HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO202100022 VSMP - SWPPP 2022-04-10of AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
k Tel. (434) 296-5832 • Fax (434) 972-4126
�'rRGiNZP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
For Construction Activities At:
Project Name: Southwood Redevelopment — Blocks 11 & 12
Address: 538 Hickory Street,
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Prepared by:
Timmons Group
608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434.295.8317
Prepared for:
Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville
967 2"d Street SE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Contact: Mr. Andrew Vinisky
434-293-9066
Piedmont Housing Alliance
682 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Contact: Mr. Andy Miller
434-422-5497
SWPPP Preparation Date: August 20, 2021
Revised: April 5, 2022
(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. 17-405)
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 Stonnwater 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: IIB ❑ 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:
Piedmont Housing Alliance
Contact person:
Andy Miller
Address:
682 Berkmar Circle
City, State and Zip Code:
Charlottesville VA 22901
Phone Number:
434.422.5497
Primary and CC Email:
amiller@piedmonthousing.org
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:
Southwood Redevelopment PHA Blocks 11 &12
Address:
538 Hickory Street
City and/or County and Zip Code:
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Construction Activity Entrance Location
538 Hickory Street,
(description, street address and/or
Charlottesville, VA 22902
latitude/longitude in decimal degrees):
Latitude and Longitude
37.9991,-78.5269
(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
4.11 AC
disturbed as approved in the Stormwater Management Plan):
Primary estimated area to be disturbed (include portions with
4.11 AC
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,
Residential Community
industrial, residential, agricultural, environmental, utility):
F.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) name(s) (if the
site is discharging to a MS4):
N/A
G.
Estimated Project Dates (MM/DD/YYYY).
Start Date:
Completion Date:
H.
Is this construction activity part of a larger common plan of
YES ❑ NO EX
development or sale?
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
020802040402
Moores Creek
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:
Will a 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 rig or 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 Id
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 1):
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:
11:09:41-04'00'
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 Authorityplease send to:
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Stormwater Management Suite 1400
PO Box 1105
Richmond VA 23218
constructiongp@dep.virsinia.gov
Rev 11/2020 PAGE 3 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 Stonnwater 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 1 private road and 3 apartment buildings, as well as associated
parking, utilities, and landscaping. The total limits of disturbance on this project is 4.11 acres.
These improvements are being made within the property boundary. The property is bounded by Route
631 on the north and west, a residential community on the south, and a mobile home park on the east.
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, I W 7 copy of the latest Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Do not reference
only.)
Issued — 10/2014 Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THIS PROJECT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, PARKING LOTS AND ASSOCIATED
SITE WORK.UTUMES & LW OSCAPING. UNITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING 4.16 ACRES.
ADJACENT PROPERTY
THE MOM -IS FOUNDED BY A ROUTE 631 ON THE NORTH AND WEST, A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ON THE
SOON, AND HORIZON ROAD AND A MOBILE HOME PARK ON THE FAST.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
THE EXISTING SUE IS MOSTLY WOODED.
OFF SITE AREAS
NO OFFSETE AREAS WILL BE DISTURBED. ANY OFF -SUE LAND -DISTURBING ACTMry ASSOCATEO WITH THE
PROTECT SHALL HAVE AN APPROVED ESE PLAN.
CRITICAL EROSION AREAS
EARLY ESTABLISHMENTAND PROPER MAINTENANCE OF PERIMETER COMROL5 WILL PROVIDE SEDIMENTATION
CONTROL. ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE SUBSIDED WITH BLANKET MATTING.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES
UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL RA VEGETATIVE AND STRUCTURAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED ACCORDING M MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONE THE
CURRENT ADDITION OF THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. THE MINIMUM STANDARDS
OF THE VESCH SHALL BE ADHERED TO UNLESS OTHERWISE WANED OR APPROVED BY A VARIANCE BY LOCAL
STORMWATER RUNOFF CONSIDERATIONS
A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NUMBS CONVEYED TO ONE STORMRCH ARCH DETENTION PIPE WITH
ISOLATOR ROW AND ME DETENTION PIPE WITH ACOWDEN JELLYFISH FILTER STRUCTURE. THESE FACILITIES
HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET SMRMWATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS. ALL OTHER AREAS WILL SHEET ROW INTO
THE SURROUNDING VEGETATED AREAS. ALL EROSION ADD SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH V6CH AND THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE, INCLUDING THE INSPECTION OF ALL MEASURES
AFTER ALL RAIN EVENTS.
STRUCTURAL PR4CRCE5'
1. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - 3.02 A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED
ATTHEUMUMNINDICATEDONTHEPLANS. RISIMFEMTIVETHATT MMEASUREBEMMWMNED
TBRWGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. ITS PURPOSE ISM REDUCETHE AMOUNT OF MUDMANSPORTED ONTO PAVED
PUBLIC ROAM BY FROM VEHICLES OR RUNOFF.
2. SILT PENCE WAGNER -3.05 SILT FENCE SEDIMENT BARRIERS SHAM L BE INSTALLED DOWNSLOFE OF AREAS
WITH MINIMAL DEVICES TO FILTER SEDIMENT-UOEN RUNOFF MOM SHEET FLOW AS INDICATED. ITS PURPOSE
IS M INTERCEPT SMALL AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT FROM DISTURBED AREAS AND PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM
LEAVING THE SITE.
3. SIMMDRAININU7PROTECITON-3.07 MMERLTERSSHPIIBEPLACEDATTHEINIETOFMLDMINAGE
STRUCTURES AS INDICATED ON PLANS, ITS PURPOSE IS TO PREVENT SEDIMENT MOM ENTERING THE STORM
DRAINAGE SYSTEM PRIOR TO PERMANENT STABILIZATION.
A. DIVERSION DIKE - 3.09, 3.11 & 3.12 A TEMPORARY RIME OF COMPACTED SOIL TO DIVERT WATER MGM
CERTAIN AREA.
5. SEDIMENT TRAP -913 ATEAFCRARY BARRIER OR CAN WTFH A CONTROLLED STORMNATER RELEASE TO DETAIN
SEDIMENT4PDEN BOWIE FROM DISTURBED AREAS IN XF' AND •DRY•STORAGE LONG ENOUGH FOR THE
MAJORITY OF SEDIMENT TO SETTLE OUT.
51. MAINTENANCE OF SEDIMENTTRM- INSPECT TFW EMBWpAEMWEEKLY TO ENSURE RIB STRUCTURALLY
SOUND AND HAS NOT BEEN WWAGEDOURMG CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THETRAPSHAMBECHECKED
AFTER EVERY MNFML EVEN. ONCE THE SEDIMENT HAS REACHED THE DESIGMTEC CLEANOII LEVEL U
SHALL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF.
6. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN-3.14ATEMMORYDMIWRHACOMROLIEOSTORMWAMREIFASE
STRUCTURE IS TO BE USED TO DETAIN SEDIMEM-4DEN RUNOFF FROM DISTURBED RAW LONG ENOUGH FOR
THE MAIORVU OF THE SEDIMENT TO SETTLE MU.
5.1. MAINTENANCEOFSEDIMENTEANN INSPECT WHIN EMEANKMEM WEEKLY TO ENSURE IT IS
STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND HAS NOT BEEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THEBASIN
SHALL BE CHECKED AFTER EVERY RMNFAIL EVEN. ONCE THE SEDIMENT RAW REACHED THE DESIGNATED
CLEANOUT LEVEL IT SHALL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF.
A. OUTUTPROTECTION 3.18STRUCIUMLLYLINEDAPRONSOROTHERACCWIABIEENERGYDISSIPATING
DEVICES PLACED AT TIE OUTLETS OF PINES OR PAVED CHANNEL SECTIONS.
] DUSTCONTROL- 3.39 DUSTCONERULISTOSE USEOTHROUGH THE 511E1N PEAS SUSLEITTO SURFACE AND
AIR MOVEMENT.
VEGETATIVE PRACTICES:
1. TOPSOIL(TEMPORARY STOCKPILE)- 3.30 TOPSOIL SHALL BE SUFFERED FROM AREAS TO BE GRADED AND
STOCKPILED FOR LATER SPREADING. ST CKPILELDCAROLSSMUMLOCATMONSMANDSHALLBE
STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SILT FENCE AND VEGETATION.
2, TEMP0MRY SEEDING - 3.31 ALL DENUDED AREAS WHICH WILL BE LEFT DORMANT FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS
SHALL BE SEEDED WITH FAST GERMINATING TEMPORARY VEGETATON IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING GRADING OF
THOSE AREAS. SELECTION OF THE SEED MO(NRE SHALL DEPEND ON THE TIME OF YEAR IT IS APPLIED.
3. PERMANENT SEEDING -3.32 FOLLOWING GRADING ACTVITE5, ESTABLISH PERENNIAL VEGETATVE COVER BY
PLANING SEED TO REDUCE EROSION, STABILIZE DISTURBED ARMS, AND ENHANCE NATURAL BEAM.
4. SOIL STABILIZATION BLANKETS &MATING-3.36 A PROTECTIVE COVERING BDWKEI OR SOIL STABILIZATION
MAT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON PREPARED PANTING AREAS OF CHANNELS TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT AND REINFORCE ESTABLISHED TUN.
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
L POODE SEDIMENT MAPPING MEASURES AS A FIRST STEP IN GRACING, SEED AND MULCH IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING INSTALLATION.
2. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING M OTHER STASIUMIMP4 IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING.
3. ISOLATE TRENCHING FOR UTMETES AND DRAINAGE FROM DOWNSTREAM CONVEYANCES IN ORDER TO
MINIMIZE PERIMETER CONTROLS.
4. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL THEY ARE NO LONGER
REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR STATE LAW.
PERMANENT STABILIZATION
ALL NON -PAVED AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED WEIF PERMANENT SEEDING
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISHED GRADING. SEEDING $HALL SE IN ACCORDANCE WITH $M. & SPEC. 3.32,
PERMANENT SEEDING. SEED TYPE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED MR TlINIMUM CARE LAWNS"AND"GENERAL SLOPES
IN THE HANDBOOK WR SLOPES LES$ THAN 3:1. FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:4 SEEDTYPE SHALL BE AS
SPECIFIED FOR 'LOW MAINTENANCE ROPES" INTAKE 3.32-D OFTHE HANDBOOK. FOR MULCH (SIM N OR FIBER)
SHALL BE USED ON ALL SEEDED SURFACES. IN ALL SEEDING OPERATIONS SEED, FERTILIZER AND UME SHALL BE
AHED PRIOR TO MULCHING.
SEQUENCE OF INSTALLATION
PHASE IA (SEE SHEET C3.02)
1. APRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED WITH ALBEMARLE MUM US INSPECTO,CONTRACTOR,
OWNER,ANDENGMEER. THISMEMNGSMLLTAKERACEATAIBEMRIECOUMCOMMUNM
DEVELOMENT WILDING. CLEARING LIMITS MUST BE FOGGED PMMTO THE MEETING WITH ONE (I) WEEK
W NOTICE.
2. INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, SILT FENCE, SUPER SILT FENCE AND OTHER PERIMETER MEASURES.
3. CLEAR AND GRADE SEDIMENT TAPS. INSTALL DIVERSION DIKES, CU•.AN WATER DIVERSIONS S INLET
PROTECTION.
4. AFTER ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE, SUE WORK Call BEGIN
S.
SEED ALL DENUDED AREAS PER VESCH STANDARDS.
PHASE US (SEE SHEET 0.03)
1. ONCE ROUGH SITE GRADING W BEGUN, INSTALL PIPES AND INLETS PER PHASE IN. SEE GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PUN MR PIPE AND INLET INFORMATION.
2. APPLY INLET PROTECTION M NEWLY INSTALLED INUM.
3. SEDIMENTTRAPS SHALL REMAIN IN PACE UNTIL SUE RUNOFF CAN BE CONTAINED THROUGH INLET
PROTECTION AND SILT FENCE. SEMMENTTRAPS SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNU-TM ESE INSPECTOR HAS
INSPECTEDTHE SUE AND APPROVED THEIR REMOVAL
MASS II(SEE SHEET C3.04)
1. INSTALL ADDITIONAL INLET PROTECTION WHERE SHOWN ON THE PHASE II EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
POPPY AS THE STORM SYSTEM IS CONSTRUCTED AND BECOMES OPERATIONAL.
2. FINE GRADE PROJECT AREA. APPLY PERMANENT SOIL STABILIZATION TO THESE AREAS WITHIN SEVEN DAYS
AFTER FINAL GRADE IS ACHIEVED,
3, AM RECANWATER PIPING& STRUCTTIRES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR SILT/SEDIMENT. TF PRESENT,
SILEBUDIMENT SHALL BE CLEANED OUT MR THE SYSTEM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE USE INSPECTOR.
4. ONCE TEE ST E UPHILL MOM A SEDIMENT MR OR BASIN HAS BEEN STABILIZED AND APPROVED BY ESE
INSPECTOR, REMOVE THE SEDIMENT TRAP OR BASIN.
5. APPLY PERMANENT SOIL STABRRATION TO THESE AREAS WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADE 15
ACHIEVED.
6. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND ALL CONTRIBUTING AREAS ARE STABILIZED, EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES GW BE REMOVED UPON APPROVAL FROM THE E&S INSPECTOR.
MINIMUM STANDARDS:
AN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM ADOPTED BYA DISTRICTOR LOCALITY MUST BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, TECHNIQUES AND METHODS.
ME 1. PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED M DENUDED AREAS WITHIN SEVEN
DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADE 15 REACHED ON ANY PORTION OF THE SITE. TEMPORARY SOIL MOBILIZATION
SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS TO DENUDED AREAS THAT MAY NOT BE AT FINAL GRADE BUT
WI LL REMAIN DORMANT FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAYS. PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL BE
APPLIED TO AREAS THAT ARE TO BE LEFT DORMANT FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR.
MS-2. DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, SOIL STOCKPILES AND BORROW AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED
OR PROTECTED WITH SEDIMENT MAPPING MEASURES. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE MR THE
TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL SOIL STOCKPILES ON SUE AS WELL
AS BORROW AREAS AND SOIL INTENTIONALLY TRANSFEREES MOM THE PROJECT SITE.
MS-3. A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ON DENUDED AREAS NOT OTHERWISE
PERMANENRY STABILIZED. PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED UNTIL
GROUND COVER IS ACHIEVED THAT IS UNIFORM, MATURE ENOUGH TO SURVIVE AND WILL INHIBIT
EROSION,
MS-4. SEDIMENT TRAPS, PERIMETER DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND TITHER MEASURES INTENDED TO TRAP
SEDIMENT SHAMES CONSTRUCTED AS A MET STEP IN AXY LAND -DISTURBING ACTMTY AND SHALL BE
MADE FUNCTIONAL SEEMS UPSLOPE LAND DISTURBANCE TAKES PLACE.
MS-S. STAMUZARON MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIED RI EARTHEN STRUCTURES SUCH AS DAMS, DIKES AND
CONDEMNS IMMEDIATELY AMR INSTALLATION.
MS-6. SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BASED UPON THE IDEAL DRAINAGE AREA TO
BE SERVED BY THE TRAP.
A. THE MINIMUM STORAGE CAPACITY OF A SEDIMENT IMP SHALL BE 134 CUBIC YARDS PER ACRE OF
DRAINAGE AREA AND THE IMP SHALL ONLY CONTROL DMINAGE ARMS LESS THAN THREE ACRES.
MSJ. GOT AND FILL SLOFfS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE
EROSION. SLOPES THAT ARE FOUND TO BE ERODING EXCESSIVELY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF PERMANENT
STABILIZATION SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ADDITIONAL SLOPE VMIUZING MEASURE$ UMILTHE
PROBLEM IS CORRECTED.
MS-8. CONCENTRATED RUNOFF SHALL NOT ROW DOWN CUT M FILL SLOffS UNLESS CONTAINED WITHIN AN
ADEQUATE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT CHANNEL FLUME OR SLOPE GRAIN STRUCTURE.
MS-9. WHENEVER WATER SEEMS FROM A SLOPE FACE, ADEQUATE DRAINAGE OR OTHER PROTECTION SHALL BE
PROVIDED.
