \ "Nett I $pF I
I 1 'V 1 \' F I I 1 1" ' ��'"c I i
13,
svrM
sre ryaln°pcau `k? �ffic't4 TAX/HAPNe_]saa
THOMASJEFFERSON MEMORIAL 1 \
FOUNDATION 1
IOM TNOMAS JEFFERSON PHWV \
O.B. 837PC 161
\
ARCHAEOLOGY NOTE t
PRIORTO ANY LAND DISTURBANCE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SET NEAR ONSRE
MEETING WITH REPRESENTATION FROM THE THOMASJEFFERSON FOUNDATION
I ARCHAEOLOGY. SHOULD ANY EVIDENCE OFA POTENTIALARCHAECLGGY
DISCOVERY BE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR
$HALL IMMEDIATELY STOP WORK AND CONTACT THE APPOINTED ARCHAEOLOGY
REPRESENTATIVE. WORK SHALL NOT RESUME UNTIL APPROVAL IS GIVEN BY THE
11 ARCHAEOLOGY REPRE$ENTATVE.
N�
HAD 83
SCALE 1'=W
HGA N0: 4324001-00
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
PLAN -PHASE 2
E: November 20, 2020
CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS
PPP-2
GREEN AND ABRAHAMBCN. INC.
G
is. sources or rouuranrs, vocations, anu
Pollutant, or Pollutant Location on site Prevention Practices,
Generating Activity Control Measures
C. Sources of Pollutants continued. Common activities and minimum control and prevention
practices
Pollutant, or Pollutant
Location on site
Prevention Practices,
Generating Activity
Control Measures
Follow Erosion and Sediment Control
Clearing, grading, excavating, and un-
Land disturbance area
Plan. Dispose of clearing debris at
stabilized areas
acceptable disposal sites. Seed and mulch,
or sod within 7 days of land clearm
Cover storm drain inlets and use drip pans
Paving operations
Roads and driveways
and absorbentloil dry for all paving
machines to limit leaks ands ills
Concrete washout shall occur in area
Direct concrete wash water into a leak -
Concrete washout and
adjacent to the construction entrance as
proof container or leak -proof settling basin
cement waste
designated on the Pollution Prevention
that is designed so that no overflows can
Plan.
occur
Enclose or cover material storage areas.
Mix paint indoors in a containment area or
Structure construction, stucco,
Structures
in a flat unpaved area. Prevent the
painting and cleaning
discharge of soaps, solvents, detergents
and wash water, paint, form release oils
and curing compounds.
Dewatering if necessary when
Water shall be filtered, settled or similarly
Dewatering operations
converting culvert inlet protection
treated prior to discharge as shown on
shown on plans
plan.
Designated areas for material delivery and
Material delivery and storage
Adjacent to construction entrance and
storage. Placed near construction
construction trailer,
entrances, away from waterways and
drainage paths
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Pollutant, or Pollutant
Location on site
Prevention Practices,
Generating Activity
Control Measures
Material use during building process
Building areas
Follow manufacturer's instructions.
MSDS's attached.
Waste collection area will not receive a
substantial amount of runoff from upland
areas and does not drain directly to a
waterway. Containers have lids covered
before periods of rain, or are in a covered
area. Scheduled collection to prevent
As provided by contractor
overfilling. MATERIALS NOT TO BE
Solid waste disposal
BURIED ON -SITE
Convenient and well -maintained portable
sanitary facilities will be provided, and
Sanitary waste
Current locations shown on plan
located away from waterways or inlets.
Such facilities shall be regularly
maintained.
Apply fertilizers in accordance with
Landscaping operations
Landscape areas shown on plan
manufacturer's recommendations and not
during rainfall events
To be treated in a sediment basin or better
Wash area is located at the construction
control as specified on plan. Minimize
Wash Waters
entrance. Adjacent diversion dike will
the discharge of pollutants from
divert wash water to sediment trap.
equipment and vehicle washing
Vehicle and equipment washing
Designated areas and details shown on
Provide containment and filtering for all
plan
wash waters per the plan
Minimization of exposure to precipitation and stormwater. Minimize the exposure of building materials, building products,
construction wastes, trash, landscape materials, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste, and other
materials present on the site to precipitation and to stormwater.
(Identify all non-stormwater discharges to occur on your site. Keep this plan up-to-date with ongoing
site changes and inspections. See CGP, 9VAC25-880-70 section E for examples of non-stormwater
discharges.)
D. Non-stormwater discharges
Discharge Pollutants or Pollutant Location on Site
Constituents
Dust control water Sediment As shown on plan
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Discharge Pollutants or Pollutant Location on Site
Constituents
E. Persons responsible for pollution prevention practices
(Provide the names and contact information for all persons responsible for prevention practices as listed
above.)
:E
F. Response and reporting practices
Minimize discharges from spills and leaks. Minimize the discharge of pollutants from spills and leaks and implement
chemical spill and leak prevention and response procedures as follows.
Respond to all spills, leaks and discharges as follows;
Materials and equipment necessary for oil or chemical spill cleanup will be kept in the temporary material storage
trailer onsite. Equipment will include, but not be limited to, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, kitty litter,
sand, saw dust, and plastic and metal trash containers.
All oil or other chemical spills will be cleaned up immediately upon discovery. Identify and stop source of
discharge. Use absorptive materials to soak up as much chemical as possible. Place all contaminated material in trash
containers for disposal.
Report all spills, leaks and discharges as follows;
(Provide detailed response and reporting practices according to 9VAC25-880-70, Part II, section A.4.e.)
Reports will be made to the following:
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
Phone: (800) 468-8892
Spills large enough to reach the storm sewers will be reported to the National Response Center at 1-800-424-8802.
G. Pollution Prevention Awareness
(Describe training and procedures to provide awareness and compliance for all measures in this
document; waste management, wash waters, prevention measures, etc.)
The registered land disturber shall oversee all construction activities to implement and maintain pollution prevention
measures. As such training and procedures shall be provided by contractor for each worker on site before they begin land
disturbing activities. Training on implementation of erosion and sediment control devices/procedures must be provided by
registered land disturber each time a new E&SC procedure is constructed.
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Section 7. Discharges to impaired waters, surface waters within an applicable
TMDL wasteload allocation, and exceptional waters.
This site discharges to impaired waters as detailed on the following sheets.
Enhanced inspection frequency is required as outlined below:
(1) Inspections shall be conducted at a frequency of (i) at least once every four business
days or (ii) at least once every five business days and no later than 48 hours following a
measurable storm event. In the event that a measurable storm event occurs when there are
more than 48 hours between business days, the inspection shall be conducted on the next
business day; and
(2) Representative inspections used by utility line installation, pipeline construction, or other
similar linear construction activities shall inspect all outfalls discharging to surface waters
identified as impaired or for which a TMDL wasteload allocation has been established and
approved prior to the term of this general permit.
Addition items for implementation:
(1) Permanent or temporary soil stabilization shall be applied to denuded areas within seven
days after final grade is reached on any portion of the site.
(2) Nutrients shall be applied in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations or an
approved nutrient management plan and shall not be applied during rainfall events.
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Bacteria TMDL Development for the
Rivanna River Mainstem, North Fork
Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
Tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums
River, and Beaver Creek Watersheds
Submitted by
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Prepared by
THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
2445 M Street, NW Washington,
DC 20037
Final Report
March 2008
Executive Summary
This report presents the development of bacteria TMDLs for the Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds. These water bodies were listed as
impaired on Virginia's 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load Priority List and Reports
(DEQ, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006) because of violations of the state's water quality
standards for E. coli and for fecal coliform bacteria.
Description of the Study Area
The bacteria impaired Rivanna River watershed is located within the borders of
Albemarle, Greene, Nelson, and Orange counties. The city of Charlottesville is also
within the watershed's boundaries. All impaired streams are located in the Rivanna River
watershed (USGS Cataloging Unit 02080204). The entire Rivanna River bacteria
impaired watershed is approximately 321,877 acres.
Impairment Description
Segments of the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek were listed as bacteria
impaired on Virginia's 2002, 2004, and/or 2006 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load
Priority List and Reports due to violations of the state's water quality standard for fecal
coliform bacteria and/or E. coh. The impaired segments are located in the Rivanna River
Basin in central Virginia. The watershed is located in the hydrologic unit (HUC)
02080204. The impaired watersheds include the City of Charlottesville and portions of
Albemarle, Greene, Orange, and Nelson counties.
The impaired segment of the Rivanna River (VAV-H28R-RVNOIA00) extends 5.28
miles along the mainstem from the confluence of the North Fork Rivanna River to
Moores Creek. This segment of the Rivanna River was first listed on the 2006
305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report for exceedances of the E. coli
standard. During the 2006 assessment period (January 200 through December 2004), 2
Executive Summary E-1
out of 9 samples (22%) collected at listing station 2-RVN037.54 exceeded the E. coli
criterion of 235 cfu/100 ml
The impaired segment of Beaver Creek (VAV-H23R-BVR02AO4) extends 4.8 miles
from its headwaters to Beaver Creek Reservoir. This segment of Beaver Creek was first
listed on the 2004 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report for
exceedances of the fecal coliform standard. During the 2004 assessment period (January
1998 through December 2002), 2 out of 16 fecal coliform samples (13%) collected at
listing station 2-BVR005.70 exceeded the fecal coliform standard instantaneous of 400
cfu/100 ml. This segment remained on the 303(d) list in the 2006 Water Quality
Assessment Report.
The impaired segment of Meadow Creek (VAV-H28R-MWCOIA00) extends 4.01 miles
from its headwaters to the confluence of the Rivanna River. This segment of Meadow
Creek was first listed on the 2002 303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report for
exceedances of the fecal coliform standard. During the 2002 assessment period (January
1996 through December 2000), 4 out of 23 fecal coliform samples (17%) collected at
listing station 2-MWC000.60 exceeded the fecal coliform instantaneous standard of 400
cfu/100 ml.
The impaired segment of the Mechums River (VAV-H23R-MCMOIA00) extends 10.44
miles from the confluence of the Lickinghole Creek to the Moormans River. This
segment of the Mechums River was first listed on the 2006 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality
Assessment Integrated Report for exceedances of the E. coli standard. During the 2006
assessment period (January 2000 through December 2004), 2 out of 18 samples (11%)
collected at listing station 2-MCM005.12 exceeded the E. coli criterion of 235 cfu/100
MI.
The impaired segment of the North Fork Rivanna River (VAV-H27R-RRNOIA00)
extends 10.38 miles from the public water intake to the confluence of the Rivanna River.
This segment of the North Fork Rivanna River was first listed on the 2006 305(b)/303(d)
Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report for exceedances of the E. coli standard.
During the 2006 assessment period (January 2000 through December 2004), 3 out of 9
Executive Summary E-2
samples (33%) collected at listing station 2-RRN002.19 exceeded the E. coli criterion of
235 cfu/100 ml.
The impaired segment of Preddy Creek and its tributaries (VAV-H27R-PRDOlA00)
extends 25.96 miles from its headwaters to the confluence of the Rivanna River. This
segment of Preddy Creek was first listed on the 2006 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality
Assessment Integrated Report for exceedances of the E. coli standard. During the 2006
assessment period (January 2000 through December 2004), 3 out of the 9 samples (33%)
collected at listing station 2-PRD000.21 exceeded the E. coli criterion of 235 cfu/100 ml.
During this same period, only 1 out of the 9 samples (11%) collected at listing station 2-
PRD004.42 exceeded the E. coli criterion of 235 cf i/100 ml.
Applicable Water Quality Standards
At the time of the initial listing of Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River,
Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek
segments, the Virginia Bacteria Water Quality Standard was expressed in fecal coliform
bacteria; however, the bacteria water quality standard has recently been changed, and is
now expressed in E. coli. Virginia's bacteria water quality standard currently states that
E. coli bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 126 E. coli counts per 100 mL of
water for two or more samples within a calendar month, or an E. coli concentration of
235 counts per 100 mL of water at any time. However, the loading rates for watershed -
based modeling are available only in terms of the previous standard, fecal coliform
bacteria. Therefore, the TMDL was expressed in E. coli by converting modeled daily
fecal coliform concentrations to daily E. coli concentrations using an in -stream translator.
This TMDL was required to meet both the geometric mean and instantaneous E. coli
water quality standard.
Watershed Characterization
The land use characterization for the Rivanna River watershed was based on a
combination of land cover data from the National Land Use Land cover data set (NLCD)
using 2001 reference data and the Virginia Department of Forestry 2005 land use data.
Executive Summary E-3
Dominant land uses in the watershed are forest (64%) and agriculture (21%). These
account for a combined 85% of the total land area in the watershed
The potential sources of fecal coliform include run-off from livestock grazing, manure
applications, industrial processes, residential, and domestic pets waste. Some of these
sources are driven by dry weather and others are driven by wet weather. The potential
sources of fecal coliform in the watershed were identified and characterized. These
sources include permitted point sources, failed septic systems and straight pipes,
livestock, wildlife, and pets.
TMDL Technical Approach
The Hydrologic Simulation Program -Fortran (HSPF) model was selected and used as a
tool to predict the in -stream water quality conditions of the delineated watershed under
varying scenarios of rainfall and fecal coliform loading. HSPF is a hydrologic,
watershed -based water quality model. The results from the model were used to develop
the TMDL allocations based on the existing fecal coliform load. Basically, this means
that HSPF can explicitly account for the specific watershed conditions, the seasonal
variations in rainfall and climate conditions, and activities and uses related to fecal
coliform loading.
The modeling process in HSPF starts with the following steps
• delineating the watershed into smaller subwatersheds
• entering the physical data that describe each subwatershed and stream segment
• entering values for the rates and constants that describe the sources and the
activities related to the fecal coliform loading in the watershed
The Rivanna River watershed was delineated into 41 smaller subwatersheds to represent
the watershed characteristics and to improve the accuracy of the HSPF model. Of these
41 representing the entire Rivanna River watershed, 28 were within the bacteria impaired
watershed. This delineation was based on topographic characteristics, and was created
using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM), stream reaches obtained from the National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and stream flow and in -stream water quality data.
Executive Summary E-4
Stream flow data were available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Weather data
were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The data used in the
model include meteorological data (hourly precipitation) and surface airways data
(including wind speed/direction, ceiling height, dry bulb temperature, dew point
temperature, and solar radiation).
The period of January 1998 to December 2006 was used for HSPF hydraulic calibration
and validation. The hydrologic calibration parameters were adjusted until there was a
good agreement between the observed and simulated stream flow, thereby indicating that
the model parameterization is representative of the hydrologic characteristics of the study
areas. The model results closely matched the observed flows during low flow conditions,
base flow recession and storm peaks.
Instream water quality data for the calibration was retrieved from DEQ, and was
evaluated for potential use in the set-up, calibration, and validation of the water quality
model. The existing fecal coliform loading was calculated based on current watershed
conditions. Since Virginia has recently changed its bacteria standard from fecal coliform
to E. coli the modeled fecal coliform concentrations were changed to E. coli
concentrations using a translator.
TMDL Calculations
The TMDL represents the maximum amount of a pollutant that the stream can receive
without exceeding the water quality standard. The load allocation for the selected
scenarios was calculated using the following equation:
Where,
TMDL = 2] WLA +2] LA + MOS
WLA = wasteload allocation (point source contributions);
LA = load allocation (non -point source allocation); and
MOS = margin of safety.
Executive Summary E-5
The margin of safety (MOS) is a required component of the TMDL to account for any
lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water
quality. The MOS was implicitly incorporated in this TMDL. Implicitly incorporating
the MOS required that allocation scenarios be designed to meet a 30-day geometric mean
E. coli standard of 126 cfu/100 mL and the instantaneous E. coli standard of 235 cfu/100
mL with 0% exceedance.
Typically, there are several potential allocation strategies that would achieve the TMDL
endpoint and water quality standards. A number of load allocation scenarios were
developed to determine the final TMDL load allocation scenario.
For the hydrologic period of January 2000 to December 2006, fecal coliform loading and
instream fecal coliform concentrations were estimated for the various scenarios using the
developed HSPF model of the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River,
Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek. After
using the instream translator, the TMDL allocation plan was developed to meet geometric
mean and instantaneous E. coli standards. Based on the load -allocation scenario
analyses, the daily TMDL allocation plans that will meet the 30-day E. coli geometric
mean water quality standard of 126 cfu/100 mL and the instantaneous E. coli water
quality standard of 235 cfu/100 mL are presented in Table E-1.
Executive Summary E-6
Table E-1: Allocation Plan Loads
for E. coli (% reduction)
for
the Rivanna River
mainstem,
North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy
Creek and tributaries,
Meadow
Creek Mechums
River,
d Beaver
Watershed
Human Sources
Livestock
Agricultural
Wildlife
(failed septic
(Direct
and urban
(Direct
systems and
Instream
non point
Instream
straight pipes)
Loading)
sources
Loading)
Rivanna River
100%
100%
95%
76%
VAV-H28R-RVNOIA00
North Fork Rivanna River
VAV-H27R-RRNOIA00
100%
100%
95%
92%
Preddy Creeks and Tributaries
100%
100%
95%
72%
VAV-H27R-PRDOIA00
Meadow Creek
VAV-H28R-MWCOIA00
100%
100%
95%
48%
Mechums River
100%
100%
95%
76%
VAV-H23R-MCMOIA00
Beaver Creek
100%
100%
95%
66%
VAV-H23R-BVR02A04
The summaries of the daily bacteria TMDL allocation plan loads for the Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek are presented in Table E-2. Table E-3 summarizes
the yearly bacteria TMDL allocation plan loads.
Table F-2: Rivanna River mainstem,
North Fork
Rivanna River,
Preddy Creek
Meadow
Beaver Creek
TMDL
�and
Loads for E. coli (cfu/day)
WLA (Point
LA
MOS
Watershed
Sources)
(Nonpoint
(Margin of
TMDL
sources)
safety)
Rivanna River
3.72E+10
4.11E+11
Implicit
4.48E+l l
VAV-H28R-RVNOIA00
North Fork Rivanna River
9.88E+09
1.62E+l l
Implicit
1.72E+l l
VAV-H27R-RRNOIA00
Preddy Creeks and Tributaries
6.67E+08
5.91E+10
Implicit
5.97E+10
VAV-H27R-PRDOIA00
Meadow Creek
4.08E+10
2.36E+10
Implicit
6.44E+10
VAV-H28R-MWCOIA00
Mechums River
906E+07
3.50E+10
Implicit
3.51E+10
VAV-H23R-MCMOIA00
Beaver Creek
2.60E+08
1.12E+10
Implicit
1.14E+10
VAV-H23R-BVR02A04
Executive Summary E-7
Table Ina River mainstem,North1
I
1 1
I
1 11
II
Be
1
II J
Loads
WLA (Point
LA
MOS
Watershed
Sources)
(Nonpoint
(Margin of
TMDL
sources)
safety)
Rivanna River
4.93E+12
4.11E+13
Implicit
4.60E+13
VAV-H28R-RVNOIA00
North Fork Rivanna River
2.15E+12
1.54E+13
Implicit
1.75E+13
VAV-H27R-RRNOIA00
Preddy Creeks and Tributaries
2.43E+11
5.58E+12
Implicit
5.83E+12
VAV-H27R-PRDOIA00
Meadow Creek
3.89E+12
2.23E+12
Implicit
6.12E+12
VAV-H28R-MWCOlA00
Mechums River
3.31E+10
3.31E+12
Implicit
3.34E+12
VAV-H23R-MCMOIA00
Beaver Creek
3.29E+10
1.07E+12
Implicit
1.10E+12
VAV-H23R-BVR02A04
TMDL Implementation
The Commonwealth intends for this TMDL to be implemented through best management
practices (BMPs) in the watershed. Implementation will occur in stages. The benefits of
staged implementation are: 1) as stream monitoring continues to occur, it allows for water
quality improvements to be recorded as they are being achieved; 2) it provides a measure
of quality control, given the uncertainties that exist in any model; 3) it provides a
mechanism for developing public support; 4) it helps to ensure the most cost effective
practices are implemented initially, and 5) it allows for the evaluation of the TMDL's
adequacy in achieving the water quality standard. Table E-4 provides load reduction
targets for staged implementation achieving a 10% instantaneous standard violation
reduction for each TMDL watershed.
While section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and current EPA regulations do not require
the development of TMDL implementation plans as part of the TMDL process, they do
require reasonable assurance that the load and wasteload allocations can and will be
implemented. Additionally, Virginia's 1997 Water Quality Monitoring Information and
Restoration Act (the "Act") directs the State Water Control Board to "develop and
implement a plan to achieve fully supporting status for impaired waters" (Section 62. 1 -
Executive Summary E-8
44.19.7). The Act also establishes that the implementation plan shall include the date of
expected achievement of water quality objectives, measurable goals, corrective actions
necessary and the associated costs, benefits and environmental impacts of addressing the
impairments. EPA outlines the minimum elements of an approvable implementation plan
in its 1999 "Guidance for Water Quality -Based Decisions: The TMDL Process." The
listed elements include implementation actions/management measures, timelines, legal or
regulatory controls, time required to attain water quality standards, monitoring plans, and
milestones for attaining water quality standards.
Once developed, DEQ intends to incorporate the TMDL implementation plan into the
appropriate Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), in accordance with the Clean
Water Act's Section 303(e). In response to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between EPA and DEQ, DEQ also submitted a draft Continuous Planning Process to
EPA in which DEQ commits to regularly updating the WQMPs. Thus, the WQMPs will
be, among other things, the repository for all TMDLs and TMDL implementation plans
developed within a river basin.
Executive Summary E-9
Table
mainstem,
North
Fork Rivanna1
1
I
tributaries Meadow
Cree_�,j-
Mechums River
and Beaver
Creek
TMDL_
I zatiom
Scenario Instantaneous
1
1 Violation
violation of violation of
Failed
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
GM
Inst.
Watershed
Septics &
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
standard
standard
Pipes
126
235
#/100m1
#/100m1
Rivanna River
VAV-H28R-
100%
92%
0%
0%
0%
14.7%
10%
RVNOIA00
North Fork Rivanna
River
100%
100%
50%
58%
0%
21%
10%
VAV-H27R-
RRNOlA00
Preddy Creeks and
Tributaries
100%
100%
50%
48%
0%
36.8%
10%
VAV-H27R-
PRDOlA00
Meadow Creek
VAV-H28R-
100%
100%
0%
23%
0%
27%
10%
MWCOIA00
Mechums River
VAV-H23R-
100%
100%
55%
0%
0%
33%
10%
MCMOlA00
Beaver Creek
VAV-H23R-
100%
95%
0%
0%
0%
31.4%
10%
BVR02AO4
Executive Summary E-10
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................... E-1
1.0 Introduction..........................................................................1-1
1.1 Regulatory Guidance.........................................................................................1-1
1.2 Impairment Listing............................................................................................1-2
1.3 Applicable Water Quality Standard................................................................1-6
1.3.1 Designated Uses....................................................................................... 1-6
1.3.2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria........................................................... 1-6
2.0
TMDL Endpoint Identification .............................................
2-1
2.1
Selection of TMDL Endpoint and Water Quality Targets .............................
2-1
2.2
Critical Condition..............................................................................................2-1
2.3
Consideration of Seasonal Variations..............................................................2-5
3.0
Watershed Description and Source Assessment .............
3-1
3.1
Data and Information Inventory......................................................................3-1
3.2
Watershed Description and Identification .......................................................3-3
3.2.1 Topography..............................................................................................
3-5
3.2.2 Soils..........................................................................................................3-5
3.2.3 Land Use..................................................................................................
3-7
3.2.4 Land Use Update....................................................................................
3-10
3.3
Stream Flow Data............................................................................................
3-12
3.4
DEQ Ambient Water Quality Data................................................................
3-12
3.5
Fecal Coliform Source Assessment.................................................................
3-17
3.5.1 Permitted Facilities................................................................................
3-17
3.5.2 Extent of Sanitary Sewer Network........................................................
3-23
3.5.3 Livestock................................................................................................3-24
3.5.4 Land Application of Manure..................................................................
3-27
3.5.5 Land Application of Biosolids...............................................................3-27
Table of Contents
3.5.6 Wildlife..................................................................................................3-28
3.5.7 Pets.........................................................................................................3-30
4.0
Modeling Approach..............................................................
4-1
4.1
Modeling Goals...................................................................................................
4-1
4.2
Watershed Boundaries......................................................................................4-1
4.3
Modeling Strategy..............................................................................................
4-4
4.4
Watershed Delineation......................................................................................4-5
4.5
Land Use Reclassification..................................................................................
4-8
4.6
Hydrographic Data..........................................................................................4-10
4.7
Fecal Coliform Sources Representation.........................................................
4-11
4.7.1 Permitted Facilities.............................................................................
4-11
4.7.2 Failed Septic Systems.........................................................................4-11
4.7.3 Livestock.............................................................................................4-14
4.7.4 Land Application of Manure...............................................................
4-15
4.7.5 Land Application ofBiosolids............................................................4-15
4.7.6 Wildlife...............................................................................................4-15
4.7.7 Pets......................................................................................................4-16
4.8
Fecal Coliform Die -off Rates...........................................................................
4-16
4.9
Model Set-up, Calibration, and Validation...................................................4-17
4.9.1 Model Set-Up......................................................................................4-17
4.9.2 Model Hydrologic Calibration Results ...............................................
4-22
4.9.3 Model Hydrologic Validation Results ................................................
4-25
4.9.4 Water Quality Calibration...................................................................
4-31
4.10
Existing Bacteria Loading...............................................................................
4-38
4.10.1 Rivanna River.....................................................................................
4-38
4.10.2 North Fork Rivanna River..................................................................
4-40
4.10.3 Preddy Creek and Tributaries.............................................................
4-42
4.10.4 Meadow Creek....................................................................................
4-44
4.10.5 Mechums Creek..................................................................................
4-46
4.10.6 Beaver Creek.......................................................................................
4-48
Table of Contents
5.0 Allocation..............................................................................5-1
5.1
Incorporation of Margin of Safety................................................................... 5-1
5.2
Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................................ 5-2
5.3
Allocation Scenario Development..................................................................... 5-2
5.4
Waste Load Allocation...................................................................................... 5-3
5.5
Load Allocation Development...........................................................................5-4
5.6
Rivanna River TMDL........................................................................................5-6
5.6.1 Rivanna River Waste Load Allocation .................................................
5-6
5.6.2 Rivanna River Load Allocation............................................................
5-6
5.6.3 Rivanna River Allocation Plan .............................................................
5-7
5.7
North Fork Rivanna River TMDL.................................................................
5-11
5.7.1 North Fork Rivanna River Waste Load Allocation ............................
5-11
5.7.2 North Fork Rivanna Load Allocation .................................................
5-11
5.7.3 North Fork Rivanna Allocation Plan ..................................................
5-13
5.8
Preddy Creek and Tributaries TMDL...........................................................5-16
5.8.1 Preddy Creek and Tributaries Waste Load Allocation .......................
5-16
5.8.2 Preddy Creek and Tributaries Load Allocation ..................................
5-16
5.8.3 Preddy Creek and Tributaries Allocation Plan ...................................
5-17
5.9
Meadow Creek TMDL....................................................................................
5-20
5.9.1 Meadow Creek Waste Load Allocation ..............................................
5-20
5.9.2 Meadow Creek Load Allocation.........................................................
5-20
5.9.3 Meadow Creek Allocation Plan ..........................................................
5-21
5.10
Mechums River TMDL...................................................................................
5-24
5.10.1 Mechums River Waste Load Allocation .............................................
5-24
5.10.2 Mechums River Load Allocation........................................................
5-24
5.10.3 Mechums River Allocation Plan .........................................................
5-25
5.11
Beaver Creek TMDL.......................................................................................
5-28
5.11.1 Beaver Creek Waste Load Allocation .................................................
5-28
5.11.2 Beaver Creek Load Allocation............................................................
5-28
5.11.3 Beaver Creek Allocation Plan .............................................................
5-29
Table of Contents
6.0 TMDL Implementation and Reasonable Assurance .............
6-1
6.1
Continuing Planning Process and Water Quality Management Planning...
6-1
6.2
Staged Implementation......................................................................................
6-1
6.3
Implementation of Waste Load Allocations....................................................6-2
6.3.1 Treatment Plants...................................................................................
6-2
6.3.2 Stormwater............................................................................................6-3
6.3.2 TMDL Modifications for New or Expanding Dischargers ...................
6-4
6.4
Implementation of Load Allocations................................................................ 6-4
6.4.1 Implementation Plan Development._....................................................
6-5
6.4.2 Staged Implementation Scenarios.........................................................
6-6
6.4.3 Link to Ongoing Restoration Efforts ....................................................
6-8
6.4.4 Implementation Funding Sources.........................................................
6-9
6.5
Follow -Up Monitoring.....................................................................................6-10
6.6
Attainability of Designated Uses.....................................................................
6-13
7.0 Public Participation.................................................................7-1
References..................................................................................... R-1
Table of Contents iv
Appendices
Appendix A: Model Representation of Stream Reach Networks ............................ A-1
Appendix B: Monthly Fecal Coliform Build -Up Rates and Direct Deposition
Loads...............................................................................................................................B-1
Appendix C: Livestock and Wildlife Inventories by Subwatershed ....................... C-1
Appendix D: Sensitivity Analysis
List of Figures
D-1
Figure 1-1: Location of Bacteria Impaired Segments of the Rivanna River mainstem,
North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums
River, and Beaver Creek Watersheds.............................................................................. 1-5
Figure 2-1: Flow Percentile and Fecal Coliform Concentrations along Mechums River
(USGS2031000)............................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2: Flow Percentile and Fecal Coliform Concentrations along the Rivanna River
(USGS2032640)............................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 2-3: Flow Percentile and E. coli Concentrations along Mechums River
(USGS2031000)............................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 3-1: Location and Boundary of the Rivanna River Bacteria Impaired Watershed.....
.......................................................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-2: Land Use in the Rivanna River Watershed ................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-3: NLCD 2001 and Hybrid Land Use Layers for the Rivanna River Watershed ...
........................................................................................................................................ 3-11
Figure 3-4: Rivanna River Watershed DEQ Water Quality Monitoring Stations ......... 3-14
Figure 3-5: Location of Permitted Facilities in the Rivanna River Watershed .............. 3-20
Figure 3-6: Location of MS4 Areas in the Rivanna River Watershed ........................... 3-22
Figure 4-1: Watershed Boundary ..................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-2: Subwatershed Delineation............................................................................. 4-7
Figure 4-3: Livestock Contribution to the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna
River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek
watersheds...................................................................................................................... 4-14
Figure 4-4: Daily Mean Flow at USGS Station 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra,
VA)................................................................................................................................ 4-19
Figure 4-5: Daily Mean Flow at USGS Station 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna River near
Earlysville, VA).............................................................................................................4-19
Figure 4-6: Daily Mean Flow at USGS Station 02031000 (Mechums River near
Whitehall, VA)............................................................................................................... 4-23
Figure 4-7: Location of Rainfall Stations and USGS Flow Stations ............................. 4-21
Figure 4-8: USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna River near Earlysville, VA) Model
Hydrologic Calibration Results...................................................................................... 4-23
Figure 4-9: USGS 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) Model Hydrologic
CalibrationResults......................................................................................................... 4-24
Table of Contents v
Figure 4-10:
USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) Model Hydrologic
CalibrationResults.........................................................................................................
4-25
Figure 4-11:
USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna River near Earlysville, VA)
Model
Hydrologic Validation Results.......................................................................................
4-27
Figure 4-12:
USGS 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) Model Hydrologic
ValidationResults
..........................................................................................................
4-28
Figure 4-13:
USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) Model Hydrologic
ValidationResults
..........................................................................................................4-29
Figure 4-14:
Fecal Coliform Calibration for Mechums River (Reach 16) ............................
........................................................................................................................................
4-34
Figure 4-15:
Fecal Coliform Calibration for Mechums River (Reach 38) ....................
4-34
Figure 4-16:
Fecal Coliform Calibration for Meadow Creek (Reach 17) .....................
4-35
Figure 4-17:
Fecal Coliform Calibration for the North Fork Rivanna River (Reach 14)
........................................................................................................................................
4-35
Figure 4-18:
Fecal Coliform Calibration for Preddy Creek (Reach 4) ..........................
4-36
Figure 4-19:
Fecal Coliform Calibration for Beaver Creek (Reach 36)........................4-36
Figure 4-20:
Fecal Coliform Calibration for the Rivanna River (Reach 24).................
4-37
Figure 4-21:
Fecal Coliform Calibration for the Rivanna River (Reach 23).................
4-37
Figure 4-22:
Rivanna River Mainstem E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions.. 4-39
Figure 4-23:
Rivanna River Mainstem E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions .......
4-39
Figure 4-24:
North Fork Rivanna River E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions ........
........................................................................................................................................
4-41
Figure 4-25:
North Fork Rivanna River E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions
..... 4-41
Figure 4-26:
Preddy Creek E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions ....................
4-43
Figure 4-27:
Preddy Creek E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions .........................
4-43
Figure 4-28:
Meadow Creek E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions ..................
4-45
Figure 4-29:
Meadow Creek E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions .......................
4-45
Figure 4-30:
Mechums River E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions .................
4-47
Figure 4-31:
Mechums River E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions ......................
4-47
Figure 4-32:
Beaver Creek E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions ....................
4-49
Figure 4-33:
Beaver Creek E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions .........................
4-49
Figure 5-1:
Rivanna River Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under
Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8.............................................................................
5-9
Figure 5-2:
Rivanna River Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation
Scenario8.......................................................................................................................
5-10
Figure 5-3:
North Fork Rivanna River Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under
Existing Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8.............................................................
5-14
Figure 5-4:
North Fork Rivanna River Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under
AllocationScenario
8.....................................................................................................
5-15
Figure 5-5:
Preddy Creek Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under
Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8...........................................................................
5-19
Figure 5-6: Preddy Creek Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation Scenario
8......................................................................................................................................
5-19
Figure 5-7:
Meadow Creek Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under
Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 7...........................................................................
5-23
Figure 5-8:
Meadow Creek Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation
Scenario7.......................................................................................................................
5-23
Table of Contents A
Figure 5-9: Mechums River Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8........................................................................... 5-27
Figure 5-10: Mechums River Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation
Scenario8....................................................................................................................... 5-27
Figure 5-11: Beaver Creek Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8........................................................................... 5-31
Figure 5-12: Beaver Creek Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation
Scenario8....................................................................................................................... 5-31
List of Tables
Table 1-1: 2006 303(d) Impaired Segments within the Rivanna River Mainstem, North
Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and Tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and
Beaver Creek Watersheds................................................................................................
1-4
Table 3-1: Inventory of Data and Information Used in the Rivanna River Mainstem,
North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and Tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums
River, and Beaver Creek Watershed................................................................................
3-2
Table 3-2: Major Soil Associations within the Rivanna River Watershed ......................
3-5
Table 3-3: Soil Hydrogroups within the Rivanna River Watershed ................................
3-6
Table 3-4: Descriptions of Hydrologic Soil Groups.......................................................3-6
Table 3-5: Land Use Categories within the Rivanna River Watershed ...........................3-7
Table 3-6 Descriptions of Land Use Types.....................................................................
3-8
Table 3-7: NLCD 2001 and Hybrid Land Covers.........................................................
3-10
Table 3-8: USGS Stream Flow Data located the Rivanna River ...................................
3-12
Table 3-9: VA DEQ Water Quality Stations.................................................................
3-12
Table 3-10: Fecal Coliform Data Collected within the Rivanna River Watershed .......
3-15
Table 3-11: E. coli Data Collected within the Rivanna River Watershed .....................
3-17
Table 3-12: Individual Permitted Facilities within the Bacteria Impaired Rivanna River
Watershed......................................................................................................................
3-18
Table 3-13: General Permitted Facilities within the Rivanna River Watershed ............
3-19
Table 3-14: MS4 Permits within the Rivanna River Watershed ....................................
3-21
Table 3-15: 2004 Census Data Summary for Rivanna River Watershed ......................
3-23
Table 3-16: Percent of Houses within Each County on Public Sewers, Septic Systems,
andOther Means............................................................................................................
3-23
Table 3-17: Estimates of the Number of Septic Systems and Straight Pipes ................
3-24
Table 3-18: Livestock Inventory by County ..................................................................
3-25
Table 3-19: Daily Fecal Coliform Production of Livestock ..........................................
3-25
Table 3-20: Daily Schedule for Beef Cattle...................................................................
3-26
Table 3-21: Daily Schedule for Dairy Cows..................................................................
3-27
Table 3-22: Biosolids Application by County (dry ton/year) *.....................................
3-28
Table 3-23: Wildlife Densities.......................................................................................
3-28
Table 3-24: Rivanna Watersheds Wildlife Inventory ....................................................3-29
Table 3-25: Fecal Coliform Production from Wildlife ..................................................
3-29
Table 3-26: Pet Estimates within the Rivanna River Watershed ...................................
3-30
Table 4-1: Subwatershed Areas .......................................................................................
4-6
Table 4-2: Rivanna River Land Use Reclassification......................................................
4-8
Table 4-3: North Fork Rivanna River Land Use Reclassification ...................................
4-9
Table of Contents vii
Table 4-4: Preddy Creek and Tributaries Land Use Reclassification .............................. 4-9
Table 4-5: Meadow Creek Land Use Reclassification................................................... 4-9
Table 4-6: Mechums River Land Use Reclassification................................................ 4-10
Table 4-7: Beaver Creek Land Use Reclassification.................................................... 4-10
Table 4-8: Failed Septic Systems and Straight Pipes Assumed in Model Development.......
........................................................................................................................................ 4-13
Table 4-9: USGS Flow Stations used for Hydrology Calibration and Validation......... 4-18
Table 4-10: Proportion of Rainfall from each Gauging Stations used for Hydrology
Calibration and Validation............................................................................................. 4-20
Table 4-11: USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna near Earlysville, VA) Model
CalibrationResults......................................................................................................... 4-22
Table 4-12: USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna near Earlysville, VA) Model
Calibration Error Statistics............................................................................................. 4-23
Table 4-13: USGS 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) Model Calibration Results.
........................................................................................................................................ 4-23
Table 4-14: USGS 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) Model Calibration Error
Statistics......................................................................................................................... 4-24
Table 4-15: USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) Model Calibration
Results............................................................................................................................ 4-24
Table 4-16: USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) Model Calibration
ErrorStatistics................................................................................................................ 4-25
Table 4-17: USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna near Earlysville, VA) Model
ValidationResults.......................................................................................................... 4-26
Table 4-18: USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna near Earlysville, VA) Model
Validation Error Statistics.............................................................................................. 4-26
Table 4-19: USGS 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) Model Validation Results..
........................................................................................................................................ 4-27
Table 4-20: USGS 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) Model Validation Error
Statistics......................................................................................................................... 4-27
Table 4-21: USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) Model Validation
Results............................................................................................................................ 4-28
Table 4-22: USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) Model Validation
ErrorStatistics................................................................................................................ 4-28
Table 4 23: Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributary-s, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek HSPF Calibration
Parameters (Typical, Possible and Final Values).......................................................... 4-29
Table 4-24: Water Quality Stations used in the HSPF Fecal Coliform Simulations..... 4-32
Table 4-25: Observed and Simulated Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Concentration........
........................................................................................................................................ 4-33
Table 4-26: Observed and Simulated Exceedance Rates of the 400 cfu/ 100ml
Instantaneous Fecal Coliform Standard.........................................................................4-33
Table 4-27: Rivanna River Mainstem E. coli Existing Load Distribution by Source ... 4-40
Table 4-28: North Fork Rivanna River E. coli Existing Load Distribution by Source. 4-42
Table 4-29: Preddy Creek & Tributaries E. coli Existing Load Distribution by Source .......
........................................................................................................................................ 4-44
Table 4-30: Meadow Creek E. coli Existing Load Distribution by Source ................... 4-46
Table 4-31: Mechums River E. coli Existing Load Distribution by Source .................. 4-48
Table of Contents viii
Table 4-32: Beaver Creek E. coli Existing Load Distribution by Source ......................
4-50
Table 5-1: TMDL Load Allocation Scenarios.................................................................
5-5
Table 5-2: Rivanna River Waste load Allocation for E. coli..........................................
5-6
Table 5-3: Rivanna River Load Reductions Under 30-Day Geometric
Mean and
Instantaneous Standards for E. coli..................................................................................
5-7
Table 5-4: Rivanna River Distribution of Annual Average E. coli Load under Existing
Conditions and TMDL Allocation...................................................................................
5-8
Table 5-5: Rivanna River Bacteria TMDL (cf i/day) for E. coli.....................................
5-8
Table 5-6: Rivanna River Bacteria TMDL (cf i/year) for E. coli....................................
5-8
Table 5-7: North Fork Rivanna River Waste load Allocation for E. coli......................
5-11
Table 5-8: North Fork Rivanna River Load Reductions Under 30-Day Geometric Mean
and Instantaneous Standards for E. coli.........................................................................
5-12
Table 5-9: North Fork Rivanna River Distribution of Annual Average E. coli
Load under
Existing Conditions and TMDL Allocation...................................................................
5-13
Table 5-10: North Fork Rivanna River Bacteria TMDL (cf i/day) for E. coli ..............
5-14
Table 5-11: North Fork Rivanna River Bacteria TMDL (cfu/year) for E. coli .............
5-14
Table 5-12: Preddy Creek Waste load Allocation for E. coli.......................................
5-16
Table 5-13: Preddy Creek and Tributaries Load Reductions Under 30-Day
Geometric
Mean and Instantaneous Standards for E. coli...............................................................
5-17
Table 5-14: Preddy Creek Distribution of Annual Average E. coli Load under Existing
Conditions and TMDL Allocation.................................................................................
5-18
Table 5-15: Preddy Creek Bacteria TMDL (cfu/day) for E. coli...................................
5-18
Table 5-16: Preddy Creek Bacteria TMDL (cfu/year) for E. coli..................................
5-18
Table 5-17: Meadow Creek Load Reductions Under 30-Day Geometric
Mean and
Instantaneous Standards for E. coli................................................................................
5-21
Table 5-18: Meadow Creek Distribution of Annual Average E. coli Load under Existing
Conditions and TMDL Allocation.................................................................................
5-22
Table 5-19: Meadow Creek Bacteria TMDL (cfu/day) for E. coh................................
5-22
Table 5-20: Meadow Creek Bacteria TMDL (cfu/year) for E. coli ...............................
5-22
Table 5-21: Mechums River Load Reductions Under 30-Day Geometric
Mean and
Instantaneous Standards for E. coli................................................................................
5-25
Table 5-22: Mechums River Distribution of Annual Average E. coli Load under Existing
Conditions and TMDL Allocation.................................................................................
5-26
Table 5-23: Mechums River Bacteria TMDL (cfu/day) for E. coli ...............................
5-26
Table 5-24: Mechums River Bacteria TMDL (cfu/year) for E. coli ..............................
5-26
Table 5-25: Beaver Creek Load Reductions Under 30-Day Geometric
Mean and
Instantaneous Standards for E. coli................................................................................
5-29
Table 5-26: Beaver Creek Distribution of Annual Average E. coli Load under Existing
Conditions and TMDL Allocation.................................................................................
5-30
Table 5-27: Beaver Creek Bacteria TMDL (cfu/day) for E. coli...................................
5-30
Table 5-28: Beaver Creek Bacteria TMDL (cfu/year) for E. coli..................................
5-30
Table 6-1: Beaver Creek (Segment VAV-H23R-BVR02AO4) Watershed Stage 1
Scenarios..........................................................................................................................
6-3
Table 6-2: Meadow Creek (Segment VAV-H28R-MWCOIA00) Watershed Stage 1
Scenarios..........................................................................................................................
6-4
Table 6-3: Mechums River (Segment VAV-H23R-MCMOIA00) Watershed Stage 1
Scenarios..........................................................................................................................
6-4
Table of Contents ix
Table 6-4: North Fork Rivanna River (Segment VAV-H27R-RRNOlA00) Watershed
Stage1 Scenarios............................................................................................................. 6-4
Table 6-5: Preddy Creeks and Tributaries (Segment VAV-H27R-PRDOlA00) Watershed
Stage1 Scenarios............................................................................................................. 6-4
Table 6-6: Rivanna River (Segment VAV-H28R-RVNOlA00) Watershed Stage 1
Scenarios.......................................................................................................................... 6-5
Table 6-7: VA DEQ Water Quality Stations.................................................................6-11
Table of Contents x
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Regulatory Guidance
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require
states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water bodies that are
exceeding water quality standards. TMDLs represent the total pollutant loading that a
water body can receive without violating water quality standards. The TMDL process
establishes the allowable loadings of pollutants for a water body based on the relationship
between pollution sources and in -stream water quality conditions. By following the
TMDL process, states can establish water quality based controls to reduce pollution from
both point and non -point sources to restore and maintain the quality of their water
resources (EPA, 2001).
The state regulatory agency for Virginia is the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ). DEQ works in coordination with the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR), the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME), and the
Virginia Department of Health (VDH) to develop and regulate a more effective TMDL
process. DEQ is the lead agency for the development of TMDLs statewide, and focuses
its efforts on all aspects of reduction and prevention of pollution to state waters. DEQ
ensures compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Planning
Regulations, as well as with the Virginia Water Quality Monitoring, Information, and
Restoration Act (WQMIRA), passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1997, and
coordinates public participation throughout the TMDL development process. The role of
DCR is to initiate non -point source pollution control programs statewide through the use
of federal grant money. DMME focuses its efforts on issuing surface mining permits and
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for industrial and
mining operations. Lastly, VDH monitors waters for fecal coliform, classifies waters for
shellfish growth and harvesting, and conducts surveys to determine sources of bacterial
contamination (DEQ, 2001).
As required by the Clean Water Act and WQMIRA, DEQ develops and maintains a
listing of all impaired waters in the state that details the pollutant(s) causing each
Introduction 1-1
impairment and the potential source(s) of each pollutant. This list is referred to as the
303(d) List of Impaired Waters. In addition to 303(d) List development, WQMIRA
directs DEQ to develop and implement TMDLs for listed waters (DEQ, 2001a). Once
TMDLs have been developed, they are distributed for public comment and then
submitted to the EPA for approval.
1.2 Impairment Listing
Segments of Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds were listed as
bacteria impaired on Virginia's 2002, 2004, and/or 2006 303(d) Total Maximum Daily
Load Priority List and Reports due to violations of the state's water quality standard for
fecal coliform bacteria and/ or E. coli. The impaired segments are located in the Rivanna
River Basin in central Virginia (Figure 1-1). The watershed is located in the hydrologic
unit (HUC) 02080204. The impaired watersheds include the City of Charlottesville and
portions of Albemarle, Greene, Orange, and Nelson counties.
The impaired segment of the Rivanna River (VAV-H28R-RVNOIA00) extends 5.28
miles along the mainstem from the confluence of the North Fork Rivanna River to
Moores Creek. This segment of the Rivanna River was first listed in the 2006
305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report for exceedances of the E. coli
standard. During the 2006 assessment period (January 2000 through December 2004), 2
out of 9 samples (22%) collected at listing station 2-RVN037.54 exceeded the E. coli
criterion of 235 cfu/100 mi.
The impaired segment of Beaver Creek (VAV-H23R-BVR02A04) extends 4.8 miles
from its headwaters to Beaver Creek Reservoir. This segment of Beaver Creek was first
listed on the 2004 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report for
exceedances of the fecal coliform standard. During the 2004 assessment period (January
1998 through December 2002), 2 out of 16 fecal coliform samples (13%) collected at
listing station 2-BVR005.70 exceeded the fecal coliform instantaneous standard of 400
cfu/100 mi. This segment remained on the 303(d) list in the 2006 Water Quality
Assessment Report.
Introduction 1-2
The impaired segment of Meadow Creek (VAV-H28R-MWCOIA00) extends 4.01 miles
from its headwaters to the confluence of the Rivanna River. This segment of Meadow
Creek was first listed on the 2002 303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report for
exceedances of the fecal coliform standard. During the 2002 assessment period (January
1996 through December 2000), 4 out of 23 fecal coliform samples (17%) collected at
listing station 2-MWC000.60 exceeded the fecal coliform instantaneous standard of 400
cfu/100 MI.
The impaired segment of the Mechums River (VAV-H23R-MCMOIA00) extends 10.44
miles from the confluence of the Lickinghole Creek to the Moormans River. This
segment of the Mechums River was first listed on the 2006 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality
Assessment Integrated Report for exceedances of the E. coli standard. During the 2006
assessment period (January 2000 through December 2004), 2 out of 18 samples (11%)
collected at listing station 2-MCM005.12 exceeded the E. coli criterion of 235 cfu/100
MI.
The impaired segment of the North Fork Rivanna River (VAV-H27R-RRNOIA00)
extends 10.38 miles from the public water intake to the confluence of the Rivanna River.
This segment of the North Fork Rivanna River was first listed on the 2006 305(b)/303(d)
Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report for exceedances of the E. coli standard.
During the 2006 assessment period (January 2000 through December 2004), 3 out of 9
samples (33%) collected at listing station 2-RRN002.19 exceeded the E. coli criterion of
235 cfu/100 MI.
The impaired segment of Preddy Creek and its tributaries (VAV-H27R-PRDOIA00)
extends 25.96 miles from its headwaters to the confluence of the Rivanna River. This
segment of the Preddy Creek was first listed on the 2006 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality
Assessment Integrated Report for exceedances of the E. coli standard. During the 2006
assessment period (January 2000 through December 2004), 3 out of the 9 samples (33%)
collected at listing station 2-PRD000.21 exceeded the E. coli criterion of 235 cfu/100 mi.
During this same period, only 1 out of the 9 samples (11%) collected at listing station 2-
PRD004.42 exceeded the E. coli criterion of 235 cfu/100 MI.
Introduction 1-3
The total length of these six segments is approximately 61 miles. Table 1-1 summarizes
the details of the impaired segments and Figure 1-1 presents their location.
Table 1-1: ii303(d) Impaired Segments within the Rivanna River Mainstem, North
Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and Tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, A
and Beaver
TMDL ID
Stream Name
Miles
Boundaries
Station ID
Impairment
VAV-H23R-
Beaver Creek
4.8
Headwaters to Beaver
2-BVR005.70
Fecal
BVR02AO4
Creek Reservoir
Coliform
VAV-H28R-
Meadow Creek
4.01
Headwaters to Rivanna
2-MWC000.60
Fecal
MWCO 1A00
River
Coliform
VAV-H23R-
Mechums
10.44
Lickinghole Creek to
2-MCM005.12
E. coli
MCMOlA00
River
Moonnans River
VAV-H27R-
North Fork
10.38
Public water intake to
2-RRN002.19
E. coli
RRNOlA00
Rivanna River
Rivanna River
VAV-H27R-
Preddy Creeks
25.96
Headwaters to NF
2-PRD000.21
E. coli
PRDOlA00
and Tributaries
Rivanna River
VAV-H28R-
Rivanna River
5.28
NF Rivanna confluence
2-RVN037.54
E. coli
RVNOIA00
to Moores Creek
Introduction 7-4
Preddy Creek and Tribs
VAV-H27R PRD01A00
i
N.F. Rivanna River "\ .
VAV-H27R-RRN01AO0
Cj Beaver Creek
VAV-H23R-BVR02A04 ^r""...^v`e,r. '
_ \t Meadow Creek
VAV-H28R-MWC01A00
"ACH'TTESV LE Rivanna River
VAV-H28R-RVN01A00
Mechums River _
VAV-H23R-MCMOtA00 rig-� <
rro'' Rivanna River Watershed """ -Lake momicello
Legend MAP INDEX
303d Listed Segment S
0 1 2 4 6 Wiles,
Stream
�:s ISGS,-W4aWhap4h� Rlatl. JY
Waterbodies
mE Louis Berger Group, we
Q County Boundary
Figure 1-1: Location of Bacteria Impaired Segments of the Rivanna River mainstem, North
Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and
Beaver Creek Watersheds
Introduction 1-5
1.3 Applicable Water Quality Standard
Water quality standards consist of designated uses for a water body and water quality
criteria necessary to support those designated uses. According to Virginia Water Quality
Standards (9 VAC 25-260-5), the term "water quality standards means provisions of state
or federal law which consist of a designated use or uses for the waters of the
Commonwealth and water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses. Water
quality standards are to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water
and serve the purposes of the State Water Control Law (§62.1-44.2 et seq. of the Code of
Virginia) and the federal Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1251 et seq.)."
1.3.1 Designated Uses
According to Virginia Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260-10):
"all state waters are designated for the following uses: recreational uses (e.g.,
swimming and boating); the propagation and growth of a balanced indigenous
population of aquatic life, including game fish, which might be reasonably
expected to inhabit them; wildlife; and the production of edible and marketable
natural resources (e.g., fish and shellfish). "
1.3.2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
Effective January 15, 2003, DEQ specified a new bacteria standard in 9 VAC 25-260-
170.A, and also revised the disinfection policy in 9 VAC 25-260-170.13. These standards
replaced the existing fecal coliform standard and disinfection policy of 9 VAC 25-260-
170. For a non -shellfish supporting waterbody to be in compliance with Virginia bacteria
standards for primary contact recreation, the current criteria are as follows:
"Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 fecal coliform
bacteria per 100 mL of water for two or more samples taken over a calendar
month nor shall more than 10% of the total samples taken during any calendar
month exceed 400 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 mL of water. This criterion
shall not apply for a sampling station after the [E. colij bacterial indicators have
a minimum of 12 data points or after June 30, 2008, whichever comes first. "
Introduction 1-6
"E. coli bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 126 bacteria per 100 mL
of water for two or more samples taken during any calendar month nor should it
exceed 235 counts per 100 mL of water for a single sample maximum value. No
single sample maximum for E. coli shall exceed a 75% upper one-sided
confidence limit based on a site -specific log standard deviation. If site data are
insufficient to establish a site -specific log standard deviation, then 0.4 shall be
used as the log standard deviation in freshwater. Values shown are based on a
log standard deviation of 0.4 in freshwater. "
These criteria were adopted because there is a stronger correlation between the
concentration of E. coli and the incidence of gastrointestinal illness than with fecal
coliform. E. coli are bacteriological organisms that can be found in the intestinal tract of
wane -blooded animals. Like fecal coliform bacteria, these organisms indicate the
presence of fecal contamination.
For bacteria TMDL development after January 15, 2003, E. coli has become the primary
applicable water quality target. However, the loading rates for watershed -based modeling
are available only in terms of fecal coliform. Therefore, during the transition from fecal
coliform to E. coli criteria, DCR, DEQ and EPA have agreed to apply a translator to in -
stream fecal coliform data to determine whether reductions applied to the fecal coliform
load would result in meeting in -stream E. coli criteria. The fecal coliform model and in -
stream translator are used to calculate E. coli TMDLs (DEQ, 2003). The following
regression based in -stream translator is used to calculate E. coli concentrations from fecal
coliform concentrations:
E. coli cony (cf 1100 mL) = 2-0 0172 x (fecal coliform cony (cfu/100mL)J 0.91905
For Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries,
Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek, TMDLs are required to meet both
the geometric mean and instantaneous criteria. The modeled daily fecal coliform
concentrations are converted to daily E. coli concentrations using the in -stream translator.
The TMDL development process also must account for seasonal and annual variations in
precipitation, flow, land use, and pollutant contributions. Such an approach ensures that
Introduction 1-7
TMDLs, when implemented, do not result in violations under a wide variety of scenarios
that affect fecal coliform loading.
Introduction 1-8
2.0 TMDL Endpoint Identification
2.1 Selection of TMDL Endpoint and Water Quality Targets
The six bacteria impaired segments within the Rivanna River mainstem, which are North
Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and
Beaver Creek watersheds, are located within the boundaries of the City of Charlottesville
and Albemarle, Greene, Orange, and Nelson counties in central Virginia. These segments
were initially placed on either the 2002, 2004, and/or 2006 Virginia 303(d) lists due to
exceedences of the fecal coliform or E. coli standards for primary contact recreation. The
impaired segments comprise a total of approximately 65 river miles.
One of the first steps in TMDL development is to determine numeric endpoints, or water
quality targets, for each impaired segment. Water quality targets compare the current
stream conditions to the expected restored stream conditions after TMDL load reductions
are implemented. Numeric endpoints for the Bacteria TMDLs for the Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek TMDLs are established in Virginia Water Quality
Standards (9 VAC 25-260). These standards state that all waters in Virginia should be
free from any substances that can cause the water to violate the state numeric standards,
interfere with its designated uses, or adversely affect human health and aquatic life.
Therefore, the current water quality target for these four impairments, as stated in 9 VAC
25-260-170, is an E. coli geometric mean no greater than 126 colony -forming units (cfu)
per 100 ml for two or more water quality samples taken during any calendar month, and a
single sample maximum of 235 cfu per 100 ml at all times.
2.2 Critical Condition
The critical condition is considered the "worst case scenario' of environmental
conditions in the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek. Developing TMDLs to
meet the water quality targets under the critical condition will ensure that the targets
would also be met under all other conditions.
TMDL Endpoint Identification 2-1
EPA regulations, 40 CFR 130.7 (c)(1), require TMDLs to take critical conditions for
stream flow, loading, and water quality parameters into account. The intent of this
requirement is to ensure that the water quality of the rivers and streams discussed in this
report is protected during times when it is most vulnerable. Critical conditions are
important because they describe the combination of factors that contribute to a violation
of water quality standards. They help to identify the actions that may have to be
undertaken to meet water quality standards.
The Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek flow through a predominantly rural setting. The
dominant land uses in these watersheds are forest and agriculture. In contrast, Meadow
Creek flows through largely developed areas in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County, resulting in a more urbanized watershed as compared to the other impaired
watersheds. Potential sources of fecal coliform include run-off from livestock grazing,
manure applications, point source dischargers, and residential waste.
Fecal coliform loadings result from sources that can contribute during wet weather and
dry weather. The critical conditions were determined from the available in -stream water
quality data and flow data obtained from USGS flow monitoring stations located within
the impaired segment. Flow data were not available at all listing stations but were
available near or at the following stations: 2-MCM005.12, 2-RRN010.92, 2-RRN015.61,
and 2-SFR000.60.
Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 depict fecal coliform concentrations recorded between 1997
and 2006, with the available corresponding stream flow distribution along several
impaired segments. Figure 2-1 includes fecal coliform data from one water quality
station (2-MCM005.12) located alongside USGS flow station 2031000 on the Mechums
River in the western portion of the Rivanna Watershed. Figure 2-2 includes fecal
coliform data from three water quality stations located on or near USGS flow station
2032640 along the North Fork Rivanna River in the eastern portion of the Rivanna
Watershed. The three water quality stations in Figure 2-2 include two located along the
North Fork Rivanna River. One is alongside the flow station (2-RRN010.92), one is
TMDL Endpoint Identification 2-2
located slightly upstream (2-RRN015.61), and the other is located upstream of the flow
station along the South Fork Rivanna River (2-SFR000.60).
Plotting fecal coliform data along with available stream flow data (Figure 2-1 and
Figure 2-2) revealed that the majority of exceedeces tended to occur predominantly
during high to moderate flow conditions. This observation applies to data recorded on
the Rivanna River. Several samples collected at the other stations did show exceedances
of the water quality standards during dry to low flow conditions.
E. coli and corresponding flow data were only available at DEQ bacteria listing station 2-
MCM005.12. The depiction of E. coli concentrations versus flow values is similar to the
observations made regarding the fecal coliform data. The majority of the exceedances
recorded were during moderate high flow to moderate low flow conditions (Figure 2-3).
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
IIIIIIIIIIIII:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
„ I�A�AiiA�IG1�111�11�1111111��1�����lA1�A1�1��A��A1
_____'______________________________________
--------------------------------------------------
..................................................
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
==================================================
--------------------------------------------------
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Figure 2-1: Flow Percentile and Fecal Coliform Concentrations along Nlechums River
(USGS2031000)
TMDL Endpoint Identification 2-3
10000 High Flow Moderate- High Flow
Moderate Flow Moderate -Low Flow I Low Flow
1 I I I I I I I I I' II I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Percentile (k)
Instantaneous Standard -Geometric Mean Standard Is 2-RRN010.92 a 2-RRN015.61 0 2-SFR000.60
Figure 2-2: Flow Percentile and Fecal Coliform Concentrations along the Rivanna River
(USGS2032640)
Figure 2-3: Flow Percentile and E. coli Concentrations along Mechums River
(USGS2031000)
TMDL Endpoint Identification 2-4
Because the majority of the exceedances recorded were during moderate high flow to
moderate low flow conditions, both high and low flow periods were considered as the
critical conditions. Exceedences under high -flow conditions would occur from indirect
sources of bacteria, and would most likely exceed the instantaneous standard. Bacteria
loads under low -flow conditions would likely occur from direct sources of bacteria, and
would most likely violate the instantaneous and geometric mean standards.
These TMDLs are required to meet both the geometric mean and instantaneous bacteria
standards. Therefore, it is necessary for the critical condition to consider both wet
weather, high flow conditions and dry weather, low flow conditions in order to comply
with both the instantaneous and geometric mean bacteria standards.
2.3 Consideration of Seasonal Variations
Seasonal variations involve changes in stream flow and water quality because of
hydrologic and climatological patterns. Seasonal variations were explicitly included in
the modeling approach for this TMDL. The continuous simulation model developed for
this TMDL explicitly incorporates the seasonal variations of rainfall, runoff and fecal
coliform wash -off by using an hourly time -step. In addition, fecal coliform accumulation
rates for each land use were developed on a monthly basis. This allowed for the
consideration of temporal variability in fecal coliform loading within the watershed.
TMDL Endpoint Identification 2-5
3.0 Watershed Description and Source
Assessment
In this section, the types of data available and information collected for the development
of the TMDLs for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek
and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds are
presented. This information was used to characterize each stream and its watershed, and
to inventory and characterize the potential point and nonpoint sources of fecal coliform in
the watershed.
3.1 Data and Information Inventory
A wide range of data and information were used in the development of these TMDLs.
Categories of data used include the following:
(1) Physiographic data describing physical conditions (i.e., topography, soils, and
land use) within the watershed
(2) Hydrographic data describing physical conditions within the stream, such as the
stream reach network and connectivity, and the stream channel depth, width,
slope, and elevation
(3) Data related to uses of the watershed and other activities in the basin that can be
used in the identification of potential fecal coliform sources
(4) Environmental monitoring data describing stream flow and water quality
conditions in the stream
Table 3-1 shows the various data types and the data sources used in the Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-1
R*Wnm�-RL-
Beaver Creek Watersheds
Data Category
Description Source(s)
Watershed
physiographic data
Watershed boundary
USGS, DEQ
Land use/land cover
NLCD
Soil data (SSURGO, STATSGO)
NRCS, BASINS
Topographic data (USGS-30 meter
DEM, USGS Quads)
USGS, DCR
Hydrographic data
Stream network and reaches (RF3)
BASINS, NHD,
Field surveys
Stream morphology
Weather data
Hourly meteorological conditions
NCDC, Earth Info
Watershed activities/
uses data and
information related to
fecal coliform
production
Information, data, reports, and maps
that can be used to support fecal
coliform source identification and
loading
City of Charlottesville,
Albemarle, Greene, Nelson, and
Orange county governments,
local groups and stakeholders
Livestock inventory, grazing, stream
access, and manure management
DCR, county SWCDs, NRCS
Wildlife inventory
DGIF
Septic systems inventory and failure
rates
Local Departments of Health,
Utilities, U.S. Census Bureau
Straight pipes
Census Data, USGS Quad maps
Best management practices (BMPs)
DCR, NRCS, local SWCDs
Point sources and direct
discharge data and
information
Permitted facilities locations and
discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
EPA Permit Compliance
System (PCS), VPDES, DEQ
Environmental
monitoring data
Ambient in -stream monitoring data
DEQ
Stream flow data
USGS, DEQ,
Notes
BASINS: Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources
DCR: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
DEQ: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DGIF: Virginia Department of Came and Inland Fisheries
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
NCDC: National Climatic Data Center
NHD: National Hydrography Dataset
NLCD: National Land Coverage Data
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service
SWCD: Soil and Water Conservation District
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
VPDES: Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-2
3.2 Watershed Description and Identification
The bacteria impaired Rivanna River watershed is located within the borders of
Albemarle, Greene, Nelson, and Orange counties. The city of Charlottesville is also
within the watershed's boundaries. All impaired streams are located in the Rivanna River
watershed (USGS Cataloging Unit 02080204). The entire Rivanna River bacteria
impaired watershed is approximately 321,877 acres. Approximately 78 percent of the
entire drainage basin is located in Albemarle County. As shown in Figure 3-1, the major
roadways that run through the watershed are Route 29 and Route 20, which run from
North to South in the eastern portion of the watershed. Other major roads include Route
33, which runs east to west along the northern boundary of the watershed, and Route 250
and Interstate 64, which run from east to west through Charlottesville along the southern
portion of the watershed.
The North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums
River, and Beaver Creek flow directly or indirectly into the Rivanna River. The impaired
segments of the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek are all located within Albemarle County. Meadow
Creek and a portion of the Rivanna River also run through the city of Charlottesville.
The impaired segments of Preddy Creek and the tributaries are located within Albemarle,
Greene, and Orange counties.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-3
Ouuil RIO
{
5 I /
° f;'
'ir.y
Ilun"
]8 y C
Il Yrerlirt- '
P A
P
Preddy Creek
& Tabs
/
Pr'
P
01,
600
Beaver Creek ir, a,,
Meadow Creek
e°
01
40
A c�'
NF Rivanna
River
AF
�.`
250, ,
a,�l refk
(hari Ptte4Mille
�
I
1�
151 s �d10ry rnvA
l
'\ "!rrr� `•`"
e`0
Rivanna River
53
= Mechums River
„o
Ir
It,
\
z a
\� Rivanna
'>
River Watershed
P'¢�
600
P
Legend 41
NIAP INDEX
u �
Interstate — 303d Bacteria Impairments vs
F
0 2 4 8
US Highway — Streams Miles J
9mvm. t!sGS\MEQ, F �1 /y
State Highway
Counties THE Louis Berger Group, we
Figure 3-1: Location and Boundary of the Rivanna River Bacteria Impaired Watershed
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-4
3.2.1 Topography
A digital elevation model (DEM) based on USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) was
used to characterize topography in the watershed. NED data were obtained from the
National Map Seamless Data Distribution System maintained by the USGS Eros Data
Center. Elevation within the watershed ranges from 295 to 3,586 feet (90 to 1,093
meters) above mean sea level.
3.2.2 Soils
The Rivanna River watershed soil characterization was based on data obtained from
BASINS, an EPA approved multi -purpose environmental analysis system that integrates
GIS, national watershed data, and environmental assessment and modeling tools. There
are seven general soil associations located in the watershed (see Table 3-2). The
Occoquan-Meadowville-Buckhall soils, which comprise 48% of the watershed, are deep
to very deep, well drained moderately permeable loamy soils occurring predominantly in
forested areas.
Table 3-2: Major Soil Associations within the Rivanna
Soil Name
River
Acres
Watershed
Percentage of
Watershed
M ersville-Catoctin s8266
60,965
19%
Ha esville s8267
42,388
13%
Kinkora-Hatboro-Codorus s8270
4,076
1%
Braddock s8272
52,353
16%
Occo uan-Meadowville-Buckhall s8273
153,249
48%
Penn -Croton s8275
1,365
<1%
Rabun s8288
7,482
2%
Total
321,877
100%
The hydrologic soil group linked with each soil association is also presented in Table 3-
3. The hydrologic soil groups represent different levels of infiltration capacity of the
soils. Hydrologic soil group "A" designates soils that are well to excessively well
drained, whereas hydrologic soil group "D" designates soils that are poorly drained. This
means that soils in hydrologic group "A" allow a larger portion of the rainfall to infiltrate
and become part of the ground water system. On the other hand, compared to the soils in
hydrologic group "A," soils in hydrologic group "D" allow a smaller portion of the
rainfall to infiltrate and become part of the ground water. Consequently, more rainfall
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-5
becomes part of the surface water runoff. Descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups are
presented in Table 3-4.
Table 3-3: Soil Hydrogroups
Hydrogroup
within the
Acres
Rivanna River Watershed
Percentage of Watershed
B
255,471
79%
C
66,406
21%
Total
321,877
100%
Table 3-4: Descriptions
of Hydrologic Soil Groups
Hydrologic Soil
Description
A
High infiltration rates. Soils are deep, well drained to excessively drained
sand and gravels.
B
Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep, moderately well
and well -drained soils with moderately coarse textures.
C
Moderate to slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
D
Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have high water table, or
shallow to an impervious cover
C/D
Combination of Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-6
3.2.3 Land Use
The land use characterization for the Rivanna River watershed was based on land cover
data from NLCD using 2001 reference data. The distribution of land uses in the
watershed, by land area and percentage, is presented in Table 3-5. Dominant land uses in
the watershed are forest (65%) and agriculture (22%), and account for a combined 87%
of the total land area in the watershed. Brief descriptions of land use classifications are
presented in Table 3-6. Figure 3-2 depicts the land use distribution within the Rivanna
River watershed.
Table
3-5: Land Use Categories within
the Rivanna River Watershed
General Land
Percent of
Use Category
Specific Land Use Types
Acres
Watershed's Land
Use Area
Water/
Open Water
2,389
1
Woody Wetlands
224
<1
Wetlands
2,619
I
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
6
<1
Developed, Open Space
26,255
8
Developed, Low Intensity
9,668
3
Developed
39,663
12
Developed, Medium Intensi
2,668
1
Developed, High Intensi
1,072
<1
Agriculture
Pasture/Ha
67,567
69,235
21
22
Cultivated Crops
1,668
1
Deciduous Forest
160,341
50
Evergreen Forest
24,766
8
Forest
210,352
65
Mixed Forest
25,245
8
Barren
Barren Land
8
8
<1
<1
Total
321,877
too
100
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-7
Table I Descriptions of Land Use Types
Land Use Type
Description
Open Water
Areas of open water, generally with less than 25 percent or greater cover of
water.
Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for 25-100 percent of
Woody Wetlands
the cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered
with water.
Emergent
Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for 75-100 percent
Herbaceous
of the cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or
Wetlands
covered with water.
Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation.
Low Intensity
Constructed materials account for 30-80 percent of the cover. Vegetation
Residential
may account for 20 to 70 percent of the cover. These areas most commonly
include single-family housing units. Population densities will be lower
than in high intensity residential areas.
Includes heavily built up urban centers where people reside in high
High Intensity
numbers. Examples include apartment complexes and row houses.
Residential
Vegetation accounts for less than 20 percent of the cover. Constructed
materials account for 80-100 percent of the cover.
Commercial/
Industrial/
Includes infrastructure (e.g. roads, railroads, etc.) and all highways and all
Transportation
developed areas not classified as High Intensity Residential.
Pasture/Hay
Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass -legume mixtures planted for livestock
grazing or the production of seed or hay crops.
Row Crop
Areas used for the production of crops, such as com, soybeans, vegetables,
tobacco, and cotton.
Deciduous Forest
Areas dominated by trees where 75 percent or more of the tree species
shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change.
Evergreen Forest
Areas characterized by trees where 75 percent or more of the tree species
maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage.
Mixed Forest
Areas dominated by trees where neither deciduous nor evergreen species
represent more than 75 percent of the cover present.
Quarries/Strip
Mines/Gravel Pits
,areas of extractive mining activities with significant surface expression.
Areas of sparse vegetative cover (less than 25 percent that are dynamically
changing from one land cover to another, often because of land use
Transitional
activities. Examples include forest clearcuts, a transition phase between
forest and agricultural land, the temporary clearing of vegetation, and
changes due to natural causes (e.g. fire, flood, etc.)
Urban/Recreational
Vegetation (primarily grasses) planted in developed settings for recreation,
Grasses
erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Examples include parks, lawns, golf
courses, airport grasses, and industrial site grasses.
Source: Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium NLCD (2001)
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-8
Legend
Populated Places Deciduous Forest F &IAP INDEX
Open Water Evergreen Forest
0 Developed Open Space 0 Mixed Forest u t z v4 6 BMWs
Developed Low Intensity Pasture Hay
Developed Medium Intensity =Cultivated Crops
Developed High Intensity = Woody Wetlands me Louis Berger Group, we
Barren Land Emergent Wetlands ME
Figure 3-2: Laud Use in the Rivanna River Watershed
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-9
3.2.4 Land Use Update
Increases in urban and impervious surface areas have large impacts on the watershed
hydrology. Because of the urban growth since 2001, it was necessary to update the
NLCD land use data to better reflect changes in the watershed. Land use data from 2005,
developed by the Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) for the Commonwealth of
Virginia, was used to update the NLCD data. DOF's land use data was developed
through segment -based classification of Landsat satellite imagery acquired from
03/10/2002 to 05/08/2005, and provides an up-to-date land use distribution for the
commonwealth.
The land cover classifications in the DOF land cover data set and the NLCD have
different formats and land use classifications. The DOF land classifications have
different break -downs of the urban land covers (pavement, rooftop, and
residential/industrial as opposed to the low/medium/high intensity development in the
NLCD classifications), have additional classifications not specifically included in the
NLCD (mine/quarry, forest harvest, and salt marsh), and are lacking some of the NLCD
classifications (freshwater wetland classifications and shrub/scrub). As such, only the
urban classifications from the DOF data were incorporated into the NLCD 2001 data to
produce a hybrid land use dataset that provides an update of land use distribution in the
Rivanna River watershed.
The result of incorporating the DOF's 2005 urban land use into the NLCD 2001 is shown
in Table 3-7. Figure 3-3 provides a visual comparison of the NLCD and hybrid datasets.
Table 3-7: NLCD 2001 and Hybrid Land
Land Cover Type NLCD 2001
Covers
Hybrid
Change in Acreage
Water/Wetlands
2,603
2,463
-140
Urban
39,179
46,132
6,953
Agriculture
68,476
65,946
-2,530
Forest
207,696
203,413
-4,282
Barren
8
8
0
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-10
Bacteria TMDLs for Rivanna River Mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and Tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek
.