MS-10. ALL STORM SEWER INLETS THAT ARE MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED SO
THAT SEDIMENT-IADEN WATER CANNOT ENTER THE CONVEYANC£SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST BEING
FILTERED OR OTHERWISE TREATED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT.
MS-ll. BEFORE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE CHANNELS ON PIPES ARE MADE
OPEMRONA4 ADEQUATE OUTLET PROTECTION AND ANY REWIRED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
CHANNEL LINING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN BOTH THE CONVEYANCE CHANNEL AND RECEIVING CHANNEL.
MS-12. WHEN WORK IN A LIVE WATERCOURSE IS PERFORMED, PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN M MINIMIZE
ENCROACHMENT, CONTROL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND STABILIZE THE WORK AREA TO THE GREATEST
EXTENT POSSIBLE DURING CONSTRUCTION. NONERODIBLE MATERIAL SHALL BE USED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF CAUSEWAYS AND COFFERDAMS. EARTHEN FILL MAY BE USED FOR THESE
STRUCTURES IF ARMORED BY NONERODIBLE COVER MATERIALS
MS-13. WHEN A LIVE WATERCOURSE MUST BE CROSSED BY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MORE THAN MICE IN
ANY SO -MONTH PERIOD, A TEMPORARY VEHICULAR STREAM CROSSING CONSTRUCTED OF NONEWDIBLE
MATERIAL SHALL BE PROVIDED.
MS-14. ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO WORKING IN OR CROSSING
WE WATERCOURSES SHALL BE MET.
MS-15. THE BED AND BANKS OF A WATERCOURSE SHALL BE STABILIZED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WORK IN THE
WATERCOURSE IS COMPLETED.
MS-16. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS
IN ADDITION TO OTHER APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. NO MORE THAN SUR UNEAR FEET OF TRENCH MAY BE OPENED AT WE TIME.
B. EXCAVATED MATERAL SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES.
C. EFFLUENT FROM DEWATERING OPERATIONS SHALL BE FILTERED OR PASSED IHRWGH AN APPROVED
SEDIMENT MAPPING DEVICE, OR BOTH, AND DISCHARGED IN A MANNER THAT DL£S BID ADVERSELY
AFFECT FLOWING STREAMS OR OFF -SUE PROPERTY.
D. MATERIAL USED FOR MCKFILLMG TRENCHES 9NLL BE PROPERLY COMPACTED IN ORDER
MINIMIZE EROSION AND PROMOTE STABILIZATION.
E. RESTABILJZARUN SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
F. APPLICABLE SAFEN REGULATIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH.
MS-17. WMERE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED OR PUBLIC ROADS, PRM50NS
SHALL BE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT BY VEHINLAR TRUCKING ONTO THE PAVED
SURFACE. WHERE SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORTED OHIO A PAVED OR PUBLIC ROAD SURFACE, THE ROAD
SURFACE SHAM BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY ATTIE END OF GCII DAY. SEDTMENTSIIAMBE
REMOVED FROM THE ROADS SY SMOVEUNG OR SWEEPING AND TRANSPORTED TO A SEDIMENT CONTROL
DISPOSAL ARM. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AMR SEGMENT 15 REMOVED IN THIS
MANNELTHIS PROVISION SHALL APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS AS WELL AS TO LARGER
LAND-DISNRNNG ACTIVITIES.
MS-18. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED WTTFUN 30 DAYS
AMR FINAL SUE STAHIUZATION OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY MEASURES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED,
UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY TEE LOCAL PROGRAM AUTHORITY, TRAPPED SEDIMENT AND THE
DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESULTING MOM THE DISPOSITION OF TEMPORARY MEASURES SHALL BE
PERMANEOLYSTABRIZEDTOPREAEMFURTHER EROSIONANOSEDIMEMATION.
MS-19.PROPERRES AND WATERWAYS DOWNSTREAM FROM DEVELOPMENT SUES SHALL SE PROTECTED FROM
SEDIMENT DEPOSITION, EROSION AND DAMAGE DUE TO INCREASES IN VOLUME, VELOCITY AND PEAK
ROW RATE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR THE STATED FREQUENCY STORM OF 24-HOUR DURATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND CAMBRIA USIN D IN SECTION 19 OF VIRGINIA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 9VAC25-840-40 MINIMUM STANDARDS.
ES-1: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL VEGETATIVE ANDSTRUCNRAL
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES ACCORDING TO MINIMUM STANDARDS AND
SPECIFICATIONS OF THE LATEST EDITION OF THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
HANDBOOK AND VIRGINIA REGULATIONS VR 625-02-00 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
REGULATIONS.
ES-2: THE CONIMLING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY WILL MAKE A CONTINUING REVIEW
AND EVALUATION OF THE METHODS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
ES-H RACE ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PRIM TO OR AS THE FIRST STEP IN
CLEARING, GRADING, OR LAND DISTURBANCE.
U-4: MAINTAIN A COPY OF THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RNN ON THE SUE AT ALL
TIMES.
U-5: PRIOR TO COMMENCING LAND-DISTURFNG ACTNUIES IN AREAS OTHER THAN INDICATED ON THESE
PLANS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, OFFSET BORROW OR WASTE AREA), SUBMIT A
SUPPLEMENTARY EROSION CONTROL PUN T FTHE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER AND THE CONTROLLING
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE.
ES-6: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NKESSARYTO PREVENT EROSION AND
SEDIMENTATION AS DETERMINED BY THE RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBER. (MODIFIED NOTE)
ES-]: ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL DRAIN TO ARRIVED SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AT All TIMES
WRING UND-DLSTURBING ACTIVITIES AND DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT.
U-B: WRING DEWATERMG OPERATIONS, PUMP WATER INTO AN APPROVED EXPUNGE DEVICE.
ES-9: INSPECT ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES DAILY AND AFTER MACH RUNOFF- PRODUCING RAINFALL
EVENT. MAKE ANY NECESSARY REMAINS OR CLEANUP M MAINTAIN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IMMEDIATELY.
278-ElJMK LOGIN. 2 T0] PERCENT SLOPES. MORE THAN SO INCHES M RESTRICTIVE FEATURES, WELL DRAINED,
HYMOLOGICSOM-GROUP: B
2S-SOW LOAN,] TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES. MORE THAN W INCHES TO RESTRICTIVE FEATURES, WELL OUMED,
HMROLOGICSOLLGWJR B
8
O
MCPAGF�3) 2U5 f �
met" M) SPRON WIDDRANY) Er^2 m,.ren
AND 2W
4An EMT.] nnrreeu[
AIR 11W AA
485 14M 4B.8
486 13U US
48T5 23A 102.1
3120
®
sl r AmBad (AID Farm)
I V A
of alme Am SD
ANSI
mvAW KwYE aa DID, MCNm(.,I
15T0
•twlee RED"..NW. VWT 0. 457 PR5
e of.. ae sma, 2:1
mr MTg1ID M BEAM)
12.3
Malpe
tcamI 4 PER aeenm NO
491
eloperey.. MYI (5]M)
137.4
M. MP mm RRERA:
32)2F
A rt.tme War
AEGIS
ICI d. eMWI.P ON
488.5
.lope pwLLtl M. a.- (DID
155.0
ICI x1WI d E.m NO
RS'
area (Mores)(,]) 1.Za
..(A)
a Im RO WAABBA.')
4]2
523
473
ON
22.A
474
WT
28.4
475
11IS
W.1
478
13.
45]
477
1 an
SEA
1W.
Wro,
elaaga MNMIre NY)18rM) 65.0
-Ma. eel NN 475D
AmmPr01md.MPcaeaAR.(c) m.l
e 01 rxl&ape a'Iha 21
MY)PUIDA) 85.8
4nO
A 1Ne eeawbon R,G 1009
493 BOPS
481 15M
492 25285
DROP INLET SEDIMENT TRAP
NA
SUE
Qnu Fm
enno,r .1
-Come p91e(Mle saal la MOOT O. M}5] of AS
IN I&OA1 ]]
13
313
E%GVATEDORUP INLET S EDIMENE TRAP
TH OF
J
0. Lk9BeM 'z
�Ih ma a
A
„•Y]ONgL FYI
Yua
0511412021
ED
K. ROESCH
• DFSIGNFD IF
• K.ROSS-
• nFdFD er
• BCCfCHOCKI
SDI£
• NA.
CL
0
U)
z
0
1
a
2
a
0
F-
0
47118
C3.0
L
TH OF
PIPE OUTLET CONDITIONS
Iz
eawACTEo soK CAN, TO IS NEST
BAMTPm nROX VRl
to MM. 1 III v ILL
11 `a xD
n A
TYPICAL ORIENTATION OF VESCH TREATMENT - I SOIL (STABILIZATION
HA OW BLANKET)
SHALLOW
PAvEAENT
CIOM q MOUMnALE BE.
SIDE ELEVATION IIST.,
?� G CRONIN
fu' Mn STldl a
, y/5
9tle
LOPE
ON SHALLOW $LOPE$, STRIPS NETTING
PROTECTIVE COVERINGS MAY BE APPLIED
exlsiwocawx
910NAL VIAR
P/ A
_
IPEOIITLETTOFLAT
ACROSS THE SLOPE.
ro WlyMtga( Mlu.
B
RFA WITH NO
PL5ttEFINED CHANNEL
WHERE THERE ISq BERM ATIHE BERM
TOP OF THE SLOPE, BRING THE
MATERIAL OVER THE SEEM AND
MIxEXUAING
NUARA rt
RB,
C
L'
STEEP ANCHOR R BEHIND THE BERM.
SLOPE
ON STEEP SLOPES, APPLYPROTECTrvE
COVERING PARPLLEL TO THE DIRECTION
OF FLOW AND ANCHOR SECURELY,
YEATA paasEutBRF.usIN B � xba To LIA
'MUST NOT OTHµTemp
Ixc,¢v ANDES .'.1ox M'W
TRAP .GMAGE
PLAN VIEW
i g
€
¢GB
^
upsl C
TEMPORARY DIVERSION DIKE
igP,�
`.m
r
A LEVEL ATEABEFORE TO
ALEVELMEA BEFORE r�
A
lzulx.
s20,
w�p—'
x,
p F c m
o uauz
1. $Ei p055 4N0 EXCAVATE q 4"%4° 2 STAPLE ARE FENCING Tp
WENCH ppSLCPE ALONG WE END OF ME POSTS.
9ECTIONA-q FILTER KEY INB'R': RECOMMENDED
TERMINPTING THE
`'(�yI
INSTALLATION. TURN THE i2•
FLOW "'
x
wt y e
3bm
N
pMTS.
6'
CLOTH FOR ENTIRE PERIMETER
DITCH END UNDEReANDSTAPLE
AT ITINTERVALS.
FILTERcL�oM SECTION A -A
o
uh FF££
p pu
o
j
ISM
q
'" .'. IN DITCHES, APPLY PROTECTIVE COVERING
Via.„,,
.nd�
a m
S
G
Tp
In
w
PARALLEL TO THE DIRECTION OF FLOW.
USE CHECK SLOTS AS REQUIRED. AVOID
^
fu O0UV3
3Ee(MIN.)
JOININGMATERWLINTHECENTEROFTHE
hA,
''FLOW
/
=Aft
DITCH IFATPLLPOSSIBIE.
m
4
m
RE SOMESEoc INS
PIPE OUTLET TO
SECTION BB
w
WELL DEFINED
CHANNEL
PLAN VIEV/
O 938-1
CE 302
BE
3 ATTACH ME 9. RAGNOLL AND COMPACT ME
ME mi�+cllE«C,_NANORE:o I: INTO EttAVATEO sal
SOIL STABILIZATION BLANKET(TREATMENT-1)
STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
=
w mNXINNAS
ry
N ^
o
TYPICAL VESCH TREATMENT- I(SOIL STABLUZATTON BLANKET)EJ
INSTALLATION CRITERIA
cam' FLOW
0%�
mtioa
CAR
ESgO/20L
III
SECTION AA
FILTER KEY IN RECOMMENDED
CLOTH FOR ENTIRE BENMETER
NOTES
S s%CT PPPR0YJMATELT 005TAPLE3 REQUIRED
PER IDO SO. VOS.OF MATERIAL flOLL.
ANCHOR SLOTS. JUNCTION SLOTS&ED
GRAVEL CURB MET SEDIMENT FILTER
—fIl
_
12
RAWN ANY
CHECK SLOTS TO BE BURNED IF TO 12'.
_
'�
E%iEN510N OF FABRIC AND MRE INTO ME 1NENCX.
NOTES:
Ko ROSSER
1, APRON LINING MAY BE RIPRgP, GROUTED RIPMP, GABION GASKET, OR
SON
ITT 11
oesiGUEo er
iIL1ER FABRIC
CONCRETE.
TAN
AN
CH[ LO OSSENNUSAEYARRT
FL
2, L IS THE LENGTH OF THE RIPRAPMRON AS CALLUTATEO USING
TERMINI
\
•
K. ftOESER
PLATES31"AND3.1".
IDUUTEUESTALL A
_
3.E=1.S TIMESTXE MA%IMUM ST0NE DIAMETER, RVi A0T LE$$THAN9
uSH.U, Irv. U,nE uED M crv+ANHD
//
.•
REC¢Der
SF 3.05-t
INCHES.
pp a.ut
MEsxoxvl
TAMP LY
' ,a I
-. DHBa, �
RMI NXWFL TR
�s
p �� F°""° `-
•
• •
•
•
BCCICHOCKI
SILT FENCE (WITH WIRE SUPPORT
N.A.
w M
OUTLET PROTECTION
NO sole
��
•
rr1I1T--��
❑ ❑ ❑ L2 LJ
TIRML mTI�LT{y�yT��
`—T�+ OL "VAR.��VAR—
—
SCONErrt D
TABLE 3.32C
SITE SPECIFIC SEEDING MIMICS
2'
O a
GO TC
` cuRNlµ[T
N
AREA
nau _
IT
J
STANDARD ORANGE VINYL OR PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION
FENCE ATTACHFDTOPOSTS(PIE-WEATHERED WOOD,
GALVANIZED STEEL° IRON OR THICK PVC PLASTIC). AT LEAST
TO}gL LSS. PER ACRE
MINIMUM CARE LAWN
�onu� uowrw
XONCT 0.0T PDw3lY TFRwwLL FqT
'CAnvELaxNLBE VIroT W.pnoR5 COM5E AORREOATE.
fl
LLI
AP ABOVEFlNISH GRACE WITH SPAN BETWEEN POSTS NO
GREATER THARNING CENTER. EVERY POST
COMMERCIALORRESIDENTIAL 2Da25D1URS0%
KENTULED 310NNIALttPETALL FESCUE 80-100%
IMPROVED
12• Tom FlroxLv
Y M1I I� <�
sPEaFlc.wRIdT%w Tws MFm000FlwFTPROTcnoxsAwLlcAxF AT
'
c�u IIWMR B,EPt'IWNGIN F0.0MOFMESMBCTWESNOTu%6VM
R/
CLEARLY IDENTFIESiHE
SIGN THE
M10%
KENTULKT BLUEGRASS 610%
O 2"
TouuscENTamucTURvun
BERM AB TREE PR
FENCE ABA TREE PROTECTION FENCE
OTECTION PE
O N06CALE 3.38
HIGHAUINTENANCE LAWN
O m 3,yS,2
MKAOTGTR1 ARFp5�wouwcE
IP 3.0T-8
O
�
Q
MINIMUM OF THREE (3) UP TO FIVE (5)
VARIETIES OF BLUEGRASS FROM
APPROVES) LIST FOR USE IN vlRGwu. 125 Les.
GENERAL SLOPE Q 1 OR LESS I
KENTUCKY 31 FESCUE 128 LOS.
"
Ii,
V
O Q
W
O
Z
TREE PROTECTION
SOIL STABILIZATION BLANKET (TREATMENT-1)STORMWATER
INLET PROTECTION
wed
TABLE3,3143
ACCEPTABLE TEMPORARY SEEDING PLANT MATERIALS
REDTOPGRASS 2LB5.
>
J
-QUICK REFERENCE FOR ALL REGIONS'
SEASONAL NURSE CROP" 120 CBS-
LOWdNINTENgNCE SLOPE (STEEPER TIFN 3:11
ERNST CONSERVATION SEEDS
RIGHTLF-WAY NCH -NATIVE WOODS MIX "EMM%-132
J w
GO
W
Q
(�
PLANING GATE$ SPECIES FATE ALBS./ACREI
SEAT .1-FEB. 15 SWW MIX OF
ANNUAL FOEGRASS
KENFUCKV 31FESCVE 108 LB5,
REDTOPGRASS 2LB5.
SEASONAL NURSE CROP" 20 L85.
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
FRAME QAADINLEI mTH
fRAME
XE
£
1 m
NX
Z
Q
(LOLIUM MULRFLORUM)
CROW P ETCH "' 20 LSE.
50 LEE,
PRICEM1B
TA5'
Q
CEREAL (WINDIER) RYE 50100
301 FESTUCA AMEBA CREEPING RED FESCUE 1.90
— G
�
� O
Z
(SECALE CEREALS)
' PERENNIAL BYGONES S WILL GERMINATE FASTER AND AT LOWER SOIL
20.W% LOIIUM PERENNE. PERENNIAL RYEGR4SS. 185
LQUUMLLRGL'
]' ��
TTTL
'FASTBALLRGL'
TANSTRA(TURF
ti
p
LLI
FEB. 18- PER .30 ANNUAL RYEGflA3$ 80-109
(LOLIUMMULTLFLORUM)
TEMPEMTURES THAN FESCUE THEREBY PROVIDING COVER AND
EROSION RESISTANCE FOR SEEDBED.
ttPEj
E%ccss
--�
V
�_
MAY 1-AUG, 31 GERMAN MILLET 50
^ USE SEASONAL NURSE CROP IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEEDING DATES
2000% �EEUNPRATENSE, TIMOTHY.'CLIMAS 120
MAXI'-.
AT
U Lj COI
O
0
W
(SETARIA RALICA)
AS STATED BELOW:
MARCR APRIL THROUGH MAY I STH ANNUAL RYE
-,F,V^
O
U)
O S3t
THROUGH AUGUST 1 STH FOXTAIL MILLET
12W% TRIFpIIUM HYBRIWM ALSIIBE CLOVER 325
Q
AUGUST I
AUGUST 1BTH lHR0UGX SEPTEMBER OCTOBER .ANNUAL RYE
NOVEMBER THROUGH FEBRUARY. ... WINTER RYE
IF INCREASE T030INGU) EGRACE MAY ALSO
MUST BE REAPRO IS PROPESEDRLY
MUSTBEPROPERSL SLOPE OR
WEEPINNCE MIXTURE DURING
INCLUDES IN ANY SLOPE TENANCE MIXTURE DURING
Tom% AGROSRSPERENNANS, AUTUMN BENTGRASS, NAM
ALBANYPINEBUBH- ALBANY PINE BUSH
NYECI NV ECOTYPE
8.00% AGFOSISALBA REDTOP 000
STARE
FAeRIc
^III
O
L
r
z
Q
Z
O
TEMPORARY SEEDING PLANT MATERIALS
NO SCMa
WARMER DSL ADD HIM
WARMER SEEDING PERK)DS: PDD 1030 LB5./gCRE IN MIXES.
100% MI%PRMEM1B SULK: 113.81
O332 )
O
SEEDING RATE:<CEO LB PER ACRE
(�
PERMANENT SEEDING MIX FOR PIEDMONT AREA
wooDLw0 OPENINGS
_ _ -
r ."I = LI
LU
THE 3HA➢E-TOLERANT GRASSESAND CLOVER ARE GOOD FOR
SONM
WOODLAND OPENINGS AND PARTIALLY SHADED SITES. MIX
FORMULATIONS ARE SU&IECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPENDING
SPINCATION
TMFCIFIS METHOD pINLET PROTECTOR IS PpCAB[¢wRElE ME INLET
ON THE AVAILPBILItt OF EXISTING NEW PRODUCTS. WHILE THE
DRAINS A RELATNELY FLAT AREA C3OPE NO GREATER MAN 5%) MORE
FORMULA MAY CHANGE. THE GUIDING PHILOSOPHY AND FUNCTION OF
THE MIX WILL NOT.
ME INLET SHEET OR OlERUNO ROMS(NOT ENSURING 1 CES) ARE
INLETSBEGINNING
Mr
ORAMFLOSS.UAS HICWAEoCNCENTTEDSC
—
IN ST TT
HOB NO.
IP 3.07-1
4]]1$
SLOPE STABILIZATION SEED MIX
1 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
s..1 o.
C3.1
EROSION CONTROL LEGEND
' GE
AND GRADING
DRAINAGE DIVIDE
I I�son AREA DIVIDE
—SAF— SAFETY FENCE
�--
/ OE ® CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
/
-f
INLET PROTECTION
/
/l
/
..
/ 1 W
DIVERSION DIKE
i
/
SEDIMENT TRUE
I /
OVTfi PROTECTION
TEMPDRMT SEEDING
PERMANENT SEEDING
L
I S \
\
\
yN
MULCHING
TREE PROTECTION PENCE
OUST CONTROL
AREAS STEPPER 31
TO BE STABILIZE TDYNITI
�
%a'T '
/ '
BVIRGINIA
STAB_ ANKET
~L �� �a>� iDNr
��_ D,n.
`' •' '�� ��� -��, I//`
/
/ /
EROSION AND SEDIMENTCONTROLHANDBOOK':
/ TOTAWMITS OF OISTUPBANCE=C.11AC I /
J
IP
m SF
I A
2O.OY \ �.
T6 A IP IP
�PoS Rt8- - TB 1,28 TOTACOMING�OV DED: 190 CY
P
f.
APEA
IP TOTA STORAGE gEOWREO'. 190 CY
IP TOP OF TRAP =47IU
SEDIMENT TRAP TRAP
TO BE COORDINATEDNITH
TIONOF IN,I 1 TS
II SOICONSTRVC
,L'TYPE. "!°zoz DD
27B v v
DD
SOIL TYPE: I
GP / 27B
R95 PS— / I TP
CP
0
TOT TMTS OF DISTURBANCE-A6 AC _ BTI '
!L
yII� AJL,—�885� ,- _ __ ��' SEDIMENTTRAPI SOIL PE
� J IP / TO5AC TORADRAGGEARFA \ Jvl TqY
31'� TOTAL STORAGE REQUIRED. 2>4.�1'� ' 27C
M ft�7illi�wilLi
I / _
J
26
L__
--ILJ
TOTAL STORAGE PROVICE6312.0 CY
I P , I TOP OFTRAP =4BTS -
DD
BEii
\ GO 000
— — — —
— CE —
-------------------
- —
SF
ACL�BIDBNCl—
_
3.01
3.02
3.05
3.07
3.09
3.13
3.18
3.31
3.32
3.35
3.38
3.39
3.36
TCkrtQN NUMBER
OriP
x6
5EE
ok'
0
CL
D
0
/ zI
/ 0
w
s
SCALE I'-3D'
r—
o soEo�
DS/IV/ l
K ROESER
K ROESER
UMECKED By
B. CICHOCKI
SU
1-30'
El
w
Q
a
J
z
Z
O
U
H
Z
W
2
w
N
Q
Z
O
Jn
O
X
W
47118
sxE6Tno.
C3.2
EROS ON CONTROL LEGEND � OF
ism mvpm-IIIIIIIIIII' \ V A A LIMITS OF CHEMINS AND GRADING
A V A DRAINACE OIVC, - Gf
SOIL AREA DIVIDE
GAF SAFETY FENCE 3.01 l� W41 a
4
CONSIWCFION ENTRANCE 3.02 S�az. R'
SILT NEE
3.05 `SIONAL�
INIETPROTECIFION 307
i
' OHIA
\ - —H' w E
I DIVERSION DIKE 3.09 x a
EEDIMENFTRM 3.13 u E _ ..
- OP WILE PROTECTION 3.18 W B
oa-A
TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 wp g
In 0
PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 i b g AIS
g x
\ I \ \ \ MU MULCHING 3.35 Q tl ? O $ 5� €
PJ
1914] \ TP TP— ME PROTECTION FENCE 3.38 € a8 � 0.
c0 i p
OOSTWM0.0L 3.39 @e Eu U 03
BM AREAS
STEEPER THAN 3.36 i
OF GP TOBS`EABIUZ BUNKS
OP—UIL -_^ ne / GP P OF _ / STABRTLITION BUNKEf p
s�
Gp J "- -- f rrr`FO/.. OP �GP� • WGINN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK' SPECIFICATION NUMBER
EXCOP �" A
/ 0NAC TEODROP NAGEA AREA
3EDIMEMTRMN
r� 09d AC ORAINAGEAREA 1
i /
- _i_-•i5 FOISTORBANCE=Lfl AC /r TOTAL DE0:13RYGY �OHP
A ( P, TO Gp i / TOTAL GTORAGE PROVIDED 11BS6 CY o
--i�- - A..\ -__ 2-...- / �u �u ryroa
IP\ ST2\\ ..,.v'�CTS Q; <9 / 90TTOM ELEVATION <B000 WIRILT RAISE WITH GRACE RINGS) 4 pry\\o IP �� �I UFrU TOP OF INLET A91.00ITEMPO
i ��
/ r Rl- �R3 ,. A IF /TP� \V �MTE
-a5 0., .' ............ ..,.w. l • � --'__� /. POD \ o os/IaR011
_I j • 1 \ 4 / \
SEDIMENT TRAP2 \ L. \ GC _ \ K_ROESER
TO BE COORDINATED`//ITH / \a)--- •• wFIXFo ev
/ sOILTVPL. CONSTRVCTION OF41P�D2WJ4. 10/ $ \ .\ •
27B rL // / II v I e_crcnoc�
I b O \�� • • SUIE
1 30
Ts
/ / / • I I �_ I / /
II OIL TYPE: /
C,6 m
I'
430
PRovo 7oAPoa4RY�
-TAB W
DD �_ GRATE INLET TOR
TS / /AV O y
+y 4 U g
.r
DISTURRANCE-as AC W _I T _ / \ \ ' \ — - O > TOT UMRSO /y/ [�T T
TB
405 SAR - - - - J / /// SEDIMENT TRAP \JVIL T\ppll � O
2.05 AC DRAINAGE
• _- .. / TOTAL STORAGE FIR
ED.: 2>4.7 1-
IF AREA, -
u
♦ ♦� �� / ioP OFAGaeT sovICE631z.ocr Z S
_ _ _ \ \
IF, _
IF 4
SAM P _
_F IP --rrrr.rr^' HORIZON ROAD n / IP C _ - - - - - - _ - i.riiiorii._- _ $q
A w Q cW
CE
C Fy
rr
d W
__ -- - is ' � O Z E%
1 - IT Q S£
IF, BE
O
2
. • _ IF .r.. •-.. / \ \ - T r -1 _ i - ' TBTAL21MI�5 ooISTIIRBANCE=d.ReWG
L---____.I.�� — J Nrro¢TdRr� noN PROM____ "____/
_.-r-1 - / \� \ _ / r - - TRMIN IONAL SEDIMf1lI/IRAPTO ExGAVATED -__
DRW-IIMIFZSEBIMENTTRnPASBUIIDING-
_ _— _ I L ' \� \ J90� =' i -V- L -FADS COMETO ORAOE - F /� I LI O S
--
,\ \ REEGH
L — — — L]'
L_-i
—1- -__I I IAA I I \ I I \ _ _/ — I- —I , .l; L — ��- ,ram "J / LJ sre cr-3o' TOR No. B
_ \I I I V J / v U _
_ _ L-- J- ` - - _ - - - '�- � � - � . �` s t` � � J / / � / / v v 47118 s
L J - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - gam- .�cl- �)�./ I t/ `�,c�,/ C3.3 =i
EROSION CONTROL LEGEND
\ V LIMITS BE CLEARING AND GRADING
V A DRAB
RAGE DIVIDE
WILLWENDIVIDE
SAFETY FENCE 3.01 0 C 41 z
— U, - _ _ — — -� Lw xR saFa a
PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3.03 /5/a•L
_ _ 1 FH SILT FENCE 3.05 S11 FSjG\ p
O-
-/ INLET PROTECTION 3.O7
y
DIVERSION DIKE 3.09 A x6
i
' � � � : � ' d I � ; ST SEDIMENT TRAP 3.13 uE
I amar Morernox 3.1e
ANPo TS TEMRMT SEEDING 3.31
r
_ O #rvY2
PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 ry
MULCHING 3.35 o f O ON
I. A �
TREE PROTECTION FENCE 3.35 F a:n m iip
OUST COM0.0L 3.39 @
ARFASSTEEPER TLAN3:1 3.36 ei
P �
/ G % / I GP STABE6IZATION STABILIZED
BUNKET In
IGP SURE J �IyFYY /' r O �.0 OP / GF� EAO51 iiONH M
NR
TO OF DISTURBANCE 0.11 AC Xlft / NM ryp
Gp /
ip
i
SF ON
-R3Y V 1 IP `� DARE
r
� � 7�GP
m
a
o ovia/zoal
a I /
n T
'T. 603' 0505� " ovAwx ev
IP IP xos.mwa.v.. •. _ —
ROESEft
' _�" � IP a ___ \ • oe516NEU 0v
f \ K ROESEft
\ \ -- ,\ \ •• CHEI By
� 16 8 � I fl CICHCCKI
II II NAe '..I IP \ I \ \ < � • scut
1 30
T.
•uPS /
I
IP rwovmMnErt I \ - // /I N
�_. m
fUIN 7
V
4 �\
y, \ \ Y 8
Tm uMrtS OF DlsruaeANCE=A1 AC—� � - — — — " \ \ £ I $ — _ O W Z =
�` —
J
I _
Z
rn mun
s
r 1zt/f/f IP — —
ii SAY SF
- IF
/ '- - - - --"--- 9M1Y- - ROAD---g'W_-_ - -sw BE
P a
AU E~
IO f e
\ --
TOTAL LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE-tT J— \ — _ / / O o
1
P ---- — — —C --
p
\ a— ui
SEECN
\\
F1 I I I\\ I — — — — — -/ _ SCALE 130 47118 e §
sxeETno a
J
L
Section 5. Stormwater Management Plan
(Provide a reduced 11x17 copy of the latest stormwater management plan. Do not reference only.)
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
` \ OLD LYNCHBURG ROAD \
\ `STATE ROUTE 631
\
\ (VARYING W WIDTH
TREE
-�!/
GP
J4rj
llJJ7
GP ". TP
TPP 1rINP)PROTECTIO=A-GP�TWiBDND
-E 6EWER
� iP r —� � �
TP �
TP
Tc
UFO
If
�
Tw4eseo
5
F
-R13 R19'Zyt
/ _ o
I / -TREATMENT: CU I 1, CONTECHVORTECI \
DI3SIPATORCE / y STIyULTURE \ OS/IO/N111
GNBION FOREBAV / sxnt t I - o,wwx ev
1 4W \ O
I / FFE O: 160' NW / v 4p¢pg K ROESER mx
/ / n FFE1: 50• !4V[fY I SOIIIHWOODAPARTAENR
�r I / �• 4�1r BUILDINGz oesrn er
(S%LIHTC) O •• K ROESER Vls//qq `-
AJd / owlet / / s/ TGM 1T r� -EIBY
rFE' am.on � EATMENr: was � e_ acnoc�
sRCUT ISSIPATOR OE 1-2)
NI MINIMUM
1=30'
F TSETBACN— / \ I/ •
w S'MA%IMUM 1 / 't ,ux. •
0 F SETB4CN /
I bl3n / aCL
� r
r I
4W: m aV
FlE.