} T ✓
I ki
4y�•jj�I �yJyib�,
. 4Y�6 i� A
a
•r' Y tc �!s �„4fv'�,
L JC( •$_I
ifi)i)iT\roVRR J 0
Y
3.3 Stream Flow Data
Stream flow data were available at 10 USGS stream flow -gauging stations located within
the watershed. Data collected at these stations are shown in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8:
Station ID
USGS Stream Flow Data located the Rivanna River
Station Name
Period of Daily -Me Data
Start
Date
End Date
# of
Records
02031500
NF Moormans River Near White Hall, VA
4/1/1952
9/30/1984
5,023
02032000
Moonnans River Near White Hall, VA
8/5/1943
9/30/1946
1,153
02032250
Moonnans River Near Free Union, VA
10/1/1979
9/30/2005
661
02032400
Buck Mountain Creek Near Free Union, VA
9/24/1979
10/16/1997
6,598
02032640
NFRivamaRiver Near Earl sville,VA
10/1/1993
9/30/2005
4,383
02032500
SF Rivanna River Near Earl sville, VA
4/1/1952
9/30/1966
5,296
02032515
SF Rivanna River Near Charlottesville, VA
8/9/1979
10/22/1997
6,650
02032680
NF Rivama River Near Proffitt, VA
3/26/1970
10/5/1992
8,230
02031000
Mechums River Near White Hall, VA
10/1/1942
9/30/2005
12,784
02033500
Rivanna River Below Moores Creek Charlottesville, VA
10/1/1925
3/31/1943
2,738
3.4 DEQ Ambient Water Quality Data
Water quality data were obtained from DEQ, which conducted sampling at 55 water
quality monitoring stations located within the watershed. Locations of these stations are
summarized in Table 3-9 and depicted in Figure 3-4.
.1
Station ID
1 I I i
Stream
2-BKM002.01
Buck Mountain Creek
2-BLU000.78
Blue run
2-BVR002.19
Beaver Creek
2-BVR005.70
Beaver Creek
2-DYL000.63
I Do les River
2-IVC000.02
Ivy Creek
2-IVC005.19
Ivy Creek
2-IVC008.09
Ivy Creek
2-IVC010.20
Ivy Creek
2-JCB000.80
Jacobs Run
2-LKN000.00
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN000.23
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN000.24
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN000.84
Lickinghole Creek
2-LKN001.67
Lickinghole Creek
2-LKN003.70
Lickinghole Creek
2-LKN005.47
Lickinghole Creek
2-LYN002.77
L nch River
2-MCM005.12
Mechums River
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-12
Station ID
Stream
2-MCM010.84
Mechums River
2-MCM018.92
Mechums River
2-MNR000.39
Moonnans River
2-MNR011.69
Moonnans River
2-MNR014.50
Moonnans River
2-MNR014.68
Moonnans River
2-MSC000.11
Moores Creek
2-MSC000.60
Moores Creek
2-MSC004.43
Moores Creek
2-MWC000.60
Meadow Creek
2-PRD000.21
Preddy Creek
2-PRD004.42
Preddy Creek
2-RCH001.25
Roach River
2-RRN002.19
North Fork Rivanna River
2-RRN010.92
North Fork Rivanna River
2-RRN015.61
North Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS003.12
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS003.59
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS005.35
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS005.62
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS009.06
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS010.30
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RVN037.54
Rivanna River
2-RVN039.58
Rivanna River
2-SDV001.14
Stanardsville Run
2-SDV001.16
Stanardsville Run
2-SFR000.60
Swift Run
2-SFR007.13
Swift Run
2-SIN000.44
Spring Creek
2-SIN000.58
Spring Creek
2-WDC002.90
Wards Creek
2-WEL000.46
Welsh Run
2-XAL000.02
Lickin hole Creek Trib
2-XAL000.63
Lickin hole Creek Trib
2-XAL000.64
Lickin hole Creek Trib
2-XAL000.65
Lickin hole Creek Trib
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-13
Legend
MAPINDEX
-w
BaIXeria Station . r
BaIXeriaNVater Quality 0 1 2 4 6 6Mike
303d Listed Segment s-- oscs,rrit"esw
Stream sm�*.+oes vas.. s�.meiN.s
Waterbodies we Louie Barger Group, iHc
QCounty Boundary
Figure 3-4: Rivanna River Watershed DEQ Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-14
Table 3-10 lists the water quality sampling period of record and the number and
percentage of samples violating the water quality standards collected between 1990 and
2006. The stations formatted in bold text are stations located on the bacteria impaired
segments. Analysis of the water quality data indicated that exceedances of the fecal
coliform standard ranged between 0 and 50 percent for the instantaneous maximum
criterion of 400 cfu/100 ml. Since two or more samples were not collected within a
calendar month at these stations, geometric mean exceedances could not be calculated.
Table 3-10: Fecal Coliform
Number
Station ID of
Samples
Data
Date Sampled Values (no/100mL)
Instantaneous
Exceed.
First
Last
Min
Max
Average
Sum
Percent
2-BKM002.01
48
8/18/1993
6/16/2003
100
3000
292
5
10%
2-BLU000.78
14
8/7/2001
5/5/2003
100
1000
186
1
7%
2-BVR005.70
18
11/29/1994
5/16/2001
100
4000
400
2
11%
2-DYL000.63
12
7/10/2001
6/16/2003
100
500
150
1
8%
2-IVC000.02
4
3/17/1994
9/23/1996
100
100
100
0
0%
2-IVC005.19
7
8/5/1991
6/22/1993
100
400
186
0
0%
2-IVC008.09
12
7/10/2001
6/12/2003
100
200
125
0
0%
2-IVC010.20
15
7/29/1997
5/16/2001
100
2100
413
2
13%
2-JCB000.80
1
9/8/1992
9/8/1992
100
100
100
0
0%
2-LKN003.70
28
8/5/1991
3/4/1999
100
1200
250
3
11%
2-LKN005.47
14
4/19/1999
5/16/2001
100
400
171
0
0%
2-LYN002.77
12
8/7/2001
5/5/2003
100
100
100
0
0%
2-MCM005.12
156
1/3/1990
10/3/2006
25
8000
363
27
17%
2-MCM010.84
10
7/10/2001
6/12/2003
100
600
280
2
20%
2-MCM018.92
28
9/1/1994
6/12/2003
100
1600
186
1
4%
2-MNR000.39
37
12/5/1991
6/16/2003
100
1700
186
1
3%
2-MNR014.50
5
4/25/2001
9/18/2001
100
100
100
0
0%
2-MSC000.60
68
8/5/1991
9/20/2006
25
5400
586
23
34%
2-MWC000.60
42
8/5/1991
6/26/2001
100
8000
1119
15
36%
2-PRD004.42
1
4/5/2006
4/5/2006
25
25
25
0
0%
2-RCH001.25
12
8/7/2001
5/5/2003
100
500
142
1
8%
2-RRN002.19
82
1/3/1990
7/17/2006
25
8000
386
13
16%
2-RRN010.92
49
6/29/1998
6/16/2003
100
5700
292
3
6%
2-RRN015.61
13
8/7/2001
5/5/2003
100
300
123
0
0%
2-RRS003.12
123
1/3/1990
6/16/2003
100
5500
393
18
15%
2-RRS005.35
33
8/18/1993
5/16/2001
100
8000
361
2
6%
2-RRS010.30
1
10/1/2001
10/1/2001
300
300
300
0
0%
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-15
,l i: Fecal Coliform
Number
Station ID of
Samples
Data Collected within the RivannaWatershed
Date Sampled Values (no/100mL)
Instantaneous
Exceed.
First
Last
Min
Max
Average
Sum
Percent
2-RVN033.65
129
1/3/1990
7/6/2006
25
4800
322
17
13%
2-RVN037.54
35
8/18/1993
6/26/2001
100
5600
423
8
23%
2-SFR000.60
39
8/1/1991
5/5/2003
100
2500
244
3
8%
2-SFR007.13
12
8/7/2001
5/5/2003
100
600
150
1
8%
2-SIN000.44
1 6
4/18/2001
10/23/2001
100
100
100
0
0%
2-WDC002.90
1 2
4/26/2004
5/10/2005
1 25
750
388
1
50%
2-WEL000.46
1 12
1 8/7/2001
1 5/5/2003
1 100
1 700
1 167
1 1
8%
Instantaneous maximum fecal colltom bacteria concentration of 4UU ctu/I UU ml.
' Geometric mean fecal coliform bacteria concentration of 200 cfu/100 ad, calculated only when two or more samples are collected
within a calendar month.
Note: Rows in bold indicate stations located on the bacteria impairment segments.
Fourteen stations within the watershed were sampled between 2002 and 2006 for E. coli
bacteria. Table 3-11 lists the water quality sampling period of record as well as the
number and percentage of samples violating the water quality standards collected
between 1990 and 2006. The stations formatted in bold text are located on the bacteria
impaired segments. E. coli exceedances of instantaneous maximum criteria ranged
between 0 percent and 67 percent. Since two or more samples were not collected within a
calendar month at these stations, geometric mean exceedances could not be calculated.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-16
1
/ IM&O
I I I I' I I
I1
Station ID
Dumber
of
Samples
Date Sampled
Values (no/100mL)
Instantaneous
Exceedances
First
Last
Min
Max
Average
Sum
Percent
2-BVR002.19
7
4/13/2004
9/7/2005
25
280
61
1
14%
2-JCB000.80
7
4/24/2006
10/3/2006
25
50
29
0
0%
2-MCM005.12
40
8/8/2002
10/3/2006
10
2000
169
5
13%
2-MNR011.69
7
7/12/2005
7/17/2006
25
25
25
0
0%
2-MSC000.60
15
7/28/2005
9/20/2006
25
1200
441
10
67%
2-MSC004.43
7
7/12/2005
7/17/2006
25
380
196
3
43%
2-MWC000.60
12
7/7/2003
5/2/2005
25
2000
434
4
33%
2-PRD000.21
12
7/7/2003
5/2/2005
25
700
157
3
25%
2-PRD004.42
13
7/7/2003
4/5/2006
25
250
98
1
8%
2-RRN002.19
19
7/7/2003
7/17/2006
25
1200
167
5
26%
2-RRS003.12
12
7/7/2003
5/2/2005
25
150
48
0
0%
2-RRS003.59
7
4/10/2003
ionn003
1
550
116
1
14%
2-RRS005.62
7
4/10/2003
ionn003
8
400
86
1
14%
2-RVN037.54
12
7/7/2003
5/2/2005
25
1500
205
2
17%
2-WDC002.90
2
4/26/2004
5/10/2005
10
680
345
1
50%
2-XLV002.27
7
4/18/2005
10/11/2005
25
25
25
0
0%
' Instantaneous maximum E. coli bacteria concentration of235/100 ml
2 Geometric mean fecal E. coli bacteria concentration of 126/100 ml, of water for two or more samples taken
during any calendar month
Note: Rows in bold indicate stations located on the bacteria impairment segments.
3.5 Fecal Coliform Source Assessment
This section focuses on characterizing the sources that potentially contribute to the fecal
coliform loading in the Rivanna River watershed. These sources include permitted
facilities, sanitary sewer systems and septic systems, livestock, wildlife, pets, and land
application of manure and biosolids. Chapter 4 includes a detailed presentation of how
these sources are incorporated and represented in the model.
3.5.1 Permitted Facilities
Data obtained from the DEQ's Valley Regional Office indicate that there are nine
individually permitted facilities currently active or under application within the bacteria
impaired Rivanna River Watershed. Industrial facilities, however, are not considered to
be sources of bacteria, but provide flow data used in the hydrologic modeling. The
permit number, design flow, and status for each permit are presented in Table 3-12 and
shown in Figure 3-5.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-17
The available flow data for the permitted facilities was retrieved and analyzed. Bacteria
concentrations were not recorded for any of the permitted facilities within the watershed.
Average flows for the permitted facilities were used in the HSPF model set-up and
calibration. The waste water treatment plants use chlorine for disinfection, and many
measure total contact chlorine as an indication of fecal coliform levels. The available
data indicate that adequate disinfection was achieved at the plants, and that these facilities
were not a large source of fecal coliform loading.
Table 3-12: Individual
River Watershed
Permitted
Facilities within the Bacteria
Impaired
Rivanna
Receiving
River
Design
Permit #
Facility Name
Stream
Mile
Status
Size
Category
Flow
MGD
VA0025488
Camelot STP
NF Rivanna
9.72
Active
Minor
Municipal
0.365
River
VA0025518
Moores Creek
Moores
0.19
Active
Major
Municipal
15
Regional STP
Creek
VA0027065
Cooper
S. F. Rivanna
1.25
Active
Minor
Industrial
0.04
Industries
River, U.
VA0028398
Avionics
Naked
0.68
Active
Minor
Municipal
0.005
Specialties Inc
Creek, U.T.
VA0029556
Blue Ridge
Chesley
0.6
Active
Minor
Municipal
0.035
School STP
Creek
Beaver
VA0055000
Crozet WTP
Creek
0.2
Active
Minor
Industrial
0.186
Reservoir,
Ehart
Preddy
VA0080781
Subdivision
Creek, UT
1.3
Active
Minor
Municipal
0.07
STP
VA0087351
Virginia Oil -
Schenks
0.12
Active
Minor
Industrial
Rainfall
Charlottesville
Branch, U.T.
De .
North Rivanna
North Fork
VA0091120
WTP
Rivanna
10.28
Active
Minor
Industrial
0.065
River
The watershed contains the following general permits: three petroleum discharge
permits, 48 construction stormwater, 20 industrial stormwater, three concrete, one
mining, one car wash, one VPA land application permit, one poultry permit, and two
domestic sewage general permits. Of those permits, only the two Domestic Sewage
General Permits are permitted to discharge bacteria. The poultry permit allows land
application of poultry manure, but is a no discharge permit (Table 3-13). The flow from
all permitted dischargers will be considered in model setup and calibration.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-18
I—eneral
Permitted Facilities within
the RivannaWatershed
Permit #
Facility Name
Stream
Type
VPG260193
VRO
-------
Poultry
VAG401839
Twin Lakes Subdivision
Lake Skyline
Domestic Sewage
Residence - Lot 020
VAG401840
Twin Lakes Subdivision
Lake Shenandoah,
Domestic Sewage
Residence - Lot B26
UT
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-19
ttiP J
r.
`VPG260193 e
P
f
Preddy Creek and
R
I VA0029556
VA0091120 VA0025486
VA0027065 /
MdO^Jlanx Rll cal...r'm..... /[/% A ! �'4
i. ///
Beaver Creek9 a vnoozaasar z
FlnriniA v.
41'IYII l+ [Ill t'h
Meadow Creek 1t N.F. Rivanna Rive
`"�•� VA0055000
sl c.
i�
VAo025518
.rC",
Mechums River
` l'c t JJni1 fp . FIT
I Jwerc ILiacr �iL �:�
(Rivanna River Watershed Permitted Facilities cell/
a MAPINDEX
Legend »�E
— 303d Listed Segment Permit Type s
Stream ♦ Individual 0 1 2 4 6 BMlles �+
Waterbodies iJ General UJ,"III.o
eixu+c ws�=sme ei.re us
L_ County Boundary nee Louis Berger GrouME
p, we
Figure 3-5: Location of Permitted Facilities in the Rivanna River Watershed
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-20
In addition to the individual and general permits presented above, Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer (MS4) permits have been issued to cities, counties, and other facilities
within the bacteria impaired Rivanna River Watershed. Table 3-14 lists all the MS4
permit holders and the area covered by each MS4 locality. The Charlottesville MS4 area
was calculated by subtracting the VDOT major road areas (interstates and primary roads)
within the City of Charlottesville from the US Census Urban Areas. VDOT road areas
were estimated using the roads length within the urban areas and assuming a 25 foot -
road -width. The Albemarle County MS4 was calculated using the urban areas identified
in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan GIS data layer and subtracting major and
minor VDOT road areas (interstates, primary roads, secondary roads, and other roads).
Combined, these MS4 permits cover approximately 9% of the Rivanna River bacteria
impaired watershed. Figure 3-6 presents the major MS4 areas located within the
Rivanna River bacteria impaired Watershed.
Table 3-14:
MS4 Permits within the Rivanna River
Watershed
Permit
MS4 Permit Holder
Permit
MS4 Locality
Locality
Number
Acreage
Acreage
VAR040051
City of Charlottesville
6,237
City
Charlottesville
6,513
VAR040033
VDOT Charlottesville Major Roads
60
University of Virginia (Charlottesville)
216
VAR040073
University of Virginia (Albemarle)
916
Albemarle
County
21,371
VAR040074
Albemarle County Urban Area
19,825
VAR040033
VDOT Albemarle Urban Area
535
Application
Piedmont Community College
95
Total
27,884
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-21
— 303d Listed Segment
— Stream
- PVCC MS4Area
VDOT MS4Area
0 UVA MS4 Area
- Albemarle County M34 Area
- Chadottewille MS4Area
0 0.5 1 2 3 4Miles
P1ieuliort N.4D81
6V1 uN v eeRl
ig,rvn SUN PIare NHS
rHe Louis Berger Group, Inc
MAPINDEX
Figure 3-6: Location of MS4 Areas in the Rivanna River Watershed
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-22
3.5.2 Extent of Sanitary Sewer Network
Houses can be connected to a public sanitary sewer, a septic tank, or the sewage can be
disposed by other means. Estimates of the total number of households using each type of
waste disposal are presented in the next section.
3.5.2.1 Septic Systems
There are no data available for the total number of septic systems in the watershed.
Estimates of the total number of housing units located in the watershed and the
identification of whether these housing units are connected to a public sewer or on septic
systems were based on U.S. Census Bureau data. The U.S. Census Bureau 2004 data for
the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle, Greene, Nelson, and Orange counties were
reviewed to establish the population growth rates in the counties and to validate the
housing units' calculation. A summary of the census data and population estimates used
for the Rivanna River watershed are presented in Table 3-15.
County Total Population
Total Households
Albemarle
44,682
16,481
Charlottesville
44,007
16,851
Greene
9,958
3,219
Nelson
8
3
Orange
135
50
Total
98,790
36,603
The 1990 U.S Census Report presents the percent of houses on each sewage disposal type
as shown in Table 3-16. The 1990 U.S Census Report category "Other Means" includes
the houses that dispose of sewage in ways other than by public sanitary sewer or a private
septic system. The houses included in this category are assumed to be disposing of
sewage directly via straight pipes if located within 200 feet of a stream.
Table 3-16: Percent of Houses within Each County
I Sewers, Septic Systems, and Other Means
County Public Sewer Septic Tank
on Public
Other Means
Albemarle
42%
56%
2%
Charlottesville
98%
1%
0%
Greene
13%
81%
5%
Nelson
26%
61%
13%
Orange
40%
56%
3%
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-23
3.5.2.2 Failed Septic Systems
In order to determine the amount of fecal coliform contributed by human sources, the
failure rates of septic systems must be estimated. Septic system failures are generally
attributed to the age of a system. For this TMDL model, the failure rate was assumed to
be 3 percent of the total septic systems in the watershed. In order to determine the load of
bacteria from these sources, it was assumed that the septic system design flow is 75
gallons per person per day (based on previous studies and TMDLs). In addition, it was
estimated that typical fecal coliform concentrations from a failed septic system is 10,000
cfu/100mL, and 1,040,000 cf i/100mL from a straight pipe (Tinker Creek TMDL Report,
2004). Table 3-17 shows the estimates of the population on septic systems and straight
pipes, the amount of failing systems, and the flow and fecal coliform load produced daily.
Estimates of houses within 200 ft of streams were determined using aerial photographs
and NHD Hydrography GIS data. Albemarle County house number estimates were
revised by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
L Table 3-17: Estimates
of the
Number of Septic
Systems and Straight
Pipes
# People
Daily
Category
# of People
per
# Failing People
Flow
Load
on system
Household
Systems Served
(gal/day)
#cf:da
Septic
Systems
12,021
2.4
43
103
7,740
7.74E+07
Straight Pipes
542
2.4
60
144
10,800
1.12E+10
3.5.3 Livestock
An inventory of the livestock residing in the Rivanna River watersheds was conducted
using data and information provided by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service, Virginia's Department of Conservation
and Recreation, NRCS, Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service (2002), the 2001 Virginia
Equine Report, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), as well as through field
surveys. Table 3-18 summarizes the livestock inventory of the watershed.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-24
. 1 1 I
Livestock Type
ORjLUjL#JD=
Albemarle
Greene Nelson Orange Total
Beef cows
6,208
2,600
1
137
8,946
Milk cows
328
248
0
20
596
Hogs and pigs inventory
52
0
0
3
55
Sheep and lambs inventory
1,154
165
0
6
1,325
Chickens
568
179
0
11
758
Horses and ponies, inventory
3,583
0
0
27
3,610
The livestock inventory was used to determine the fecal colifonn loading by livestock in
the watershed. Table 3-19 shows the average fecal coliform production per animal per
day contributed by each type of livestock.
[Table 31 Daily Fecal
Livestock Type
ColiformII 11 of Livestock 1W
Daily Fecal Coliform Production
(millions of cfu/day) Reference
Cattle and calves
5,400
Metcalf and Eddy, 1991
Beef Cows
100,000
ASAE, 1998
Dairy Cows
100,000
ASAE, 1998
Hogs & Pigs
8,900
Metcalf and Eddy, 1991
11,000
ASAE, 1998
Sheep & Lambs
18,000
Metcalf and Eddy, 1991
12,000
ASAE, 1998
Horses & Ponies
420
ASAE, 1998
Source: USEPA Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs, 2001
The impact of fecal coliform loading from livestock is dependent upon whether loadings
are directly deposited into the stream, or indirectly delivered to the stream via surface
runoff. For this TMDL, fecal coliform deposited while livestock were in confinement or
grazing was considered indirect deposit, and fecal colifonn deposited when livestock
directly defecate into the stream was considered direct deposit. The distribution of daily
fecal coliform loading between direct and indirect deposits was based on livestock daily
schedules.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-25
For the Rivanna River watersheds, the initial estimates of the beef cattle daily schedule
were based on the Dodd Creek TMDL. The monthly schedule was adjusted to reflect the
conditions in the watershed.
The daily schedule for beef cattle is presented in Table 3-20 and the daily schedule for
dairy cows is presented in Table 3-21. The time beef cattle and dairy cows spend in the
pasture or loafing was used to determine the fecal coliform load deposited indirectly.
The directly deposited fecal coliform load from livestock was based on the amount of
time they spend in the stream.
Table 3-20: Daily Schedule for
Month
Beef Cattle
Time Spent in
Pasture
Stream
Loafing Lot
(Hour)
(Hour)
(Hour)
January
23.50
0.50
0
February
23.50
0.50
0
March
23.25
0.75
0
April
23.00
1.00
0
May
23.00
1.00
0
June
22.75
1.25
0
July
22.75
1.25
0
August
22.75
1.25
0
September
23.00
1.00
0
October
23.25
0.75
0
November
23.25
0.75
0
December
23.50
1 0.50
1 0
Source: Dodd Creek TMDL Report, DCR 2002.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-26
Table 3-21: Daily Schedule
Month
for Dairy
Time Spent in
Pasture
Stream
Loafing Lot
(Hour)
(Hour)
(Hour)
January
7.45
0.25
16.30
February
7.45
0.25
16.30
March
8.10
0.50
15.40
April
9.35
0.75
13.90
May
10.05
0.75
13.20
June
10.30
1.00
12.70
July
10.80
1.00
12.20
August
10.80
1.00
12.20
September
11.05
0.75
12.20
October
11.00
0.50
12.50
ovember
10.30
0.50
13.20
December
9.15
0.25
14.60
Source: Dodd Creek TMDL Report, DCR 2002.
3.5.4 Land Application of Manure
Land application of the manure that cattle produce while in confinement is a typical
agricultural practice. Both dairy operations and beef cattle are present in the watershed.
The manure produced by confined livestock was directly applied on the pasturelands, and
was treated as an indirect source in the development of the Rivanna River TMDLs.
3.5.5 Land Application of Biosolids
Non -point human sources of fecal coliform can be associated with the spreading of
biosolids. Data provided by Virginia Department of Health (VDH) indicated that there
have been no biosolid applications in Nelson County in the last three to four years.
Biosolid applications recorded in other counties in 2004 and 2005 are presented in Table
3-22.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-27
I I I I I I U&
1
2004
2005
County
Entire
Within
Entire
Within Watershed
County
Watershed (Area-
County
(Area -Weighted)
Weighted)
Albemarle
2,736
1,486
5,126
2,784
Greene
3,594
3,594
3,367
3,367
Nelson
---
---
---
Oran a
8,829
14
7,296
12
* Source: VDH
3.5.6 Wildlife
Similar to livestock contributions, wildlife contributions of fecal coliform can be both
indirect and direct. Indirect sources are those that are carried to the stream from the
surrounding land via rain and runoff events, whereas direct sources are those that are
directly deposited into the stream.
The wildlife inventory for this TMDL was developed based on a number of information
and data sources, including: (1) habitat availability, (2) Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries (DGIF) harvest data and population estimates.
A wildlife inventory was conducted based on habitat availability within the watershed.
The number of animals in the watershed was estimated by combining typical wildlife
densities with available wildlife habitat. Typical wildlife densities are presented in Table
3-23.
Table 3-23: Wildlife Densities
Wildlife type Population Density
Habitat Requirements
Deer
0.047 animals/acre
Entire watershed
Raccoon
0.07 animaWacre
Within 600 feet of streams and ponds
Muskrat
2.75 animaWacre
Within 66 feet of streams and ponds
Beaver
4.8 animals/mile of stream
Within 66 feet of streams and ponds
Goose
0.02 animaWacre*
Entire Watershed
Mallard
0.002 animals/acre
Entire Watershed
Wood Duck
0.0018 animals/acre
Within 66 feet of streams and ponds
Wild Turkey
0.01 animals/acre
Entire watershed excluding urban land uses
Source: Map Tech, Inc., 2001,
*Source: Goose Creek TMDL, 2004; Catoctin Creek TMDL, 2004
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-28
Based on the typical wildlife densities shown in Table 3-23, the wildlife populations
were determined as shown in Table 3-24.
Wildlife Animal
Albemarle
Charlottesville
Greene Nelson Orange Total
Deer
14,859
306
2,799
18
217
18,199
Raccoon
10,603
118
2,403
3
195
13,322
Muskrat
45,819
512
10,384
11
842
57,568
Beaver
4,998
56
1,133
1
92
6,280
Goose
1,265
26
238
2
18
1,549
Mallard
33
0
8
0
1
42
Wood Dck
30
0
7
0
1
38
Wild Turkey
3,162
65
596
4
46
3,873
The wildlife inventory was used to determine the fecal coliform loading by wildlife
within the watershed. Table 3-25 shows the average fecal coliform production per
animal, per day, contributed by each type of wildlife. Separation of the wildlife daily
fecal coliform load into direct and indirect deposits was based on estimates of the amount
of time each type of wildlife spends on land versus time spent in the stream. Table 3-25
also shows the percent of time each type of wildlife spends in the stream on a daily basis.
Table 3-25: Fecal Coliform
Wildlife
Production from Wildlife
Daily Fecal Production
(in millions of cfu/day)
Portion of the Day in
Stream (%)
Deer
347
1
Raccoon
113
10
Muskrat
25
50
Goose
799
50
Beaver
0.2
90
Duck
2,430
75
Wild Turkey
93
5
Source: ASAE, 1998; Map Tech, Inc., 2000; EPA, 2001.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-29
3.5.7 Pets
The contribution of fecal coliform loading from pets was also examined in the assessment
of fecal coliform loading to the Rivanna River watershed. The two types of domestic
pets that were considered as sources of bacteria in this TMML were cats and dogs. The
number of pets residing in the watershed was estimated by determining the number of
households in the watershed, and multiplying this number by national average estimates
of the number of pets per household as 0.543 dogs per household and 0.593 cats per
household (AVMA, 2005). These estimates are shown in Table 3-26.
Table 3-26: Pet Estimates within the Rivanna River
County/CityCounty/City Cats
Watershed
Dogs
Albemarle
9,773
8,949
Charlottesville
9,993
9,150
Greene
1,909
1,748
Nelson
2
2
Orange
30
27
Total
21,706
19,876
Fecal coliform loading from pets occurs primarily in residential areas. The load was
estimated based on a daily fecal coliform production rate of 5.04 x102 cfa/day per cat and
4.09 x109 cfu/day per dog.
Watershed Description and Source Assessment 3-30
4.0 Modeling Approach
This section describes the modeling approach used in the TMDL development. The
primary focus is on the sources represented in the model, assumptions used, model set-
up, calibration, and validation, and the existing load.
4.1 Modeling Goals
The goals of the modeling approach were to develop a predictive tool for the water body
that can:
• represent the watershed characteristics
• represent the point and non -point sources of fecal coliform and their respective
contribution
• use input time series data (rainfall and flow) and kinetic data (die -off rates of fecal
coliform)
• estimate the in -stream pollutant concentrations and loadings under the various
hydrologic conditions
• allow for direct comparisons between the in -stream conditions and the water
quality standard
4.2 Watershed Boundaries
The six impaired streams are located in the Rivanna River Basin (USGS Cataloging Unit
02080204). The impaired segment of the Rivanna River begins in Albemarle County and
flows along the border of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, continuing
on into Albemarle County. The North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries,
Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek are tributaries to the Rivanna River.
The North Fork Rivanna River, Beaver Creek, and Mechums River, are all located in
Albemarle County, Meadow Creek is located in both Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville, and Preddy Creek and its tributaries are located with Albemarle, Greene,
and Orange Counties.
The entire Rivanna River watershed is approximately 488,501 acres or 763 square miles.
The portion of the Rivanna River watershed downstream of the impairments is not
considered to be the bacteria impaired watershed. However, this entire area is important
Modeling Approach 4-1
to include in the modeling. The entire Rivanna River watershed drains portions of
Albemarle, Greene, Orange, Nelson, Louisa, and Fluvanna counties as well as the City of
Charlottesville. Figure 4-1 shows both the bacteria impaired watershed and the entire
Rivanna River watershed.
Modeling Approach 4-2
Legend MAPINDEX
r'
— Bacteria Impaired Segments
0 1.5 3 6 9 12Miles
Stream
Sourer l SOS V LDEQ_ ESRI
Bacteria Watershed PR',,Iwn \ \D 1981 Gninlu Slate Plane S—S f�
Q Rivanna River Watershed E 'ME Louis Berger Group.
Figure 4-1. Watershed Boundary
Modeling Approach 4-3
4.3 Modeling Strategy
The Hydrologic Simulation Program -Fortran (HSPF) model was selected and used to
predict the in -stream water quality conditions under varying scenarios of rainfall and
fecal coliform loading. The results from the developed model are subsequently used to
develop the TMDL allocations based on the existing fecal coliform load.
HSPF is a hydrologic, watershed -based water quality model. Consequently, HSPF can
explicitly account for the specific watershed conditions, the seasonal variations in rainfall
and climate conditions, and activities and uses related to fecal coliform loading.
The modeling process in HSPF starts with the following steps:
• delineate the watershed into smaller subwatersheds
• enter the physical data that describe each subwatershed and stream segment
• enter values for the rates and constants that describe the sources and the activities
related to the fecal coliform loading in the watershed
These steps are discussed in the next sections.
Modeling Approach 4-4
4.4 Watershed Delineation
For this TMDL, the river watershed was delineated into 41 smaller subwatersheds to
represent the watershed characteristics and to improve the accuracy of the HSPF model.
This delineation was based on topographic characteristics, and was created using a
Digital Elevation Model (DEM), stream reaches obtained from the USGS Reach File 3
(RF3) dataset and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and stream flow and in -
stream water quality data. Size distributions of the 41 subwatersheds are presented in
Table 4-1. Figure 4-2 is a map showing the delineated subwatersheds for Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek. The full Rivanna River watershed area, including all
41 subwatershed, was used in the hydrologic modeling. Alternatively, only the 28
subwatersheds corresponding to the Rivanna River bacteria impaired watershed
(presented in chapters 1 through 3) were used for the bacteria modeling.
Modeling Approach 4-5
Table 4-1: Subwatershed
Subwatershed
Areas
Drainage Area
(Acres)
Subwatershed
Drainage Area
(Acres)
1
16,920
22
8,503
2
19,543
23
5,462
3
27,380
24
16,423
4
24,241
25
8,365
5
23,107
26
9,393
6
18,057
27
6,266
7
9,765
28
23,073
8
4,667
29
5,540
9
9,355
30
16,305
10
15,680
31
11,701
11
4,393
32
3,534
12
6,670
33
7,422
13
8,852
34
30,761
14
15,294
35
4,984
15
22,448
36
6,115
16
8,491
37
6,203
17
5,771
38
1,303
18
19,235
39
1,437
19
14,143
40
8,206
20
8,766
41
2,364
21
22,361
Total Drainage Area Acres
488,501
Modeling Approach 4-6
Legend MAPINDEx
1+r
Stream S
0 1.5 3 6 9 12Miles
Bacteria Impaired Segments
Sources: USGS. VADEQ. ESPI
0 Bacteria Watershed pi on: N.iD 1983 Virg„m scale Plane NIS
QSegmentation me Louis Louis Berger Group, INCGroup, INc
Figure 4-2: Subwatershed Delineation
Modeling Approach 4-7
4.5 Land Use Reclassification
As previously mentioned, land use distribution in the study area was determined using
USGS NLCD and DOF data. The updated land use data and distribution of land uses
were presented in Chapter 3. There are 13 land use classes present in the watershed; the
dominant land uses are forested land and hay/pastureland. The original 13 land use types
were consolidated into seven land use categories to meet modeling goals, facilitate model
parameterization, and reduce modeling complexity. The proportion of NLCD high and
low density urban areas was applied to the DOF urban land use classification to
distinguish between the varying urban densities for use in the model. This
reclassification reduced the 13 land use types to a representative number of categories
that best describe conditions and the dominant fecal coliform source categories in the
Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries,
Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds. Land use
reclassification was based on similarities in hydrologic characteristics and potential fecal
coliform production characteristics. The reclassified land uses are presented in Tables 4-
2 through 4-7 for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek
and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watershed
respectively.
Table 4-2: Rivanna River Land Use Reclassification
Land Use Category
Acres
Percent of Watershed's Land
Area
High Density Residential
9,866
3%
Low Density Residential
29,865
to%
Cro land
1,544
1%
Pasture
62,725
21%
Forest
191,926
64%
Wetland
189
<1%
Water
2,089
1%
Total
298,205
100%
Modeling Approach 4-8
Table 4-3: North Fork Rivanna River Land
Land Use Category
Use Reclassification
Acres
Percent of Watershed's Land
Area
High Density Residential
2,750
2%
Low Density Residential
9,631
8%
Cropland
798
1%
Pasture
25,679
22%
Forest
76,570
66%
Welland
135
<1%
Water
591
1%
Total
116,155
100%
Table 4-4:
Preddy Creek and Tributaries
Land Use Category
Land Use Reclassification
Acres
Percent of Watershed's Land
Area
High Density
Residential
665
3%
Low Density
Residential
2,524
10%
Cropland
151
1%
Pasture
4,879
20%
Forest
15,825
65%
Wetland
44
<1%
Water
131
1%
Total
24,218
100%
Table 4-5: Meadow Creek Land Use Reclassification
Land Use Category Acres
Percent of Watershed's Land
Area
High Density Residential
2,280
40%
Low Density Residential
3,003
52%
Pasture
24
<1%
Forest
458
8%
Wetland
5
<1%
Water
1
<1%
Total
5,770
100%
Modeling Approach 4-9
Table Reclassification
Land Use Category
Acres
Percent of 1Yatershed's Land
Area
High Density Residential
1,033
3%
Low Density Residential
3,296
9%
Cropland
199
1%
Pasture
7,750
20%
Forest
25,471
67%
Wetland
3
<1%
Water
103
<1%
Total
37,854
100%
1
Percent of 1Yatershed's Land
Area
Land Use Category
s
7764
i h DensityResidential
142
2%
Low DensityResidential
12%
Cropland
62
1%
Pasture
2,120
35%
Forest
2,858
47%
Water
169
3%
Total
6,115
100%
4.6 Hydrographic Data
Hydrographic data describing the stream network of the Rivanna River mainstem, North
Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and
Beaver Creek were obtained from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the
Reach File Version 3 (RF3) dataset contained in BASINS. These data were used for
HSPF model development and TMDL development. Information regarding the reach
number, reach name, and length of each stream segment of the Rivanna River mainstem,
North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums
River, and Beaver Creek are included in the RF3 database. The stream geometry was
field surveyed for representative reaches the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork
Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and
Modeling Approach 4-10
Beaver Creek. The stage flow relationship required by HSPF was developed based on
the USGS stream flow gage data for the Rivanna River
The Rivanna River and its tributaries were represented as trapezoidal channels. The
channel slopes were estimated using the reach length and the corresponding change in
elevation from DEM data. The flow was calculated using the Manning's equation using
a 0.05 roughness coefficient. Model representation of the Rivanna River mainstem,
North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums
River, and Beaver Creek stream reach segments is presented in Appendix A.
4.7 Fecal Coliform Sources Representation
This section demonstrates how the fecal coliform sources identified in Chapter 3 were
included or represented in the model. These sources include permitted sources, human
sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes), livestock, wildlife, pets, and land
application of manure and biosolids.
4.7.1 Permitted Facilities
There are nine individually permitted facilities located in the Rivanna River mainstem,
North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums
River, and Beaver Creek watershed. The permit number, design flow, and status for each
facility were presented in Table 3-12.
For TMDL development, average discharge flow values were considered representative
of flow conditions at each permitted facility, and were used in HSPF model set-up and
calibration. For TMDL allocation development, permitted facilities were represented as
constant sources discharging at their design flow and permitted fecal coliform
concentrations.
4.7.2 Failed Septic Systems
Failed septic system loading to the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River,
Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek can be
direct (point) or land -based (indirect or non -point), depending on the proximity of the
septic system to the stream. In cases where the septic system is within the 200-foot
stream buffer, the failed septic system was represented in the model as a constant source
Modeling Approach 4-11
(similar to a permitted facility). As explained in Chapter 3, the total number of septic
systems in the bacteria impaired watershed was estimated at 12,021 systems. Based on
GIS data, only 1,419 out of the 12,021 households on septic systems were located within
the 200-foot stream buffer. Therefore, the failed septic system load was considered a
land -based load in the watershed.
For TMDL development, it was assumed that a 3% failure rate for septic systems would
be representative of conditions in the watershed. This corresponds to a total of 43 failed
septic systems in the study area. To account for uncontrolled discharges in the watershed
and failed septic systems within the stream buffer, a total of 60 straight pipes were
included in the model. This estimate was based on field observations, discussions with
DCR and DEQ, stakeholder comments, evaluation of the BST results, and 1990 Census
data which indicated that approximately 1.5% of households in the watershed are on
other treatment systems.
In each subwatershed, the load from failing septic systems was calculated as the product
of the total number of septic systems, septic systems failure rate, flow rate of septic
discharge, typical fecal concentration in septic outflow, and the average household size in
the watershed. The septic systems' design flow of 75 gallons per person per day and a
fecal coliform concentration of 10,000 cfu/100ml were used in the fecal coliform load
calculations. Fecal coliform loading from failed septic systems that are not within the
200 buffer of the stream is considered to be a predominantly indirect source. Failed
septic systems within the stream buffer and straight pipes were represented as constant
sources of fecal coliform. Table 4-8 shows the distribution of the septic systems and the
straight pipes in Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds. The monthly
load from septic systems is presented in Appendix B.
Modeling Approach 4-12
Table 4-8: Failed
Subwatershed
ID
Septic Systems and Straight Pipes
Total # of
# of Septic Failed Septic
Systems Systems
Assumed in Model
# of Failed Septic
Systems within
200 ft Stream
Buffer
Development
# of Straight
Pipes
1
761
23
3
5
2
790
24
3
4
3
1,240
37
4
8
4
786
24
3
4
5
841
25
3
4
6
654
20
2
3
7
356
11
1
2
8
160
5
1
1
9
341
10
1
2
10
562
17
2
3
11
160
5
1
1
12
243
7
1
1
13
322
10
1
1
14
558
17
2
3
15
803
24
3
4
16
99
3
0
1
17
202
6
1
1
18
702
21
3
3
19
504
15
2
2
20
319
10
1
1
23
194
6
1
1
25
305
9
1
1
35
180
5
1
1
36
223
7
1
1
38
48
1
0
0
39
52
2
0
0
40
320
10
1
2
41
297
9
1
0
Total
12,021
361
43
60
Modeling Approach 4-13
4.7.3 Livestock
Livestock contribution to the total
fecal coliform load in the
watershed was represented in a
number of ways, which are
presented in Figure 4-3. The
model accounts for fecal coliform
directly deposited in the stream,
fecal coliform deposited while
livestock are in confinement and
later spread onto the crop and
pasture lands in the watershed
(land application of manure), and
finally, land -based fecal coliform
deposited by livestock while
grazing.
��U�
cwq
Mnre9aaR
WueSVeOna
FBYue 041atl
0
Figure 4-3: Livestock Contribution to the Rivanna
River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy
Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums
River, and Beaver Creek watersheds.
Based on the inventory of livestock in the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna
River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek
watershed, it was determined that beef cattle are the predominant type of livestock,
though dairy cows are also present in the watershed. One poultry operation exists in the
watershed.
The distribution of the daily fecal coliform load between direct in -stream and indirect
(land -based) loading was based on livestock daily schedules. The direct deposition load
from livestock was estimated from the number of livestock in the watershed, the daily
fecal coliform production per animal, and the amount of time livestock spent in the
stream. The amount of time livestock spend in the stream was presented in Chapter 3.
The land -based load of fecal coliform from livestock while grazing was determined based
on the number of livestock in the watershed, the daily fecal coliform production per
animal, and the percent of time each animal spends in pasture. The monthly loading rates
Modeling Approach 4-14
are presented in Appendix B and livestock numbers per sub -watershed are presented in
Appendix C.
4.7.4 Land Application of Manure
Beef cattle, as well as several dairy operations, are present in the Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watershed. Because there are no feedlots or large
manure storage facilities present in the watershed, the daily produced manure is applied
to pastureland in the watershed, and was treated as an indirect source in the development
of the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries,
Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek TMDL. Beef cattle spend the
majority of their time on pastureland and are not confined. Thus, fecal coliform loading
from beef cattle was accounted for via the methods described above. Dairy cattle do
spend time in confinement, and their fecal coliform load was included in the calculation
of land application of manure. Fecal coliform loading from land application of manure
was estimated based on the total number of dairy cows in the watershed, the fecal
coliform production per animal per day, and the percent of time dairy cows were in
confinement.
4.7.5 Land Application of Biosolids
Biosolids application in the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy
Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds
was considered under this TMDL development. Biosolids were modeled as land based
loads applied to crop and pasture lands in each watershed. The loads modeled were
based on county specific annual application estimates reported by the Virginia
Department of Health.
4.7.6 Wildlife
Fecal loading from wildlife was estimated in the same way as loading from livestock. As
with livestock, fecal coliform contributions from wildlife can be both indirect and direct.
The distribution between direct and indirect loading was based on estimates of the
amount of time each type of wildlife spends on the surrounding land versus in the stream.
Modeling Approach 4-15
Daily fecal coliform production per animal and the amount of time each type of wildlife
spends in the stream was presented previously in the wildlife inventory (Chapter 3). The
direct fecal coliform load from wildlife was calculated by multiplying the number of each
type of wildlife in the watershed by the fecal coliform production per animal per day, and
by the percentage of time each animal spends in the stream. Indirect (land -based) fecal
coliform loading from wildlife was estimated as the product of the number of each type
of wildlife in the watershed, the fecal coliform production per animal per day, and the
percent of time each animal spends on land within the Rivanna River mainstem, North
Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and
Beaver Creek watershed. The resulting fecal coliform load was then distributed to forest
and pasture land uses, which represent the most likely areas in the watershed where
wildlife would be present and defecate. This was accomplished by converting the
indirect fecal coliform load to a unit loading (cfu/acre), then multiplying the unit loading
by the total area of forest and pasture in each subwatershed.
4.7.7 Pets
For the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek TMDL, pet fecal coliform
loading was considered a land -based load that was primarily deposited in residential areas
of the watershed. The daily fecal coliform loading was calculated as the product of the
number of pets in the watershed and the daily fecal coliform production per type of pet.
4.8 Fecal Coliform Die -off Rates
Representative fecal coliform decay rates were included in the HSPF model developed
for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watershed. Three fecal
coliform die -off rates required by the model to accurately represent watershed conditions
included:
1. In -storage fecal coliform die -off. Fecal coliform concentrations are reduced
while manure is in storage facilities.
Modeling Approach 4-16
2. On -surface fecal coliform die -off. Fecal coliform deposited on the land surfaces
undergoes decay prior to being washed into streams.
3. In -stream fecal coliform die -off. Fecal coliform directly deposited into the
stream, as well as fecal coliform entering the stream from indirect sources, will
also undergo decay.
Decay rates of 1.37 and 1.152 per day were used to estimate die -off rates for on -surface
and in -stream fecal coliform, respectively (EPA, 1985).
4.9 Model Set-up, Calibration, and Validation
Hydrologic calibration of the HSPF model involves the adjustment of model parameters
to control various flow components (e.g. surface runoff, interflow and base flow, and the
shape of the hydrographs) and make simulated values match observed flow conditions
during the desired calibration period.
The model credibility and stakeholder faith in the outcome hinges on developing a model
that has been calibrated and validated. Model calibration is a reality check. The
calibration process compares the model results with observed data to ensure the model
output is accurate for a given set of conditions. Model validation establishes the model's
credibility. The validation process compares the model output to the observed data set,
which is different from the one used in the calibration process, and estimates the model's
prediction accuracy. Water quality processes were calibrated following calibration of the
hydrologic processes of the model.
4.9.1 Model Set -Up
The HSPF model was set up and calibrated based on flow data taken at three USGS
stations within the watershed. The USGS streamflow stations were presented in Section
3.3. The three selected calibrations stations are presented in Table 4-9.
Modeling Approach 4-17
Table 1:
USGS Flow Stations1 1 1 Calibration
I
Station ID
Station Name
Drainage
Area mi
Begin Date
End Date
02032640
NF Rivanna River Near Earl sville, VA
108
10/1/1993
9/30/2005
02031000
Mechums River Near White Hall, VA
95.3
10/1/1942
9/30/2005
02034000
Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA
663
10/1/1934
5/15/2007
4.9.1.1 Stream Flow Data
These three stations were selected because of their locations within the watershed and the
data availability. Station 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) has a drainage area
of 663 square miles and is the most downstream station in the Rivanna River watershed
used for calibration. Stations 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna River near Earlysville, VA)
and 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) are both located in the upper portion
of the watershed. Station 02032640 drains 108 square miles and station 02031000 drains
95.3 square miles. These three flow stations selected for the hydrology calibration and
verification capture the complete hydrologic response within the study area. Observed
flow data for the period of 1995 to 2006 for these two stations are plotted in Figures 4-4,
4-5, and 4-6.
Modeling Approach 4-18
Observed flow at USGS Station 02034000
Rivanna River at Palmyra
1000W
10000
42 l000
too
—
10
V V V V V V V
V V V V V
IO
N
N Of T V V W M t0 O O
N N W W N N W OI
Figure 4-4: Daily Mean Flow at USGS Station 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA)
Observed Flow at USGS Station 02032640 - NF Rivanna near Earlysville
10000
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
V V V V V V V V V V V V
t0 �O tO �O t0 �O tO �O tO t0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Figure 4-5: Daily Mean Flow at USGS Station 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna River near
Earlysville, VA)
Modeling Approach 4-19
Observed Flow at USGS Station 02031000 -Mechums River near White Hall
10000
1000
100
10
0
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
N
� O! 01 V V W OD 1D 1D S 8 s+ N N W W A A N N W W
Figure 4-6: Daily Mean Flow at USGS Station 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall,
VA)
A 2-year period (2003-2004) was selected as the calibration period for Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek hydrologic model. The validation period selected
spans from 2005 to 2006.
4.9.1.2 Rainfall and Climate Data
Weather data from the Charlottesville 2W and Monticello stations were obtained from the
NCDC. The data include meteorological data (hourly precipitation) and surface airways
data (including wind speed/direction, ceiling height, dry bulb temperature, dew point
temperature, and solar radiation). For this TMDL, the recorded data at the two stations
were equally combined. The final weather -stations combined record for each segment is
shown in Table 4-10 and depicted in Figure 4-7.
Table 4-10: Proportion of Rainfall from each Gauging Stations used for Hydrology
Calibration and Validation
Model Segments Charlottesville 2w Monticello
�1
Modeling Approach 4-20
Legend
MAP INDEX
Populated Pbces A USGS Flow Stations
— 303d Listed Segment - Weather Stations 0 1 2 4 6 SMiles
— Stream
Mterbodies o„m ;a�-Ts.�ei�.�rs
0 Subwatershed Boundary hwe Louis Berger Group, iHe
J County Boundary
Figure 4-7: Location of Rainfall Stations and USGS Flow Stations
Modeling Approach 4-21
4.9.1 Model Hydrologic Calibration Results
The Expert System Software for the Calibration of HSPF (HSPEXP Lumb et. al) was
used to calibrate the hydrology of the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna
River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek
watershed. After each model iteration, summary statistics were calculated to compare
model results with observed values, in order to provide guidance on parameter
adjustment according to built-in rules. The rules were derived from the experience of
expert modelers and listed in the HSPEXP user manual (Lomb and Kittle, 1993).
Using the recommended default criteria as target values for an acceptable hydrologic
calibration, the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek model was calibrated for
January 2003 to December 2004 at the flow stations 02034000 (Rivanna River at
Palmyra, VA), 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna River near Earlysville, VA), and
02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA). Calibration results at station USGS
02093640 are presented in Table 4-11, showing the simulated and observed values for
nine flow characteristics, error statistics summary for seven flow conditions is presented
in Table 4-12. Table 4-13 and Table 4-14 show the calibration results and error
statistics from USGS station 0203400, and Table 4-15 and Table 4-16 show the
calibration results from USGS station 02031000. The model results and the observed
daily average flow at the three calibration stations are plotted in Figure 4-8, 4-9, and 4-
10.
Table 4-11: USGS 02032640
Calibration
Category Simulated
Observed
Total runoff, in inches
51.04
52.12
Total of highest 10% flows, in inches
20.63
21.58
Total of lowest 50% flows, in inches
8.78
9.16
Total storm volume, in inches
28.18
28.25
Baseflow recession rate
0.95
0.95
Summer flow volume, in inches
9.13
8.49
Winter flow volume, in inches
14.71
14.59
Summer storm volume, in inches
6.10
5.21
Modeling Approach 4-22
(North
Calibration Error Statistics
Category
Simulated Criteria
Error in total volume
-2.1
+ 10%
Error in low flow recession
0.00
+ 0.01%
Error in 50% lowest flows
-4.2
+ 10%
Error in 10% highest flows
-4.4
+ 15%
Seasonal Volume Error
6.8
+10%
Summer Storm Volume
17.3
+15%
Hydrology Calibration - NF Rivanna River near Earlysville - Reach 8
loom
° °
° °
°
°
1000
°
ee
° °
°
doo
a
u
78
a a v a
a a a a a a v a
° Observed —Simulated
Figure 4-8: USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna River near Earlysville, VA) Model
Hydrologic Calibration Results
Category
Simulated
Observed
Total runoff, in inches
47.7
49.70
Total of highest 10% flows, in inches
18.01
19.48
Total of lowest 50% flows, in inches
9.14
10.52
Total storm volume, in inches
25.06
25.00
Baseflow recession rate
0.96
0.96
Summer flow volume, in inches
8.86
9.76
Winter flow volume, in inches
13.51
13.15
Summer storm volume, in inches
5.80
5.92
Modeling Approach 4-23
Table 4-14: USGS 02034000
Statistics
Category
iCalibration
Simulated
Error
Criteria
Error in total volume
-4.0
+ 10%
Error in low flow recession
0.00
+ 0.01%
Error in 50% lowest flows
-13.2
+ 10%
Error in 10% highest flows
-7.5
+ 15%
Seasonal Volume Error
12.0
+10%
Summer Storm Volume
-2.3
+15%
Hydrology Calibration - Rivanna River at Palmyra — USGS 02034000 - Reach 30
loom
�00000
Iwo
u
a
®
®@
+oo
ae
10
N N N N
1p Ip Ip Ip
a a 'a a a a iz a a a a
observed
—SYaulalea
Figure 4-9: USGS 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) Model Hydrologic Calibration
Results
Table 4-15: USGS 02031000
Results
Category
Simulated
Observed
Total runoff, in inches
50.89
48.63
Total of highest 10% flows, in inches
18.69
18.55
Total of lowest 50% flows, in inches
10.17
10.71
Total stone volume, in inches
26.87
26.71
Baseflow recession rate
0.96
0.96
Summer flow volume, in inches
9.79
8.90
Winter flow volume, in inches
13.94
12.47
Summer storm volume, in inches
6.00
5.00
Modeling Approach 4-24
Table 4-16: USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA)
Error Statistics
Category Simulated
Model Calibration
Criteria
Error in total volume
4.6
+ 10%
Error in low flow recession
0.00
+ 0.01%
Error in 50% lowest flows
-5.0
+ 10%
Error in 10% highest flows
0.7
+ 15%
Seasonal Volume Error
1.8
+10%
Summer Storm Volume
20
+15%
Hydrology Calibration Mechums River near Whitehall - Reach 16
loom
+000
1 0
0a
s50 0o
a 0 Ilk.
100
+o
�1P �o' �\OA \1�DA �1\� �o. �\OP �1\OP
P
a Observed —SIMU d
Figure 4-10: USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) Model Hydrologic
Calibration Results
4.9.2 Model Hydrologic Validation Results
The period of January 2005 to December 2006 was used to validate the HSPF model.
Validation results at station USGS 02093640 are presented in Table 4-17, showing the
simulated and observed values for nine flow characteristics, error statistics summary for
seven flow conditions is presented in Table 4-18. Table 4-19 and Table 4-20 show the
calibration results and error statistics from USGS station 02034000, and Table 4-21 and
Table 4-22 show the calibration results from USGS station 02031000. The error
statistics indicate that the validation results were within the recommended ranges in
Modeling Approach 4-25
HSPF with the exception of the summer storm volume at USGS Station 02034000 which
was slightly overestimated. The model results and the observed daily average flow at the
three calibration stations are plotted in Figure 4-11, 4-12, and 4-13.
Validation Results
Category
Simulated
Observed
Total runoff, in inches
31.95
30.06
Total of highest 10% flows, in inches
13.06
13.52
Total of lowest 50% flows, in inches
4.59
4.62
Total storm volume, in inches
7.25
7.02
Baseflow recession rate
0.96
0.95
Summer flow volume, in inches
3.31
3.06
Winter flow volume, in inches
11.04
9.34
Summer storm volume, in inches
1.63
1.56
Table 4-18: USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna
Validation Error
Category
near Earlysville,
Current
VA) Model
Criterion
Error in total volume
6.3
+ 10%
Error in low flow recession
-0.01
+ 0.01%
Error in 50% lowest flows
-0.5
+ 10%
Error in 10% highest flows
-3.5
+ 15%
Seasonal Volume Error
9.9
+10%
Summer Storm Volume
1.2
+15%
Modeling Approach 4-26
Hydrology
Validation
- NF
Rivanna
River
near
Earlysville
-
Reach
8
10000
°
low
°
°
O
°
'°°
c
°
°
°
° o
0
°
a
�i
°
0°
+0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R R R R R R R R R R R R R
R
° Observed—Slrmjhded
Figure 4-11: USGS 02032640 (North Fork Rivanna River near Earlysville, VA) Model
Hydrologic Validation Results
02034000 (Rivanna R�
Category
Palmyra, VA) Model
Simulated
Validation Results
Observed
Total runoff, in inches
29.17
27.29
Total of highest 10% flows, in inches
10.91
10.19
Total of lowest 50% flows, in inches
4.76
4.77
Total storm volume, in inches
59.16
61.02
Baseflow recession rate
0.96
0.97
Summer flow volume, in inches
3.32
2.70
Winter flow volume, in inches
10.16
8.63
Summer storm volume, in inches
1.37
1.15
Table I 02034000
Statistics
idValidation Error
I
Category
Current
Criterion
Error in total volume
6.9
+ 10%
Error in low flow recession
0.01
+ 0.01%
Error in 50% lowest flows
-0.3
+ 10%
Error in 10% highest flows
7.0
+ 15%
Seasonal Volume Error
5.1
+10%
Summer Storm Volume
19.1
+15%
Modeling Approach 4-27
Hydrology Validation - Rivanna River at Palmyra — USGS 02034000 - Reach 30
100000
10000
0
0
0
0
B
0
00
0
W 1000
0
�
o
&
tl
o
100
10
a
a
a
a
a
a
a a a a e e
Observed —Simulated
Figure 4-12: USGS 02034000 (Rivanna River at Palmyra, VA) Model Hydrologic Validation
Results
Table 4-21: USGS 02031000Model
Results
Category
Simulated
Observed
Total runoff, in inches
31.39
30.02
Total of highest 10% flows, in inches
11.32
11.85
Total of lowest 50% flows, in inches
5.39
5.52
Total stone volume, in inches
6.53
5.49
Baseflow recession rate
0.96
0.96
Summer flow volume, in inches
3.70
3.34
Winter flow volume, in inches
10.74
8.95
Summer storm volume, in inches
1.55
1.55
Table 4-22: USGS 02031000Model
Error Statistics
Category Current
A
Criterion
Error in total volume
4.2
+ 10%
Error in low flow recession
0.00
+ 0.01%
Error in 50% lowest flows
-2.30
+ 10%
Error in 10% highest flows
-4.50
+ 15%
Seasonal Volume Error
9.30
+10%
Summer Storm Volume
0.00
+15%
Modeling Approach 4-28
Hydrology Validation Mechums River near Whitehall - Reach 16
loom
ION
e
8
0 8
2 100
0
10
1
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N pl @ N Z- N pl O N N A N W O
Observed —Simulated
Figure 4-13: USGS 02031000 (Mechums River near Whitehall, VA) Model Hydrologic
Validation Results
There is good agreement between the observed and simulated stream flow, indicating that
the model parameterization is representative of the hydrologic characteristics of the
watershed. Model results closely match the observed flows during low flow conditions,
base flow recession, and storm peaks. The final parameter values of the calibrated model
are listed in Table 4-23.
Table 4-23: Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna
River, Preddy Creek
and tributaries,
Meadow
Creek, Mechums
River, and
Beaver Creek
HSPF
Calibration
Parameters (Typical,
Possible
and Final
Values)
mmmw�wnmwm
®Fraction
forest
mmmmm
t t t
cover
Lower ne
',
®
'
MMEMM®
=�MMEOM
t t t
Modeling Approach 4-29
Table ' I 1 River
mainstem,North Fork Rivanna'
Preddy
and tributaries,11
I River, III
Beaver
Creek HSPF
Calibration 'arameters (Typical,
Possible aI I Final
LSUR Length of overland
Ft 200 500
1
None 250 - 300
flo
SLSUR
overland
Slopeofwpa
None
0.01
0.15
0.00001
10 0.017-0.098
floKVARY
Groundwater
1/inch
0
3
0
None 0
recession variable
AGWRC
Basic groundwater
None
0.92
0.99
0.001
0.999 0.962-0.978
recession
Air temp below
PETMAX
which ET is
Deg F
35
45
None
None 40
reduced
Air temp below
PETMIN
which ET is set to
Deg F
30
35
None
None 35
zero
INFEXP
Exponent in
None
2
2
0
10 2
infiltration equation
Ratio of max/mean
INFILD
infiltration
None
2
2
1
2 2
capacities
Fraction of
DEEPER
groundwater inflow
None
0
0.2
0
1.0 0.10 - 012
to deep recharge
Fraction of
BASETP
remaining ET from
None
0
0.05
0
1.0 0.10 - 0.12
base flow
Fraction of
AGWETP
remaining ET from
None
0
0.05
0
1.0 0
active groundwater
CEPSC
Interception storage
Inch
0.03
0.2
0.00
10.0 0.10
capacity
Upper zone
UZSN
nominal soil
inch
0.10
1
0.01
10.0 0.59-0.97
moisture
NSUR
Manning's n
None
0.15
0.35
0.001
1.0 0.20
Interflow/surface
INTFW
runoff partition
None
1
3
0
None 2.0 - 3.7
parameter
IRC
Interflow recession
None
0.5
0.7
0.001
0.999 0.54 - 0.67
parameter
LZETP
Lower zone ET
None
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.999 0.10 - 0.55
parameter
Rate of
c�ac
ACQOP
accumulation of
4.5E7 - L7E10
constituent
Maximum
SQOLIM
accumulation of
cfu
7.5E+7-2.9E9
constituent
Modeling Approach 4-30
Table' I 1 River
mainstem,North Fork Rivanna'
Preddy
and tributaries,11
I River, III
Beaver
Creek HSPF
Calibration 'arameters (Typical,
Possible aI I Final
WSQOP Wash -off rate
Inch/hour
0,85-1.05
Constituent
IOQC
concentration in
cfu/100m1
1416
interflow
Constituent
AOQC
concentration in
cfu/100m1
283
active groundwater
KS
weighing factor for
0.5
0.5
hydraulic routing
First order decay
1.152
FSTDEC
rate of the
1/day
(FC)
1.152
constituent
Temperature
THFST
correction
coefficient for
none
1.07
1.07
FSTDEC
4.9.4 Water Quality Calibration
Calibrating the water quality component of the HSPF model involves setting up the
build-up, wash -off, and kinetic rates for fecal coliform that best describe fecal coliform
sources and environmental conditions in the watershed. It is an iterative process in which
the model results are compared to the available in -stream fecal coliform data, and the
model parameters are adjusted until there is an acceptable agreement between the
observed and simulated in -stream concentrations and the build-up and wash -off rates are
within the acceptable ranges.
The availability of water quality data is a major factor in determining calibration and
validation periods for the model. In Chapter 3, in -stream monitoring stations on the
impaired segments were listed and sampling events conducted on the Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek were summarized and presented. Table 4-24 lists the
stations used in the water quality calibration.
Modeling Approach 4-31
Table 4-24: Water Quality Stations
Watershed
used in the HSPF Fecal
Water Quality Station
Coliform Simulations
HSPF Model segment
Mechums River
MCM005.12
16
Mechums River
MCM010.84
38
Meadow Creek
MWC000.60
17
NF Rivanna River
RRN002.19
14
Preddy Creek
PRD000.21
4
Beaver Creek
BVR005.70
36
Rivanna River
RVN033.65
24
Rivanna River
RVN037.54
23
The period used for water quality calibration of the model, and the period used for model
validation depended on the time the water quality observations were collected. It is
important to keep in mind that the observed fecal coliform concentrations are
instantaneous values that are highly dependent on the time and location the sample was
collected. The model -simulated fecal coliform concentrations represent the average daily
values. Figure 4-14 through Figure 4-21 (one per station) summarize the calibration
results of the HSPF fecal coliform simulations.
The goodness of fit for the water quality calibration was evaluated visually. Analysis of
the model results indicated that the model was capable of predicting the range of fecal
coliform concentrations under both wet and dry weather conditions, and thus was well -
calibrated. Table 4-25 shows the observed and simulated geometric mean fecal coliform
concentration. Table 4-26 shows the observed and simulated exceedance rates of the 400
cfu/100 ml instantaneous fecal coliform standard. The model calibration results for each
water quality station are shown in Figure 4-14 through Figure 4-21.
Modeling Approach 4-32
Table 4-25:
Reach
Observed
Water Quality
Station
Watershed
Geometric Mean (cfu/100ml)
Observed
Simulated
16
MCM005.12
Mechums River
104
120
38
MCM010.84
Mechums River
222
184
17
MWC000.60
Meadow Creek
289
290
14
RRN002.19
NF Rivanna River
87
129
4
PRD000.21
Preddy Creek
81
91
36
BVR005.70
Beaver Creek
188
179
24
RVN033.65
Rivanna River
114
96
23
RVN037.54
Rivanna River
136
186
Table 4-26: Observed
Instantaneousi
and Simulated
Exceedance Rates of
II100nd
Reach
Water Quality
Station
Watershed
Rate of Exceedance (%)
Observed
Simulated
16
MCM005.12
Mechums River
10.1
16.8
38
MCM010.84
Mechums River
20.0
22.7
17
MWC000.60
Meadow Creek
31.8
35.4
14
RRN002.19
NF Rivanna River
14.3
15.6
4
PRD000.21
Preddy Creek
25.0
12.6
36
BVR005.70
Beaver Creek
20.0
21.4
24
RVN033.65
Rivanna River
11.9
8.2
23
RVN037.54
Rivanna River
16.7
15.6
Modeling Approach 4-33
10000
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---
---------
---------
---------
---------
- - -
- --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---
---------
---------
---------
---------
- - -
- --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---
---------
---------
---------
---------
- - -
- --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
------
------
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-
---------
---------
---------
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---------
---------
--------
--
--
--
--
--
--
l000
-
-
-
--
--
--
------
-
-
-----
-
- -
-
--
--
-
--
---
-
--
---
-
a
-
-
0
ii 100
_----------
_
-
-
E-
-
---
--
----
--
--
--
---------
-
V
-
--
--
-
`o
-
-
-
-
---
---------
----
--
--
--
--
--
--
-------�-
---------
-
-
-�---�
--
---------
---
--
�-
--
V--
70
i4
=-
--
---------
--
--
--
---------
--
--
--
---------
--
--
L1
J
0 3 = 3 = S = 3 =
> > n n
< < < <
V y W T
V V W W N t0 O O N N A A N N O�
• Observed Simuletetl
Figure 4-14: Fecal Coliform Calibration for Mechums River (Reach 16)
10000
1000
--------------------
-
E-
- --
--- --
--- ----
-- - -
- -- -
100
------------------
----------
------- -
-
E
-------------------
----------
-------
-
-
0
0
--------------------------------
U
10
--------------------
----------
--------------------
----------
A
-------- __
--------------------
----------
--------------------
----------
LL
1
> s 7 s
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+ + + N N W W
♦ Observed —Simulated
Figure 4-15: Fecal Coliform Calibration for Mechums River (Reach 38)
Modeling Approach 4-34
10000
-----
___
- -
----
____
- -
-----------
_ _________
- ----
-
____
- -
____
- -
___
-
____________
----
-
____
- -
-----
----
-----------
-----
---
----
-----------
-----
1000
--
----
--------
--
--
----
- ------
--
w
0 100
U
_
_ ____
-
_ __
- --
___ _
-----
_____
-
_
LL
____________
_
----------
-----
10
m e m e m c m c m e m
io b ec m b m 6 6 6 6
V V V Op m fD "D O O
♦ Observed Simulated
Figure 4-16: Fecal Coliform Calibration for Meadow Creek (Reach 17)
iilI�,,
'
IIlIi�
i'i
II
II
I
1
1
1
I
II
I
I
Figure 4-17: Fecal Coliform Calibration for the North Fork Rivanna River (Reach 14)
Modeling Approach 4-35
10000
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
---------
----------
----------
----------
----------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
--------------------
--------------------
----------
----------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
E
0
100
I-
-�
-
- - --
_o
-----
---- ---
----------
-----------
-------------------
u
--------------------
----------
-------------------------------
W
-----------------------------------------------------------------
� T
cmi ? 6
0
W Gf W A A N N
♦ Observed Simulated
Figure 4-18: Fecal Coliform Calibration for Preddy Creek (Reach 4)
10000
------------------------
-----
------------
-----
------------
------------
-----
-- -
0
3 1000
-----
--- --
-- -
-----
-- -
--
------
-----
-----
------
w
-----
--- --
- -
-----
-- --
--
------
-----
---
---
-
- -
--
--
w-
-
-----
---
-
CU 100
_
---
__
_____
-
-
----
-- -
-------
- --
- - -
-
--------
----
--
---------
---
-
m
--
------
LL
10
V V V ODD OD 1�p tD O O + 6
♦ Observed Simulated
Figure 4-19: Fecal Coliform Calibration for Beaver Creek (Reach 36)
Modeling Approach 4-36
100000
--------- - - - - -- —
- - - --
t0000----------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
------------------------------------------------
E---------------
01000
1
-------------------
---------------------
--------
-- - -s_ -
---- ---------
-- -----
_-
----
- -_
-- - -
-- -- - ---
---
_
-- -
- -
----
-
o
___
-- - --- -
_________
--- --------------
- --
-
---
♦
-
-
-
o------
---- ---
-------------------
-- ----
--�-
-•
-
m
10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LL-----------------------------------------------------------------
t
L t p t p L
m e a e
p L p t
N e W e
p t p
N e
am
= am
2
3
Z
3
=
m m
e n n e
e n C
n e m
m
O m
o
m
o
m
o
m io m m m io
V J J W W t0
io 0 0 0
t0 O O
0 0 0
N N
y
W p
A
N
W
W
W
♦ Observed
Simulated
Figure 4-20: Fecal Coliform Calibration for the Rivanna River (Reach 24)
10000
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
1000
-------------------------------------------
------------------------------
_
-
__
_ __
_______
---
- -
16
+oo
-
- ---
- -
-----
E
-
_ _
=_
_
__ _
8
--
--------
----
-
------ -- ------
----
- -
---
- -
----
----
- -
-
------ ---------
----
------
------
U
10
--- -------------
__-_-_---
--_-_---
______________
----------_-_---
______ ______________
--_-_-----_-_-_-_-----_-_---
______
--_-_---
______
--_-_---
_____
t
m C 0 C 2
m 9+
� - Q 10 y < � fl
V V W W W m O 0 O O
• Observed SimWated
Figure 4-21: Fecal Coliform Calibration for the Rivanna River (Reach 23)
Modeling Approach 4-37
4.10 Existing Bacteria Loading
The existing fecal coliform loading for each watershed was calculated based on current
watershed conditions. Model input parameters reflected conditions during the period of
2000 to 2006. The standards used for fecal coliform concentrations were a geometric
mean standard of200 cfu/100 ml and an instantaneous standard of400 cfu/100 ml. For E.
coli concentrations, the standards used were a geometric mean of 126 cfu/100ml and an
instantaneous standard of 235 cfu/100ml. The E. coli concentrations in the impaired
Mechums River (Reach 16 and Reach 38), Meadow Creek (Reach 17), NF Rivanna River
(Reach 14), Preddy Creek (Reach 4), Beaver Creek (Reach 36), and Rivanna River
(Reach 23 and Reach 24) were calculated from fecal coliform concentrations using a
regression based instream translator, which is presented below:
E. coli concentration (cfu/100 ml) = 2-0.0172 x (FC concentration (cfu/100m1)) 0.9i905
4.10.1 Rivanna River
The instream concentration of bacteria under existing conditions in the Rivanna River
mainstem is above both the fecal coliform and E. coli geometric mean and instantaneous
standards for the majority of the time period. Figure 4-22 shows the E. coli geometric
mean concentrations under existing conditions and Figure 4-23 shows the E. coli
instantaneous concentrations under existing conditions.
Distribution of the existing E. coli load by source in the Rivanna River mainstem is
presented in Table 4-27. E. coli concentrations in the impaired Rivanna River mainstem
(Reaches 23 and 24) segment were calculated from fecal coliform concentrations using
the instream translator. Table 4-27 shows that loading from pasture, urban, and MS4
areas are the predominant sources of bacteria in the Rivanna River watershed. However,
both wet weather and dry weather conditions were identified as the critical condition.
Under dry weather conditions, the direct deposition load from cattle and wildlife will
dominate. Under wet weather conditions, the non -point source loads from low -density
residential and pasture areas will dominate.
Modeling Approach 4-38
d 10000
c
0
U
0
U
w
c E • ' • ..
m o
m v
10
T
10
G
0 1
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
Ebsting Conditions —Geometric Mean E. coil Standard
Figure 4-22: Rivanna River Mainstem E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions
10000
d
0
0
V 1000
W J
w E
£ 100
Et
10
T
G
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06
Existing Condition —Geometric Mean of E. coil Standard
Figure 4-23: Rivanna River Mainstem E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions
Modeling Approach 4-39
Table 4-27: Rivanna River Mainstem E.
coli Existing Load Distribution by Source
Annual Average E. soli Loads
Source
cfu/ ear
Percent
Forest
5.74E+12
0.9%
Cropland
1.33E+13
2.2%
Pasture
3.86E+14
63.0%
Urban (pets)
7.49E+13
12.2%
Water/Wetland
4.85E+07
<0.1%
Cattle - direct deposition
1.91E+13
3.1%
Wildlife - direct deposition
4.84E+13
7.9%
Septics - Straight Pipes
1.43E+11
<0.1%
Point Sources
4.54E+09
<0.1%
MS4
6.54E+13
10.7%
Total
6.13E+14
100%
4.10.2 North Fork Rivanna River
The instream concentration of bacteria under existing conditions in the North Fork
Rivanna River is above both the fecal coliform and E. coli geometric mean and
instantaneous standards for the majority of the time period. Figure 4-24 shows the E.
coli geometric mean concentrations under existing conditions and Figure 4-25 shows the
E. coli instantaneous concentrations under existing conditions.
Distribution of the existing E. coli load by source in the North Fork Rivanna River is
presented in Table 4-28. E. coli concentrations in the impaired North Fork Rivanna
River (Reach 14) segment were calculated from fecal coliform concentrations using the
instream translator. Table 4-28 shows that loading from pasture, urban, and wildlife areas
are the predominant sources of bacteria in the North Fork Rivanna River watershed.