>��'A 1C
RIB, R16 t t ", # O \V 4W.9
1�A /.. l r/� rFE\4uov
Aw B..IN ew 4e1 (� , / .DB D
t ,
9"W
r
I•
SOAMMENB a
W% O 0
I91 %
/ I
FEE
�NG3 iC '
f 4e
� LJ
I it MHIf
♦ - - -. ,�,/ Rzs _ / J� �-anN R EL.=aHz.T Ad'_ Q$
- ` \ �� \ p25' � / PiiO I EL.•49y.1
TMINIMUMSIDE IZONRO
3 a.. _.. LOIN w\ _g
A
BUILDING
10a
• / t ; i I .�/w � _ � �l 1z1 _ �f
w
w
t t `
— _
/ t _
_ y _
_ \� I r� \ i— 03 47118 F! scuFs'-7a ;
sHnrna o n
— \
-
���_ _- --�
G� ��r� — -
OF / __
_ �\ I P )/ `Z OF ae➢/b�•a 4 ." / / �GP� / / _ _
I _
Ttl .... GB y .. I I OVERLAND d9� GP �GF
--UFO E.i ifs
_ TREE PROTECTION /me 0
UP ❑,� I \ / (TYPI mN O
\� I 130 awl9rs �l9 �UF GP � \ %p �e � OsO3
NLsnla MmIMUM dn.m — _ - - ,ee d�.. P
g FRONT SETBACK
O SOUTHWOOOAPARTMENTS I �,
i \ euILGINc t / I \ — -- - sOQ sGF uF 4 o
a
\
I ) NC GA 3Y V � . GM BETBACKfBACK
s
Fa
w
curolssmATORCEI-
B m 08
C(NRECH VORIECH \ GABION FOREBAY \ \ 1
y 5(RUCLURE \ tt TOP=d9093 \ OS/la/N111
—
/ FFEO I.W K ROESER
FFE 1. 350 �• 19CUlMNOOO MNtTMENIS qli. \ � ,I 1 saT' � i -
/ 5 I• W3T / BUILDINGS tt / oes:crveo ev
4rve E �+1 II (9%LIHTO) 1Avg v v / �� K ROESEH
/ rnda�i zm'-r ':P n `w�. •wnvx tze / • ��aeEg eY
z
fFE: 493M REATMENT: CURB � i • B. CICHOCKI
/ CUT IGGIPATOR CE • • SUS
I
NCSA eNIMUM — ez / /
1-20'
TC
NFI M M
FIR TSFIB All I 18 AI
SEIBACK� 1
_ _ w
N /
TC
eEErmw - .
4 �
r
-FFI I..
If f
p a
3
_F�Mu
OUTHWOOO APARTMENTS
BUILWNG3
sMlmummoNrenBlNc sEC
Quz
Q s$§
\ Z e
C) F
4 MINIMUM FRONT BUII➢ING SETBACK - - - 108 w�'W 13t .�.15 32 8y
L _
i
i #3
103 I 133 OLIEFPD
RELIEF PA - / E•
' ® 121 Ogg A I TH / O j2
\ YYl'YY'IYYY r'l t3q � � a�
�37-
47118 — ----------1
s E1•-20' 77. sg
0 20. 41Y C5.1 fi
OE00,91mo RunojJRNuetlan Method R<Deuelap NNd COmplonce SwoNS et-VNMIXI3.0
-. 1.11 aMP 5raNart ana SRtlMxem O 2013 Does TRIP Kalman ma SPeGBollms
,.an meal
SoutM1waW Blak 11 M10
Va.8/i0/EOil
lbmar GX1CIWmem Phalan_ EWRnsNs
Site Information
PostDevelopmentproject (Treatment Volume and Wads)
Enter Total DEBRIsed Area(acess) i 1D @eek:
a. Seal SpHlflmNms I.: E013 DIwG HEF A Said,
lireorPm/aF] No
lvnd.-Ioxmte.a3mreep] xJ
Totoldinomed>meneered] J
Pre.PeOevelopmen[Untl Cover srexl
a sets weds cxus
oslM1
a Marce6paee
wipeenwlml
Nda
I.
-Rd,
Pon4serelmnare Mod f Avast
rmuynyrt-.1
mn'.,aamrelI
ems. ond ".10l a.a..M .
Mda.
tany-N,
0.M
Am.EI%dl
.11
constants
W carer R.wn.
W carer R.wn.
uNewer.wnaarv>aafj
-
Irae.smamy'Px ra rw.rPon
ww.leYxebr•mr em-m.ely...mxr.lmm..x
mvNvnSpre am
,I-d
• ore..l
Mmiarwulcwr a
NFyI¢drnun .1.
%anadold 1.
am x`
evl ie r• oe<
Nnpervelmssdead,
µyam
Fm nNpnFPaesrlronl
and
a.
merJOlenspaa
0rerlarevl
Not
donadr+lrual
-ammmnore.rl
alnsATwenerlmlLot
_donaeloolIcEarDos
NtiyleaNmN
OA
DM
MgMMMlrarl
NO
a LmYMUS
Gad
Toods
r6eidNa
Isl
See
AN
.-cond.
om
am
amrmesim Iry
MRrn -1 11 R.Om 1n 11 Sol
%I ..... SX
Tulll.sr.do- a.a
Yb..ft n]0
.I..
0.9E
aW
Mllmoannw
%"moan..
.1
Due
%Imwma.
w
u%
1W RwYNaW
EST
OAx
bIRM1.Smlmn
3n
NaY
pq
MaRNMIGNIN.not
TmepneMVOlut.-dNesieMLoed
TrenWenl VOWme and Nutrient Load
wnm
.rsuu.xym.xna.n rvw
Most,
Mr.nlm3
w pmm
m.nrvM.
TM'Laid m
nMn
Nmaorwymmr
v� A,Ive,r� came
Dmn m..lw awes
I-N,
"e.
N. rmvW
Po 1.
nwmvmom
daM1.Y
9fi
3fE
3.]®
malm v[unr 3n 2,69T
nelati.rreYa
maM1M1m
I 1
I
flnY Poa
nenrP.v.tA.xm TPt
0ndewnen tt
• wa..Wmmr Nmanxlmmi.R
PMI
G..ox
se
pxo
s
lemlrel Dm lax
�
IBN•1
IIMvB•
...
N..wl
E m
nw.uxNM OAx YPuti tat
n4a+o-.wwmn m (Imev/Nmwnmw
mww rnorrrw.wemwlmrc.imommvre r.
rxaxl.W i a M
IeMlar
.r ova necvMaPre mnoRlmnu
mrawo/nrvmonevnrwnln
ymlvaonmrmWM�`s�
Nitrogen Loads lntmmational Purpous Only)
.Y re� wl ml one wmenl rN reN
m IIVad AH rlrarx2wymemare. IRS,wsl llnlnl
VDOTSTD OTT
CLEANOUT
Sm ocan GMT.
TOP =475M
HAMPSOILTOUPOE
o"Ba"OW "'ABOU RE
MINSLCPE3:1
BOTTOM OF
BIORETENTION
GA61N076.36
3-HARDV/OOD&NKMDLCM
BOTTOM"I A76.16
-
S'BOFLTERMIX
BOTTOM STO NE
3M O 8
-
ELEVSTONESo
BOL15MNO5VSTo.90
aall)WY�3iBp�'I•t(E AEI
IHV. W}Pa A7om
s No.6T sra+B
ELEV.SSP.S6
SEECIFANOUT
DETAIL NNEET Ott
E
EDU E an
MAR TBN FILTER
PVCOND
FABRIC OR B VM NT
DAvuGHTED BST
ON ETN
O ERDON
SEE MEET CST
EMET
ENTERE➢ON
CENTERED
CUNOERDRAIN
SWFI 1. LTERMEDLT DEPTH
1.4Ve
SHILL THEMINIMUM DEPTH AFTER
A SETTLING
PER1RIOOMTXXEE OAYfi.
BIORETENTION FILTER 11 DETAIL (LEVEL 2)
HO SUIE
Op
WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS
Df
WATEROUANTITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SITE WILL BE MET THROUGH
A STORMWATER POND CONBTRUCTEO FER WPO'N18pCW2. NO
ryaa Dcolook i
ADDITIONAL STORMWATER OWNTITY MEASURES ME PRCPOSEDWITH
WC 5Sl11 a
THIS PLAINNa
.
h 7z �vR'
5
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS - BLACK 11
SITE DATA
PRE-DEVELOPEDAREA
MANAGED TUBF=117 ACRES
PRE -DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP)(1BhTD-GM
POST -DEVELOPED AREA
IMPERVIOUS = U.M ACRES
MANAGEOTURF=0A3ACRES
POSTA EVELOPRI LOAD UP) (LBOAU=202
MAXIMUM PERCENT REDUCTION FOR REDEVELOPMENT 20%
TOTAL LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED (LBIYsS' 150
REQUIRED REMOVAL WILL BE ACHIEVED THROMGH THE USE Or LEVEL i
BIORE IENTION FACILITY, AS WELL AS THE PURCHASE OF 0.84 LB OF
OFFSITE NUTRIENT CREDITS
PlanNumber
VRRM
Total Arse
Phosphorus
Reduction Required
Phosphorus
Reduction Provided
Credits
Purchased
%Phosphorus
Treated onsite
WP0201900062
21.58
9.77
8.52
1.25
87.21%
WP0202100004*
7.49
8.52
6.67
1.22
78.29%
Offs4e WPO202100004
2.91
0.18
0.63
0
350.000/D
PHA Block 11
1.27
1.5
0.66
0.84
44.00%
PHA Block 12
2.84
3.48
2.7
0.79
77.59%
Village 2
4.88
4.6
3.07
1.43
68.22%
Total
40.97
27.96
22.26
4.1
79.61%
Drainage Area A
Drainage Area A Lard Cover (acresl
Asdk
asD1A
esdk
GSNIa
rnmk
um fast Rv
ralml/olxnsmealaam)
Manaeedrurl(dm)
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.16
0.20
mmerd-Onderoand)
0.28
0.28
0.9E
Total
D.ad
Site
A=,Checks
HUNIO/OPEN SPAUi (act
(.$)
IMPCOVERT TREATED
IMPFRMODE COVFR TREATED(a4
MANAGED TUBE AREA(M)
MANAGED TURF AREA TREATED (aq
AREA DOCK
Site Treatment Volume (ft3)
Runoff Reduction Volume and TP By Drainage Area
Results (Water
Quality Compliance)
D.A.B DA.0 DA.D
SALE
ARUMM
G.A.A
O.CO
GcC
COO
ON.
O.W
OK.
B.S.
p.EB
0➢]
AGE
Om
p.Ds
am
am
WOMDW
0.16
Ona
000
OR.
OK.
OK. ON
3,aB
RUIOEF REDCTON VOLUME ACHIEVED (it
1P LOAD AVAILABLE FOR REMOVAL (16Ayr)
TP LOAD RECOCFION ACHIEVED (IbAyr)
TP LOAD REMAINING (IbAyr)
�-�
r�rrJ0
In
OUR
Goo
GOT
can
NITROGEN LOAD REDUMONAQIIEVED (lb/yr)l
4.47 1 OM I Bod I G. O.GO AAT
Total Phosphorus
RNAL➢OST-DEVELOPMEITTPLOAD::1, l
TP LOAD REDUCTION REgoII Bb/yq
?Dz
E s0
W LOAD REDUCTION ACHIFVED pn/yr)
DM
iP LORD REMAINING Ilb/yn:
1.56
REMAINING TP LOAD REDUCIDON REQUIRED Dh/yr):
0.94
Total Nitrogen (For Information Purposes)
POST-0EVFLOPMFNT LOAD (IE/yrl
1ME
NRROGEN LOAD RFDULTOX ACHIEVED (Ib/yrI
4A3
REMAINING PMTDEVELOPMENT NITROGEN LOAD (RAr)
9.%
BiorneMlen HIM' PNA III
D
cexi nlevel
E
Rv
SoilT
B
bYn 1m
Its Lama.-
n
aW
Mm dTu d=
0.1fi
OLEO
Oren=
a.m
iatlCraln ¢Area-
B.=
SM
S.
m emw: a
Mx
Ve
Qlume=
werLr d' Vo,..
OF
Em A Ass
L
1sse
Trmmv am Pmma=
cF
1bW tlVPIUIwM
6
B an nod
RNm
POMI MpIM1=
a'!l
o.M.Filter-
an
Manesam e
E.
ae
Ttlal Slo R
z
FT
urlax Ave.
Mlnimam Reo=
5F
mvmM
Ms sF
raNlva.n. P.wam cF
v Vdmm
Re aired Foe Voluna'. .1.
oreb dmemiaa 11 drald
roeaea Fareba Vdwne:I MSeF
WATER QUANTITY COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE
DRAINAGE FROM BLOCK 111E INCORPORATED IN BLOCKS
911 PLAN (WPoID3100004). THE BLOCKS 9-11 PLAN
ACCOUNTS FOR 1.31 ACRES K.83 ACRES IMPERVIOUS) OF
DRAINAGE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF BLOCK 11 WITH
THIS PLAN. THIS PLAN PROPOSES 0.83 ACRES OF
IMPERVIWBAREA WHICH WILLBE ADEQUATELY
CAPTURED AND SERVED BY THE DOWNSTREAM
DETENTION SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED WITH THE BLOCKS
9.11 PLAN.
ZONAL
aTo.
xIF
E
pogo
iF'en §a#
s
ar sas
or- 8mm 0M iii
ee
05
mpgiE
OS/la/2011
K ROESER
•• K ROESER
� exE«ED BY
fl CICHOCKI
• • SfAIE
• NIA
•
•
CLN
06
OO
1'
V/
GOY
U
$
aj
0
4
W 5
0
(
-
W.
W i
a0Q
Z
Q
a
Z
0
w
1WE
-
O
as
O
a
04
0
~
V)
O
E
n
P
47118
SNEEe NO
C6.0
DEp Virginia RunoJ/Reeunim MttMaRe CeVeloprrenr Complionre 5peuasM1Lel
Venion 3.0
03011aMp3rwe,nNa `MQd Nbu
U E.131,raBaMP....'adspeehad-
NNrellth
@pu111waspaux6ss
ou
om:
e/onnant
Urear Developme:e Pmletll No
Site Information
Post -Development Project (Treatment Volume and Loads)
Enter Total Dlsturhed Area(acred) i Sea
Check:
aMPON9n Spttili[etiuns U#: 3013 OrYt SIN B Speo
err
o/ee]
Land ctvnveuadcoenJ
Tomimarmadarmnrered?No
J
..
a3M1F Sok
ebb
ra<n/4msmlmH-um�m.bae
aNveea TM Imp-aburEN, gaga
Mmm
ke!
�t
Om
xM
PARD.Mereraland. f-I
Ilk
esNN
Laos,nw
kne Man, 1.-mnlnwee.
a
ra m
NNAMDR-ler�X �
mbe
OY
n®
ronrlaeW
sys
1%
ARWR
DR.
OIL
DR,
pL
2M
DRUnnor
a.
Led
a0VRFFFD,Vn_V
man
aft'..Undwa
DUN
VMMRMT,
and
%IIMMMMM
as
as
PnvN•abPmmrTppaN Wlre OWT3 I soul
IraaM
P.Mee..N.-I-..N_ I
I..N., AM I M
'tmR�vm xmm verrlemVox r[avear
�eamrwi a..reaemP.wm•�..��a..=m,mrw.
P+a9egn-xwm.eumrol. rnwx.nuveurmnrvue#Imnm
,�,�ler�..�mRw,v.rmrd rammm
M. tM.tmm � mt rnA n., sywam.r.
RuIwRTiefidontY M
gbh 6y% e3Mb OStlla
R/LFI 1 and am n% I on,
a as i do oa
a9E BE, I o% lia%
Treatment Volume and Nutrient Load
..earn. -
OUIn
Im.M
ad,Tre
IrWlrr.0
NFI.
b
nWwP
W # mnlm�uleM e 4Tsa 'n.,AM
eeleMl ry ba
nlm R.men mm,e woman
Rew�a Dm Mulry 3M
INhrl M #Ob/nl�
rea'>t'rrW^enbel
nmmammrrr4araa
Nrvregen loads linformational Purposes OFF)
_ TV
DAM) 931 IrmronepealepmmmaNra bE
Iar.a
cl£AKKM1T
® "T Sm D41
TCP=ae9R3
RFNP AmLTOLIPOF
OVERFLOW SIRUCNRE
MINSLOPE31
\
- BOnOM OF
BIORETENTION
BASIN LOA 13
Y HMVNOCO Wia UUCNI
BORdA E. AS Ed
SPISORLTER MIK
BOTTgA ElEVa95%
3'NO.a9TONE
]0'N0. "STORE
ELEV. aH25B
BEE CLFAI our
CET., SHEETCtt
.1.11WN FILTER
FABRIC OR EOUNALEM.
TO BEzwmE
SCHEDIAl
CENIEREDCR
PVC UNDERINUIx
OAYUGH"EDCNUFF
UNOERDMIN
SEEBHEETC50
NOTE'. xfi'BIO BUTER MEDIA DEPTH SNALL BE THE MINIMUM
DEPTH AFTER A GETTING PERIOD OF
TxREE wvs.