However, both wet weather and dry weather conditions were identified as the critical
condition. Under dry weather conditions, the direct deposition load from cattle and
wildlife will dominate. Under wet weather conditions, the non -point source loads from
low -density residential and pasture areas will dominate.
Modeling Approach 4-40
u 10000
c
0
U
O
1000 --------------r---------------------------------
w r •
� J • r•
C • • • •
N p • • • ro• • •rrr rr • •
100 • • r r•r---
•
a+ U
m 10
(7
_T
t
C
0 1
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
• Ebsting Condition —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 4-24: North Fork Rivanna River E. cola Geometric Mean Existing Conditions
10000
ti
c
<°� 1000
0
Ct J
LLl E
E 100
E w
k 13
R
i
10
0
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06
— Existing Condition —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 4-25: North Fork Rivanna River E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions
Modeling Approach 4-41
III
I IN
1 I I 1 I I
I' 11 1 11 1 1
Source
Annual Average E.coli Loads
cfu/year
Percent(%)
Forest
2.47E+12
0.9%
Cropland
1.03E+13
3.8%
Pasture
1.83E+14
67.3%
Urban (pets)
3.00E+13
11.0%
Water/Wetland
2.23E+07
<0.1%
Cattle - direct deposition
1.41E+13
5.2%
Wildlife - direct deposition
2.17E+13
8.0%
Septics - Straight Pipes
8.22E+10
<0.1%
Point Sources
4.50E+09
<0.1%
MS4
1.02E+13
3.8%
Total
2.72E+14
100%
4.10.3 Preddy Creek and Tributaries
The instream concentration of bacteria under existing conditions in Preddy Creek and
Tributaries is above both the fecal coliform and E. coli geometric mean and instantaneous
standards for the majority of the time period. Figure 4-26 shows the E. coli geometric
mean concentrations under existing conditions and Figure 4-27 shows the E. coli
instantaneous concentrations under existing conditions.
Distribution of the existing E. coli load by source in Preddy Creek and Tributaries is
presented in Table 4-29. E. coli concentrations in the impaired Preddy Creek and
tributaries (Reach 4) segment were calculated from fecal coliform concentrations using
the instream translator. Table 4-29 shows that loading from the pasture, wildlife, and
urban are the predominant sources of bacteria in the Preddy Creek watershed. However,
both wet weather and dry weather conditions were identified as the critical condition.
Under dry weather conditions, the direct deposition load from cattle and wildlife will
dominate. Under wet weather conditions, the non -point source loads from and pasture
and residential areas will dominate.
Modeling Approach 4-42
c 10000
0
U
0
u
ui 1000 ---
4
.
° J . .: '
0 EE M. • •'. .: ••• .� ..• • .. .: . .. .
100-.--------------- 0 ..r ;. ;: •-------
V ME, M. • : .: ' .. ' • ...
.` u
m --
E
m 10
t,
t
0 1
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06
Existing Conditions —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 4-26: Preddy Creek E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions
10000
ti
c
0 1000
0
0 J
W £
0
E 100
E w
m
10
Jan-00 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06
Existing Conditions —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 4-27: Preddy Creek E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions
Modeling Approach 4-43
Table I: Preddy Creek & Tributaries E. coliI 1 Distribution by Source
Source Annual Average E coli Loads
cfu/year Percent(%)
Forest
4.77E+11
0.8%
Cropland
2.17E+12
3.6%
Pasture
3.75E+13
62.9%
Urban (pets)
7.17E+12
12.0%
Water/Wetland
2.23E+08
<1%
Cattle - direct deposition
2.37E+12
4.0%
Wildlife - direct deposition
9.91E+12
16.6%
Septics - Straight Pipes
1.29E+10
<1%
Point Sources
6.67E+08
<1%
MS4
0.00E+00
0%
Total
5.96E+13
100%
4.10.4 Meadow Creek
The instream concentration of bacteria under existing conditions in Meadow Creek is
above both the fecal coliform and E. coli geometric mean and instantaneous standards for
the majority of the time period. Figure 4-28 shows the E. coli geometric mean
concentrations under existing conditions and Figure 4-29 shows the E. coli instantaneous
concentrations under existing conditions.
Distribution of the existing E. coli load by source in Meadow Creek is presented in Table
4-30. E. coli concentrations in the impaired Meadow Creek (Reach 17) segment were
calculated from fecal coliform concentrations using the instream translator. Table 4-30
shows that loading from MS4 and urban areas are the predominant sources of bacteria in
the Meadow Creek watershed. However, both wet weather and dry weather conditions
were identified as the critical condition. Under dry weather conditions, the direct
deposition load from wildlife will dominate. Under wet weather conditions, the non -point
source loads from urban, residential, and MS4 areas will dominate. It should be noted
that the point sources' existing -conditions bacteria loads is zero in Tables 4-30 since
there are no point source dischargers in Meadow Creek.
Modeling Approach 4-"
10000
0
0
U
0
ui 1000
w
E ..
O ...• •.•'.�.. •: •.: •.•." . . . �..�: . .. . �
0 100 ... ;�' .•.a .µ .EM
a°� 10
t,
t
c
0 1
2
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-06 Nov-06
. Existing Condition —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 4-28: Meadow Creek E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions
10000
ci
0
v 1000
0
J
Ld O
E o 100
E
E w
x
{0
10
T
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-06
— Existing Condition —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 4-29: Meadow Creek E. colt Instantaneous Existing Conditions
Modeling Approach 4-45
Table iLoad
Distribution by Source
Source
Annual Average E. co[i Loads
cfu/year
Percent(%)
Forest
1.16E+10
<0.1%
Cropland
0.00E+00
0%
Pasture
2.42E+08
<0.1%
Urban (pets)
3.15E+13
28.9%
Water/Wetland
2.88E+06
<0.1%
Cattle - direct deposition
3.38E+10
<0.1%
Wildlife - direct deposition
1.28E+12
1.2%
Septics - Straight Pipes
3.95E+09
<0.1%
Point Sources
0.00E+00
0%
MS4
7.66E+13
70.3%
Total
1.09E+14
100%
4.10.5 Mechums River
The instream concentration of bacteria under existing conditions in the Mechums River is
above both the fecal coliform and E. coli geometric mean and instantaneous standards for
the majority of the time period. Figure 4-30 shows the E. coli geometric mean
concentrations under existing conditions and Figure 4-31 shows the E. coli instantaneous
concentrations under existing conditions.
Distribution of the existing E. coli load by source in Mechums River is presented in
Table 4-31. E. coli concentrations in the impaired Mechums River (Reach 6) segment
were calculated from fecal coliform concentrations using the instream translator. Table
4-31 shows that loading from pasture, urban, and wildlife areas are the predominant
sources of bacteria in the Mechums River watershed. However, both wet weather and
dry weather conditions were identified as the critical condition. Under dry weather
conditions, the direct deposition load from cattle and wildlife will dominate. Under wet
weather conditions, the non -point source loads from low -density residential and pasture
areas will dominate.
Modeling Approach 4-46
10000
ci
c
0
U
O
1000
LLl
O J
c E
� o
100
E
O
C�
10
_T
L
c
O
2 1
•
• • •• • • • • •••
■ _J _T _1 _■
• • • • •• •• •• •
•• • •
Jan-00 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06
• Existing Condition —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 4-30: Mechums River E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions
10000
ci
c
v 1000
0
0 J
ui E
0
E 100
E w
.%
R
10
R
0
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
Existing Condition —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 4-31: Mechums River E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions
Modeling Approach 4-47
. I I 1
W49QQ&h"IQI
Source
Annual Average E. co[i Loads
cfu/year
Percent(%)
Forest
4.70E+11
1.3%
Cropland
7.46E+11
2.0%
Pasture
2.08E+13
56.1%
Urban (pets)
6.94E+12
18.7%
Water/Wetland
3.34E+08
<0.1%
Cattle - direct deposition
2.06E+12
5.6%
Wildlife - direct deposition
6.03E+12
16.3%
Septics - Straight Pipes
1.79E+10
0.1%
Point Sources
0.00E+00
0%
MS4
0.00E+00
0%
Total
3.71E+13
100%
4.10.6 Beaver Creek
The instream concentration of bacteria under existing conditions in Beaver Creek is
above both the fecal coliform and E. coli geometric mean and instantaneous standards for
the majority of the time period. Figure 4-32 shows the E. coli geometric mean
concentrations under existing conditions and Figure 4-33 shows the E. coli instantaneous
concentrations under existing conditions.
Distribution of the existing E. coli load by source in Beaver Creek is presented in Table
4-32. E. coli concentrations in the impaired Beaver Creek (Reach 36) segment were
calculated from fecal coliform concentrations using the instream translator. Table 4-32
shows that loading from pasture, urban areas, and wildlife are the predominant sources of
bacteria in the Beaver Creek watershed. However, both wet weather and dry weather
conditions were identified as the critical condition. Under dry weather conditions, the
direct deposition load from cattle and will dominate. Under wet weather conditions, the
non -point source loads from low -density residential and pasture areas will dominate.
Modeling Approach 4-48
10000
C
0
U
°0 1000
W
0 r
m o ..
�v
om 10
C7
_a
t
c
0
i 1
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06
Ebsting Condition —Geometric Mean E. coil Standard
Figure 4-32: Beaver Creek E. coli Geometric Mean Existing Conditions
10000
0
c 1000
U
1
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
Existing Condition —Geometric Mean E. coil Standard
Figure 4-33: Beaver Creek E. coli Instantaneous Existing Conditions
Modeling Approach 4-49
TableBeaver Creek E. coliI' Load
Source
Distribution by Source
Annual Average E. coli Loads
cfu/year
Percent(%)
Forest
6.85E+10
0.5%
Cropland
3.70E+11
2.5%
Pasture
1.02E+13
69.5%
Urban (pets)
1.37E+12
9.3%
Water/Wetland
5.32E+07
<0.1%
Cattle - direct deposition
1.01E+12
6.9%
Wildlife - direct deposition
1.22E+12
8.3%
Septics - Straight Pipes
3.88E+09
<0.1%
Point Sources
0.00E+00
<0.1%
MS4
4.40E+11
3.0%
Total
1.47E+13
100%
Modeling Approach 4-50
5.0 Allocation
For the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek TMDLs, allocation
analysis was the third stage in development. Its purpose was to develop the framework
for reducing bacteria loading under the existing watershed conditions so water quality
standards can be met. The TMDL represents the maximum amount of pollutant that the
stream can receive without exceeding the water quality standard. The load allocations for
the selected scenarios were calculated using the following equation:
Where,
TMDL = 2] WLA +Y LA + MOS
WLA = wasteload allocation (point source contributions);
LA = load allocation (non -point source allocation); and
MOS = margin of safety.
Typically, several potential allocation strategies would achieve the TMDL endpoint and
water quality standards. Available control options depend on the number, location, and
character of pollutant sources.
5.1 Incorporation of Margin of Safety
The margin of safety (MOS) is a required component of the TMDL to account for any
lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water
quality. According to EPA guidance (Guidance for Water Quality -Based Decisions: The
TMDL Process, 1991), the MOS can be incorporated into the TMDL using two methods:
• Implicitly incorporating the MOS using conservative model assumptions to
develop allocations; or
• Explicitly specifying a portion of the TMDL as the MOS and using the remainder
for allocations.
The MOS will be implicitly incorporated into this TMDL. Implicitly incorporating the
MOS will require that allocation scenarios be designed to meet the monthly fecal
Allocation 5-1
coliform geometric mean standard of 200 cfu/100 ml and the instantaneous fecal coliform
standard of 400 cfu/100 ml with 0% exceedance. In terms of E. coli, incorporating an
implicit MOS will require that the allocation scenario be designed to meet the monthly
geometric mean standard of 126 cfu/100 ml and the instantaneous standard of 235
cfu/100 ml with 0 violations.
5.2 Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis of the fecal coliform loadings and the waterbody response
provides a better understanding of the watershed conditions that lead to the water quality
standard violations, and provides insight and direction in developing the TMDL
allocations and implementation. Based on the sensitivity analysis, several allocation
scenarios were developed. For each scenario developed, the percent of days water
quality conditions violate the monthly geometric mean standard and instantaneous
standard for E. coli were calculated. The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented
in Appendix D.
5.3 Allocation Scenario Development
Allocation scenarios were modeled using the calibrated HSPF model to adjust the
existing bacteria loading conditions until the water quality standard was attained. The
TMDLs developed for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy
Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek were based on
the Virginia State Standard for E. coli. As detailed in Section 1.2, the E. coli standard
states that the calendar month geometric -mean concentration shall not exceed 126
cfu/100 ml, and that a maximum single sample concentration of E. coli not exceed 235
cfu/100 ml. According to the guidelines put forth by the DEQ (DEQ, 2003) for modeling
E. coli with HSPF, the model was set up to estimate loads of fecal coliform, and then the
model output was converted to concentrations of E. coli with the following equation:
loge (Cec) _-0.0172+0.91905*log2(cfc)
Where Cec is the concentration of E. coli in cfu/100 ml, and Cfc is the concentration of
fecal coliform in cfu/100 ml.
Allocation 5-2
The pollutant concentrations were simulated over the entire duration of a representative
modeling period, and pollutant loads were adjusted until the standard was met. The
pollutant loads were calculated at the outlet of each impaired segment and include the
loads from all upstream reaches and WLAs. The development of the allocation scenarios
was an iterative process requiring numerous runs where each run was followed by an
assessment of source reduction against the water quality target. The long-term average E.
coli loads and coefficient of variations were determined to implement the final allocation
scenarios and to express the TMDL on a daily basis. Assuming a log -normal distribution
of data and a probability of occurrence of 95%, the maximum daily loads were
determined using the following equation (USEPA OWOW 2007 Options for Expressing
Daily Loads in TAMLs):
Where;
MDL=LTA XExp [za-0.562]
MDL = maximum daily limit (cf i/day)
LTA = long-term average (cfu/day)
z = z statistic of the probability of occurrence
a2 = ln(CV2+1)
CV = coefficient of variation
The following sections present the waste load allocation (WLA) and load allocations
(LA) for the six impaired segments.
5.4 Waste load Allocation Development
This section outlines the waste load allocations (WLA), or the point source loading, for
each impaired segment. It presents the existing and allocated loads for each permitted
(VPDES) facility and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit contributing to the
impaired segment.
The existing load for general domestic permits is based on the allowable flow rate of
1,000 gal/day and a maximum E. coli concentration of 126 cfu/100 ml. The allocated
load for domestic sewage facilities is based on the actual design flow of the system as
presented in Table 3-12. This load is computed by applying a factor of two to the actual
Allocation 5-3
design flow of the system to account for future growth. While the growth -expanded
WLA is presented individually for each facility, it will be allocated to both new and
existing facilities at the discretion of the permitting agency staff through permit
issuances.
In general, the waste load allocation for point sources under individual VPDES permits
was set assuming that they were operating at twice their design flow at their permitted
maximum average concentration. The factor of two was introduced as a conservative
measure to account for potential growth. This growth -expanded allocation for the
individual permitted facilities was calculated and presented based on the current design
limits of existing permits in the watershed, but it will be allocated to both new and
existing permits as needed on a first -come, first -served basis. All current permit limits
remain in effect and can only be altered through the VADEQ permitting process.
Allocation of bacteria loadings shall be determined at the discretion of DEQ staff.
Following DEQ guidance, waste load allocations in watersheds without permitted
facilities are not shown as zero. Rather, they are represented in the TMDL, expressed in
terms of `less than" a number equal to or smaller than 1% of the Total Maximum Daily
Load to account for future growth.
5.5 Load Allocation Development
The reduction of loading from non -point sources, including livestock and wildlife direct
deposition, is incorporated into the load allocation. A number of load allocation
scenarios were developed in order to determine the final TMDL load allocation. Bacteria
loading and instream concentrations were estimated for each potential scenario using the
HSPF model for the hydrologic period of January 1995 to December 2006. Table 5-1
shows the typical load allocation scenarios that were run to arrive at the final TMDL
allocations. It should be noted that these key scenarios were implemented for all
segments. However, additional scenarios were also implemented when deemed necessary
to attain the final TMDL. The following is a brief summary of the key scenarios:
• Scenario 0 is the existing load, no reduction of any of the sources
Allocation 5-4
• Scenario 1 represents elimination of human sources (septic systems and straight
pipes).
• Scenario 2 represents elimination of the human sources (septic systems and
straight pipes) as well as the direct instream loading from livestock.
• Scenario 6 represents the direct instream loading from wildlife (complete
elimination of human and livestock loading and 95% reduction of agricultural and
urban non -point source loading).
Table 5-1:
Scenario
TMIDL Load Allocation
Failed Septic
& Pipes
Scenarios
Direct NPS
Livestock (Agriculture)
NPS
(Urban)
E
Direct
Wildlife
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
3
100%
100%
50%
0%
0%
4
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
5
100%
100%
95%
50%
0%
6
100%
100%
95%
95%
0%
7
100%
100%
95%
95%
50%
The estimated load reductions for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna
River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek
from these allocation scenarios are presented separately in the next sections. In addition,
the percent of days the 126 cfu/100ml E. coli geometric mean water quality standard and
the 235 cfu/100ml E. coli instantaneous water quality standard were violated under each
scenario are presented.
Allocation 5-5
�•�:-71►F17if:7:11►1ailul�7�
5.6.1 Rivanna River Waste load Allocation
Waste load allocation is comprised of the point sources within the watershed, which
include both permitted facilities and MS4 permits. There are six permitted facilities
discharging bacteria to the Rivanna River consisting of four municipal facilities and two
domestic sewage dischargers. These facilities do not have a permit limit for bacteria. For
this TMDL, the waste load allocation for such facilities is calculated using design flow
discharge limits and bacteria concentrations at the existing E. coli standard of 126
cfu/100mL. Table 5-2 shows the loading from the permitted point source dischargers in
the Rivanna River. To account for future growth in the TMDL, the WLA was multiplied
2 times the original allocation.
Table 5-2: Rivanna
River Waste load
Allocation
for E. coli
Permit
Design
Effluent
Wasteload Wasteload
Number
Facility Type
Flow
Limit
Allocation Allocation
MGD
cfu/100m1
cfu/da cfu/ ear
VA0025488
Municipal
0.365
126
1.74E+09
6.35E+11
VA0028398
Municipal
0.005
126
2.38E+07
8.69E+09
VA0029556
Municipal
0.035
126
1.67E+08
6.10E+10
VA0080781
Municipal
0.07
126
3.33E+08
1.22E+11
Domestic Sewage
VAG401839
Discharge
0.001
126
4.76E+06
1.74E+09
Domestic Sewage
VAG401840
Discharge
0.001
126
4.76E+06
1.74E+09
Existing WLA
0.477
126
2.27E+09
8.29E+11
Future Growth Scenario: 2 x
Existing WLA*
0.954
126
4.54E+09
1.66E+12
Future Growth Scenario: 5 x
Existing WLA
2.385
126
1.14E+10
4.16E+12
*Future growth scenario used in the TMDL
5.6.2 Rivanna River Load Allocation
The scenarios considered for the Rivanna River mainstem load allocation are presented in
Table 5-3. The following conclusions can be made:
1. In Scenario 0 (existing conditions), the water quality standard resulted in a 15.6
percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 23.8 percent
violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
Allocation 5-6
2. In Scenario 2, elimination of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight
pipes) and the livestock direct instream loading resulted in an 8.4 percent
violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 14.3 percent violation of
the E. coli instantaneous standard.
3. In Scenario 6, eliminating all sources except direct instream loading from wildlife
resulted in an 4.4 percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a
8.3 percent violation of the E. coh instantaneous standard.
4. No violations of the E. coli geometric mean standard occurred in the Rivanna
River mainstem under Scenario 8.
Therefore, Scenario 8 was chosen as the final TMDL load allocation scenario for the
Rivanna River mainstem. Under this scenario, complete elimination of the human
sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes) and livestock direct deposition, a 95
percent reduction of agricultural and urban non -point sources, and a 76 percent reduction
of direct loading by wildlife are required.
Table 5-3:
Rivanna River
Load
Reductions11,Geometric
Mean an
Instantaneousi
E. coli
E.coli
Percent
Percent
Failed
Scenario
Septic &
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
violation of
violation of
Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
GM
Inst.
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100ml
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15.6
23.8
1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15.5
23.8
2
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
8.4
14.3
3
100%
100%
50%
0%
0%
6.6
13.1
4
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
5.8
9.5
5
100%
100%
95%
50%
0%
4.4
8.3
6
100%
100%
95%
95%
0%
4.4
8.3
7
100%
100%
95%
95%
50%
1.0
2.4
8
100%
100%
95%
95%
76%
0.0
0.0
5.6.3 Rivanna River Allocation Plan
As shown in Table 5-3, Scenario 8 will meet 30-day E. coli geometric mean water
quality standard of 126 cfu/100 ml and the instantaneous water quality standard of 235
cfu/100m1 for the Rivanna River. The requirements for this scenario are:
Allocation 5-7
100 % reduction of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes).
100 % reduction of the direct instream loading from livestock.
• 95% reduction of bacteria loading from agricultural and urban non -point sources.
• 76% reduction of the direct instream loading from wildlife.
Table 5-4 shows the distribution of the annual average E. codi load under existing
conditions and under the TMDL allocation, by land use and source.
Table 5-4: Rivanna River Distribution
Conditions and TMDL Allocation
of Annual Average E.
coli Load under
Existing
Mi
Land Use/Source
Average E. cok Loads
(cfu/yr)
Allocation
(cfu/day)
Percent
Reduction (%)
Existing
Allocation
Forest
5.74E+12
5.74E+12
5.74E+10
0%
Cropland
1.33E+13
6.65E+11
6.65E+09
95%
Pasture
3.86E+14
1.93E+13
1.93E+11
95%
Urban Residential
7.49E+13
3.75E+12
3.75E+10
95%
ater/Wedand
4.85E+07
4.85E+07
4.85E+05
0%
Cattle - direct deposition
1.91E+13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Wildlife - direct deposition
4.84E+13
1.16E+13
1.16E+11
76%
Failed Septic - direct deposition
1.43E+11
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Point Source
8.29E+11
1.66E+12
4.54E+09
0%
S4s
6.54E+13
3.27E+12
3.27E+10
95%
Total loads /Overall reduction
6.14E+14
4.60E+13
4.48E+11
92%
The daily TMDL for the Rivanna River is presented in Table 5-5 and the yearly TMDL
is presented in Table 5-6.
Table 5-5: Rivanna River Bacteria TMDL (cfu/day) for E. coli
WLA LA MOS TMDL
Point Sources (Non -point sources (Margin of safe
3.72E+10 4.11E+11 Implicit 7-4.48E+l1
Table i
Bacteria TMDL
WLA
LA MOS
Point Sources
TMDL
(Non -point sources) (Margin of safety)
4.93E+12
4.11E+13
Implicit 4.60E+13
Allocation 5-8
The resulting geometric mean and instantaneous E. coli concentrations under the TNML
allocation plan are presented in Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2. Figure 5-1 shows the 30-day
geometric mean E. coli concentrations after applying the allocations of Scenario 8, as
well as geometric mean loading under existing conditions. Figure 5-2 shows the
instantaneous E. coli concentrations also under the allocations of Scenario 8 as well as
the loading under existing conditions. For the Rivanna River, allocation Scenario 8
results in bacteria concentrations that are consistently below both the geometric mean and
instantaneous standards for E. coli.
10000
1000
100
10
1
____________________■f___________________________________ 1 ■LL
• o
_____ ______ •
No
■_•••■--------------------- ••■■••r ■• ■■ a i
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
• Existing Conditions • TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-1: Rivanna River Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8
Allocation 5-9
Figure 5-2: Rivanna River Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation Scenario
8
Allocation 5-10
4�r�►�cn,��.rr.�:�t+�rrf�:�t►raarrlU214
5.7.1 North Fork Rivanna River Waste Load Allocation
Waste load allocation is comprised of the point sources within the watershed, which
include both permitted facilities and MS4 permits. There are five permitted facilities
currently discharging to the North Fork Rivanna River, including three municipal
facilities and two domestic sewage facilities. These facilities do not have permit limits
for bacteria. For this TMDL, the waste load allocation for such facilities is calculated
using design flow discharge limits and bacteria concentrations at the existing E. coli
standard of 126 cfu/100mL. Table 5-7 shows the loading from the permitted point
source discharger in the North Fork Rivanna River watershed. To account for future
growth in the TMDL, the WLA was multiplied 2 times the original allocation.
Table 5-7: North
Fork Rivanna River
Waste load Allocation
for E. coli
Permit
Design
Effluent
Wasteload
Wastcload
Number
Facility Type
Flow
Limit
Allocation
Allocation
(MGD)
(cfu/100m1)
(cfu/day)
(cfu/year)
VA0025488
Municipal
0.365
126
1.74E+09
6.35E+11
VA0029556
Municipal
0.035
126
1.67E+08
6.10E+10
VA0080781
Municipal
0.07
126
3.33E+08
1.22E+11
VAG401839
Domestic Sewage
0.001
126
4.76E+06
1.74E+09
Discharge
Domestic Sewage
VAG401840
Discharge
0.001
126
4.76E+06
1.74E+09
Existing WLA
0.472
126
2.25E+09
8.21E+11
Future Growth Scenario: 2 x
Existing WLA*
0.944
126
4.50E+09
1.64E+12
Future Growth Scenario: 5 x
Existing WLA
2.360
126
1.12E+10
4.09E+12
*Future growth scenario used in the TMDL
5.7.2 North Fork Rivanna River Load Allocation
The scenarios considered for the North Fork Rivanna River load allocation are presented
in Table 5-8. The following conclusions can be made:
1. In Scenario 0 (existing conditions), the water quality standard loading resulted in
a 16.5 percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 41.7 percent
violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
Allocation 5-11
2. In Scenario 2, elimination of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight
pipes) and the livestock direct instream loading resulted in a 12.7 percent
violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 22.6 percent violation of
the E. coli instantaneous standard.
3. In Scenario 6, eliminating all sources except direct instream loading from wildlife
resulted in a 8.4 percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and an
17.8 percent violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
4. No violations of either the E. codi geometric mean standard or the instantaneous
E. coli standards occurred in the North Fork Rivanna River under Scenario 8.
Therefore, Scenario 8 was chosen as the final TMDL load allocation scenario for the
North Fork Rivanna River. Under this scenario, complete elimination of the human
sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes) and livestock direct deposition, 95
percent reduction of agricultural and urban non -point sources, and a 92 percent reduction
of direct loading by wildlife are required.
Instantaneousfor
E. coli E. coli
Percent Percent
Failed
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct violation of violation of
Scenario
Septic
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife GM Inst.
& Pipes
standard standard
126 #/100m1 235 #/100ml
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
16.5
41.7
1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
16.4
41.7
2
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
12.7
22.6
3
100%
100%
50%
0%
0%
11.8
21.4
4
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
11.0
21.4
5
100%
100%
95%
50%
0%
8.8
21.4
6
100%
100%
95%
95%
0%
8.4
17.8
7
100%
100%
95%
95%
50%
3.5
4.7
8
100%
100%
95%
95%
92%
0.0
0.0
Allocation 5-12
5.7.3 North Fork Rivanna River Allocation Plan
For the North Fork Rivanna River, as shown in Table 5-8, Scenario 8 will meet the 30-
day E. coli geometric mean water quality standard of 126 cfu/100 ml and the
instantaneous water quality standard of 235 cfu/100ml. The requirements for this scenario
include:
100 % reduction of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes).
• 100 % reduction of the direct instream loading from livestock.
• 95% reduction of bacteria loading from agricultural and urban non -point sources.
• 92% reduction of the direct instream loading from wildlife.
Table 5-9 shows the distribution of the annual average E. coli load under existing
conditions and under the TMDL allocation, by land use and source.
IWIM
Existing Conditions and TNIIDL Allocation
Annual Average E. coli Loads
Land Use/Source (cfu/yr)
Existing Allocation
Allocation
(cfu/day)
�.
Percent
Reduction
(%)
Forest
2.47E+12
2.47E+12
2.61E+10
0%
Cropland
1.03E+13
5.15E+11
5.43E+09
95%
Pasture
1.83E+14
9.15E+12
9.65E+10
95%
Urban Residential
3.00E+13
1.50E+12
1.58E+10
95%
ater/Wedand
2.23E+07
2.23E+07
2.35E+05
0%
Cattle - direct deposition
1.41E+13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Wildlife - direct deposition
2.17E+13
1.74E+12
1.83E+10
92%
Failed Septic - direct deposition
822E+10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Point Source
8.21E+l l
1.64E+12
4.50E+09
0%
S4s
1.02E+13
5.10E+11
5.38E+09
95%
Total loads /Overall reduction
2.73E+14
1.75E+13
1.72E+11
94%
The daily bacteria TMDL for the North Fork Rivanna River is presented in Table 5-10
and the yearly TMDL in Table 5-11.
Allocation 5-13
Table I: North Forkd.
LA
WILA
(Non -point
TMDL
o
(PointSources)
sources)
(Margin f safety)
9.88E+09
1.62E+11
Implicit 1.72E+11
LA
MOS
(PointVSources)(Margin
7154E+13
of afety) TMDL
2.15E+12
Implicit
1.75E+13
The resulting geometric mean and instantaneous E. coli concentrations under the TMDL
allocation plan for the North Fork Rivanna River are presented in Figure 5-3 and Figure
5-4. Figure 5-3 shows the 30-day geometric mean E. coli concentrations after applying
allocation Scenario 8, as well as geometric mean concentrations under existing
conditions. Figure 5-4 shows the instantaneous E. coli concentrations after applying
allocation Scenario 8 as well as existing conditions.
10000
1000
100
10
1
•
• ..
• • • •
-- ----- - - - - -- - --- - - - - -• •
.•
.. .
Eno -------------------rT-�------mom�.-..-Mr•--------- r'--
0 No ME
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
E:dsting Condition . TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-3: North Fork Rivanna River Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under
Existing Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8
Allocation 5-14
Figure 5-4: North Fork Rivanna River Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under
Allocation Scenario 8
Allocation 5-15
5.8 Preddy Creek and Tributaries TMDL
5.8.1 Preddy Creek and Tributaries Waste Load Allocation
There is one permitted facility currently discharging to Preddy Creek. This facility does
not have a permit limit for bacteria. For this TMDL, the waste load allocation for the
facility is calculated using design flow discharge limits and bacteria concentrations at the
existing E. coli standard of 126 cfu/100mL. Table 5-12 shows the loading from the
permitted point source discharger in the Preddy Creek watershed. To account for future
growth in the TMDL, the WLA was multiplied 2 times the original allocation.
Table 5-12:
Preddy Creek Waste
load Allocation
for E. coli
Design
Effluent
Wasteload
Wasteload
Permit
Facility Type
Flow
Limit
Allocation
Allocation
Number
(MGD)
(cfu/100ml)
(cfu/day)
(cfu/year)
VA0080781
Municipal
0.07
126
3.33E+08
1.22E+ll
Existing WLA
0.07
126
3.33E+08
1.22E+11
Future Growth Scenario: 2 x
Existing WLA*
0.14
126
6.67E+08
2.43E+11
Future Growth Scenario: 5 x
0.35
126
1.67E+09
6.10E+11
Existing WLA
*Expansion scenario used in the TMDL
5.8.2 Preddy Creek and Tributaries Load Allocation
The scenarios considered for the Preddy Creek and Tribuaries load allocation are
presented in Table 5-13. The following conclusions can be made:
1. In Scenario 0 (existing conditions), the water quality standard resulted in a 21.9
percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 54.7 percent
violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
2. In Scenario 2, elimination of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight
pipes) and the livestock direct instream loading resulted in a 12.7 percent
violation of the E. coh geometric mean standard and a 44 percent violation of the
E. coli instantaneous standard.
3. In Scenario 6, eliminating all sources except direct instream loading from wildlife
resulted in an 8.5 percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a
35.7 percent violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
Allocation 5-16
4. No violations of either the E. coli geometric mean standard or the instantaneous
E. coli standards occurred in the Preddy Creek and Tributaries under Scenario 8.
Therefore, Scenario 8 was chosen as the final TMDL load allocation scenario for Preddy
Creek and Tributaries. Under this scenario, complete elimination of the human sources
(failed septic systems and straight pipes) and livestock direct deposition, a 95 percent
reduction of urban and agricultural non -point sources, and a 72 percent reduction of
direct loading by wildlife are required.
Table 5-13:
Preddy
Creek and Tributaries
Load
Reductions
Under
1.y Gei
Instantaneous
E. coli
E. coli
Percent
Percent
Failed
Scenario
Septic
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
violation of
violation of
& Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
GM
Inst.
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100ml
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21.9
54.7
1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21.9
54.7
2
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
12.7
44.0
3
100%
100%
50%
0%
0%
11.8
41.6
4
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
10.3
36.9
5
100%
100%
95%
50%
0%
8.5
35.7
6
100%
100%
95%
95%
0%
8.5
35.7
7
100%
100%
95%
95%
50%
0.98
4.7
8
100%
100%
95%
95%
72%
0.0
0.0
5.8.3 Preddy Creek and Tributaries Allocation Plan
For Preddy Creek and Tributaries, as shown in Table 5-13, Scenario 8 will meet the 30-
day E. coli geometric mean water quality standard of 126 cfu/100 ml and the
instantaneous water quality standard of 235 cfu/100ml. The requirements for this scenario
include:
100 % reduction of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes).
100 % reduction of the direct instream loading from livestock.
• 95% reduction of bacteria loading from agricultural and urban non -point sources.
• 72% reduction of the direct instream loading from wildlife.
Allocation 5-17
Table 5-14 shows the distribution of the annual average E. coli load under existing
conditions and under the TMDL allocation, by land use and source.
Conditions and TMDL Allocation
Annual Average E. coli Loads Percent
Land Use/Source (cfu/yr) Allocation Reduction
Existing Allocation (cfu/day) (%)
Forest
4.77E+11
4.77E+11
5.04E+09
0%
Cropland
2.17E+12
1.08E+11
1.14E+09
95%
Pasture
3.75E+13
1.87E+12
1.98E+10
95%
Urban Residential
7.14E+12
3.57E+11
3.78E+09
95%
Water/Wetland
2.23E+08
2.23E+08
2.36E+06
0%
Cattle - direct deposition
2.37E+12
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Wildlife - direct deposition
9.91E+12
2.77E+12
2.93E+10
72%
Failed Septic - direct deposition
1.29E+10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Point Source
1.22E+11
2.43E+11
6.67E+08
0%
S4s
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0%
Total loads /Overall reduction
5.97E+13
5.83E+12
5.97E+10
90%
The daily bacteria TMDL for Preddy Creek and Tributaries is presented in Table 5-15
and the yearly TMDL is presented in Table 5-16.
PreddyTable 5-15:
Bacteria TMDLfor
i
WLA
LA
MOS
(Point Sources)
(Non -point
(Margin of safety) TMDL
sources
6.67E+08
5.91E+10
Implicit 5.97E+10
�Weddy Creek
Bacteria 1
for
WLA
LA
MOS
(Point Sources)
(Non -point
(Margin of safety) TMDL
sources
2.43E+11
5.58E+12
Implicit 5.83E+12
The resulting geometric mean and instantaneous E. coli concentrations under the TMDL
allocation plan for the Preddy Creek and Tributaries are presented in Figure 5-5 and
Figure 5-6. Figure 5-5 shows the 30-day geometric mean E. coli concentrations after
applying allocation Scenario 8, as well as geometric mean concentrations under existing
Allocation 5-18
conditions. Figure 5-6 shows the instantaneous E. colt concentrations after applying
allocation Scenario 8.
ci
0 10000
0
0
0
nl 1000
Is—
J
d E
0 100
L 1�
d U
E 10
C9
T
L
c 1
------------------------------------------------------------
__•______0 ____� _____•___�_� r� _________•m_ '•---�•t _________
• • • • •••• •� •• ' •• • ' •• ' • •• ' • •f ••• • •.•
=r' 0 No as
--------------- - - - -- - '-
0
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06
• Existing Conditions • TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-5: Preddy Creek Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8
10000
ci
c
U 1000
0—
A MA
C J
w E
O
E 100 - - - --- -- --
E w
R
2,
10
0
1
Jan-00 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06
Ebsting Conditions TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-6: Preddy Creek Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation Scenario 8
Allocation 5-19
5.9.1 Meadow Creek Waste Load Allocation
Waste load allocation is comprised of the point sources within the watershed, which
include both permitted facilities and MS4 permits. There are no industrial or municipal
permitted facilities currently discharging into Meadow Creek. Following DEQ guidance,
waste load allocations in watersheds without permitted facilities should not be shown as
zero. Rather, they should be represented in the TMDL, expressed in terms of `less than"
a number equal to or smaller than 1% of the Total Maximum Daily Load. This is
reflected in Table 5-18 which shows the TMDL allocations for Meadow Creek.
5.9.2 Meadow Creek Load Allocation
The scenarios considered for Meadow Creek load allocation are presented in Table 5-17.