BIORETENTION FILTER 12 DETAIL (LEVEL 2)
PLAN VIEW
SECTION AJL enKAndooAPNR.....
AmTenfMIEK
9E "DEPTH
TUAR �a
�BLpR
%rFETF=ox
DAMEUPEA
...TORE
Y�tlUVEt
1
I I
FLU
lwnm3
mIAH
_ I
FILTER FARINCOR EOMMAIEM
TOIRSEVENTSIORTCwanTOMSAAIE
ORWO.dUdNGORMSN
SECTION B-B
p AYERAOE
paMEIEF(
O
iWgWrtlailOx
tlLONNElgE W W
r_B._y
PRETREATMENT -GRAVEL FLOW SPREADER DETAIL
NA
Drainage Area A
Drainage Area A Iaral cover lames)
WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS
WATER QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SITE WILL BE MET THROUGH
A STORMWATER POND CONSTRUCTED PER WP0201R]]062. NO
ADDITNINPL STORMWATER OUANmTY MEASURES ARE PROPOSED WITH ((&151vE�AAII
THISPIAN.
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS - BLOCK 12
SITE DATA
PRE -DEVELOPED AREA
MANAGED TURF= 284 ACRES
PRE -DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP) (LB/YR) = 040
POST-D"UOPEO AREA
IMPERVIOUS=INACRES
MANAGED TURF = 0Ad ACRES
POST -DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TIP) dUBMR)=4.65
MAXIMUM PERCENT REDUCTION FOR REDEVELOPMENT=20%
TOTAL LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED (LB1mQ=348
REOUI RED REMOVAL WILL BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE USE OF A LEVEL
BIORETENTION FACILITY. A MAIN UFACTURED FILTERING DEV CE. A
MANUFACTUREDHYDRODYNAMIC DEVICE, AND THE PURCHASE OF 0.79 LB
OF OFFSITE NUTWENT CREDITS.
PRETREATMENT
PRE-TREATMENT METHODS LETO FOR THIS MORETENDON FILTER
CONSIST OF A CURB CUT DISSIPATER CELL AND A GABION FORESAY.
plan NuNder
VRRM
Total And.
Phosphorus
RaUucllon RRQDIred
Phosphorus
Reduction P.Med
CreQBs
Purchaed
%Phosphorus
Traabtl oneha
WP02O 9DDOE2
21.50
9]7
8.52
1.25
87,21%
YBo0202100004'
7.49
8.52
B.67
1.22
78.29%
oB WP020210W04
2.91
0.18
0.0
0
350.OD%
PHA BIDOK II
In
1.5
0.88
am
44, 0
PHA Ell 12
2.84
3.A0
2.7
0.79
77.596%
VIMP 2
4.88
4.5
3.07
1.43
60.22%
TWI
40.17
27.96
223s
4.1
79.61%
A 3aYs
aSdek
Catlin
CWN
Dd.k
HAAd erw
FwnVOpenkYm )sues)
0.00
0.00
Manailed TWfperea)
0.58
0.58
0.20
ImceMtus Cvaer pores)
1.69
1.69
0.95
Total
2.26
WATER QUANTITY COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE
DRAINAGE FROM BLOCK 12 GOES TO HORIZON ROAD, WHICH IS
ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE VILLAGE 1 PLUNK (WW0191. AN P320o THE VIUAGE 1
PLAN CAPTURES ALL OF THE BLOCK 12 DRANAGE AND ACCWN53 FOR
214 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS AREA THIS PUN PROPOSES 1.9T ACRES OF
IMPERVIOUS AREA ON BLOCK 12 WHICH WILL BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY
THE POND TO BE INSTALLED WITH VILUGE 1.
oxrr .ems#. NII
Io o 1 D o
D
We
Om
Me
I am
aionen vnnel menuonRV
A.
nee UU, Led e% USE
1
L
EA,p®
Li8
nQ UU,. RMAM
e<Nialoe
u a. ul NNrW vn memcear�ASK
1,174 I.x79
AXnbAID
6hM-OnR
ems r
a.9M
1
0
ID
do,
ade
We
Site Results (Water Quality Compliance)
Site Tre atment Volume Intl J�8
Runoff Reduction Volume and TP By Drainage Area
RUNOFF REDUCTION VOLUME AGRI YEO (it
TP LOAGAVAILAIDU FOP REMOVAL pa/yrl
TP LOAD REOURNFN ALMOLD IIb/yd
TP LOAD REMAINING pb/yd
NITROGEN LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED (IffilyrIl
1115 I DLO IOSO O.M 0.0G 1113
Total Phosphorus
FINAL POST -DEVELOPMENT TP LOAD pb/yd
I.fii
TP LOAD REOULTIOM REQUIRED IIb/Yd
348
TP LOAD REDUCpN ACHIEVED IIb/yr1
2.hr
TP LOAD REMAINING IIb/Yd
2.9s
REMAINING TP WAD REDUCTION REQUIRED (Ib/yd:
0.79
Total Nitrogen (For Information Purposes)
POST DEVELOPMENT LOAD IIb/yr
33.x3
NITROGENLOAD RmUCpNAGRIEVEo pb/yd
ll.1S
REMAImNG POSTDSAdWPMEM MMR ENLOAD IIb/Yd
IS
al urzinapewrea=
M=
ue
AA
Im a u:/Pen'itu: ra to
"/>^6
W Yea puall volume=
1RI
CF
(lxs'RYUI/tx
1E
NFrtm dearRa .
DCF
PRARKILL.VounnI
.1c,
a n
voie
tF
aresumsmnesum b
2s
0
Ttnl a N-
no
z.a
Fr
iWfa¢Mea
Mnlnwm Ra
Pmdeea
.EF
Rao sF
Taal Vnloon, tNNa
1pa6
roolanvaloand,
Ennui dome:
28T6
gmeolunna
tl1c,
Prattles Fwe Volume
S9 CF
SFONAL YS�'
oars
x6
>E
J[E
og�
ser umu
s
4 °ON
0.0 €€�
In
ee
o$
�_ mMTE
DSpa/2021
K. ROESEH
•• K. ROESER
• [NKKE09Y
• B. CICHOCKI
GONE
N/A
I'.
�
E
�
Y
O
O
in
VYI
m
Z a
O>g1
J
w H E
f W i
de 2s
Q
o Q
a
0Dwa
-a
Z
O
W E
OO
�
2
0[�
L
V2
s
P
8
FOx
x0.
4 %118 5
xO
C6.1
t
I _
I
t _l
I 1 1�0 < �,�u� ��, ,... �.. A] / ion �• � \ _ 1
476
°n / \
_ e o ]
ff.
//
8
I
IV
IP I I I I I I I �\ �♦ '-� � �
It
i
va'
\
�- / /I L.� I � I � / • � � Chi —�..
V - / I I I � // / •• "� � � V II
add*3
I
.I I. I LJI LJ
LyJ zo„
wl
�i�,� '— - aa,. �; s� a ,n M.B v ••; ;
• • , /c;
\\\ < , .1 • asv nss °� °o as9 Soa sr •, •••I, •; I I
T�
If
/ d
LJI
7<'�
TIMMONS GROUP �5 :.17� �$��p
•• YOUP VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH WRS. 60R %m[on gvewe' SUIle no I CNHptteSNIle, VA 22903 4
TEL°30395.SU4 FA%°3°.295.93]] "eoI .-'.Wm 6
SOUTH WOOD PHA -BLOCKS 11 & 12 DATE REVISI°WMMEI1RTDx
a m x e z0 z0u counTr WMMEMS xi °" s
M n "Q Oo o g u/3]/202t couxTv roMMExrs zz
N i COUNTY OF AL6EMARLE VA o O� a N v m \ "tt 03/1]/2022 COUNTY COMMENTS k2 b' I
E DJ A Q $ �i 0° DS 2022 WPo RESUBMISSIDN IN
STORMWATER SUMMARY PLAN
m�rea n�nNao�ema�ro�.�wo.'<ore�wx� i�oIm.�rea�W�<.�maTiw�'a<'s c' Aow°.m»,a.a<. o<.w.w.e�e.we °.mow��+.m<.....w.iw, ewna
PMiM BwIIM <_Bb[h ii
wn Nrmu
PNASIopkll Strom
YMm NMABM
IMm ON
STORM SEWER DESIGN COMPUTATONS
e
$
MOM VREGUENCvO
m�m�mmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm=mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmomomm�mmm��mmmmmmmmmmmmm��mma
mmm�mmmmmmm®®mmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmm�mtm�
mmm�mmm0000mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm_mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmomommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmmmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmm�®mms
RWIE
PI06T BmIMcx_ z 13
[61Ci®1: IUM tYLID31
mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m�
mmm�mmm000mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�__mmm®o_mmm®�_®_m__®�mm®mmmmmmmmmmm��m®
®®
m
mmmmmm�m�
m�m�mmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�'mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmomom�mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��®�
m�m�mmmoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm'mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�_mmmmo_m_o_m�mmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmomoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm'mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmomom�m®m®�mmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m�
mmm�mmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm���m�
mmm�mmmm000mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmomommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmmmm®®mmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmm�®m®
®�m�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m�
mmm�mmmmomom�mmm�m�mm®�mm®mmmmmm��m�
mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��mm�
®�m�mmm0000mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmommm�mmmm��mmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®m��®�
mmm�mmm0000mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmomommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m�
mmm�mmmoomommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�'mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m®
mmm�mmmmomommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m
mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmm��m
PROJECT:
n cPk«n z
tic ka W41 a
UN15 YpL1YX .Pf. v/C/7z
F ✓
fEl
V1
fa
MIT
Iq
p
T
Uol
I111
fIA
",
M pr
pM'p)
l�)
aP[CmW
CIE
P•.,
va
j
R1
mPROJECT
PMBLOCK12STORM
�,
�,
STORMSEWER DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
STORM FAEGIENCV 10
`SIGNAL t1�
4149
xE
JE
L.
coumr. cream q: . 'g
UNITS tNouMl ° g
wy o:..lE
PNp
_
_
R
'A'
Aw
01
I
NI
[M
w
m
u
IT
Ic1
Imam
Mm
ML
m
M,Np
p PP
05
IM
.
UR.
E!m
Ua1
ATI.
inwEE
Q!O
1I1
xPcr
Pt
Ua
mR
Prhi
In1
M E
(I
I, A )
W
I1
m
,n
GS
am
I—
Un
w
Flt.
Bm
nn
REMAPK
nn
P6EMICEPoM
GI
PREBFNCP
CI
'l
P
M,Eoz
m
wo
afzr
NTc
ITT
a
xne
I.,
v
lO
A—E,-.1
u s
Hs
11 m.
a.aw
11
x m
a.nf
IM
III
I.
Ill
IM
W.i
1.
1,
1.,
0.
ip
m UCua¢uXEuulnls PMU�r
IM' ..PRCY 1. v..,
D�m
U��Vw
e�
mo .9
c£sIGNEn sv: OS/Ja/Ni11
K Ill
unox ' 14A INTMUImm INN IwN IPo• �• Pvwtie
mE ICGPACEUNEMI MS
IxaGBICE VF@L&IIEV 10 vxr
• oEnGNEo ev
• ROESER
• cIIEIXEo ev
fl CICHCCKI
G . •
SCNE
N/A
I.. ll
-tI5 71
1 71
1(16
IMQ
0 M
012
57
013
100
5 IT
SE EE
05
017
NIII
012
OQ
I
I ..
jll�
N.,.
1.
..7
D
D
(I.
IX.
VIP Y
O1
ii
0ag'
J w
0
CO£J�
I mUs
<W
=ao
Z
o
o
B
r
s
0
�
S�
m♦
g
B
47118
@�
SNEEr Np
C6.3
iEXISTINGFROPC
. gN'. ryo^�$ o
pr$i
Zw
112: 30'B..h-Q.I.r G.
STA 14+2624
TOP 492.]8
INV IN 485.04 (113)
108: MH-1
INV CUT 4B0N U11)
STA 13+38.00
TOP 49226
INV IN 4MA0 (107)
INVIXRdp4.30(,05)
s ^
tO4:OP2
m $
STA 13N8.12
TOP49093
o,S-.v O
-_
INV IN 481.19 (105)
p
�V�iQ3_
INVOUT.:w, 104)
114: W 6av- 0-la,Gre
STA 14+67.91
TOP 492.82
INV IN 48SMU15)
117B: DI-3B6fl Tnwt
INV IN 469.00(RD5)
STA 15+73.96
INVOUT485.26(113)
TOM 49101
116: MRI
INV IN d08AB H1 7C)
STA 15+59.39
INVOUT406.31I11]A)
TOP 490.89
X
INV IN 436.24 H ITA)
INV IN 486.31(127)
a
IW OUT 485,82(116)
3e =
F-gz OS
mr$»�
RD2: 12-0BNn-C.m Iar Grate(SMI4)
STA 17+0891
m
TOP 492.93
INV IN 488.24 (119)
116: MWt
INVOUT488.14(RD1)
STA 15-S
C
TDP490.89
'+
INVIN4824(19TA) O
m
1p: 17 B"n-CI=Ur OUR,
INV INa:,31(12])
9y3.5]
INV OUT 485.62 H 15) m$
4
f3d:013B6flT1aoM
492.21-
STA tt.t]fiILe
INv OuTd08.mH19)
r
STA10+29.09 g�$io
TOP490M
TOP 48683�$__
838.44
INV OUT 488.38(133)
INV OUT (12])
AO
PRO 03ED
590
GRADE
EXISTING
495
GRADE
d
_
490
���
__i --- _-__----
i
((('''3FI
d
1 LINE A'
I
\ISE RIM OF
/
11
I HFIC UNE
119
i
I
751
FD=DT
SE5GRADE-
-
171
529z OF
4'HDPE
a05
it ]1'OF
IY HOPE
_ _
t40'OF
105 7660E 43.55 OF
0
IB'HDPE
101
102 2022T OF
p,08'OF 21"HOPE
HOPE
HIM
21-HP105a% �050%
@o.SA
101
0242'0F 8259'OF 2Y HOPE
'0.50% ®
14.
17A
'OF
480 2p HDPE 21"HOPE ®0.`A% _
IV I
PPE
@0.50% @aso%
1m
IT OF
HOPE
@O0%W%
ms
n
F
F471
D
500
PROPOSED
GRADE
EXISTING
DRIVE
95
d95
ep
<p
MIN
MIS
,IN
e
IT HDPE
p 0.5G%
MW
80
m
475
ro
470
Sao
PROPOSED
GRADE
NIS
EXISTING
495
490,
gWY.�'.
490
1
MIN
IS
485
31
0'
S
6T.6T OF
%
21'HDPR
®t.
RICO%
60
460
475
ns
ro
7411)
9+50 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+W 14+00
UWM
18+03 17+00
1H40 18+50
9+50
UHG)
t1+W 11+50 B+50
STR. 100 - STR. 120
STR.
116 - STR. 128
HOMZ SCALE: 115a
HORIZ SCALE: Ill
VERT SCALE: 1'=5
VERTSCALE:1=-5
.I
s
RCQ 2A'Ban-CF Wl Guu
STA 11+1541
L
11480.24
INV IN 4]6.16(RWI
�m
_
102: DI- 2A
m
INV OUT47Bae (RD1)
STA t0+33.2]
nm
v
M. 01-3B BRTIwet
p4, MH-1
^
&amm
o¢
a
TOP4WA1
m
mm-o'o
STA 10+003]
9TAt0+80%
am
RD8: 11'Baan-CI¢Nar Grele(S.H)
INV IN 482b]102)
INVIN48sA6 (1R1)
�
TO2
INVIN47034(p3)
T�VS.
Nx-w0
w IS
m �k`
STA 12- 10
STA
481,18
INVOUT462.4]110I)
�HVa.°
INV IN 4ro.34(M)
INV IN 47dM(RD1)1
INVCUT474SDOG)
6a->
2�° z
I
F+g�S
INVOUT477.45(RD])
RX,
5N
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
4&5
495
p
5,11490
6'FIRE '
LINE'A'
1
1'MN
485
121
485
309
t�200%
4�
d80
075
475
C
es
4e
PROPOSED
GR4DE
EXISTING
GRADE
MIS
3'
N.