The following conclusions can be made:
1. In Scenario 0 (existing conditions), the water quality standard resulted in a 30.6
percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 73.8 percent
violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
2. In Scenario 2, elimination of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight
pipes) and the livestock direct instream loading resulted in an 11.7 percent
violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 45.2 percent violation of
the E. coli instantaneous standard.
3. In Scenario 6, eliminating all sources except direct instream loading from wildlife
resulted in a 1.1 percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 4.8
percent violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
4. No violations of either the E. coli geometric mean standard or the instantaneous
E. coli standard occurred in Meadow Creek under Scenario 7.
Therefore, Scenario 7 was chosen as the final TMDL load allocation scenario for
Meadow Creek. Under this scenario, complete elimination of the human sources (failed
septic systems and straight pipes) and livestock direct deposition, a 95 percent reduction
of urban non -point sources, and a 48 percent reduction of direct loading by wildlife are
required.
Allocation 5-20
Table 5-17:
Meadow
Creek Load
Reductions Under
30-DayGeometric
Standards
for E. coli
E. coli
—j
E. coli
Percent
Percent
Failed
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
violation of
violation of
Scenario
Septic
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
GM
Inst.
& Pipes
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100ml
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30.6
73.8
1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
12.1
46.4
2
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
11.7
45.2
3
100%
100%
50%
0%
0%
11.7
45.2
4
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
2.8
20.4
5
100%
100%
95%
50%
0%
2.8
20.4
6
100%
100%
95%
95%
0%
1.1
4.8
7
100%
100%
95%
95%
48%
0.0
0.0
5.9.3 Meadow Creek Allocation Plan
As shown in Table 5-17, Scenario 7 for Meadow Creek, will meet the 30-day E. coli
geometric mean water quality standard of 126 cfa/100 ml and the instantaneous water
quality standard of 235 cfu/100ml. The requirements necessary to meet Scenario 7
include:
100 % reduction of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes).
100 % reduction of the direct instream loading from livestock.
• 95% reduction of bacteria loading from agricultural and urban non -point sources.
48% reduction of the direct instream loading from wildlife.
Table 5-18 shows the distribution of the annual average E. coli load under existing
conditions and under the TMDL allocation, by land use and source.
Allocation 5-21
Table 5-18: Meadow Creek Distribution of Annual Average
Conditions and TMDL Allocation
Annual Average E. coli
Land Use/Source Loads (cfu/yr)
Existing Allocation
E. coli Load under
Allocation
(cfu/day)
Existing
Percent
Reduction
(%)
Forest
1.15E+10
1.15E+10
1.22E+08
0%
Cropland
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0%
Pasture
2.40E+08
1.20E+07
1.27E+05
95%
Urban Residential
3.12E+13
1.56E+12
1.65E+10
95%
ater/Wedand
2.85E+06
2.85E+06
3.02E+04
0%
Cattle - direct deposition
3.35E+10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Wildlife - direct deposition
1.27E+12
6.59E+11
6.99E+09
48%
Failed Septic - direct deposition
3.94E+09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Point Source*
0.00E+00
6.06E+10
1.66E+08
0%
S4s
7.66E+13
3.83E+12
4.06E+10
95%
Total loads /Overall reduction
1.09E+14
6.12E+12
6.44E+10
94%
-There are no permitted tacilities; the point source allocation includes 1 percent of the total NPS allocations to
account for future growth
The daily bacteria TMDL for Meadow Creek is presented in Table 5-19 and the yearly
TMDL is presented in Table 5-20.
Table'Meadow
Bacteria TMDLis
LA
LA
MOS
(Non -point TMDL
(PointVSources)
(Margin of safety)
sources
4.08E+10
2.36E+10 Implicit 6.44E+10
The resulting geometric mean and instantaneous E. coli concentrations under the TMDL
allocation plan are presented in Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8. Figure 5-7 shows the 30-
day geometric mean E. coli concentrations after applying allocation Scenario 7, as well as
geometric mean concentrations under existing conditions. Figure 5-8 shows the
instantaneous E. coli concentrations after applying allocation Scenario 7.
Allocation 5-22
10000
1000
•u• •••••RN• •i •n •f••• • • • •i 4 • •• • •
• •
• 00• •••P • •••• '0 MEN • 00 mom 0, • • •� ••••••
No
• ti • ••• 1
10
1 ; I I I,
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
• Existing Condition • TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-7: Meadow Creek Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 7
10000
ci
0
�j 1000
J
ui E Ir
E o 100
AY
E w
z10 ----- - ------ - -------- ----- ---
T
G
1
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06
Existing Condition TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-8: Meadow Creek Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation Scenario
7
Allocation 5-23
MOMi riC�.11T�:11►1ai!i it �7�
5.10.1 Mechums River Waste Load Allocation
There are no industrial or municipal permitted facilities currently discharging into
Mechums River. Following DEQ guidance, waste load allocations in watersheds without
permitted facilities should not be shown as zero. Rather, they should be represented in
the TMDL, expressed in terms of "less than" a number equal to or smaller than 1 % of the
Total Maximum Daily Load. This is reflected in Table 5-22 which shows the TMDL
allocations for the Mechums River.
5.10.2 Mechums River Load Allocation
The scenarios considered for Meadow Creek load allocation are presented in Table 5-21.
The following conclusions can be made:
1. In Scenario 0 (existing conditions), the water quality standard resulted in a 15.8
percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 45.2 percent
violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
2. In Scenario 2, elimination of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight
pipes) and the livestock direct instream loading resulted in an 11.2 percent
violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 33.3 percent violation of
the E. coli instantaneous standard.
3. In Scenario 6, eliminating all sources except direct instream loading from wildlife
resulted in an 8.5 percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a
28.5 percent violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
4. No violations of either the E. coli geometric mean standard or the instantaneous
E. coli standard occurred in Mechums River under Scenario 8.
Therefore, Scenario 8 was chosen as the final TMDL load allocation scenario for
Mechums River. Under this scenario, complete elimination of the human sources (failed
septic systems and straight pipes) and livestock direct deposition, a 95 percent reduction
of urban and agricultural non -point sources, and a 76 percent reduction of direct loading
by wildlife are required.
Allocation 5-24
Standards
for E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
Percent
Percent
Failed
Scenario
Septic
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
violation of
violation of
& Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
GM
Inst.
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100m1
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15.8
45.2
1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15.8
45.2
2
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
11.2
33.3
3
100%
100%
50%
0%
0%
10.3
33.3
4
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
9.5
29.7
5
100%
100%
95%
50%
0%
9.0
29.7
6
100%
100%
95%
95%
0%
8.5
28.5
7
100%
100%
95%
95%
50%
1.7
4.7
8
100%
100%
95%
95%
76%
0.0
0.0
5.10.3 Mechums River Allocation Plan
As shown in Table 5-21, Scenario 8 for Mechums River, will meet the 30-day E. codi
geometric mean water quality standard of 126 cfu/100 ml and the instantaneous water
quality standard of 235 cfu/100ml. The requirements necessary to meet Scenario 8
include:
100 % reduction of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes).
100 % reduction of the direct instream loading from livestock.
• 95% reduction of bacteria loading from agricultural and urban non -point sources.
• 76% reduction of the direct instream loading from wildlife.
Table 5-22 shows the distribution of the annual average E. coli load under existing
conditions and under the TMDL allocation, by land use and source.
Allocation 5-25
Table 5-22: Mechunis River Distribution of Annual Average E.
Conditions and TMDL Allocation
Annual Average E. coli Loads
Land Use/Source (cfu/yr)
Existing Allocation
coli Load under
Allocation
(cfu/day)
Existing
Percent
Reduction
(%)
Forest
4.65E+11
4.65E+11
4.92E+09
0%
Cropland
7.39E+11
3.69E+10
3.91E+08
95%
Pasture
2.06E+13
1.03E+12
1.09E+10
95%
Urban Residential
6.87E+12
3.44E+11
3.63E+09
95%
Water/Wetland
3.31E+08
3.31E+08
3.50E+06
0%
Cattle - direct deposition
2.04E+12
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Wildlife - direct deposition
5.97E+12
1.43E+12
1.52E+10
76%
Failed Septic - direct deposition
1.77E+10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Point Source*
0.00E+00
3.31E+10
9.06E+07
0%
S4s
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0%
Total loads /Overall reduction
3.67E+13
3.34E+12
3.51E+10
91%
- There are no permitted tacilities; the point source allocation includes 1 percent of the total NYS allocations to
account for future growth
The daily bacteria TMDL for Mechums River is presented in Table 5-23 and the yearly
TMDL is presented in Table 5-24.
Table 5-24: Mechums
River Bacteria TMDL
LA
LA
MOS
(PointVSources)
(Non -point
(Margin of safety)
TMDL
sources)
3.31E+10
3.31E+12
Implicit
3.34E+12
The resulting geometric mean and instantaneous E. coli concentrations under the TMDL
allocation plan are presented in Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10. Figure 5-9 shows the 30-
day geometric mean E. coli concentrations after applying allocation Scenario 8, as well as
geometric mean concentrations under existing conditions. Figure 5-10 shows the
instantaneous E. coli concentrations after applying allocation Scenario 8.
Allocation 5-26
10000
c
0
U
O
1000
W
O J
C E
� O
100
U j
r l�1
E
O
0 10
T
L
w
C
O
2 1
------------------------------------------------------------
•
------------------
IN
• • ••• No • • No •• •• • •• •
•
• •••______ �_•----- - - - - -
• • 1 1••••_ ••lf• • • •F __• �•
Jan-00 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06
• Ebsting Condition • TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-9: Mechums River Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8
10000
ci
c
ci 1000
o
�
ui E c
E 100
E w
•K u
m `
T 10----------
In
1
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
Ebsting Condition —TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-10: Mechums River Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation
Scenario 8
Allocation 5-27
�f� �7►Ia1�a3�iril�7�
5.11.1 Beaver Creek Waste Load Allocation
Waste load allocation is comprised of the point sources within the watershed, which
include both permitted facilities and MS4 permits. There are no industrial or municipal
permitted facilities currently discharging into Beaver Creek. Following DEQ guidance,
waste load allocations in watersheds without permitted facilities should not be shown as
zero. Rather, they should be represented in the TMDL, expressed in terms of `less than"
a number equal to or smaller than 1% of the Total Maximum Daily Load. This is
reflected in Table 5-26 which shows the TMDL allocations for Beaver Creek.
5.11.2 Beaver Creek Load Allocation
The scenarios considered for Meadow Creek load allocation are presented in Table 5-25.
The following conclusions can be made:
1. In Scenario 0 (existing conditions), the water quality standard resulted in a 20.6
percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 48.8 percent
violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
2. In Scenario 2, elimination of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight
pipes) and the livestock direct instream loading resulted in a 9.2 percent violation
of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a 33.3 percent violation of the E. coli
instantaneous standard.
3. In Scenario 6, eliminating all sources except direct instream loading from wildlife
resulted in a 6.8 percent violation of the E. coli geometric mean standard and a
29.8 percent violation of the E. coli instantaneous standard.
4. No violations of either the E. coli geometric mean standard or the instantaneous
E. coli standard occurred in Beaver Creek under Scenario 8.
Therefore, Scenario 8 was chosen as the final TMDL load allocation scenario for Beaver
Creek. Under this scenario, complete elimination of the human sources (failed septic
systems and straight pipes) and livestock direct deposition, a 95 percent reduction of
urban and agricultural non -point sources, and a 66 percent reduction of direct loading by
wildlife are required.
Allocation 5-28
t'
i,
i
• 11.
i
i
Standards
for E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
Percent
Percent
Failed
Scenario
Septic
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
violation of
violation of
& Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
GM
Inst.
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100m1
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20.6
48.8
1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20.5
48.8
2
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
9.2
33.3
3
100%
100%
50%
0%
0%
8.2
33.3
4
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
7.8
29.8
5
100%
100%
95%
50%
0%
6.8
29.8
6
100%
100%
95%
95%
0%
6.8
29.8
7
100%
100%
95%
95%
50%
0.0
3.57
8
100%
100%
95%
95%
66%
0.0
0.0
5.11.3 Beaver Creek Allocation Plan
As shown in Table 5-25, Scenario 8 for Beaver Creek, will meet the 30-day E. coli
geometric mean water quality standard of 126 cfu/100 ml and the instantaneous water
quality standard of 235 cfu/100ml. The requirements necessary to meet Scenario 8
include:
100 % reduction of the human sources (failed septic systems and straight pipes).
100 % reduction of the direct instream loading from livestock.
• 95% reduction of bacteria loading from agricultural and urban non -point sources.
• 66% reduction of the direct instream loading from wildlife.
Table 5-26 shows the distribution of the annual average E. coli load under existing
conditions and under the TMDL allocation, by land use and source.
Allocation 5-29
Table 1 Beaver Creek Distribution
Conditions aI TMDL Allocation
Land Use/Source
of Annual Average E. coli1
Annual Average E. coli Loads
(cfu/yr)
I1'
Allocation
(cfu/day)
I'
Percent
Reduction
(oho)
Existing
Allocation
Forest
6.78E+10
6.78E+10
7.08E+08
0%
Cropland
3.66E+11
1.83E+10
1.91E+08
95%
Pasture
1.01E+13
5.05E+11
5.27E+09
95%
Urban Residential
1.36E+12
6.78E+10
7.08E+08
95%
ater/Wetland
5.27E+07
5.27E+07
5.50E+05
0%
Cattle - direct deposition
1.00E+12
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Wildlife - direct deposition
1.21E+12
4.11E+11
4.29E+09
66%
Failed Septic - direct deposition
3.84E+09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
100%
Point Source*
0.00E+00
1.09E+10
2.99E+07
0%
S4s
4.40E+11
2.20E+10
2.30E+08
95%
Total loads /Overall reduction
1.45E+13
1.10E+12
1.14E+10
92%
There are no pernutted tacllltles; the point source allocation includes 1 percent of the total NPS allocations to
account for future growth
The daily bacteria TMDL for Beaver Creek is presented in Table 5-27 and the yearly
TMDL is presented in Table 5-28.
TableBeaver Creek Bacteria TMDLI
WLA LA MOS
(Point Sources) (Non -point (Margin of safety) TMDL
sources)
2.60E+08 1.12E+10 Implicit 1.14E+10
WLA
LA
MOS
(Point Sources)
(Non -point
(Margin of safety) TMDL
sources)
3.29E+10
1.07E+12
Implicit 1.10E+12
The resulting geometric mean and instantaneous E. coli concentrations under the TMDL
allocation plan are presented in Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12. Figure 5-11 shows the
30-day geometric mean E. coli concentrations after applying allocation Scenario 8, as
Allocation 5-30
well as geometric mean concentrations under existing conditions. Figure 5-12 shows the
instantaneous E. coli concentrations after applying allocation Scenario 8.
u
c
0
U
O
u
10000
1000
100
10
1 4—
Jan-00
• ,• , n, , , , , • • o •'
• % • ••
Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06
• Existing Condition . TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-11: Beaver Creek Geometric Mean E. coli Concentrations under Existing
Conditions and Allocation Scenario 8
10000
cf
c
vQ 1000
V J
w E
E o 100
21
i 10
We
G
1
Jan-00 May-01 Sep-02 Feb-04 Jun-05 Nov-06
— Existing Condition —TMDL Allocation —Geometric Mean E. coli Standard
Figure 5-12: Beaver Creek Instantaneous E. coli Concentrations under Allocation Scenario
8
Allocation 5-31
6.0 TMDL Implementation and Reasonable
Assurance
Once a TMDL has been approved by EPA, measures must be taken to reduce pollution
levels from both point and non -point sources. The following sections outline the
framework used in Virginia to provide reasonable assurance that the required pollutant
reductions can be achieved.
6.1 Continuing Planning Process and Water Quality
Management Planning
As part of the Continuing Planning Process, DEQ staff will present both EPA -approved
TMDLs and TMDL implementation plans to the State Water Control Board (SWCB) for
inclusion in the appropriate Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), in accordance
with the Clean Water Act's Section 303(e) and Virginia's Public Participation Guidelines
for Water Quality Management Planning.
DEQ staff will also request that the SWCB adopt TMDL WLAs as part of the Water
Quality Management Planning Regulation (9VAC 25-720), except in those cases when
permit limitations are equivalent to numeric criteria contained in the Virginia Water
Quality Standards, such as in the case for bacteria. This regulatory action is in
accordance with §2.2-4006A.4.c and §2.2-4006B of the Code of Virginia. SWCB actions
relating to water quality management planning are described in the public participation
guidelines referenced above and can be found on DEQ's web site under
http://www.deq.state.va.us/tmdl/pdf/ppp.pdf
6.2 Staged Implementation
In general, Virginia intends for the required control actions, including Best Management
Practices (BMPs), to be implemented in an iterative process that first addresses those
sources with the largest impact on water quality. The iterative implementation of
pollution control actions in the watershed has several benefits:
Implementation 6-1
The iterative implementation of BMPs in the watershed has several benefits:
1. It enables tracking of water quality improvements following BMP implementation
through follow-up stream monitoring;
2. It provides a measure of quality control, given the uncertainties inherent in
computer simulation modeling;
3. It provides a mechanism for developing public support through periodic updates
on BMP implementation and water quality improvements;
4. It helps ensure that the most cost effective practices are implemented first; and
5. It allows for the evaluation of the adequacy of the TMDL in achieving water
quality standards.
6.3 Implementation of Waste Load Allocations
Federal regulations require that all new or revised National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits must be consistent with the assumptions and
requirements of any applicable TMDL WLA (40 CFR §122.44 (d)(1)(vii)(B)). All such
permits should be submitted to EPA for review.
For the implementation of the WLA component of the TMDL, the Commonwealth
utilizes the Virginia NPDES program. Requirements of the permit process should not be
duplicated in the TMDL process, and permitted sources are not usually addressed through
the development of any TMDL implementation plans.
6.3.1 Treatment Plants
This TMDL does not require reductions from municipal or industrial treatment plants
based on the assumption that the required chlorine treatment reduces outflow bacteria
levels to within compliance standards.
Implementation 6-2
6.3.2 Stormwater
DEQ and DCR coordinate separate state permitting programs that regulate the
management of pollutants carried by stormwater runoff. DEQ regulates stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activities through its VPDES program, while DCR
regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites, and from municipal separate
storm sewer systems (MS4s) through the VSMP program. Stormwater discharges from
coal mining operations are permitted through NPDES permits by the the Department of
Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME). As with non-stormwater permits, all new or
revised stormwater permits must be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of
any applicable TMDL WLA. If a WLA is based on conditions specified in existing
permits, and the permit conditions are being met, no additional actions may be needed. If
a WLA is based on reduced pollutant loads, additional pollutant control actions will need
to be implemented.
For Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems (MS4s) permits, the Commonwealth
expects the permittee to specifically address the TMDL wasteload allocations for
stormwater through the iterative implementation of programmatic BMPs. BMP
effectiveness would be determined through permittee implementation of an individual
control strategy that includes a monitoring program that is sufficient to determine its
BMP effectiveness. As stated in EPA's Memorandum on TMDLs and Stormwater
Permits, dated November 22, 2002, "The NPDES permits must require the monitoring
necessary to assure compliance under the permit limits." Ambient in -stream monitoring
would not be an appropriate means of determining permit compliance. Ambient
monitoring would be appropriate to determine if the entire TMDL is being met by ALL
attributed sources. This is in accordance with recent EPA guidance. If future monitoring
indicates no improvement in the quality of the regulated discharge, the permit could
require the MS4 to expand or better tailor its stormwater management program to achieve
the TMDL wasteload allocation. However, only failing to implement the programmatic
BMPs identified in the modified stormwater management program would be considered a
violation of the permit. Any changes to the TMDL resulting from water quality standards
changes would be reflected in the permit.
Implementation 6-3
Wasteload allocations for stormwater discharges from storm sewer systems covered by a
MS4 permit will be addressed as a condition of the MS4 permit. An implementation plan
will identify types of corrective actions and strategies to obtain the load allocation for the
pollutant causing the water quality impairment. Permittees will be required to participate
in the development of TMDL implementation plans since recommendations from the
process may result in modifications to the stormwater management plan in order to meet
the TMDL. For example, MS4 permittees regulate erosion and sediment control
programs that affect discharges that are not regulated by the MS4 permit.
Additional information on Virginia's Stormwater program and a downloadable menu of
Best Management Practices and Measurable Goals Guidance can be found at
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/sw/vsmp.htm.
6.3.3 TMDL Modifications for New or Expanding Dischargers
Permits issued for facilities with wasteload allocations developed as part of a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be consistent with the assumptions and
requirements of these wasteload allocations (WLA), as per EPA regulations. In cases
where a proposed permit modification is affected by a TMDL WLA, permit and TMDL
staff must coordinate to ensure that new or expanding discharges meet this requirement.
In 2005, DEQ issued guidance memorandum 05-2011 describing the available options
and the process that should be followed under those circumstances, including public
participation, EPA approval, State Water Control Board actions, and coordination
between permit and TMDL staff. The guidance memorandum is available on DEQ's web
site at http://www.deg.vir ig nia.gov/waterguidance/
6.4 Implementation of Load Allocations
The TMDL program does not impart new implementation authorities. Therefore, the
Commonwealth intends to use existing programs to the fullest extent in order to attain its
water quality goals. The measures for non point source reductions, which can include the
use of better treatment technology and the installation of best management practices
Implementation 6-4
(BMPs), are implemented in an iterative process that is described along with specific
BMPs in the TMDL implementation plan.
6.4.1 Implementation Plan Development
For the implementation of the TMDL's LA component, a TMDL implementation plan
will be developed that addresses at a minimum the requirements specified in the Code of
Virginia, Section 62.1-44.19.7. State law directs the State Water Control Board to
"develop and implement a plan to achieve fully supporting status for impaired waters".
The implementation plan "shall include the date of expected achievement of water quality
objectives, measurable goals, corrective actions necessary and the associated costs,
benefits and environmental impacts of addressing the impairments." EPA outlines the
minimum elements of an approvable implementation plan in its 1999 "Guidance for
Water Quality -Based Decisions: The TMDL Process." The listed elements include
implementation actions/management measures, timelines, legal or regulatory controls,
time required to attain water quality standards, monitoring plans and milestones for
attaining water quality standards.
In order to qualify for other funding sources, such as EPA's Section 319 grants,
additional plan requirements may need to be met. The detailed process for developing an
implementation plan has been described in the "TMDL Implementation Plan Guidance
Manual", published in July 2003 and available upon request from the DEQ and DCR
TMDL project staff or at http://www.deg.vir ig nia.gov/tmdl/implans/ipguide.pdf
Watershed stakeholders will have opportunities to provide input and to participate in the
development of the TMDL implementation plan. Regional and local offices of DEQ,
DCR and other cooperating agencies are technical resources to assist in this endeavor
With successful completion of implementation plans, local stakeholders will have a
blueprint to restore impaired waters and enhance the value of their land and water
resources. Additionally, development of an approved implementation plan may enhance
opportunities for obtaining financial and technical assistance during implementation.
Implementation 6-5
6.4.2 Staged Implementation Scenarios
The purpose of the staged implementation scenarios is to identify one or more
combinations of implementation actions that result in the reduction of controllable
sources to the maximum extent practicable using cost-effective, reasonable BMPs for
nonpoint source control. Among the most efficient sediment BMPs for both urban and
rural watersheds are infiltration and retention basins, riparian buffer zones, grassed
waterways, streambank protection and stabilization, and wetland development or
enhancement.
Actions identified during TMDL implementation plan development that go beyond what
can be considered cost-effective and reasonable will only be included as implementation
actions if there are reasonable grounds for assuming that these actions will in fact be
implemented.
If water quality standards are not met upon implementation of all cost-effective and
reasonable BMPs, a Use Attainability Analysis may need to be initiated since Virginia's
water quality standards allow for changes to use designations if existing water quality
standards cannot be attained by implementing effluent limits required under §301b and
§306 of Clean Water Act, and cost effective and reasonable BMPs for nonpoint source
control. Additional information on UAAs is presented in section 6.6, Attainability of
Designated Uses.
Three allocation scenarios are presented in Tables 6-1 to 6-6 for Bacteria TMDLs for
Rivanna River Mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and Tributaries,
Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek Watersheds respectively. Scenario 1
represents the required load reduction that will not exceed the instantaneous standard by
more than 10% violation. Scenarios 2 and 3 represent the implementation of BMPs and
management strategies such as livestock exclusion from streams, alternative water,
manure storage, riparian buffers, and pet waste control that can be readily put in place in
the watershed.
Implementation 6-6
Table 1
i'
i 1 1Scenarios
Failed
violation of
violation of
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
GM
Inst.
Scenario
Septics
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
standard
standard
& Pipes
126 #/100ml
235 #/100ml
1
100%
95%
0%
0%
0%
31.4%
10%
2
100%
50%
50%
50%
0%
39.3%
13.9%
3
100%
75%
75%
75%
0%
34.5%
9.6%
1191
1
1
11
1
Failed
violation of
violation of
Scenario
Septics
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
GM
Inst.
& Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100ml
1
100%
100%
0%
23%
0%
27%
10%
2
100%
50%
50%
50%
0%
13.1%
2.9%
3
100%
75%
75%
75%
0%
11.9%
1.2%
Failed
violation of
violation of
Scenario
Septics
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
GM
Inst.
& Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100ml
1
100%
100%
55%
0%
0%
33%
10%
2
100%
50%
50%
50%
0%
35.7%
11.6%
3
100%
75%
75%
75%
0%
34.5%
10.1%
Table6-4:
North Fork(Segment
Scenarios
Failed
violation of violation of
Scenario
Septics
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
GM Inst.
& Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
standard standard
126 #/100ml 235 #/100ml
1
100%
100%
50%
58%
0%
21%
10%
2
100%
50%
50%
50%
0%
35.7%
14.3%
3
100%
75%
75%
75%
0%
32.1%
11%
Implementation 6-7
1 1 1 1
I I
1
1
1 1 • I I
I' 1
ScenariosStage 1
Failed
violation of
violation of
Scenario Septics
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
GM
Inst.
& Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100ml
1
100%
100%
50%
48%
0%
36.8%
10%
2
100%
50%
50%
50%
0%
44.0%
13.9%
3
100%
75%
75%
75%
0%
36.9%
10%
TableI
•
I I Watershed
Stage I Scenarios
Fa
Failed
sled
violation of
violation of
Scenario
Se
Direct
NPS
NPS
Direct
GM
Inst.
& Pipes
Livestock
(Agricultural)
(Urban)
Wildlife
standard
standard
126 #/100ml
235 #/100ml
1
100%
92%
0%
0%
0%
14.7%
10%
2
100%
50%
50%
50%
0%
13.1%
6.4%
3
100%
75%
75%
75%
0%
11.9%
4.9%
6.4.3 Link to Ongoing Restoration Efforts
Implementation of this TMDL will contribute to on -going water quality improvement
efforts aimed at restoring water quality in the watershed. Currently, there are various
organizations dedicated to protection and restoration of the Rivanna River. Among these
are Stream Watch, the Rivanna Conservation Society, the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission, and the Nature Conservancy.
Stream Watch's main goal is to maintain, protect and ultimately improve the water
quality of rivers and the Rivanna River Basin. The Stream Watch program was designed
to provide the community with scientific data and information on current conditions of
the watershed. This is to be accomplished through monitoring, data consolidation, and
information development and distribution. The Rivanna Conservation Society, the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and the Nature Conservancy are all
partners of the Stream Watch organization.
The Rivanna Conservation Society is a non-profit organization located in Charlottesville,
VA, and is devoted to the restoration and preservation of the Rivanna River. Their main
Implementation 6-8
goal is to protect the aesthetic, biological and recreational values of the Rivanna River
and watershed. Conservation efforts are carried out through members, volunteers,
donations, and corporate and government grants.
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's goal is to promote sustainable
solutions to regional issues. This commission is devoted to district 10, which
encompasses the city of Charlottesville, VA and includes the Rivanna River. Their main
effort is the Rivanna River Basin Project whose overall goal is to gather biological
information regarding the past and current conditions of the river in order to develop
strategies to improve water quality and community enjoyment.
The Nature Conservancy in Virginia is committed to protecting the biological integrity of
the local nature and wildlife areas. The Nature Conservancy recently banded together
with local communities to establish the Rivanna River Basin Commission. Authorized in
2004, the Commission's role, once funding is secured, will be to develop and publicize
comprehensive scientific information to the community and to local governments.
6.4.4 Implementation Funding Sources
The implementation on pollutant reductions from non -regulated nonpoint sources relies
heavily on incentive -based programs. Therefore, the identification of funding sources for
non -regulated implementation activities is a key to success. Cooperating agencies,
organizations and stakeholders must identify potential funding sources available for
implementation during the development of the implementation plan in accordance with
the "Virginia Guidance Manual for Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plans".
The TMDL Implementation Plan Guidance Manual contains information on a variety of
funding sources, as well as government agencies that might support implementation
efforts and suggestions for integrating TMDL implementation with other watershed
planning efforts.
Some of the major potential sources of funding for non -regulated implementation actions
may include the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Enhancement
and Environmental Quality Incentive Programs, EPA Section 319 funds, the Virginia
Implementation 6-9
State Revolving Loan Program (also available for permitted activities), Virginia
Agricultural Best Management Practices Cost -Share Programs, the Virginia Water
Quality Improvement Fund (available for both point and nonpoint source pollution), tax
credits and landowner contributions.
With additional appropriations for the Water Quality Improvement Fund during the last
two legislative sessions, the Fund has become a significant funding stream for
agricultural BMPs and wastewater treatment plants. Additionally, funding is being made
available to address urban and residential water quality problems. Information on WQIF
projects and allocations can be found at http://www.deq.vir ig nia og v/bay/wgif.html
and at httl2://www.dcr.vir ig nia.gov/sw/wgia.htm
6.5 Follow -Up Monitoring
Following the development of the TMDL, DEQ will make every effort to continue to
monitor the impaired stream in accordance with its ambient and biological monitoring
programs. DEQ's Ambient Watershed Monitoring Plan for conventional pollutants calls
for watershed monitoring to take place on a rotating basis, bi-monthly for two
consecutive years of a six -year cycle. In accordance with DEO Guidance Memo No. 03-
2004, during periods of reduced resources, monitoring can temporarily discontinue until
the TMDL staff determines that implementation measures to address the source(s) of
impairments are being installed. Monitoring can resume at the start of the following
fiscal year, next scheduled monitoring station rotation, or where deemed necessary by the
regional office or TMDL staff, as a new special study. Since there may be a lag time of
one -to -several years before any improvement in the benthic community will be evident,
follow-up biological monitoring may not have to occur in the fiscal year immediately
following the implementation of control measures.
The purpose, location, parameters, frequency, and duration of the monitoring will be
determined by the DEQ staff, in cooperation with DCR staff, the Implementation Plan
Steering Committee and local stakeholders. Whenever possible, the location of the
follow-up monitoring station(s) will be the same as the listing station. At a minimum, the
Implementation 6-10
monitoring station must be representative of the original impaired segment. The details
of the follow-up monitoring will be outlined in the Annual Water Monitoring Plan
prepared by each DEQ Regional Office. Other agency personnel, watershed
stakeholders, etc. may provide input on the Annual Water Monitoring Plan. These
recommendations must be made to the DEQ regional TMDL coordinator by September
30 of each year. Table 6-7 provides a summary of the water quality monitoring stations
in the Rivanna River bacteria impaired watershed.
Station ID
Stream
2-BKM002.01
Buck Mountain Creek
2-BLU000.78
Blue run
2-BVR002.19
Beaver Creek
2-BVR005.70
Beaver Creek
2-DYL000.63
Do les River
2-IVC000.02
Ivy Creek
2-IVC005.19
Ivy Creek
2-IVC008.09
Ivy Creek
2-IVC010.20
Ivy Creek
2-JCB000.80
Jacobs Run
2-LKN000.00
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN000.23
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN000.24
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN000.84
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN001.67
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN003.70
Lickin hole Creek
2-LKN005.47
Lickin hole Creek
2-LYN002.77
Lynch River
2-MCM005.12
Mechums River
2-MCM010.84
Mechums River
2-MCM018.92
Mechums River
2-MNR000.39
Moonnans River
2-MNR011.69
Moonnans River
2-MNR014.50
Moonnans River
2-MNR014.68
Moonnans River
2-MSC000.I I
Moores Creek
2-MSC000.60
Moores Creek
2-MSC004.43
Moores Creek
2-MWC000.60
Meadow Creek
2-PRD000.21
Preddy Creek
2-PRD004.42
Preddy Creek
2-RCH001.25
Roach River
2-RRN002.19
North Fork Rivanna River
Implementation 6-11
11 1 ' 1
Station ID
liEll I
Stream
2-RRN010.92
North Fork Rivanna River
2-RRN015.61
North Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS003.12
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS003.59
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS005.35
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS005.62
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS009.06
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RRS010.30
South Fork Rivanna River
2-RVN037.54
Rivanna River
2-RVN039.58
Rivanna River
2-SDV001.14
Stanardsville Run
2-SDV001.16
Stanardsville Run
2-SFR000.60
Swift Run
2-SFR007.13
Swift Run
2-SIN000.44
Spring Creek
2-SIN000.58
Spring Creek
2-WDC002.90
Wards Creek
2-WEL000.46
Welsh Run
2-XAL000.02
Lickin hole Creek Trib
2-XAL000.63
Lickinghole Creek Trib
2-XAL000.64
Lickin hole Creek Trib
2-XAL000.65
Lickin hole Creek Trib
DEQ staff, in cooperation with DCR staff, the Implementation Plan Steering Committee
and local stakeholders, will continue to use data from the ambient monitoring stations to
evaluate reductions in pollutants ("water quality milestones" as established in the IP), the
effectiveness of the TMDL in attaining and maintaining water quality standards, and the
success of implementation efforts. Recommendations may then be made, when
necessary, to target implementation efforts in specific areas and continue or discontinue
monitoring at follow-up stations.
In some cases, watersheds will require monitoring above and beyond what is included in
DEQ's standard monitoring plan. Ancillary monitoring by citizens' or watershed groups,
local government, or universities is an option that may be used in such cases. An effort
should be made to ensure that ancillary monitoring follows established QA/QC
guidelines in order to maximize compatibility with DEQ monitoring data. In instances
where citizens' monitoring data is not available and additional monitoring is needed to
Implementation 6-12
assess the effectiveness of targeting efforts, TMDL staff may request of the monitoring
managers in each regional office an increase in the number of stations or monitor existing
stations at a higher frequency in the watershed. The additional monitoring beyond the
original bimonthly single station monitoring will be contingent on staff resources and
available laboratory budget. More information on citizen monitoring in Virginia and
QA/QC guidelines is available at http://www.deq.vir ig nia.gov/cmonitor/.
To demonstrate that the watershed is meeting water quality standards in watersheds
where corrective actions have taken place (whether or not a TMDL or Implementation
plan has been completed), DEQ must meet the minimum data requirements from the
original listing station or a station representative of the originally listed segment. The
minimum data requirement for conventional pollutants (bacteria, dissolved oxygen, etc)
is bimonthly monitoring for two consecutive years. For biological monitoring, the
minimum requirement is two consecutive samples (one in the spring and one in the fall)
in a one year period.
6.6 Attainability of Designated Uses
In some streams for which TMDLs have been developed, factors may prevent the stream
from attaining its designated use
In order for a stream to be assigned a new designated use, or a subcategory of a use, the
current designated use must be removed. To remove a designated use, the state must
demonstrate that the use is not an existing use, and that downstream uses are protected.
Such uses will be attained by implementing effluent limits required under §301b and
§306 of Clean Water Act and by implementing cost-effective and reasonable best
management practices for nonpoint source control (9 VAC 25-260-10 paragraph I).
The state must also demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible because:
1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentration prevents the attainment of the use;
Implementation 6-13
2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions prevent the attainment
of the use unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of
sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating state water conservation
3. Human -caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the
use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to
correct than to leave in place
4. Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the waterbody to its original
condition or to operate the modification in such a way that would result in the
attainment of the use;
5. Physical conditions related to natural features of the water body, such as the
lack of proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated
to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life use protection; or
6. Controls more stringent than those required by §301b and §306 of the Clean
Water Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social
impact.
This and other information is collected through a special study called a UAA. All site -
specific criteria or designated use changes must be adopted by the SWCB as amendments
to the water quality standards regulations. During the regulatory process, watershed
stakeholders and other interested citizens, as well as the EPA, will be able to provide
comment during this process. Additional information can be obtained at
http://www.deq.vir ig nia oy/wqs/pdf/WQS05A Lpdf
The process to address potentially unattainable reductions based on the above is as
follows:
As a first step, measures targeted at the controllable, anthropogenic sources identified in
the TMDL's staged implementation scenarios will be implemented. The expectation
would be for the reductions of all controllable sources to the maximum extent practicable
Implementation 6-14
using the implementation approaches described above. DEQ will continue to monitor
biological health and water quality in the stream during and subsequent to the
implementation of these measures to determine if water quality standard is attained. This
effort will also help to evaluate if the modeling assumptions were correct. In the best -case
scenario, water quality goals will be met and the stream's uses fully restored using
effluent controls and BMPs. If, however, water quality standards are not being met, and
no additional effluent controls and BMPs can be identified, a UAA would then be
initiated with the goal of re -designating the stream for a more appropriate use or
subcategory of a use.