R07
ROS
3HOPE
47s
p g94s' OF B
47
8' HOPE
p3 O
470
I 09p10PE
.
3535HOPE
4
1�A
@462%
�462%
.5
a63
4
00+4
711 -o D
rr.. n CXn h z
tic Nn 59]<I a
F �
�' BIONAL FS�
4AIA R R
>E
JE
r01
z ##4
�n4%
gIR
ttE2
3bu'�K
E WSW€
Org
oiLL
25w
0
8m
e�
�_
yMTE
o�
OS/24/2011
K ROESER
K ROESEft
•
-11aEDe
fl CICHOCKI
•
•
1.
UHG) 11g3 12+4V 12+50 •
STR.110 - STR; 134
HORIZ
VERT SCAtE:1=5
�a22
�Fm--
STAIN
STA
�y0>z >z
TOP 4]5.85
47585
INV OUI 4]060(205)
85
PROPDBED
GRADE
EXISTING
80
GRADE 43C
79
k7l
70
429T OF
12' HOPE
@OW%
S
O
9+50 IOHM 11+60 11+50 9+50 10N0 11+C0 12+00 13+W 13+50 9+50 10+00 11g3 11✓X
STR. 102 - STR. 122 STR. 202 - STR. 204 STR. 202 - STR. 206
HOR12EC E: 1'=5P HORIZ SCALE: 1'=50' HOW SCALE: 1'6
VERTsCA 1'� VERT SQNE: 1--5 VERT SCALE: 115
5
CLN
9
PROFILE 6CAII�
K!
O
�
9
T
VI
u
d
U
d
OaLL"
J j
L I
C
£
C $
r /
p9
o��
Z
O
i
O
`1
0T-
r
e{
�i
e'
I
47118
i
zi
sx66rno.
jg?
C7.0
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 lx17 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
_ €Ros1GX CONTROLMIMI IE�FxD _ TH OF
/ ` \ \ \'' `'' SOIL
LAAEA L........
�
NG Axo GRRDIxG p`
SNET FE3.01 � D CbLiYi Z
De. Na SJNI Y
_ ____ -_ _ NEE
___ ___ ENTRANCE 3.02
/ _ "0
SILT IENCE 3.03LIZ
_/ INLET PROIEC110x 3.U]
s pp ENNUI DINE 3.09 � 8
w_
' ' I �, I 1��'�, rT�< / -_ ` / -+//'/ � - Fi �/ •. - 8T SEDIMEMTMP SAS
--
-- - ----
—!� - - _ _ wmEr vaorernon 3.ve
r
I \ r
TEMFgwRY 3EEOING 33l
I ' i
,Y
iERIMNEM SEEDING 3.32
MULCWNG 3Js
, r r
88
: r ,
IRGA, y9i. TREEPROTELTOH FENCE 3.36
1 - - - - DUST CONTROL S 0 3
Dc
_ PG
1 E. STEE➢E0. THAN 3:1 3 F
TO BE STRDILIZEDWITH
XurvXET
vlwww aos x svE on rvUnaE EN �
sTRrefW= o
1 IOH AND 3EDIXEMCONIR L AxDSP9['
TFO.pAhll,
,�oMvwv�
\ �w7M nk
- -' � w zzA ,vE no srz ` � , ,p aF o.)` i _ _ ♦ ` _ � � B S
/ -r Z10 25 R1�•d`e. /� TS SEDIMENT TM�1z "/'
1.2BXL MAl1UG[[AREA =�
w OTAF srO,=.VOu .sG „' 33 4 - _ _ x_��
IP TOTAL STORAGE PROVIOEP 1. GVv' nN 4�/- KROESER
OP OP, TRAP -an.0
' I E E TRAPz /� _ _ •
TOSVTTNU OIN CT ✓/ITX /� r pC \ \ � ` / • K eueo ev
_ SONSTRIICNON OFW 203106WF. TS ` •
SOLL�TYPE:' � %�'/': � w i v , � • acxoa:r
I
2 I nR � 27B / �;;/, 1 � •\ - ,'1,1,�11 --M'""� -' •
wn
w 4 wmE/ cDwMurou rlCds 1'
"CONTRACTOR SHAL�VIDE 6d OR SOVJHERryry�/p,P• 'I
IDEPRESSION TOCDLL-L VE:jC F M /NC6CLk
1 WATERS US WELL AS RUNOFF FROM FOAY£WAYN ' ,
DUMPSTER. MORTAR MaIFIG ST Ion. 'rEL�PNONEc Y '/ l I r�°-
1 1 j14 LniicREJE wASHOUTPdi DEDICATED I De R1,14/+1y ;/ / SOIL TYPE'
CON C.TETRUCx WASHOUT / r
M =,W IxINGTUET M / / I/:I':. l _ l , 276
I--I�EMPOwav NOILETS- -
wE' �3. Duyearae I,/,I �u' / naxeea. olsaaou'oaoslAo 1 A T:,';' // I ��(
/ % r \ SOV)NWOOO CM ARLOTTE$VILLELLC CJCJ
EoNTNµCEcrloX % I, / II r `¢" / _ _ _ ` ME/clreoR/roOo moOE o�srR/cz Q §¢
vc. rse STeCIPILE
r
, e
MORTARMIKINGSTMN3N__
a J v o
¢Q
Tor LxArtso DISTORe E a NO �' �' _ / / srr rs ' �'__ ra \ •) - _ - �T rc d
SIP SEDIMENT TRAP CO� %�; \ ,y�
2O6AL STORAa RE SEA IUO RE ENE Wr14101R' 2t C W 6 ZO E
_ S1.LY TpT O'--Go ENLRETE TRUCK Y L7`-'
�' TOTAL sTCNAGE PROVIDED : 3u.00Y QD`wASHOVY
TOP OFraAe -A3Ts _ - - o W pp
DD
_ r f
_ P- DID I I�_Ouw - - _ ONTRACTOR TANALL OCOLPLERENG� EM 7 M I,
CE •l_ _ _ _ _ _ DWA,UMPSTER MORTAR NVNOFF FROM r� O Z g l
IDEPRE SION _H
_ M ING sTATION.I 3
_ _
SF
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ UM_PS
, On 1 5% / O O B I
L ^ _ �.E OP2 LA]-CO.�ICO _ _ _ -
I\-SOVR/WOOO Ci4,R[OT7ESVILLE[Lr-_- SX9
_ yy R1 RE5/OEMiAL _
IP __ __ - COMSTRUCT _ vT pO91WSANCE-♦-A C - _ - _
UCTON AROVEGRWNDFUELC pNER / - O 0
O - -
/ �N?RAKCE WITH MPERMEAe1e xEAw ME 9NA[t IJfs Spsn G / _ r F �-
\\ I _ _ \ _ I _ LINER. VOSTO EREDU FUELED
EMT -`-
-voioue. wlcnsmE`u -____J CJ r a/ / O
u_i -----=JAv.'G- rZ
- _____ _ -
L
L--=� L7-- / - /l I�/ ^�� III
-
J
_-_--_- _ _______ ♦ __ _______--'�__�.</J//// \\ P / rsa I sa 47118
- _ --s-.2�==-__1it
_h_ - �,Da-->s-XI"-T' - F/ / / % 1 sPPPOA
_____ __ �7
L
EROSION
v _
OR'U5 OF COLfAl10[NG� NED GRADING G
SOIL IRGE DIVIDE OF J
soa Haan DIVIDE
/ SAFER FENDS 3.01 rym U GeAafi
xN sna a
CONSIWRION ENTRANCE 3.02
SILT Na
3.05 'SIONAL
IT
- _ _ _ _ _ IP • mHETPWTErnox 3.oT
` `: l - v: - - __. i ,- DD DIVERSION DIKE 3.D9 x 6
/ EEDIMENETW 3.13 u E
e _ OP OUTLET PROTECTION 3.18 a y
`6 TS TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 w g "e{
w��n O #aYa
p m C
PERMANENT SEEDING 3322,6
y- _ A �- MULCHING 3.35 1
OLD g�
IT \/f/� C�i +i$
�\ V _ T�� _ ME PROTECTION RACE 3.36
� \ _ ` TP
BURG A _ -__ ' _ _ _ - uaP cYY�rc
\ - -c-�`✓ OC DUSTWMROL 3.39 Nn Eu ii044s03
\ LYNCHROAD
\ STATE - - -
\ ROUTE - 3.36 0�
` \ _ G - - _ STABWARON BUNKEE
(VARYING
errs¢ D o - - /r /
/ (VARWNG �- - --�
P ` _` u
BM AREAS SLEEPER THAN 3:1
I TD eE STAwuzED wrtx
�IW f� �`- / _ �I•NINGWAEROSION AND SEDIMFM Wn1M1OL HAn0B00K'SP[tIFlGT10N NUM6ER
VATED DROP
DO
...
- LES{L A - 6EDIMENTTRAPN
9 0.0CDRAINAGE
AREA
URNANCE TOTALSTORAGE REQUIRED: CYOFISTGP BTOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED .1196.6 CY
92 OTTOMIELEVATION 690 LO
Top
OFNLET491.60 �-
-aNv-
^ ry rvrvn rvry (TEMPORARILY RAISE WITH GRADE RINGS) <on nu�i
PP
- N OD i I m�oE
U S
TP
r v r 16 > AIR 1 ^ TOTACD NA OVIDED: 196 CV �_ �__ US/lO/N!11
x / / SEDIMMTTRAA2 I _ olwwx ev
\\ 1OTAL DMIWI AREA o
R TOTAL STOMGE EpUIRED'. 1915CY 1 I - - - a" `i_ J K ROESER
IP TOP OF TRPP=A"O% L� y� oesanrn ev
I \ 6EOIMFIITTRAP2 \ �C/ 1 OC - \ ,� �_ • K ROESER
_ 1 TOBEOOORDINATED`GITH L(/ C ITT
v _
CONSTRUCTION OF mz1CLCU'_� Q TR 5 \-FCKFne
I / SO L'TY_PE: 9� crcnocKl
1 27B �1 •
/ 1 I
DD 0 I / IP
DO T6 -c
I 1
/ COMRAOTONTOCOL ECTWHI16p�HMENT TrN-
IP
MTER %ION TOflS RUNOFF FROM'NN6H
WATERS R. WELLM RUNOFF FHjMM
WMPSTER. MORTARMI%LNG VATIXI.
OIL
CONCRETEWASHOUTFORDVEICATED
TYPE:
CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOUT
/MORTAR MI%LNG STATION/ / SF/ ' V
TEMPORARYTOILETZ / / /
R16
DuOs,a'
CONSTRUCTION / / / \ _ _ NEIGNBOFNO R O>EL hLE�C I � W m
•y, Ste'-' Ali IN _ _ _ _ I \STOCKPILE IP
_ • 11`
AREA IjJ / _.( T"I yp
-2 / N i -
q/ I 9 _ _ PROVIDETEMTOP V r
MIIT90 OISTU CE a AC-.. p9
Sol
�/ V ZJ
\ MORTARMI NG STRTICM DO GRATE INLET TOP
SEDIMENTTW i wnsXouT �/ L TYs � � >
_ I
TOT L
205 AC DRAINAGE AREA ! / Y ¢ Z
__ ---• / d1.9T TOTAL
STORAGE REDURED. PT4] CYO FO DEDtGTED ��_ IP ^� T £ O �$
'.I 1 • _���� _-�4TAL.SIDBTRAPAGEPROWDED. 31MCT \ UT \ m - $S
TOP OF
l� m
tea. �� �. • NA CE _
_ E
IP _2Y O Oaf
MS RAIN GUAGE ABOVE G_ROI�IND FUELIC MNE NW �D� DRL ENTAL00I� LL I FACTVSOC IP O
CO UCTIGE _ i�8.ggyE - O
SF _ _
CON y, _
IP r- ENT�PPNCE FOTALYIMI H{S v{ uDIS�TIIRB 46B�C OTIRGSTER. MORTAR M%PING STAiOION. a
t / T CONSTRUCTION
WITX IMPERMFABLEHFA IL RRCRI VL pyg$p�
LINER. VOLUME SUFUELENTT _ T^
O
- i CONTAIN STORED FUELED GOR RT T9/N$I➢ON FROM -
- _ - I' TRADITIONAL SE IMLHQfIRAGTO EXCAVATED fl
11 / .� _ _ t I _ r10%(GA6IDEISLL)g.R MENTTRAPASBUIIDWG �g
-VOLUME
ASE I ^\ O A
-' �_� ��r:ZE------ _ / / I I '.�s1-✓= e
I, ) o, -
\ BEECHI/ V '-� '� T, 1
J
f Ir�l I �I \ ( - ,�J.I �� 1C,, ,r_J ',,� (j \'J_ L>=r, L?
I A V I I I I y ll I,, A_ J F. v L_J I - LJ% �L__ 1DR xD $
IF
;�P h
,-/"''_ ��, l _1 �J %><PPP-1B 1£ &�/ /// �, sxLETxo. an
^ �7/ ,
�,
L
EROS.ON CONTROL LEGEND
— — Dmrts OF DIVIDE
AND GRADING �' �� G
DRAINAGE DMDE
SOIL AREA DIVIDE
SAFELY FENCE 3.01 Lt U W41 z
RICE PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3.02 �y V/5/17Z ,B�
� SF -w—M- SILT FENCE 3.05 ZONAL �` p
a
- _ _ _ _ _ _ OAIB
IF INIEi PROTECTION 3.07
(_ _�' / VJ--f� / - DD DIVERSION DIKE 3.09 �B
_ v
f
� - SEDIMENT TRPP 3.13 m O ST i E
OR p111ET PROTECTION 3.18 <Gr�
TEMPoPPAY SENDING 3.31 ry i
1 � pp #hV12
PERMANENTSEEDING 3.32 � W g v � � � x
��11 02 MULCHING 3.35 LL O O N
1 A �i
OLD\ i \ \ Tp TREE PROTECTIGN FENCE 3.38 Finan N p
ROAD DUST CONTROL 3.39 fu O s O 3
�� GP ` _ - - ' GPI AREPS SLEEPER THAN 3.36 o
STATE
ROUTE TO BE sTADnrzEO WITH
631 OF G p GP ' NG= t �yi GP STABZATION BLANKETT
(VARYING
IGP —UGP ��,C - / D EEW PE I CATLON NUMB
ER
OF
UUP G M'DGp M O _
MN Y
T —�pj6 I 401 L ` ` /PT DISTURBANCE HP
ry
IF IF
I \ / ry
yCl I I O INl O � J i .. lI ❑IP SF
O OF O 1 AG
Gry
� C
PS MU /
� o ry
_ aP tOLIP ���VAmay'!
" - � � DATE- RFr � 1- � -T191 � _� TP OP
Rt 0
ovnwx ev
k ROfSR¢
I
' II - DEnRNEo av
IT .. .. L-.._ � - � \�\� _ •• KROESEH
[HEIXEDRY
L
1 � I I/ ,R 'a i •
B-ULHOLp
I b �
1 0
IAU
EA�6b` µI i. IP
I BE 'fP PS
5
1, / 1
IL I ew I MV _ (� 2
MORTNi MIXING STATN)N /' I
R
CL
P c L D 6 B
/ Ri5 '10 r - ' DUMPSTERr� I iWY ' \ S TH AO SV4LE /
� =y
r -r- '-- --� ✓ - IF ELI
CONSTRUCTION
' 8,W , W q2 ✓ _. ENTRANCE
I _ Y IL
\ I _ a
qq
U Q g s
.� Tor LMIITSO OISTU CE /.i IC i,° a0J _ / / _ 3. - - > a =
__ __ / 8 I. PS MU - IP / PS 'eo• Q Z $
- RB/fl
A
• R2' I r --cnnn I A'¢ _ \ W
aB 13 9 9mV•
I / 4
aa•
IP
� -_iBLL
O W c
Z
UMPSTER B O O S'
ai
ErW—
IF
�_� \
Y \ / - - IP SF . PAaFEL OBOa LOTTA LULL
\ RAIN GUAGE - c
TOTAL LIMITS OARL LLLELL \
_ ... \ -CONSTRUCTION WITHABOVEMPROUNOFUELGVY-MR.R 1�C
IP r _ - � ' - CONSTRUCTN3N _ O$,i9]6P6061
V VOLUME 10%(GlBELTI O-- -� -
YYY \ \ TMILER WITH 'VOLUME
MPERMEABLE
_ _ _ �/ \ \ 1 E P LINER. VOW ME SUFFICIENT
/ CONTAIN STORED FUELED
J C] I I >
_
�—_L _ ;-------J _
LJ
LJ
r MAN
- - - _ - - L J scnlE�r=yB• % I 47118 e.