A 2006 amendment to the Code of Virginia under 62.1-44.19:7E. provides an opportunity
for aggrieved parties in the TMDL process to present to the State Water Control Board
reasonable grounds indicating that the attainment of the designated use for a water is not
feasible. The Board may then allow the aggrieved party to conduct a use attainability
analysis according to the criteria listed above and a schedule established by the Board.
The amendment further states that "If applicable, the schedule shall also address whether
TMDL development or implementation for the water shall be delayed."
Implementation 6-15
7.0 Public Participation
The development of the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy
Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek bacteria
TMDLs would not have been possible without public participation. Four technical
advisory committee (TAC) meetings and two public meetings were held within the
watershed. The following is a summary of the meetings.
TAC Meeting No. 1: The first TAC meeting was held on November 8, 2006 at the
Scottsville Town Council Chambers in Scottsville, Virginia to present and review the
steps and the data used in the development of the bacteria TMDLs for the Rivanna River
mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, and Beaver Creek listed segments.
TAC Meeting No. 2: The second TAC meeting was held on June 6, 2007 at the
Albemarle County Office Building in Charlottesville, Virginia to discuss the preliminary
source assessment for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy
Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds.
TAC Meeting No. 3: The third TAC meeting was held on October 4, 2007 at the
Education Building at the Ivy Creek Natural Area in Charlottesville, Virginia to discuss
the model calibration and validation results and the preliminary TMDL bacteria
allocation scenarios for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy
Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek watersheds.
TAC Meeting No. 4: The forth TAC meeting was held on December 13, 2007 at the
Albemarle County Office Building in Charlottesville, Virginia to discuss the final TMDL
bacteria allocation scenarios for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River,
Preddy Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek
watersheds.
Public Participation 7-1
Public Meeting No. 1: The first public meeting was held in on March 15, 2007 at the
Albemarle County Office Building in Charlottesville, Virginia to present the process for
TMDL development of the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy
Creek and tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek bacteria
impaired segments. Also presented was the potential bacteria sources data throughout the
watershed as well as the data required for TMDL development. Forty-five people
attended the meeting. Copies of the presentation were available for public distribution.
This meeting was publicly noticed in the Virginia Register. Written comments were
received from the Rivanna Conservation Society during the 30-day comment period, and
DEQ responded to these comments.
Public Meeting No. 2: The second public meeting was held on February 11, 2008 at the
Albemarle County Office Building in Charlottesville, Virginia to present the final TMDL
results for the Rivanna River mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and
tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek bacteria impaired
segments. Twenty-nine people attended the meeting. Copies of the presentation were
available from public distribution. This meeting was publically noticed in the Virginia
Registrar. Three sets of written comments were received during the 30-day comment
period, which were addressed by VADEQ.
Public Participation 7-2
References
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, (ASAE) 1998. ASAE standards, 45'
edition.
Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. 3`a Ed.
McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics
formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling. Athens, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001a. Better Assessment Science
Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS), Version 3 Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001b. EPA 84 1 -R-00-002. Protocols for
developing Pathogen TMDLs. Available at
<bq://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/patho eg n all.pdf>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. "Overview or Current Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program and Regulations." Available at
<http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/overviewfs.html > Website visited August,
2005.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. 1990 U.S. Census Data for Virginia. Available at
<bq://www.census.gov/>
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 State and County Quick Facts, Virginia. Available at
<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51121.httnl>
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). 2000.
STATSGO Soils Browser CD-ROM Version 1.0. February 2000.
The Virginia Agricultural Statistic Service. 2002. The 2001 Virginia Equine Report.
Issued by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the
National Agricultural Statistics Service- U.S. Department of Agriculture;
Richmond, VA.
Virginia. State Water Control Board. 2006. 9 VAC 25-260. Virginia Water Quality
Standards. Available at <http://www.deq.vir iginia. ov/wgs.html >
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 1998. 1998 Water Quality
Assessment Report, Part III Surface Water Monitoring. Available at <
http://www.deq.state.va.us/wga/305b 1998.html>
References R-1
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2000. Total Maximum Daily
Load Program, A Ten Year Implementation Plan -Report to the Governor, House
Committees, and Senate Committees, November 1, 2000. Available at
<http://www.deq.state.va.us/tmdl/reports/hb30.pdf5
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2002. 2002 Water Quality
Assessment Report, Part III Surface Water Monitoring. Available at
<http://www.deq.state.va.us/wga/305b.html>
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2003. Guidance Manual for
Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plans. Available at
<http://www.deq.state.va.us/tmdl/implans/ip uguide.pdf>
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2003. Guidance Memo No. 03-
2012 HSPF model Calibration and Verification for Bacteria TMDLs.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2004a. 2004a 305(b)/303(d)
Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report, (draft). Available at
<http://www.deg.state.va.us/wga/3 05 b2004. html>
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2004b. "Total Maximum Daily
Loads, Background -Legal and Regulatory Framework." Available at
<http://www.deg.state.va.us/tmdl/back rg html>
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2005. "Total Maximum Daily
Loads." Available at <http://www.deq.state.va.us/tmdl>
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2006. Final 2006 305(b)/303(d)
Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. Available at
< http://www.deq.state.va.us/wga/ir2006.html>
References R-2
APPENDIX A:
Model Representation of Stream Reach Networks
Appendix A A-1
Model Representation of the Rivanna River
Model
Appendix A A-2
APPENDIX B:
Monthly Fecal Coliform Build-up Rates and Direct
Deposition Loads
Appendix B B-1
Table I I
I
I : 1
1\
1
Aril
1 I
Land Use
Jan
Feb
Mar
Jun
Cropland
4.50E07
1.00El0
9.70E09
2.00E10
1.70E10
Forest
3.93E07
3.93E07
3.93E07
3.93E07
q5.8OEO9
3.93E07
Hi Residential
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35E09
Low Residential
1.35E09
1.35EO9
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35E09
Pasture
5.80EO9
5.80E09
5.80E09
5.90E09
5.80E09
l�A \\l1111� \ll �\I llllllll\�111111L
1
I
Land Use
Jul
AugSep
Oct
Nov
Dee
Cropland
6.70EO9
1.70E10
9.70E09
2.00E10
1.00E10
4.70EO7
Forest
3.93EO7
3.93E07
3.93E07
3.93E07
3.93EO7
3.93EO7
High Residential
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35EO9
1.35E09
Low Residential
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35E09
1.35EO9
1.35E09
Pasture
5.90E09
5.80E09
5.90E09
5.90E09
5.90EO9
5.60EO9
TableIMonthly
1 Land Use
Build-up
Jan Feb Mar
Rates efu/ac/day
Aril May
Jun
Cropland
4.50E07 1.00E10
9.70E09
2.00E10 6.80E09
1.70E10
Forest
3.93E07 3.93EO7
3.93E07
3.93E07 3.93EO7
3.93E07
High Residential
1.35E09 1.35EO9
1.35EO9
1.35E09 1.35EO9
1.35E09
Low Residential
1.35E09 1.35EO9
1.35E09
1.35E09 1.35E09
1.35E09
Pasture
5.80EO9 5.80E09
5.80E09
5.90E09 5.80E09
5.80E09
. 1 I I
December)
Land Use
Jul AugSep
Oct Nov
Dec
Cropland
6.70EO9 1.70E10
9.70E09
2.00E10 1.00E10
4.70E07
Forest
3.93EO7 3.93EO7
3.93E07
3.93E07 3.93EO7
3.93EO7
High Residential
1.35E09 1.35EO9
1.35E09
1.35E09 1.35EO9
1.35E09
Low Residential
1.35E09 1.35EO9
1.35E09
1.35E09 1.35EO9
1.35E09
Pasture
5.90EO9 5.80E09
5.90E09
5.90E09 5.90E09
5.60E09
Appendix B B-2
Ile C-5: Preddy Creek
I Land Use
and Tributaries
Jan
Feb
MonthlyBuild-up
Mar
Rates
Aril
efu/ac/day
May
Wm
Jun
Cropland
4.30E07
L00E10
9.00E09
1.90E10
6.00E09
1.60E10
Forest
3.51E07
3.51E07
3.51E07
3.51E07
3.51E07
3.51E07
High Residential
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
Low Residential
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
Pasture
5.30E09
5.40E09
5.40E09
5.50E09
5.40E09
5.50E09
Table1: Preddy Creek
1 December)
Land Use
and Tributaries
Jul
AugSep
Monthly
Oct
Nov Dec
Cropland
6.10E09
1.60E10
9.00E09
1.90E10
9.90E09 4.40E07
Forest
3.51E07
3.51E07
3.51E07
3.51E07
3.51E07 3.51E07
High Residential
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08 8.98E08
Low Residential
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08
8.98E08 8.98E08
Pasture
5.40E09
5.50E09
5.50E09
5.60E09
5.40E09 5.30E09
.Trh.. 15 M4 ki1
.Rz='&Mm1
Feb
Mar
Aril
May
Jun
Land Use
Jan
Cropland
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
Forest
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.31E07
High Residential
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
Low Residential
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
Pasture
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
1
:
1
1 1 1 II ITURJul
Au
Se
Oct
Nov
Dec
7Residential
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.31E07
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
3.52E09
Pasture
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
O.00E00
Appendix B B-3
Table 1: Mechums
Land Use
River Monthly
Jan
Build-up
Feb
Mar Aril
May
1
Jun
Cropland
4.30E07
6.30EO9
5.70E09
1.20E10
3.80EO9
1.00E10
Forest
3.30E07
3.30EO7
3.30E07
3.30E07
3.30E07
3.30EO7
High Residential
1.63E09
1.63E09
1.63EO9
1.63E09
1.63E09
1.63EO9
Low Residential
1.63E09
1.63EO9
1.63EO9
1.63E09
1.63E09
1.63EO9
Pasture
4.60E09
4.60EO9
4.60E09
4.70E09
4.60EO9
4.70EO9
TableI: Mechums River MonthlyBuild-up
December)
Land Use Jul
AugSep
Oct
I
Nov Dec
Cropland 3.70E09
1.00ElO
5.70E09
1.20E10
6.20E10 4.30EO7
Forest 3.30E07
3.30EO7
3.30E07
3.30E07
3.30EO7 3.30EO7
High Residential 1.63E09
1.63EO9
1.63EO9
1.63E09
1.63EO9 1.63EO9
Low Residential 1.63E09
1.63E09
1.63EO9
1.63E09
1.63EO9 1.63EO9
Pasture 4.60E09
4.70EO9
4.60E09
4.70E09
4.60EO9 4.50EO9
TableBeaver Creek
Land Use
Monthlyi
Jan
Feb
Mar
Aril
May
1
Jun
Cropland
4.50E07
6.50EO9
5.90E09
1.20E10
3.90EO9
1.00E10
Forest
3.72EO7
3.72EO7
3.72E07
3.72E07
3.72EO7
3.72EO7
High Residential
9.79E08
9.79E08
9.79EO8
9.79E08
9.79EO8
9.79EO8
Low Residential
9.79E08
9.79E08
9.79EO8
9.79E08
9.79EO8
9.79EO8
Pasture
5.30E09
5.40EO9
5.40E09
5.50E09
5.40EO9
5.50EO9
TableBeaver Creek
Land Use
MonthlyBuild-up
Jul
AugSep
R
Oct
1 December)
Nov
Dec
Cropland
3.90E09
1.00El0
5.90E09
1.20E10
6.40EO9
4.60EO7
Forest
3.72E07
3.72EO7
3.72E07
3.72E07
3.72EO7
3.72EO7
High Residential
9.79E08
9.79E08
9.79EO8
9.79E08
9.79EO8
9.79EO8
Low Residential
9.79E08
9.79EO8
9.79EO8
9.79E08
9.79EO8
9.79EO8
Pasture
5.40E09
5.50EO9
5.40E09
5.50E09
5.40EO9
5.30EO9
Appendix B B-4
Table
Month
1
Direct Cattle
l l 1
Direct Septic
1.
Direct Wildlife
1
1.75E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
2
2.40E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
3
3.56E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
4
3.45E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
5
4.46E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
6
4.32E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
7
4.46E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
8
3.56E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
9
2.57E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
10
2.66E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
11
1.70E+11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
12
1.75 E+ 11
3.04E+06
1.22E+09
Table
Month
i 1rk Rivanna River Monthly
Direct Cattle
Direct Deposition Rates
Direct Septic Direct Wildlife
1
2.51E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
2
3.45E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
3
5.11E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
4
4.94E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
5
6.39E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
6
6.19E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
7
6.39E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
8
5.11E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
9
3.69E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
10
3.81E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
11
2.44E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
12
2.51E+11
3.36E+06
1.79E+09
Appendix B B-5
Month
1
1 0- 11 I I I
Direct Septic Direct Wildlife
1
74.13E+1
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
2
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
3
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
4
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
5
7.66E+11
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
6
7.42E+11
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
7
7.66E+11
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
8
6.12E+11
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
9
4.42E+11
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
10
4.57E+11
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
11
2.92E+11
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
12
3.01E+11
3.91E+06
3.00E+09
Table1: Meadow
Month
Creek Monthly1
Direct Cattle
Deposition
Direct Septic
Direct Wildlife
1
5.42E+09
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
2
7.43E+09
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
3
1.10E+10
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
4
1.07E+10
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
5
1.38E+10
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
6
1.34E+10
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
7
1.38E+10
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
8
1.10E+10
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
9
7.96E+09
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
10
8.23E+09
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
11
5.26E+09
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
12
5.42E+09
1.51E+06
4.90E+08
Appendix B B-6
Direct Septic Direct Wildlife
7474.43E++7
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
5
5.73E+11
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
6
5.55E+11
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
7
5.73E+11
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
8
4.58E+11
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
9
3.31E+11
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
10
3.42E+11
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
11
2.18E+11
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
12
2.25E+11
4.07E+06
2.75E+09
Table C-18: Beaver
Month
Creek Monthly Direct
Direct Cattle
Deposition Rates (cfu/ac/day)
Direct Septic
Direct Wildlife
1
9.06E+10
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
2
1.24E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
3
1.84E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
4
1.78E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
5
2.31E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
6
2.23E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
7
2.31E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
8
1.84E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
9
1.33E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
10
1.38E+11
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
11
8.79E+10
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
12
9.06E+10
1.03E+06
6.18E+08
Appendix B B-7
APPENDIX C:
Livestock and Wildlife Inventories by
Su bwatershed
Appendix C C-1
C-1:
Sub-
watershed
LivestockTable i
Beef Cows Milk Cows
waters i' i
Hogs and
Pigs
Sheep and
Lambs
Chickens
Horses
1
604
58
0
38
42
0
2
561
40
3
74
46
180
3
1,380
131
0
89
95
6
4
685
57
5
83
57
224
5
642
34
5
119
59
371
6
333
18
3
62
30
192
7
143
8
1
27
13
83
8
107
6
1
20
10
62
9
352
19
3
65
32
203
10
34
2
0
6
3
20
11
191
10
2
35
17
110
12
78
4
1
15
7
45
13
315
17
3
58
29
182
14
428
23
4
79
39
247
15
452
24
4
84
41
261
16
254
14
2
47
23
147
17
13
1
0
8
1
7
18
768
41
6
143
70
443
19
471
25
4
88
43
272
20
94
5
1
17
9
54
23
46
2
0
9
4
27
25
118
6
1
22
11
68
35
78
4
1
14
7
45
36
285
15
2
53
26
164
38
33
2
0
6
3
19
39
67
4
1
12
6
38
40
215
11
2
40
19
124
41
85
5
1
16
8
49
Total
8,832
585
56
1,329
750
3,643
Appendix C C-2
1
W1 1
I I I
Sub-
watershed
Deer
Raccoon
Muskrat
Beaver
Goose
Mallard
Wood
Duck
Wild
Turkey
1
795
576
2,491
272
68
2
2
169
2
919
756
3,267
356
78
2
2
195
3
1,287
1,108
4,789
522
110
3
3
274
4
1,139
1,005
4,341
474
97
3
3
242
5
1,086
1,017
4,395
479
92
3
3
231
6
849
823
3,558
388
72
3
2
181
7
459
408
1,761
192
39
1
1
98
8
202
148
639
70
17
1
0
43
9
440
301
1,301
142
37
1
1
94
10
737
513
2,215
242
63
2
1
157
11
206
118
509
55
18
0
0
44
12
313
222
958
105
27
1
1
67
13
416
387
1,671
182
35
1
1
89
14
719
597
2,580
281
61
2
2
153
15
1,055
914
3,952
431
90
3
3
224
16
383
259
1,118
122
33
1
1
81
17
271
176
760
83
23
1
0
58
18
904
740
3,199
349
77
2
2
192
19
665
517
2,235
244
57
2
1
141
20
412
310
1,340
146
35
1
1
88
21
257
164
709
77
22
1
0
55
22
393
270
1,166
127
33
1
1
84
23
234
116
501
55
20
0
0
50
24
287
265
1,147
125
24
1
1
61
25
61
46
198
22
5
0
0
13
26
68
37
159
17
6
0
0
14
27
403
296
1,277
139
34
1
1
27
28
128
86
373
41
11
0
0
27
Total
15,088
12,174
52,609
5,739
1,284
38
34
3,151
Appendix C C-3
APPENDIX D:
Sensitivity Analysis
Appendix D D-1
Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis of the fecal coliform loadings and the waterbody response
provides a better understanding of the watershed conditions that lead to the water quality
standard violation and provides insight and direction in developing the TMDL allocation
and implementation. Potential sources of fecal coliform include non -point (land -based)
sources such as runoff from livestock grazing, manure and biosolids land application,
residential waste from failed septic systems or straight pipes, and wildlife. Some of these
sources are dry weather driven and others are wet weather driven.
The objective of the sensitivity analysis was to assess the impacts of variation of model
calibration parameters on the simulation of flow and the violation of the fecal coliform
standard in the six impairments. For the January 2000 to December 2006 period, the
model was run with 110 percent and 90 percent of calibrated values of the parameters.
The scenarios that were analyzed include the following:
• 10 percent increase in LZSN
• 10 percent decrease in LZSN
• 10 percent increase in INFILT
• 10 percent decrease in INFILT
• 10 percent increase in AGWRC
• 10 percent decrease in AGWRC
• 10 percent increase in UZSN
• 10 percent decrease in UZSN
• 10 percent increase in INTFW
• 10 percent decrease in INTFW
• 10 percent increase in IRC
• 10 percent decrease in IRC
• 10 percent increase in LZETP
• 10 percent decrease in LZETP
The modeled flows for different sensitivity runs were compared with observed flows at
the gage and the coefficients of determination of the hydrologic sensitivity analysis are
Appendix D D-2
presented in Table Gl. Based on these tables it can be seen that the calibration
parameters affect the coefficient of determination in the decreasing order of AGWRC,
IRC, INFILT, LZSN, INTFW, UZSN and LZETP.
The sensitivity analysis was also performed for two water quality parameters, WSQOP
and FSTDEC, by simulating the fecal coliform concentrations for 120 percent and 80
percent of their calibrated values. The rate of violation of the Monthly Geometric Mean
Water Quality Standard was determined for each scenario and compared with the rate of
violation under the water quality calibration run. The changes in the rate of violation are
presented in Table G-2. The results of the sensitivity analysis show that at the calibrated
values of WSQOP and FSTDEC there is no measurable effect on the violation of the
water quality standards.
G-1: Sensitivity
Variationi
Parameter
Analysis: Variation in Coefficient of
DeterminationTable
i III II.
Coefficient of Determination
+10% change in parameter
-10% change in parameter
LZSN
0.770
0.769
INFILT
0.766
0.773
AGWRC
0.761
0.745
UZSN
0.771
0.769
INTFW
0.765
0.774
IRC
0.770
0.770
LZETP
0.770
0.770
Calibrated Parameters
0.770
Appendix D D-3
Table Change I Violation
Calibration Parameter Values
Rate From
WSQOP
Change I
FSTDEC
Segment #
20%
-20%
20%
-20%
Preddy Creek (Segment 4
-1.7%
0.0%
-1.7%
0.0%
Mechums River (Segment 15
0.0%
3.3%
-1.7%
3.3%
Beaver Creek (Segment 36
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Meadow Creek (Segment 17
-1.7°/o
0.0%
-1.7%
0.0°/0
North Fork Rivanna (Segment 8
0.0°/0
1.7%
-1.7°/u
1.7%
Rivanna River (Segment 35)
-1.7%
0.0%
-8.3%
1.7%
Appendix D D-4
Section 8. Qualified personnel
The following personnel are responsible for inspections;
(Provide the name, telephone number, and qualifications of the qualified personnel conducting
inspections.)
:D
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Section 9. Signed Certification
(Provide certification according to 9VAC25-870-370. For purposes of plan review and approvals, this
certification should be the owner of the property, the same signature as appears on the bonds and
applications. Another operator can be designated on the delegation of authority form to follow.)
CERTIFICATION
" I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather
and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted
is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations."
Owner/Operator Name: _TBD
Company:
Title:
Signature:
Date:
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Section 10. Delegation of authority.
(Provide the persons or positions with authority to sign inspection reports or to modify the stormwater
pollution prevention plan. A formal, signed delegation of authority is needed.)
Delegation of Authority
I, (name), hereby designate the person or specifically described position below
to be a duly authorized representative for the purpose of overseeing compliance with environmental
requirements, including the Construction General Permit, at the
construction site. The designee is authorized to sign any reports, stormwater pollution prevention plans
and all other documents required by the permit.
(name of person or position)
(company)
(address)
(city, state, zip)
(phone)
By signing this authorization, I confirm that I meet the requirements to make such a designation as set
forth in the Construction General Permit (CGP), and that the designee above meets the definition of a
"duly authorized representative".
Operator Name:
Company:
Title:
Signature:
Date:
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Section 11. General permit copy
(Provide a copy of the construction general permit, 9VAC25-880)
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
General Permit No.: VAR10
Effective Date: July 1, 2019
Expiration Date: June 30, 2024
GENERAL VPDES PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES OF
STORMWATER FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AND THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and pursuant to the
Virginia Stormwater Management Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, operators of
construction activities are authorized to discharge to surface waters within the boundaries of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, except those specifically named in State Water Control Board
regulations that prohibit such discharges.
The authorized discharge shall be in accordance with the registration statement filed with the
Department of Environmental Quality, this cover page, Part I - Discharge Authorization and
Special Conditions, Part II - Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Part III - Conditions
Applicable to All VPDES Permits as set forth in this general permit.
Construction General Permit
Effective July 1, 2019
Page 2 of 26
10M.T 1
DISCHARGE AUTHORIZATION AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. Coverage under this general permit.
During the period beginning with the date of coverage under this general permit and lasting
until the general permit's expiration date, the operator is authorized to discharge stormwater
from construction activities.
This general permit also authorizes stormwater discharges from support activities (e.g.,
concrete or asphalt batch plants, equipment staging yards, material storage areas, excavated
material disposal areas, borrow areas) located on -site or off -site provided that:
a. The support activity is directly related to the construction activity that is required to have
general permit coverage for discharges of stormwater from construction activities;
b. The support activity is not a commercial operation, nor does it serve multiple unrelated
construction activities by different operators;
c. The support activity does not operate beyond the completion of the last construction
activity it supports;
d. The support activity is identified in the registration statement at the time of general permit
coverage;
e. Appropriate control measures are identified in a stormwater pollution prevention plan and
implemented to address the discharges from the support activity areas; and
f. All applicable state, federal, and local approvals are obtained for the support activity.
B. Limitations on coverage.
1. Post -construction discharges. This general permit does not authorize stormwater discharges
that originate from the site after construction activities have been completed and the site,
including any support activity sites covered under the general permit registration, has
undergone final stabilization. Post -construction industrial stormwater discharges may need to
be covered by a separate VPDES permit.
Discharges mixed with nonstormwater. This general permit does not authorize discharges that
are mixed with sources of nonstormwater, other than those discharges that are identified in
Part I E (Authorized nonstormwater discharges) and are in compliance with this general
permit.
Discharges covered by another state permit. This general permit does not authorize
discharges of stormwater from construction activities that have been covered under an
individual permit or required to obtain coverage under an alternative general permit.
Page 3 of 26
4. Impaired waters and total maximum daily load (TMDL) limitation.
Nutrient and sediment impaired waters. Discharges of stormwater from construction
activities to surface waters identified as impaired in the 2016 § 305(b)/303(d) Water
Quality Assessment Integrated Report or for which a TMDL wasteload allocation has
been established and approved prior to the term of this general permit for (i) sediment
or a sediment -related parameter (i.e., total suspended solids or turbidity) or (ii)
nutrients (i.e., nitrogen or phosphorus) are not eligible for coverage under this general
permit unless the operator develops, implements, and maintains a stormwater
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in accordance with Part II B 5 of this permit that
minimizes the pollutants of concern and, when applicable, is consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of the approved TMDL wasteload allocations and
implements an inspection frequency consistent with Part II G 2 a.
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) impaired waters. Discharges of stormwater from
construction activities that include the demolition of any structure with at least 10,000
square feet of floor space built or renovated before January 1, 1980, to surface waters
identified as impaired in the 2016 § 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment
Integrated Report or for which a TMDL wasteload allocation has been established and
approved prior to the term of this general permit for PCB are not eligible for coverage
under this general permit unless the operator develops, implements, and maintains a
SWPPP in accordance with Part II B 6 of this permit that minimizes the pollutants of
concern and, when applicable, is consistent with the assumptions and requirements
of the approved TMDL wasteload allocations, and implements an inspection frequency
consistent with Part II G 2 a.
Exceptional waters limitation. Discharges of stormwater from construction activities not
previously covered under the general permit effective on July 1, 2014, to exceptional waters
identified in 9VAC25-260-30 A 3 c are not eligible for coverage under this general permit
unless the operator develops, implements, and maintains a SWPPP in accordance with Part
II B 7 of this permit and implements an inspection frequency consistent with Part II G 2 a.
6. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts
C. Commingled discharges. Discharges authorized by this general permit may be commingled
with other sources of stormwater that are not required to be covered under a state permit, so long
as the commingled discharge is in compliance with this general permit. Discharges authorized by
a separate state or VPDES permit may be commingled with discharges authorized by this general
permit so long as all such discharges comply with all applicable state and VPDES permit
requirements.
D. Prohibition of nonstormwater discharges. Except as provided in Parts I A 2, 1 C, and I E, all
discharges covered by this general permit shall be composed entirely of stormwater associated
with construction activities. All other discharges including the following are prohibited:
1. Wastewater from washout of concrete;
2. Wastewater from the washout and cleanout of stucco, paint, form release oils, curing
compounds, and other construction materials;
Page 4 of 26
3. Fuels, oils, or other pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation and maintenance;
4. Oils, toxic substances, or hazardous substances from spills or other releases; and
5. Soaps, solvents, or detergents used in equipment and vehicle washing.
E. Authorized nonstormwater discharges. The following nonstormwater discharges from
construction activities are authorized by this general permit when discharged in compliance with
this general permit:
1. Discharges from firefighting activities;
2. Fire hydrant flushings;
3. Waters used to wash vehicles or equipment where soaps, solvents, or detergents have not
been used and the wash water has been filtered, settled, or similarly treated prior to discharge;
4. Water used to control dust that has been filtered, settled, or similarly treated prior to discharge;
5. Potable water sources, including uncontaminated waterline flushings, managed in a manner
to avoid an instream impact;
6. Routine external building wash down where soaps, solvents or detergents have not been used
and the wash water has been filtered, settled, or similarly treated prior to discharge;
7. Pavement wash waters where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred
(or where all spilled or leaked material has been removed prior to washing); where soaps,
solvents, or detergents have not been used; and where the wash water has been filtered,
settled, or similarly treated prior to discharge;
8. Uncontaminated air conditioning or compressor condensate;
9. Uncontaminated ground water or spring water;
10. Foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such
as solvents;
11. Uncontaminated excavation dewatering, including dewatering of trenches and excavations
that have been filtered, settled, or similarly treated prior to discharge; and
12. Landscape irrigation.
F. Termination of general permit coverage.
1. The operator of the construction activity shall submit a notice of termination in accordance
with 9VAC25-880-60, unless a registration statement was not required to be submitted in
accordance with 9VAC25-880-50 A 1 c or A 2 b for single-family detached residential
structures, to the VSMP authority after one or more of the following conditions have been met:
Page 5 of 26
a. Necessary permanent control measures included in the SWPPP for the site are in place
and functioning effectively and final stabilization has been achieved on all portions of the
site for which the operator has operational control. When applicable, long term
responsibility and maintenance requirements for permanent control measures shall be
recorded in the local land records prior to the submission of a complete and accurate
notice of termination and the construction record drawing prepared;
b. Another operator has assumed control over all areas of the site that have not been finally
stabilized and obtained coverage for the ongoing discharge;
c. Coverage under an alternative VPDES or state permit has been obtained; or
d. For individual lots in residential construction only, final stabilization as defined in 9VAC25-
880-1 has been completed, including providing written notification to the homeowner and
incorporating a copy of the notification and signed certification statement into the SWPPP,
and the residence has been transferred to the homeowner.
The notice of termination shall be submitted no later than 30 days after one of the above
conditions in subdivision 1 of this subsection is met.
3. Termination of authorization to discharge for the conditions set forth in subdivision 1 a of this
subsection shall be effective upon notification from the department that the provisions of
subdivision 1 a of this subsection have been met or 60 days after submittal of a complete and
accurate notice of termination in accordance with 9VAC25-880-60 C, whichever occurs first.
4. Authorization to discharge terminates at midnight on the date that the notice of termination is
submitted for the conditions set forth in subdivisions 1 b through 1 d of this subsection unless
otherwise notified by the VSMP authority or department.
5. The notice of termination shall be signed in accordance with Part III K of this general permit.
G. Water quality protection.
1. The operator shall select, install, implement, and maintain control measures as identified in
the SWPPP at the construction site that minimize pollutants in the discharge as necessary to
ensure that the operator's discharge does not cause or contribute to an excursion above any
applicable water quality standard.
If it is determined by the department that the operator's discharges are causing, have
reasonable potential to cause, or are contributing to an excursion above any applicable water
quality standard, the department, in consultation with the VSMP authority, may take
appropriate enforcement action and require the operator to:
a. Modify or implement additional control measures in accordance with Part II C to
adequately address the identified water quality concerns;
b. Submit valid and verifiable data and information that are representative of ambient
conditions and indicate that the receiving water is attaining water quality standards; or
Page 6 of 26
c. Submit an individual permit application in accordance with 9VAC25-870-410 B 3.
All written responses required under this chapter shall include a signed certification
consistent with Part III K.
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
A. Stormwater pollution prevent plan.
A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed prior to the submission
of a registration statement and implemented for the construction activity, including any support
activity, covered by this general permit. SWPPPs shall be prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices. Construction activities that are part of a larger common plan of
development or sale and disturb less than one acre may utilize a SWPPP template provided
by the department and need not provide a separate stormwater management plan if one has
been prepared and implemented for the larger common plan of development or sale.
The SWPPP requirements of this general permit may be fulfilled by incorporating by reference
other plans such as a spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan developed for
the site under § 311 of the federal Clean Water Act or best management practices (BMP)
programs otherwise required for the facility provided that the incorporated plan meets or
exceeds the SWPPP requirements of Part II B. All plans incorporated by reference into the
SWPPP become enforceable under this general permit. If a plan incorporated by reference
does not contain all of the required elements of the SWPPP, the operator shall develop the
missing elements and include them in the SWPPP.
3. Any operator that was authorized to discharge under the general permit effective July 1, 2014,
and that intends to continue coverage under this general permit, shall update its stormwater
pollution prevention plan to comply with the requirements of this general permit no later than
60 days after the date of coverage under this general permit.
B. Contents. The SWPPP shall include the following items:
1. General information.
a. A signed copy of the registration statement, if required, for coverage under the general
VPDES permit for discharges of stormwater from construction activities;
b. Upon receipt, a copy of the notice of coverage under the general VPDES permit for
discharges of stormwater from construction activities (i.e., notice of coverage letter);
c. Upon receipt, a copy of the general VPDES permit for discharges of stormwater from
construction activities;
d. A narrative description of the nature of the construction activity, including the function of
the project (e.g., low density residential, shopping mall, highway, etc.);
e. A legible site plan identifying:
Page 7 of 26
(1) Directions of stormwater flow and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading
activities;
(2) Limits of land disturbance including steep slopes and natural buffers around surface
waters that will not be disturbed;
(3) Locations of major structural and nonstructural control measures, including sediment
basins and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers, and other measures intended to
filter, settle, or similarly treat sediment, that will be installed between disturbed areas
and the undisturbed vegetated areas in order to increase sediment removal and
maximize stormwater infiltration;
(4) Locations of surface waters;
(5) Locations where concentrated stormwater is discharged;
(6) Locations of any support activities, including (i) areas where equipment and vehicle
washing, wheel wash water, and other wash water is to occur; (ii) storage areas for
chemicals such as acids, fuels, fertilizers, and other lawn care chemicals; (iii) concrete
wash out areas; (iv) vehicle fueling and maintenance areas; (v) sanitary waste
facilities, including those temporarily placed on the construction site; and (vi)
construction waste storage; and
(7) When applicable, the location of the on -site rain gauge or the methodology established
in consultation with the VSMP authority used to identify measurable storm events for
inspection as allowed by Part II G 2 a (1) (ii) or Part II G 2 b (2).
Erosion and sediment control plan.
a. An erosion and sediment control plan designed and approved in accordance with the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (9VAC25-840), an "agreement in lieu
of a plan" as defined in 9VAC25-840-10 from the VESCP authority, or an erosion and
sediment control plan prepared in accordance with annual standards and specifications
approved by the department.
b. All erosion and sediment control plans shall include a statement describing the
maintenance responsibilities required for the erosion and sediment controls used.
c. An approved erosion and sediment control plan, "agreement in lieu of a plan," or erosion
and sediment control plan prepared in accordance with department -approved annual
standards and specifications, implemented to:
(1) Control the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff within the site to minimize soil
erosion;
(2) Control stormwater discharges, including peak flow rates and total stormwater volume,
to minimize erosion at outlets and to minimize downstream channel and stream bank
erosion;
Page 8 of 26
(3) Minimize the amount of soil exposed during the construction activity;
(4) Minimize the disturbance of steep slopes;
(5) Minimize sediment discharges from the site in a manner that addresses (i) the amount,
frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation; (ii) the nature of resulting stormwater
runoff; and (iii) soil characteristics, including the range of soil particle sizes present on
the site;
(6) Provide and maintain natural buffers around surface waters, direct stormwater to
vegetated areas to increase sediment removal, and maximize stormwater infiltration,
unless infeasible;
(7) Minimize soil compaction and, unless infeasible, preserve topsoil;
(8) Ensure initiation of stabilization activities, as defined in 9VAC25-880-1, of disturbed
areas immediately whenever any clearing, grading, excavating, or other land -
disturbing activities have permanently ceased on any portion of the site, or temporarily
ceased on any portion of the site and will not resume for a period exceeding 14 days;
and
(9) Utilize outlet structures that withdraw stormwater from the surface (i.e., above the
permanent pool or wet storage water surface elevation), unless infeasible, when
discharging from sediment basins or sediment traps.
3. Stormwater management plan.
a. Except for those projects identified in Part II B 3 b, a stormwater management plan
approved by the VSMP authority as authorized under the Virginia Stormwater
Management Program (VSMP) Regulation (9VAC25-870), or an "agreement in lieu of a
stormwater management plan" as defined in 9VAC25-870-10 from the VSMP authority, or
a stormwater management plan prepared in accordance with annual standards and
specifications approved by the department.
b. For any operator meeting the conditions of 9VAC25-870-47 B of the VSMP regulation, an
approved stormwater management plan is not required. In lieu of an approved stormwater
management plan, the SWPPP shall include a description of, and all necessary
calculations supporting, all post -construction stormwater management measures that will
be installed prior to the completion of the construction process to control pollutants in
stormwater discharges after construction operations have been completed. Structural
measures should be placed on upland soils to the degree possible. Such measures must
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable VESCP authority, VSMP
authority, state, and federal requirements, and any necessary permits must be obtained.