! L I 0 y \ 5D'
L______J ����yc / PPP-2
rs. sources or roumants. Locations, ana
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 on-
Land disturbance area
Plan. Dispose of clearing debris at
stabilized areas
acceptable disposal sites. Seed and mulch,
or sod within 7 days of land clean,
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
Solid waste disposal
As provided by contractor
area. Scheduled collection to prevent
overfilling. MATERIALS NOT TO BE
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
Ian
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
Constituents
Location on Site
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.)
Mr. Andy Miller
Piedmont Housing Alliance
682 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
434.422.5497
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 1-800424-8802.
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
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.
Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County
Sediment TMDLs for Moores Creek, Lodge
Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch
Albemarle County and Charlottesville City,
Virginia
Submitted by:
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Prepared by:
Virginia Tech Department of Biological Systems Engineering
Revised: January 20, 2016
0 Biological Systems
Engineering
CENTER for
®VirginiaTech WATERSHED
VT-BSE Document No. 2015-0003 Invent the Future STUDIES
at VIRGINIA TECH
Project Personnel
Virginia Tech, Department of Biological Systems Engineering (BSE)
Gene Yagow, Sr. Research Scientist
Karen Kline, Research Scientist
Carlington Wallace, Graduate Research Assistant
Rebecca Zeckoski, Research Associate
Brian Benham, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Tara Sieber, Valley Regional TMDL Coordinator
Nesha McRae, Non Point Source TMDL Coordinator, VRO
Don Kain, Valley Region Water Quality Monitoring and Assessments Manager
James Shiflet
Craig Lott, Central Office
For additional information, please contact:
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Assessment Office, Richmond: Craig Lott (804) 698-4240
Valley Regional Office, Harrisonburg: Tara Sieber (540) 574-7800
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................
VIII
LIST OF ACRONYMS.........................................................................................
IX
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................
X
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1
1.1. Background................................................................................................1
1.1.1. TMDL Definition and Regulatory Information.......................................1
1.1.2. Impairment Listing................................................................................1
1.1.3. Pollutants of Concern...........................................................................3
1.2. Designated Uses and Applicable Water Quality Standards ........................4
1.2.1. Designation of Uses (9 VAC 25-260-10)..............................................4
1.2.2. General Standard (9 VAC 25-260-20)..................................................4
CHAPTER2: WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION...........................................7
2.1. Water Resources........................................................................................7
2.2. Eco-region..................................................................................................8
2.3. Soils and Geology......................................................................................9
2.4. Climate.....................................................................................................10
2.5. Land Use..................................................................................................10
2.6. Biological Monitoring Data........................................................................12
2.7. Water Quality Data...................................................................................21
2.7.1. DEQ Ambient Monitoring Data...........................................................21
2.7.2. DEQ Metals Monitoring Data.............................................................26
2.7.3. DEQ Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Monitoring Data .........
28
2.7.4. DEQ - Other Relevant Monitoring or Reports.....................................30
2.7.5. DEQ Permitted Point Sources............................................................34
2.7.6. VCU InStar (http://instar.vcu.edu) - Fish Inventory Data ....................36
2.7.7. 305(b)/303(d) Combined Report Monitored Violations .......................36
2.7.8. Virginia DCR Data..............................................................................39
2.7.9. Local Sources of Information.............................................................40
2.7.10. Related TMDLs and/or Implementation Plans..................................43
2.7.11. Sanborn Insurance Maps.................................................................44
CHAPTER 3: BENTHIC STRESSOR ANAL YSIS...............................................45
3.1. Introduction...............................................................................................45
3.2. Analysis of Stressors for Moores Creek...................................................46
3.2.1. Eliminated Stressors..........................................................................46
Ammonia..............................................................................................46
Metals...................................................................................................47
pH.........................................................................................................47
TDS/Conductivity/Sulfates....................................................................47
Temperature.........................................................................................48
3.2.2. Possible Stressors.............................................................................48
Hydrologic Modifications.......................................................................48
Nutrients...............................................................................................48
OrganicMatter......................................................................................49
PAHs....................................................................................................50
11
Toxics...................................................................................................50
3.2.3. Most Probable Stressors....................................................................51
Sediment..............................................................................................51
3.3. Analysis of Candidate Stressors for Lodge Creek....................................52
3.3.1. Eliminated Stressors..........................................................................52
Ammonia..............................................................................................52
Metals...................................................................................................53
pH.........................................................................................................53
TDS/Conductivity/Sulfates....................................................................53
Temperature.........................................................................................54
3.3.2. Possible Stressors.............................................................................54
Nutrients...............................................................................................54
OrganicMatter......................................................................................54
Toxics...................................................................................................55
3.3.3. Most Probable Stressors....................................................................55
Hydrologic Modifications.......................................................................55
Sediment..............................................................................................56
3.4. Analysis of Candidate Stressors for Meadow Creek.................................57
3.4.1. Eliminated Stressors..........................................................................57
Ammonia..............................................................................................57
Metals...................................................................................................
58
pH.........................................................................................................58
TDS/Conductivity/Sulfates....................................................................58
Temperature.........................................................................................59
3.4.2. Possible Stressors.............................................................................59
Nutrients...............................................................................................59
OrganicMatter......................................................................................59
PAHs....................................................................................................60
Toxics...................................................................................................60
3.4.3. Most Probable Stressors....................................................................61
Hydrologic Modifications.......................................................................61
Sediment..............................................................................................62
3.5. Analysis of Candidate Stressors for Schenks Branch...............................63
3.5.1. Eliminated Stressors..........................................................................63
Ammonia..............................................................................................63
Metals...................................................................................................64
pH.........................................................................................................64
TDS/Conductivity/Sulfates....................................................................64
Temperature.........................................................................................65
3.5.2. Possible Stressors.............................................................................65
Nutrients...............................................................................................65
OrganicMatter......................................................................................66
PAHs....................................................................................................66
Toxics...................................................................................................70
3.5.3. Most Probable Stressors....................................................................71
Hydrologic Modifications.......................................................................71
Sediment..............................................................................................72
3.6. Summary ..................................................................................................73
III
CHAPTER 4: SETTING REFERENCE SEDIMENT L OADS...............................75
4.1. Sediment..................................................................................................75
4.1.1. Selection of Local Comparison Watersheds......................................76
CHAPTER 5. MODELING PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SEDIMENT TMOLS............................................................................................80
5.1. Reassessment of the Moores Creek Impaired Stream Segment for the
SedimentTMDL..............................................................................................80
5.2. Model Selection........................................................................................81
5.3. Input Data Requirements..........................................................................85
5.3.1. Climate Data......................................................................................85
5.3.2. Existing Land Use..............................................................................85
5.4. Future Land Use.......................................................................................89
5.5. GWLF Parameter Evaluation....................................................................89
5.5.1. Hydrology Parameters.......................................................................90
5.5.2. Sediment Parameters........................................................................91
5.6. Supplemental Post -Model Processing......................................................92
5.7. Representation of Sediment Sources.......................................................93
5.7.1. Surface Runoff...................................................................................93
5.7.2. Channel and Streambank Erosion.....................................................94
5.7.3. Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs).....................................................94
5.7.4. Permitted Point Sources (including General Permits) ........................96
5.7.5. Industrial Stormwater.........................................................................96
5.7.6. Construction Stormwater...................................................................97
5.7.7. Municipal Stormwater........................................................................98
5.8. Accounting for Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variations ...................101
5.8.1. Selection of Representative Modeling Period..................................101
5.8.2. Critical Conditions............................................................................101
5.8.3. Seasonal Variability.........................................................................101
5.9. Existing Sediment Loads........................................................................101
CHAPTER 6: TMDL ALLOCATIONS................................................................103
6.1. Sediment TMDLs....................................................................................103
6.1.1. TMDL Components..........................................................................103
6.2. Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment.......................................................105
6.3. Allocation Scenarios...............................................................................108
CHAPTER 7: TMDLIMPLEMENTATION.........................................................113
7.1. Staged Implementation...........................................................................115
7.2. Link to ongoing Restoration Efforts.........................................................115
7.3. Reasonable Assurance for Implementation............................................117
7.3.1. TMDL Monitoring.............................................................................117
7.3.2. TMDL Modeling...............................................................................117
7.3.3. Regulatory Framework.....................................................................118
7.3.4. Implementation Funding Sources....................................................119
7.3.5. Reasonable Assurance Summary ....................................................120
CHAPTER 8: PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONTION ..........................................................
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES...........................................................................126
APPENDIXA: DETAILED LAND USE DISTRIBUTIONS ..................................130
APPENDIXB: DETAILED SIMULA TED SEDIMENTLOADS ...........................132
APPENDIX C.- GWLFMODEL PARAMETERS.................................................135
iv
APPENDIXD: SETTING TMDL ENDPOINTSAND MOS USING THEALLFORX
APPROACH......................................................................................................13 9
APPENDIX E.- INVENTORY OF ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION IN MS4 AREAS
OF THE WATERSHEDS..................................................................................147
APPENDIX F AREA AND L CAD DISTRIBUTIONS AMONG MS4 ENTITIES .148
v
List of Tables
Table 2-1. RRBC/NASS Land Use Summary.....................................................11
Table 2-2. Taxa Inventory by Sample Date in Moores Creek (MSC) and Lodge
Creek(XRC)................................................................................................14
Table 2-3. Taxa Inventory by Sample Date in Meadow Creek (MWC)................15
Table 2-4. Taxa Inventory by Sample Date in Schenks Branch (SNK) and an
Unnamed Tributary to Schenks Branch (XSN).............................................16
Table 2-5. Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) Scores for Moores Creek
(MSC) and Lodge Creek (XRC)...................................................................17
Table 2-6. Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) Scores for Meadow Creek
(MWC).........................................................................................................18
Table 2-7. Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) Scores for Schenks Branch
(SNK) and an Unnamed Tributary to Schenks Branch (XSN) ......................18
Table 2-8. Habitat Evaluation Scores for Moores Creek (MSC) and Lodge Creek
(XRC)...........................................................................................................
20
Table 2-9. Habitat Evaluation Scores for Meadow Creek (MWC) .......................20
Table 2-10. Habitat Evaluation Scores for Schenks Branch (SNK), and an
Unnamed Tributary to Schenks Branch (XSN).............................................21
Table 2-11.Summary of Ambient Monitoring Data through October 2010...........22
Table 2-12. DEQ Channel Bottom Sediment Monitoring for Metals ...................27
Table 2-13. DEQ Water Column Monitoring for Metals......................................28
Table 2-14. Summary of Major PAH Congener Values vs Consensus -Based
TECs and PECs in DEQ Monitoring (March 2009 - September 2010) .........29
Table 2-15. Indices for Determining the Type of Source and Potential for Toxicity
.....................................................................................................................
30
Table 2-16. Chlordane -Related Samples in Meadow Creek...............................31
Table 2-17. Chlordane -Related Samples in Schenks Branch .............................31
Table 2-18. RBS Analysis Results for Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch ......32
Table 2-19. Selected PReP Incidences..............................................................32
Table 2-20. Distribution of Reported Petroleum Releases by Watershed and Year
.....................................................................................................................
33
Table 2-21. Summary of Monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports from VPDES
Facilities.......................................................................................................
34
Table 2-22. Industrial Stormwater Permits in Moores Creek and Meadow Creek
.....................................................................................................................
35
Table 2-23. Summary of Fish Inventory Data......................................................36
Table 2-24. 305(b) Water Quality Standard Violations - Moores Creek..............37
Table 2-25. 305(b) Water Quality Standard Violations - Lodge Creek.................37
Table 2-26. 305(b) Water Quality Standard Violations - Meadow Creek.............38
Table 2-27. 305(b) Water Quality Standard Violations - Schenks Branch ...........39
Table 2-28. Installed Agricultural BMPs from DCR Cost -Share Database ..........
39
Table 2-29. Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Construction
PermitSummary ..........................................................................................40
Table 2-30. Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA) - Summary of Potential
Problems, 2005............................................................................................41
Table 2-31. Stream Corridor - Habitat Assessment, Albemarle County (2002) ...42
vi
Table 3-1. VSCI Scores from ProbMon Sites in Virginia with PAH Measurements
(Shaded VSCI scores greater than 60 indicate non-impairment).................68
Table 3-2. Common Types of PAHs from Pyrogenic and Petrogenic Sources as
indicated by differing ranges of PAH isomer ratios, phenanthrene to
anthracene (PH/AN) and fluoranthene to pyrene (FL/PY) (Neff et al., 2005)69
Table 4-1. Comparison Watershed Characteristics for Urban Impaired
Watersheds..................................................................................................
77
Table 4-2.Comparison Watershed Characteristics for the Rural Impaired
Watershed...................................................................................................77
Table 5-1. NASS Land Use Group Distributions for AIIForX Modeling ................86
Table 5-2. NASS/RRBC Land Use Group Distributions for TMDL Modeling .......
86
Table 5-3. AIIForX Modeled Land Use Categories..............................................88
Table 5-4. DEQ PReP Reported Incidences of SSOs.........................................95
Table 5-5. Summary of SSO Annual Average Quantities and Sediment Loads,
07/06 - 04/11................................................................................................95
Table 5-6. Summary VPDES Current and Permitted Flows, Concentrations, and
Loads...........................................................................................................
96
Table 5-7. Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISWGP) WLA Loads .............97
Table 5-8. Summary of VSMP Permits and Disturbed Areas..............................98
Table 5-9. Land use distribution between Non -regulated and Regulated-MS4
areas..........................................................................................................100
Table 5-10. Existing Sediment Loads in the Moores and Meadow Creeks
Watersheds................................................................................................102
Table 6-1. Sediment TMDLs and Components (tons/yr) for Lodge Creek, Moores
Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek............................................105
Table 6-2. "LTA to MDL multiplier" Statistics.....................................................106
Table 6-3. Maximum 'Daily" Sediment Loads and Components (tons/day) for
Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek .........107
Table 6-4. Lodge Creek: Sediment TMDL Load Allocation Scenario ................109
Table 6-5. Moores Creek: Sediment TMDL Load Allocation Scenario ..............110
Table 6-6. Meadow Creek: Sediment TMDL Load Allocation Scenario.............111
Table 6-7. Schenks Branch: Sediment TMDL Load Allocation Scenario ...........
112
Table A-1. Land Use Distributions for Simulating AIIForX Conditions in Moores
Creek and Meadow Creek Watersheds.....................................................130
Table F-2. Distributed GWLF Land Use Categories used for Sediment Load
Simulation..................................................................................................150
Table F-3. GWLF Distributed Sediment Loads (metric tons/yr).........................151
Table F-4. Albemarle County Regulated MS4 Land Use Areas and Sediment
Loads.........................................................................................................152
Table F-5. City of Charlottesville Regulated MS4 Land Use Areas and Sediment
Loads.........................................................................................................152
Table F-6.University of Virginia Regulated MS4 Land Use Areas and Sediment
Loads.........................................................................................................153
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Location of Impaired Segments and Major Watersheds .....................2
Figure 2-1. Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch
Watersheds....................................................................................................