Pollution prevention plan. A pollution prevention plan that addresses potential pollutant -
generating activities that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of stormwater
discharges from the construction activity, including any support activity. The pollution
prevention plan shall:
a. Identify the potential pollutant -generating activities and the pollutant that is expected to be
exposed to stormwater;
Page 9 of 26
b. Describe the location where the potential pollutant -generating activities will occur, or if
identified on the site plan, reference the site plan;
c. Identify all nonstormwater discharges, as authorized in Part I E of this general permit, that
are or will be commingled with stormwater discharges from the construction activity,
including any applicable support activity;
d. Identify the person responsible for implementing the pollution prevention practice or
practices for each pollutant -generating activity (if other than the person listed as the
qualified personnel);
e. Describe the pollution prevention practices and procedures that will be implemented to:
(1) Prevent and respond to leaks, spills, and other releases including (i) procedures for
expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up spills, leaks, and other releases;
and (ii) procedures for reporting leaks, spills, and other releases in accordance with
Part III G;
(2) Prevent the discharge of spilled and leaked fuels and chemicals from vehicle fueling
and maintenance activities (e.g., providing secondary containment such as spill
berms, decks, spill containment pallets, providing cover where appropriate, and having
spill kits readily available);
(3) Prevent the discharge of soaps, solvents, detergents, and wash water from
construction materials, including the clean-up of stucco, paint, form release oils, and
curing compounds (e.g., providing (i) cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs)
to prevent contact with stormwater; (ii) collection and proper disposal in a manner to
prevent contact with stormwater; and (iii) a similarly effective means designed to
prevent discharge of these pollutants);
(4) Minimize the discharge of pollutants from vehicle and equipment washing, wheel wash
water, and other types of washing (e.g., locating activities away from surface waters
and stormwater inlets or conveyance and directing wash waters to sediment basins or
traps, using filtration devices such as filter bags or sand filters, or using similarly
effective controls);
(5) Direct concrete wash water into a leak -proof container or leak -proof settling basin. The
container or basin shall be designed so that no overflows can occur due to inadequate
sizing or precipitation. Hardened concrete wastes shall be removed and disposed of
in a manner consistent with the handling of other construction wastes. Liquid concrete
wastes shall be removed and disposed of in a manner consistent with the handling of
other construction wash waters and shall not be discharged to surface waters;
(6) Minimize the discharge of pollutants from storage, handling, and disposal of
construction products, materials, and wastes including (i) building products such as
asphalt sealants, copper flashing, roofing materials, adhesives, and concrete
admixtures; (ii) pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and landscape
Page 10 of 26
materials; and (iii) construction and domestic wastes such as packaging materials,
scrap construction materials, masonry products, timber, pipe and electrical cuttings,
plastics, Styrofoam, concrete, and other trash or building materials;
(7) Prevent the discharge of fuels, oils, and other petroleum products, hazardous or toxic
wastes, waste concrete, and sanitary wastes;
(8) Address any other discharge from the potential pollutant -generating activities not
addressed above;
(9) Minimize the exposure of waste materials to precipitation by closing or covering waste
containers during precipitation events and at the end of the business day, or
implementing other similarly effective practices. Minimization of exposure is not
required in cases where the exposure to precipitation will not result in a discharge of
pollutants; and
f. Describe procedures for providing pollution prevention awareness of all applicable wastes,
including any wash water, disposal practices, and applicable disposal locations of such
wastes, to personnel in order to comply with the conditions of this general permit. The
operator shall implement the procedures described in the SWPPP.
SWPPP requirements for discharges to nutrient and sediment impaired waters. For
discharges to surface waters (i) identified as impaired in the 2016 § 305(b)/303(d) Water
Quality Assessment Integrated Report or (ii) with an applicable TMDL wasteload allocation
established and approved prior to the term of this general permit for sediment for a sediment -
related parameter (i.e., total suspended solids or turbidity) or nutrients (i.e., nitrogen or
phosphorus), the operator shall:
a. Identify the impaired waters, approved TMDLs, and pollutants of concern in the SWPPP;
and
b. Provide clear direction in the SWPPP that:
(1) Permanent or temporary soil stabilization shall be applied to denuded areas within
seven days after final grade is reached on any portion of the site;
(2) Nutrients shall be applied in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations or an
approved nutrient management plan and shall not be applied during rainfall events;
and
(3) A modified inspection schedule shall be implemented in accordance with Part II G 2 a.
SWPPP requirements for discharges to polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) impaired waters. For
discharges from construction activities that include the demolition of any structure with at least
10,000 square feet of floor space built or renovated before January 1, 1980, to surface waters
(i) identified as impaired in the 2016 § 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated
Report or (ii) with an applicable TMDL wasteload allocation established and approved prior to
the term of this general permit for PCB, the operator shall:
Page 11 of 26
a. Identify the impaired waters, approved TMDLs, and pollutant of concern in the SWPPP;
b. Implement the approved erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Part II B 2;
c. Dispose of waste materials in compliance with applicable state, federal, and local
requirements; and
d. Implement a modified inspection schedule in accordance with Part II G 2 a.
7. SWPPP requirements for discharges to exceptional waters. For discharges to surface waters
identified in 9VAC25-260-30 A 3 c as an exceptional water, the operator shall:
a. Identify the exceptional surface waters in the SWPPP; and
b. Provide clear direction in the SWPPP that:
(1) Permanent or temporary soil stabilization shall be applied to denuded areas within
seven days after final grade is reached on any portion of the site;
(2) Nutrients shall be applied in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations or an
approved nutrient management plan and shall not be applied during rainfall events;
and
(3) A modified inspection schedule shall be implemented in accordance with Part II G 2 a.
8. Identification of qualified personnel. The name, phone number, and qualifications of the
qualified personnel conducting inspections required by this general permit.
9. Delegation of authority. The individuals or positions with delegated authority, in accordance
with Part III K, to sign inspection reports or modify the SWPPP.
10. SWPPP signature. The SWPPP shall be signed and dated in accordance with Part III K.
C. SWPPP amendments, modification, and updates.
1. The operator shall amend the SWPPP whenever there is a change in the design, construction,
operation, or maintenance that has a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to surface
waters and that has not been previously addressed in the SWPPP.
The SWPPP shall be amended if, during inspections or investigations by the operator's
qualified personnel, or by local, state, or federal officials, it is determined that the existing
control measures are ineffective in minimizing pollutants in discharges from the construction
activity. Revisions to the SWPPP shall include additional or modified control measures
designed and implemented to correct problems identified. If approval by the VESCP authority,
VSMP authority, or department is necessary for the control measure, revisions to the SWPPP
shall be completed no later than seven calendar days following approval. Implementation of
these additional or modified control measures shall be accomplished as described in Part II
H.
Page 12 of 26
3. The SWPPP shall clearly identify the contractors that will implement and maintain each control
measure identified in the SWPPP. The SWPPP shall be amended to identify any new
contractor that will implement and maintain a control measure.
4. The operator shall update the SWPPP as soon as possible but no later than seven days
following any modification to its implementation. All modifications or updates to the SWPPP
shall be noted and shall include the following items:
a. A record of dates when:
(1) Major grading activities occur;
(2) Construction activities temporarily or permanently cease on a portion of the site; and
(3) Stabilization measures are initiated;
b. Documentation of replaced or modified controls where periodic inspections or other
information have indicated that the controls have been used inappropriately or incorrectly
and were modified;
c. Areas that have reached final stabilization and where no further SWPPP or inspection
requirements apply;
d. All properties that are no longer under the legal control of the operator and the dates on
which the operator no longer had legal control over each property;
e. The date of any prohibited discharges, the discharge volume released, and what actions
were taken to minimize the impact of the release;
f. Measures taken to prevent the reoccurrence of any prohibited discharge; and
g. Measures taken to address any evidence identified as a result of an inspection required
under Part II G.
5. Amendments, modifications, or updates to the SWPPP shall be signed in accordance with
Part III K.
D. Public notification. Upon commencement of land disturbance, the operator shall post
conspicuously a copy of the notice of coverage letter near the main entrance of the construction
activity. For linear projects, the operator shall post the notice of coverage letter at a publicly
accessible location near an active part of the construction project (e.g., where a pipeline crosses
a public road). The operator shall maintain the posted information until termination of general
permit coverage as specified in Part I F.
E. SWPPP availability.
1. Operators with day-to-day operational control over SWPPP implementation shall have a copy
of the SWPPP available at a central location on -site for use by those identified as having
responsibilities under the SWPPP whenever they are on the construction site.
Page 13 of 26
The operator shall make the SWPPP and all amendments, modifications, and updates
available upon request to the department, the VSMP authority, the EPA, the VESCP authority,
local government officials, or the operator of a municipal separate storm sewer system
receiving discharges from the construction activity. If an on -site location is unavailable to store
the SWPPP when no personnel are present, notice of the SWPPP's location shall be posted
near the main entrance of the construction site.
The operator shall make the SWPPP available for public review in an electronic format or in
hard copy. Information for public access to the SWPPP shall be posted and maintained in
accordance with Part II D. If not provided electronically, public access to the SWPPP may be
arranged upon request at a time and at a publicly accessible location convenient to the
operator or his designee but shall be no less than once per month and shall be during normal
business hours. Information not required to be contained within the SWPPP by this general
permit is not required to be released.
F. SWPPP implementation. The operator shall implement the SWPPP and subsequent
amendments, modifications, and updates from commencement of land disturbance until
termination of general permit coverage as specified in Part I F.
All control measures shall be properly maintained in effective operating condition in
accordance with good engineering practices and, where applicable, manufacturer
specifications. If a site inspection required by Part II G identifies a control measure that is not
operating effectively, corrective actions shall be completed as soon as practicable, but no later
than seven days after discovery or a longer period as established by the VSMP authority, to
maintain the continued effectiveness of the control measures.
If site inspections required by Part II G identify an existing control measure that needs to be
modified or if an additional or alternative control measure is necessary for any reason,
implementation shall be completed prior to the next anticipated measurable storm event. If
implementation prior to the next anticipated measurable storm event is impracticable, then
additional or alternative control measures shall be implemented as soon as practicable, but
no later than seven days after discovery or a longer period as established by the VSMP
authority.
G. SWPPP Inspections.
1. Personnel responsible for on -site and off -site inspections. Inspections required by this general
permit shall be conducted by the qualified personnel identified by the operator in the SWPPP.
The operator is responsible for ensuring that the qualified personnel conduct the inspection.
2. Inspection schedule.
a. For construction activities that discharge to a surface water identified in Part 11 B 5 and B
6 as impaired or having an approved TMDL or Part I B 7 as exceptional, the following
inspection schedule requirements apply:
(1) Inspections shall be conducted at a frequency of (i) at least once every four business
days or (ii) at least once every five business days and no later than 24 hours following
a measurable storm event. In the event that a measurable storm event occurs when
Page 14 of 26
there are more than 24 hours between business days, the inspection shall be
conducted on the next business day; and
(2) Representative inspections as authorized in Part II G 2 d shall not be allowed.
b. Except as specified in Part II G 2 a, inspections shall be conducted at a frequency of:
(1) At least once every five business days; or
(2) At least once every 10 business days and no later than 24 hours following a
measurable storm event. In the event that a measurable storm event occurs when
there are more than 24 hours between business days, the inspection shall be
conducted on the next business day.
c. Where areas have been temporarily stabilized or land -disturbing activities will be
suspended due to continuous frozen ground conditions and stormwater discharges are
unlikely, the inspection frequency described in Part II G 2 a and 2 b may be reduced to
once per month. If weather conditions (such as above freezing temperatures or rain or
snow events) make discharges likely, the operator shall immediately resume the regular
inspection frequency.
d. Except as prohibited in Part II G 2 a (2), representative inspections may be utilized for
utility line installation, pipeline construction, or other similar linear construction activities
provided that:
(1) Temporary or permanent soil stabilization has been installed and vehicle access may
compromise the temporary or permanent soil stabilization and potentially cause
additional land disturbance increasing the potential for erosion;
(2) Inspections occur on the same frequency as other construction activities;
(3) Control measures are inspected along the construction site 0.25 miles above and
below each access point (i.e., where a roadway, undisturbed right-of-way, or other
similar feature intersects the construction activity and access does not compromise
temporary or permanent soil stabilization); and
(4) Inspection locations are provided in the inspection report required by Part II G.
e. If adverse weather causes the safety of the inspection personnel to be in jeopardy, the
inspection may be delayed until the next business day on which it is safe to perform the
inspection. Any time inspections are delayed due to adverse weather conditions, evidence
of the adverse weather conditions shall be included in the SWPPP with the dates of
occurrence.
3. Inspection requirements.
a. As part of the inspection, the qualified personnel shall:
(1) Record the date and time of the inspection and, when applicable, the date and rainfall
amount of the last measurable storm event;
Page 15 of 26
(2) Record the information and a description of any discharges occurring at the time of
the inspection or evidence of discharges occurring prior to the inspection;
(3) Record any land -disturbing activities that have occurred outside of the approved
erosion and sediment control plan;
(4) Inspect the following for installation in accordance with the approved erosion and
sediment control plan, identification of any maintenance needs, and evaluation of
effectiveness in minimizing sediment discharge, including whether the control has
been inappropriately or incorrectly used:
(a) All perimeter erosion and sediment controls, such as silt fence;
(b) Soil stockpiles, when applicable, and borrow areas for stabilization or sediment
trapping measures;
(c) Completed earthen structures, such as dams, dikes, ditches, and diversions for
stabilization and effective impoundment or flow control;
(d) Cut and fill slopes;
(e) Sediment basins and traps, sediment barriers, and other measures installed to
control sediment discharge from stormwater;
(f) Temporary or permanent channels, flumes, or other slope drain structures
installed to convey concentrated runoff down cut and fill slopes;
(g) Storm inlets that have been made operational to ensure that sediment laden
stormwater does not enter without first being filtered or similarly treated; and
(h) Construction vehicle access routes that intersect or access paved or public roads
for minimizing sediment tracking;
(5) Inspect areas that have reached final grade or that will remain dormant for more than
14 days to ensure:
(a) Initiation of stabilization activities have occurred immediately, as defined in
9VAC25-880-1; and
(b) Stabilization activities have been completed within seven days of reaching grade
or stopping work;
(6) Inspect for evidence that the approved erosion and sediment control plan, "agreement
in lieu of a plan," or erosion and sediment control plan prepared in accordance with
department -approved annual standards and specifications has not been properly
implemented. This includes:
Page 16 of 26
(a) Concentrated flows of stormwater in conveyances such as rills, rivulets, or
channels that have not been filtered, settled, or similarly treated prior to discharge,
or evidence thereof;
(b) Sediment laden or turbid flows of stormwater that have not been filtered or settled
to remove sediments prior to discharge;
(c) Sediment deposition in areas that drain to unprotected stormwater inlets or catch
basins that discharge to surface waters. Inlets and catch basins with failing
sediment controls due to improper installation, lack of maintenance, or inadequate
design are considered unprotected;
(d) Sediment deposition on any property (including public and private streets) outside
of the construction activity covered by this general permit;
(e) Required stabilization has not been initiated or completed or is not effective on
portions of the site;
(f) Sediment basins without adequate wet or dry storage volume or sediment basins
that allow the discharge of stormwater from below the surface of the wet storage
portion of the basin;
(g) Sediment traps without adequate wet or dry storage or sediment traps that allow
the discharge of stormwater from below the surface of the wet storage portion of
the trap; and
(h) Land disturbance or sediment deposition outside of the approved area to be
disturbed;
(7) Inspect pollutant generating activities identified in the pollution prevention plan for the
proper implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness of the procedures and
practices;
(8) Identify any pollutant generating activities not identified in the pollution prevention plan;
and
(9) Identify and document the presence of any evidence of the discharge of pollutants
prohibited by this general permit.
4. Inspection report. Each inspection report shall include the following items:
a. The date and time of the inspection and, when applicable, the date and rainfall amount of
the last measurable storm event;
b. Summarized findings of the inspection;
c. The locations of prohibited discharges;
d. The locations of control measures that require maintenance;
Page 17 of 26
e. The locations of control measures that failed to operate as designed or proved inadequate
or inappropriate for a particular location;
f. The locations where any evidence identified under Part II G 3 a (6) exists;
g. The locations where any additional control measure is needed;
h. A list of corrective actions required (including any changes to the SWPPP that are
necessary) as a result of the inspection or to maintain permit compliance;
i. Documentation of any corrective actions required from a previous inspection that have not
been implemented; and
The date and signature of the qualified personnel and the operator or its duly authorized
representative.
5. The inspection report shall be included into the SWPPP no later than four business days after
the inspection is complete.
The inspection report and any actions taken in accordance with Part II shall be retained by
the operator as part of the SWPPP for at least three years from the date that general permit
coverage expires or is terminated. The inspection report shall identify any incidents of
noncompliance. Where an inspection report does not identify any incidents of noncompliance,
the report shall contain a certification that the construction activity is in compliance with the
SWPPP and this general permit. The report shall be signed in accordance with Part III K of
this general permit.
H. Corrective actions.
The operator shall implement the corrective actions identified as a result of an inspection as
soon as practicable but no later than seven days after discovery or a longer period as
approved by the VSMP authority. If approval of a corrective action by a regulatory authority
(e.g., VSMP authority, VESCP authority, or the department) is necessary, additional control
measures shall be implemented to minimize pollutants in stormwater discharges until such
approvals can be obtained.
The operator may be required to remove accumulated sediment deposits located outside of
the construction activity covered by this general permit as soon as practicable in order to
minimize environmental impacts. The operator shall notify the VSMP authority and the
department as well as obtain all applicable federal, state, and local authorizations,
approvals, and permits prior to the removal of sediments accumulated in surface waters
including wetlands.
Page 18 of 26
PART III
CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL VPDES PERMITS
NOTE: Discharge monitoring is not required for this general permit. If the operator chooses to
monitor stormwater discharges or control measures, the operator shall comply with the
requirements of subsections A, B, and C, as appropriate.
A. Monitoring.
1. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of
the monitoring activity.
Monitoring shall be conducted according to procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136 or
alternative methods approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, unless other
procedures have been specified in this general permit. Analyses performed according to test
procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136 shall be performed by an environmental
laboratory certified under regulations adopted by the Department of General Services
(1 VAC30-45 or 1 VAC30-46).
3. The operator shall periodically calibrate and perform maintenance procedures on all
monitoring and analytical instrumentation at intervals that will ensure accuracy of
measurements.
B. Records.
1. Monitoring records and reports shall include
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individuals who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The dates and times analyses were performed;
d. The individuals who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
2. The operator shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and
maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring
instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this general permit, and records of all data
used to complete the registration statement for this general permit, for a period of at least
three years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or request for coverage. This
period of retention shall be extended automatically during the course of any unresolved
litigation regarding the regulated activity or regarding control standards applicable to the
operator, or as requested by the board.
C. Reporting monitoring results.
Page 19 of 26
1. The operator shall update the SWPPP to include the results of the monitoring as may be
performed in accordance with this general permit, unless another reporting schedule is
specified elsewhere in this general permit.
2. Monitoring results shall be reported on a discharge monitoring report (DMR); on forms
provided, approved or specified by the department; or in any format provided that the date,
location, parameter, method, and result of the monitoring activity are included.
If the operator monitors any pollutant specifically addressed by this general permit more
frequently than required by this general permit using test procedures approved under 40 CFR
Part 136 or using other test procedures approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency or using procedures specified in this general permit, the results of this monitoring shall
be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the DMR or reporting form
specified by the department.
4. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an
arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified in this general permit.
D. Duty to provide information. The operator shall furnish, within a reasonable time, any
information which the board may request to determine whether cause exists for terminating this
general permit coverage or to determine compliance with this general permit. The board,
department, EPA, or VSMP authority may require the operator to furnish, upon request, such
plans, specifications, and other pertinent information as may be necessary to determine the effect
of the wastes from his discharge on the quality of surface waters, or such other information as
may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the CWA and the Virginia Stormwater
Management Act. The operator shall also furnish to the board, department, EPA, or VSMP
authority, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this general permit.
E. Compliance schedule reports. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress
reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule of this general
permit shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each schedule date.
F. Unauthorized stormwater discharges. Pursuant to § 62.1-44.5 of the Code of Virginia, except
in compliance with a state permit issued by the department, it shall be unlawful to cause a
stormwater discharge from a construction activity.
G. Reports of unauthorized discharges. Any operator who discharges or causes or allows a
discharge of sewage, industrial waste, other wastes or any noxious or deleterious substance or a
hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity established
under either 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, 40 CFR Part 302, or § 62.1-44.34:19 of the Code
of Virginia that occurs during a 24-hour period into or upon surface waters or who discharges or
causes or allows a discharge that may reasonably be expected to enter surface waters, shall
notify the Department of Environmental Quality of the discharge immediately upon discovery of
the discharge, but in no case later than within 24 hours after said discovery. A written report of
the unauthorized discharge shall be submitted to the department and the VSMP authority within
five days of discovery of the discharge. The written report shall contain:
1. A description of the nature and location of the discharge;
2. The cause of the discharge;
Page 20 of 26
3. The date on which the discharge occurred;
4. The length of time that the discharge continued;
5. The volume of the discharge;
6. If the discharge is continuing, how long it is expected to continue;
7. If the discharge is continuing, what the expected total volume of the discharge will be; and
Any steps planned or taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent a recurrence of the present
discharge or any future discharges not authorized by this general permit.
Discharges reportable to the department and the VSMP authority under the immediate reporting
requirements of other regulations are exempted from this requirement.
H. Reports of unusual or extraordinary discharges. If any unusual or extraordinary discharge
including a "bypass" or "upset," as defined in this general permit, should occur from a facility and
the discharge enters or could be expected to enter surface waters, the operator shall promptly
notify, in no case later than within 24 hours, the department and the VSMP authority by telephone
after the discovery of the discharge. This notification shall provide all available details of the
incident, including any adverse effects on aquatic life and the known number of fish killed. The
operator shall reduce the report to writing and shall submit it to the department and the VSMP
authority within five days of discovery of the discharge in accordance with Part III 12. Unusual
and extraordinary discharges include any discharge resulting from:
1. Unusual spillage of materials resulting directly or indirectly from processing operations;
2. Breakdown of processing or accessory equipment;
3. Failure or taking out of service of some or all of the facilities; and
4. Flooding or other acts of nature.
I. Reports of noncompliance. The operator shall report any noncompliance which may adversely
affect surface waters or may endanger public health.
An oral report to the department and the VSMP authority shall be provided within 24 hours
from the time the operator becomes aware of the circumstances. The following shall be
included as information that shall be reported within 24 hours under this subdivision:
a. Any unanticipated bypass; and
b. Any upset that causes a discharge to surface waters.
2. A written report shall be submitted within five days and shall contain:
a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
Page 21 of 26
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance
has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and
c. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance.
The department may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis for reports of
noncompliance under Part III I if the oral report has been received within 24 hours and no
adverse impact on surface waters has been reported.
3. The operator shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part III 1 1 or 2 in
writing as part of the SWPPP. The reports shall contain the information listed in Part 111 1 2.
NOTE: The reports required in Part III G, H and I shall be made to the department and the VSMP
authority. Reports may be made by telephone, email, or by fax. For reports outside normal working
hours, leaving a recorded message shall fulfill the immediate reporting requirement. For
emergencies, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management maintains a 24-hour telephone
service at 1-800-468-8892.
4. Where the operator becomes aware of a failure to submit any relevant facts, or submittal of
incorrect information in any report, including a registration statement, to the department or the
VSMP authority, the operator shall promptly submit such facts or correct information.
J. Notice of planned changes.
1. The operator shall give notice to the department and the VSMP authority as soon as possible
of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility or activity. Notice is
required only when:
a. The operator plans an alteration or addition to any building, structure, facility, or installation
that may meet one of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source in
9VAC25-870-420;
b. The operator plans an alteration or addition that would significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants that
are not subject to effluent limitations in this general permit; or
2. The operator shall give advance notice to the department and VSMP authority of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or activity, which may result in noncompliance with state
permit requirements.
K. Signatory requirements.
1. Registration statement. All registration statements shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this chapter, a
responsible corporate officer means: (i) a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president
of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who
performs similar policy -making or decision -making functions for the corporation; or (ii) the
manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided the
Page 22 of 26
manager is authorized to make management decisions that govern the operation of the
regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital
investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures
to assure long-term compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager
can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather
complete and accurate information for state permit application requirements; and where
authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures;
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,
respectively; or
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official. For purposes of this chapter, a principal executive officer
of a public agency includes (i) the chief executive officer of the agency or (ii) a senior
executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic
unit of the agency.
2. Reports and other information. All reports required by this general permit, including SWPPPs,
and other information requested by the board or the department shall be signed by a person
described in Part III K 1 or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a
duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described in Part III K 1;
b. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the
overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager,
operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or
an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the
operator. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position); and
c. The signed and dated written authorization is included in the SWPPP. A copy shall be
provided to the department and VSMP authority, if requested.
3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under Part III K 2 is no longer accurate because
a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the construction
activity, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of Part III K 2 shall be submitted to
the VSMP authority as the administering entity for the board prior to or together with any
reports or information to be signed by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under Part III K 1 or 2 shall make the following
certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand this document and that this
document and all attachments were prepared in accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
Page 23 of 26
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for
knowing violations."
L. Duty to comply. The operator shall comply with all conditions of this general permit. Any state
permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the
Clean Water Act, except that noncompliance with certain provisions of this general permit may
constitute a violation of the Virginia Stormwater Management Act but not the Clean Water Act.
Permit noncompliance is grounds for enforcement action; for state permit coverage, termination,
revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a state permit renewal application.
The operator shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under § 307(a)
of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish
these standards or prohibitions or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, even if this
general permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.
M. Duty to reapply. If the operator wishes to continue an activity regulated by this general permit
after the expiration date of this general permit, the operator shall submit a new registration
statement at least 60 days before the expiration date of the existing general permit, unless
permission for a later date has been granted by the board. The board shall not grant permission
for registration statements to be submitted later than the expiration date of the existing general
permit.
N. Effect of a state permit. This general permit does not convey any property rights in either real
or personal property or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property
or invasion of personal rights, or any infringement of federal, state or local law or regulations.
O. State law. Nothing in this general permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any
legal action under, or relieve the operator from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties
established pursuant to any other state law or regulation or under authority preserved by § 510 of
the Clean Water Act. Except as provided in general permit conditions on "bypassing" (Part III U)
and "upset' (Part III V), nothing in this general permit shall be construed to relieve the operator
from civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
P. Oil and hazardous substance liability. Nothing in this general permit shall be construed to
preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the operator from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties to which the operator is or may be subject under §§ 62.1-44.34:14 through
62.1-44.34:23 of the State Water Control Law or § 311 of the Clean Water Act.
Q. Proper operation and maintenance. The operator shall at all times properly operate and
maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances), which
are installed or used by the operator to achieve compliance with the conditions of this general
permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes effective plant performance, adequate
funding, adequate staffing, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate
quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems, which are installed by the operator only when the operation is
necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this general permit.
R. Disposal of solids or sludges. Solids, sludges or other pollutants removed in the course of
treatment or management of pollutants shall be disposed of in a manner so as to prevent any
pollutant from such materials from entering surface waters and in compliance with all applicable
state and federal laws and regulations.
Page 24 of 26
S. Duty to mitigate. The operator shall take all steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of this general permit that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human
health or the environment.
T. Need to halt or reduce activity not a defense. It shall not be a defense for an operator in an
enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in
order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this general permit.
U. Bypass.
1. 'Bypass," as defined in 9VAC25-870-10, means the intentional diversion of waste streams
from any portion of a treatment facility. The operator may allow any bypass to occur that does
not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to
ensure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of Part III U 2 and
3.
2. Notice.
a. Anticipated bypass. If the operator knows in advance of the need for a bypass, the
operator shall submit prior notice to the department, if possible at least 10 days before the
date of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The operator shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as
required in Part III I.
3. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Except as provided in Part III U 1, bypass is prohibited, and the board or department may
take enforcement action against an operator for bypass unless:
(1) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property
damage. Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities that causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of natural resources that can reasonably be expected
to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean
economic loss caused by delays in production;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal
periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up
equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering
judgment to prevent a bypass that occurred during normal periods of equipment
downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(3) The operator submitted notices as required under Part III U 2.
b. The department may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects,
if the department determines that it will meet the three conditions listed in Part III U 3 a.
Page 25 of 26
V. Upset.
1. An "upset," as defined in 9VAC25-870-10, means an exceptional incident in which there is
unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology -based state permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the operator. An upset does
not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or
careless or improper operation.
2. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with
technology -based state permit effluent limitations if the requirements of Part III V 4 are met.
A determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused
by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is not a final administrative action subject
to judicial review.
3. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error,
improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
4. An operator who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate,
through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that the operator can identify the cause of the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
c. The operator submitted notice of the upset as required in Part III I; and
d. The operator complied with any remedial measures required under Part III S.
5. In any enforcement proceeding, the operator seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset
has the burden of proof.
W. Inspection and entry. The operator shall allow the department as the board's designee, the
VSMP authority, EPA, or an authorized representative of either entity (including an authorized
contractor), upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law to:
1. Enter upon the operator's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records shall be kept under the conditions of this general permit;
2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that shall be kept under the
conditions of this general permit;
3. Inspect and photograph at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring
and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this general
permit; and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of ensuring state permit compliance
or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act or the Virginia Stormwater Management
Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
Page 26 of 26
For purposes of this section, the time for inspection shall be deemed reasonable during regular
business hours, and whenever the facility is discharging. Nothing contained herein shall make an
inspection unreasonable during an emergency.
X. State permit actions. State permit coverage may be modified, revoked and reissued, or
terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the operator for a state permit modification,
revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated
noncompliance does not stay any state permit condition.
Y. Transfer of state permit coverage.
1. State permits are not transferable to any person except after notice to the department. Except
as provided in Part III Y 2, a state permit may be transferred by the operator to a new operator
only if the state permit has been modified or revoked and reissued, or a minor modification
made, to identify the new operator and incorporate such other requirements as may be
necessary under the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the Clean Water Act.
As an alternative to transfers under Part III Y 1, this state permit may be automatically
transferred to a new operator if:
a. The current operator notifies the department at least 30 days in advance of the proposed
transfer of the title to the facility or property;
b. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new operators
containing a specific date for transfer of state permit responsibility, coverage, and liability
between them; and
c. The department does not notify the existing operator and the proposed new operator of
its intent to modify or revoke and reissue the state permit. If this notice is not received, the
transfer is effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned in Part III Y 2 b.
3. For ongoing construction activity involving a change of operator, the new operator shall accept
and maintain the existing SWPPP, or prepare and implement a new SWPPP prior to taking
over operations at the site.
Z. Severability. The provisions of this general permit are severable, and if any provision of this
general permit or the application of any provision of this state permit to any circumstance, is held
invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of this general
permit shall not be affected thereby.
Section 12. Inspection logs
INSPECTION FREQUENCY:
(1) Inspections shall be conducted at a frequency of (i) at least once every four business days or (ii) at
least once every five business days and no later than 48 hours following a measurable storm event. In
the event that a measurable storm event occurs when there are more than 48 hours between business
days, the inspection shall be conducted on the next business day; and
(2) Representative inspections used by utility line installation, pipeline construction, or other similar
linear construction activities shall inspect all outfalls discharging to surface waters identified as impaired
or for which a TMDL wasteload allocation has been established and approved prior to the term of this
general permit.
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
STORM WATER INSPECTIONS FOR VSMP GENERAL PERMIT LAND DISTRIBUTING ACTIVITIES Page I
PROJECT:
MONITORING FOR THE WEEK BEGINNING:
DATE AND TIME OF INSPECTION:
RAINFALL:
Date of Rain Amount Inches Initials
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES INSPECTED:
(Inspections shall be conducted according to Part IIF2 of the
Permit. However, if the discharges of stormwater from
construction activities are to surface waters identified as
imparied, inspections shall be conducted according to Part
IB4d.)
Facility Identification
Date and Time of
Inspection
Operating Properly
(YIN)
Description of
inspection
observations
OBSERVATION OF RUNOFF AT
OUTFALLS:
(Inspections shall be conducted according to Part IIF2 of the
Permit. However, if the discharges of stormwater from
construction activities are to surface waters identified as
imparied, inspections shall be conducted according to Part
IB4d.)
By this signature, I certify that this report is
accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge:
Qualified Personnel
By this signature, I certify that the contruction
activity is in compliance with the SW PP and
general permit.
Qualified Personnel
ceritication statement on page 3 shall be signed.
By this signature, I certify that this report is
accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge:
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
By this signature, I certify that the contruction
activity is in compliance with the SWPP and
general permit.
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
Stormwater Discharge
Outfall Identification
Date
Clarity
Floating Solids
Suspended
Solids
Oil Sheen
Otherobvious
indicators of
stormwater
pollution (list
and describe)
Visible
sediment
leavingthe
site?(Y/N)
If yes, describe actions
taken to prevent future
releases (may need to
attach additional
information)
Describemeasurestakento
clean up sediment outside
of disturbed limits (may
need to attach additional
information)
Clarity: Choose the number which best describes the clarity of the discharge where I is clear and 10 is very cloudy
Floating Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of floating solids in the discharge where 1 is no solids and 10 the surface us covered in floating solids
Suspended Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of suspended solids in the discharge where 1 is no solids and 10 is extremely muddy.
Oil Sheen: Is there an oil sheen in the stormwater discharge (Y or N)?
STORM WATER INSPECTIONS FOR VSMP GENERAL PERMIT LAND DISTRIBUTING ACTIVITIES Page I
PROJECT:
MONITORING FOR THE WEEK BEGINNING:
DATE AND TIME OF INSPECTION:
RAINFALL:
Date of Rain Amount Inches Initials
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES INSPECTED:
(Inspections shall be conducted according to Part IIF2 of the
Permit. However, if the discharges of stormwater from
construction activities are to surface waters identified as
imparied, inspections shall be conducted according to Part
IB4d.)
Facility Identification
Date and Time of
Inspection
Operating Properly
(YIN)
Description of
inspection
observations
OBSERVATION OF RUNOFF AT
OUTFALLS:
(Inspections shall be conducted according to Part IIF2 of the
Permit. However, if the discharges of stormwater from
construction activities are to surface waters identified as
imparied, inspections shall be conducted according to Part
IB4d.)
By this signature, I certify that this report is
accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge:
Qualified Personnel
By this signature, I certify that the contruction
activity is in compliance with the SW PP and
general permit.
Qualified Personnel
ceritication statement on page 3 shall be signed.
By this signature, I certify that this report is
accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge:
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
By this signature, I certify that the contruction
activity is in compliance with the SWPP and
general permit.
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
Stormwater Discharge
Outfall Identification
Date
Clarity
Floating Solids
Suspended
Solids
Oil Sheen
Otherobvious
indicators of
stormwater
pollution (list
and describe)
Visible
sediment
leavingthe
site?(Y/N)
If yes, describe actions
taken to prevent future
releases (may need to
attach additional
information)
Describemeasurestakento
clean up sediment outside
of disturbed limits (may
need to attach additional
information)
Clarity: Choose the number which best describes the clarity of the discharge where I is clear and 10 is very cloudy
Floating Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of floating solids in the discharge where 1 is no solids and 10 the surface us covered in floating solids
Suspended Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of suspended solids in the discharge where 1 is no solids and 10 is extremely muddy.
Oil Sheen: Is there an oil sheen in the stormwater discharge (Y or N)?
STORM WATER INSPECTIONS FOR VSMP GENERAL PERMIT LAND DISTRIBUTING ACTIVITIES Page I
PROJECT:
MONITORING FOR THE WEEK BEGINNING:
DATE AND TIME OF INSPECTION:
RAINFALL:
Date of Rain Amount Inches Initials
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES INSPECTED:
(Inspections shall be conducted according to Part IIF2 of the
Permit. However, if the discharges of stormwater from
construction activities are to surface waters identified as
imparied, inspections shall be conducted according to Part
IB4d.)
Facility Identification
Date and Time of
Inspection
Operating Properly
(YIN)
Description of
inspection
observations
OBSERVATION OF RUNOFF AT
OUTFALLS:
(Inspections shall be conducted according to Part IIF2 of the
Permit. However, if the discharges of stormwater from
construction activities are to surface waters identified as
imparied, inspections shall be conducted according to Part
IB4d.)
By this signature, I certify that this report is
accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge:
Qualified Personnel
By this signature, I certify that the contruction
activity is in compliance with the SW PP and
general permit.
Qualified Personnel
ceritication statement on page 3 shall be signed.
By this signature, I certify that this report is
accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge:
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
By this signature, I certify that the contruction
activity is in compliance with the SWPP and
general permit.
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
Stormwater Discharge
Outfall Identification
Date
Clarity
Floating Solids
Suspended
Solids
Oil Sheen
Otherobvious
indicators of
stormwater
pollution (list
and describe)
Visible
sediment
leavingthe
site?(Y/N)
If yes, describe actions
taken to prevent future
releases (may need to
attach additional
information)
Describemeasurestakento
clean up sediment outside
of disturbed limits (may
need to attach additional
information)
Clarity: Choose the number which best describes the clarity of the discharge where I is clear and 10 is very cloudy
Floating Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of floating solids in the discharge where 1 is no solids and 10 the surface us covered in floating solids
Suspended Solids: Choose the number which best describes the amount of suspended solids in the discharge where 1 is no solids and 10 is extremely muddy.
Oil Sheen: Is there an oil sheen in the stormwater discharge (Y or N)?