8
Figure 2-2. RRBC 2009 Land Use in the Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow
Creek, and Schenks Branch Watersheds....................................................12
Figure 2-3. Locations of DEQ Monitoring Stations in Moores Creek, Lodge Creek,
Meadow Creek, and Lodge Creek Watersheds...........................................13
Figure 2-4. VSCI Scores for Moores Creek (MSC), Lodge Creek (XRC), Meadow
Creek (MWC), Schenks Branch (SNK), and Schenks Branch Unnamed
Tributary(XSN)............................................................................................19
Figure 2-5. Field Temperature............................................................................22
Figure2-6. Field pH............................................................................................22
Figure2-7. Field DO...........................................................................................23
Figure 2-8. Field Conductivity.............................................................................23
Figure 2-9. Lab Conductivity...............................................................................23
Figure2-10. Lab COD.........................................................................................23
Figure 2-11. Alkalinity.........................................................................................23
Figure2-12. Total Solids.....................................................................................23
Figure 2-13. Volatile Solids.................................................................................23
Figure 2-14. Total Suspended Solids(TSS)........................................................23
Figure 2-15. Total Chloride.................................................................................24
Figure2-16. Total Sulfate...................................................................................24
Figure 2-17. Total Dissolved Solids(TDS)..........................................................24
Figure2-18. Ammonia........................................................................................24
Figure 2-19. Total Nitrogen.................................................................................24
Figure 2-20. Total Phosphorus............................................................................24
Figure 2-21. Nitrogen - 2-MSC000.11.................................................................25
Figure 2-22. Nitrogen - 2-MSC000.60.................................................................25
Figure 2-23. Nitrogen - 2-MSC004.43................................................................25
Figure 2-24. Nitrogen - 2-MWC000.60...............................................................25
Figure 2-25. Phosphorus - 2-MSC000.11............................................................25
Figure 2-26. Phosphorus - 2-MSC000.60............................................................25
Figure 2-27. Phosphorus - 2-MWC000.60...........................................................25
Figure 2-28. 4-Day Diurnal DO Results on Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch
.....................................................................................................................
31
Figure 2-29. Reported Petroleum Releases By Year..........................................33
Figure 2-30. VPDES Facilities and DEQ Monitoring Sites..................................35
Figure 4-1. Location of Urban Impaired and Comparison Watersheds ...............78
Figure 4-2. Location of Rural Impaired and Comparison Watersheds.................79
Figure 5-1. Moores and Meadow Creeks Impaired Streams and Watersheds ....
84
Figure 5-2. Regulated MS4 Areas within the Impaired Watersheds ....................99
List of Acronyms
BMP
Best Management Practices
BSE
Biological Systems Engineering
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
DCR
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
DEQ
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
E&S
Erosion and Sediment Control Program (DCR)
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
LA
Load Allocation
MDL
Minimum Detection Limit
MFBI
Modified Family Biotic Index
MOS
Margin of Safety
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System program (EPA)
NASS
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA)
NLCD
National Land Cover Dataset
NPS
Non -Point Source
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
PEC
Probable Effect Concentrations
PReP
Pollution Response Program (DEQ)
RBP
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
RRBC
Rivanna River Basin Commission
SSO
Sanitary sewer overflow
STP
Sewage treatment plant
TAC
Technical Advisory Committee
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
TKN
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TN
Total Nitrogen
TP
Total Phosphorous
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
UAL
Unit -area load, e.g. Ibs/acre
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VSCI
Virginia Stream Condition Index
VDOT
Virginia Department of Transportation
VPDES
Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
VSMP
Virginia Stormwater Management Program (DCR)
VT
Virginia Tech
WIP
Watershed Implementation Plan
WLA
Waste Load Allocation
ix
Executive Summary
Background
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality Planning and Management
Regulations require states to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for
waterbodies that are exceeding water quality standards (WQSs). TMDLs
represent the total pollutant loading a waterbody can receive without violating
WQSs.
Four tributaries of the Rivanna River in the County of Albemarle and the
City of Charlottesville were listed as impaired on Virginia's 2012 Section 303(d)
Report on Impaired Waters due to water quality violations of the general aquatic
life (benthic) standard. These impaired stream segments include Moores Creek
(VAV-H28R_MSC01A00), Lodge Creek (VAV-H28R_XRC01A04), Meadow
Creek (VAV-H28R_MWC01A00), and Schenks Branch (VAV-H28R_SNK01A02).
The impairment segment specifics are show in Table ES. 1. The watersheds of
the impaired streams are shown in Figure ES.1.
Table ES. 1. Impaired segments addressed in this TMDL report.
Initial Impairment
Impaired Segment Size 305(b) Segment ID Listing
Year Type
Moores Creek (VAV- 6.37 VAV-H28R MSC01A00 2008 Benthic
H28R_MSC01A00) miles —
Lodge Creek (VAV-
1.57
VAV-H28R XRC01A04 2006 Benthic
H28R_XRC01A04)
miles
—
Meadow Creek (VAV-
4.0
VAV-
H28R_MWC01A00)
miles
2006 Benthic
H28R_MWC01A00
Schenks Branch (VAV-
1.13
VAV-H28R SNK01A02 2008 Benthic
H28R SNK01A02)
miles
—
This document describes the process used to identify the most probable
stressor contributing to the impairment of the benthic communities and the Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for sediment that were developed for Moores
Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch watersheds in order
to address the aquatic life water quality impairments.
Legend
Impaired Streams
Moores Creek
Lodge Creek
Meadow CreeK
Schenk's Branch
— Ciher streams
watershed
- Meadow Creek
- Moonas Creek
M&
0 750 1 500 3 000 d 500 6 000
mol "
Figure ES. 1. Impaired segments in Moores Creek and Meadow Creek watersheds.
Pollutant Sources
TMDLs must be developed for a specific pollutant. Since a benthic
impairment is based on a biological inventory, rather than on a physical or
chemical water quality parameter, the pollutant is not explicitly identified in the
assessment, as it is with physical and chemical parameters. The process
outlined in USEPA's Stressor Identification Guidance Document (USEPA, 2000)
was used to identify the critical stressors for each of the impaired watersheds in
this study. As a result of the stressor analysis, the most probable stressor
contributing to the impairment of the benthic community in Moores Creek was
identified as sediment due to poor habitat metrics related to active erosion, poor
vegetative cover and bank stability. In contrast, the most probable stressors for
Lodge Creek were identified as hydrologic modification and sediment because of
11
the large amount of impervious surfaces in the watershed, poor riparian
vegetation scores in the habitat metric, and erosion from unstable stream banks.
For Meadow Creek, the most probable stressors were also identified as
hydrologic modification and sediment due to the high percentage of urbanization
in the watershed and the poor bank stability scores in the habitat metric. The
same most probable stressors - hydrologic modification and sediment — were
identified for Schenks Branch attributable to the high percentage of impervious
surface area and headwater reaches being enclosed in culverts.
This TMDL was written for the common stressor in all four streams,
sediment, and will address all four benthic impairments. Additional information
and data to support the Benthic Stressor Analysis can be found in Chapter 3 of
this report.
Modeling
For the Moores and Meadow Creek sediment impairments, the procedure
used to set TMDL sediment endpoint loads is a modification of the methodology
used to address sediment impairments in Maryland's non -tidal watersheds (MDE,
2006, 2009), hereafter referred to as the "all -forest load multiplier" (AIIForX)
approach. The AIIForX approach has previously been approved for use in
Virginia by EPA in the Little Otter River and Buffalo Creek sediment TMDLs
(Yagow et al., 2015). AIIForX is the ratio of modeled sediment loads from the
same watershed: the existing condition load divided by the load from an all -forest
condition. The AIIForX approach was applied locally, using the monitoring
stations with impairments and a multiple selection of monitoring stations with
healthy biological scores. Two separate regressions were developed between
the average Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) biological index scores at
individual monitoring stations and the corresponding AIIForX ratio from their
contributing watersheds, one for the impaired urban watersheds (Lodge Creek,
Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch) and select comparison watersheds, and a
second one for the impaired rural watershed (Moores Creek) and select
comparison watersheds. The value of AIIForX along the regression line,
111
corresponding to the VSCI impairment threshold value of 60, is the AIIForX
threshold value which was used to set the TMDL.
After the TMDLs were set for each watershed, the Generalized Watershed
Loading Functions (GWLF) model was used to simulate sediment loads. The
GWLF model is a continuous simulation model that uses daily time steps for
weather data and water balance calculations. The GWLF model was run in
metric units and converted to English units for this report.
Endpoints
AIIForX and existing load simulations were performed using GWLF without
accounting for existing BMPs. After modeling on individual watersheds was
completed, model output was post -processed in a Microsoft Excel TM spreadsheet
to summarize the modeling results and to account for existing levels of BMPs
already implemented within each watershed.
The Sediment TMDLs
The sediment TMDL for Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and
Schenks Branch were calculated using Equation ES.1.
TMDL = WLAtotal + LA + MOS
Where:
[ES.1 ]
WLAtota, = waste load allocation (point source contributions, including
future growth);
LA = load allocation (nonpoint source contributions); and
MOS = margin of safety.
The sediment TMDL load for these watersheds was calculated as the
value of AIIForX, the point where the regression line between AIIForX and the
VSCI intersected the VSCI impairment threshold (VSCI = 60), times the all -forest
sediment load of the TMDL watershed. The TMDL loads and associated
components are shown in Table ES. 2. For the more urban watersheds in this
study, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch, the TMDLs were
calculated as their respective All -Forest sediment loads times the point where the
iv
urban regression line intersected VSCI = 60 (AIIForX = 5.543). For the rural
watershed (Moores Creek), the TMDL was calculated as its All -Forest load times
the point where the rural regression line intersected VSCI = 60 (AIIForX = 3.762).
Table ES. 2. Sediment TMDLs and Components (tons/yr) for Lodge Creek, Moores Creek,
Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek
Impairment
MDL WLA LA MOS
Sediment Load(tons/day)
Cause Group Code B28R-04-BEN
Lodge Creek
0.55
0.126
0.37
0.05
VAV-H28R_XRC01A04
VAR040051 City of Chadottesulle
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
0.125 tons/day
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
construction aggregate WLA
0 tons/day
Future Growth WLA
0.0014 tons/day
Cause Group Code H28R-02-BEN
Moores Creek`
26.64
2.219
22.73
1.69
VAR040051 City of Chadottesulle
VAV-H28R_MSC01A00
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
1.955 tons/day
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
VAR040108 Piedmont Virginia Community College
ISWGP Permits AR051960
0.005 tons/day
General Permits AG111032, VAG408447
0.007 tons/day
construction aggregate WLA
0.191 tons/day
Future Growth WLA
0.06 tons/day
Cause Group Code H28R-05-BEN
Meadow Creek`
4.90
1.239
3.19
0.47
VAR040051 City of Chadottesulle
VAV-H28R_MAC01A00
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
1213 tons/day
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
ISWGP Permits (VAR051372, VAR050974)
AR050876
0.004 tons/day
construction aggregate WLA
0.008 tons/day
Future Growth WLA
0.014 tons/day
Cause Group Code H28R-07-BEN
Schenks Branch
1.57
0.368
1.05
0.15
VAR040051 City of Chadottesulle
VAV-H28R_SNK01A02
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
0.347 tons/day
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
General Permits (VAG110064)
0.008 tons/day
construction aggregate WLA
0.009 tons/day
Future Growth WLA
0.004 tons/day
' Moores Creek excludes Lodge Creek; Meadow Creek excludes Schenks Branch.
Margin of Safety
To allocate loads while protecting the aquatic environment, a margin of
safety needs to be considered. For the more urban watersheds in this study,
Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch, the margin of safety was
calculated as AIIForX urban intersection point VSCI = 60 (AIIForX = 5.543) and
the lower bound of the 80% confidence interval (AIIForX = 5.01), amounting to
v
9.5%. Note that the margin of safety is equal to this difference expressed as a
percentage of the AIIForX threshold, and therefore is the same for all urban
watersheds using this regression.
For the rural watershed, Moores Creek, the margin of safety was
calculated as its All -Forest sediment load times the difference in AIIForX between
the point where the regression intersected VSCI = 60 (AIIForX = 3.762) and the
lower bound of the 80% confidence interval (AIIForX = 3.52). The margin of
safety for Moores Creek was 6.3%.
Allocation Scenarios
The target sediment load for each allocation scenario is the TMDL minus
the MOS and 1% of the TMDL allocated as a Future Growth WLA. Several
allocation scenarios were created for each watershed. In each scenario, SSOs
were to be eliminated and Forest and Permitted WLAs were not subjected to
reductions. Areas of harvested forest and construction are transient sources of
sediment subject to existing regulations. Their reduction efficiencies were
currently estimated as only half of those possible. Both allocation scenarios
assumed that these practices would meet their potential reduction efficiencies
with better enforcement of existing regulations. The allocation scenario selected
by the local Technical Advisory Committee used equal percent reductions from
all other sources. The selected allocation scenarios are detailed in Table 6-4
through 6-7 for Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks
Branch, respectively. The resulting loads for all land uses within Regulated MS4
areas comprised the WLA for the aggregated MS4 areas within each watershed.
vi
Table ES.3. Sediment TMDL load allocation scenarios for Moores Creek.
Existing Load Reduction
Land Use/ Source Group Area Sediment Allocation Scenario from §319
(acres) Load % Load Reduction Allocated Load I I
I
I Needed(tonstyr)
(tons/yr)
mpementation
Non -Regulated Areas
Row Crops
86.1
74.1
14.2%
10.5
63.6
Pasture
200.0
128.4
14.2%
18.2
110.2
65.9
Hay
710.9
193.2
14.2%
27.4
165.8
Forest
11,933.6
373.9
373.9
Harvested Forest
120.5
30.5
42.9%
13.1
17.41
Impervious developed
440.2
140.5
14.2%
19.9
120.E
Channel Erosion) 163.01 14.2%1 2331 139.91
Non-MS4 Permitted WL,S' -4.1 4.1
11.
Recjulated=MS4 Sub•Totals 835.5 14.6% 121.7 713.8
Future Growth 21.9 21.9
Total Loads 2,318.9 11.7% 271.7 2,047.2
" Non-MS4 Permitted WLA includes individual VPDES, ISWGP, and other general permited loads.
The Allocation Scenario Load for Transitional Land Use equals the construction WLA
LA components= 1,237.6
WLA components 809.6
TMDL - MOS = 2,047.2
vll
Table ES.4. Sediment TMDL load allocation scenarios for Lodge Creek.
Land Use/ Source Group
Area
(acres)
Existing
Sediment
Load
(tonstyr)
Allocation Scenario
o/u Reduction
Load Reduction
Needed (tons/yr)
Allocated Load
(tons/yr)
Non -Regulated Areas
Forest
2.64
0.056
0.056
Harvested Forest
0.03
0.0043
42.9%
0.0018
0.0024
Impervious developed
0.88
0.273
52.2%
0.142
0.131
Pervious developed
4.62
0.663
52.2%
0.346
0.317
Transitional***
0.06
0.238
25.0%
0.059
0.178
Channel Erosion
0.011
52.2%
0.006
0.005
Non-MS4 Permitted WLA**
0.000
SSOsj
1 0.00141
100.0%1
0.001
0.000
Non -Regulated Sub -Totals
1.25
44.7%
0.56
0.69
Regulated-MS4 Areas
Forest
50.04
1.06
1.06
Impervious developed
156.81
48.60
52.2%
25.35
23.25
Pervious developed
252.66
36.24
52.2%
18.91
17.34
Transitional***
1.12
4.80
25.0%
1.20
3.60
Channel Erosion
0.64
52.2%
0.34
0.31
R ulated-MS4 Sub -Totals
91.3
50.1 %
45.8
45.6
Future Growth
-0.5
0.5
Total Loads
92.6
49.5%
45.8
46.8
** Non-MS4 Permitted WLA includes individual VPDES, ISWGP, and other general permited loads.
The Allocation Scenario Load for Transitional Land Use equals the construction WLA
LA components = 0.5
WLA components = 46.2
TMDL - MOS = 46.8
Viii
Table ES.5. Sediment TMDL load allocation scenarios for Meadow Creek.
Land Use/ Source Group
Area
(acres)
Existing
Sediment
Load
(tonstyr)
Allocation Scenario
% Reduction
Load Reduction
Needed (tonstyr)
Allocated Load
(tonstyr)
Non -Regulated Areas
Forest
74.0
2.2
2.2
Harvested Forest
0.7
0.17
42.9%
0.07
0.10
Impervious developed
27.5
9.8
52.7%
5.2
4.7
Pervious developed
84.6
11.5
52.7%
6.0
5.4
Transitional***
1.2
4.0
25.0%
1.0
2.99
Channel Erosion
2.2
52.7%
1.1
1.0
Non-MS4 Permitted WLA**
-1.6
1.6
SSOSI
I 0.0002
100.0%
0.0002
0.0
Non -Regulated Sub -Totals
29.8
39.8%
1 11.9
18.0
Regulated-MS4 Areas
Hay
35.81
14.4
52.7%
7.6
6.8
Forest
598.09
17.7
17.7
Impervious developed
1,337.67
478.4
52.7%
253.5
225.0
Pervious developed
2,249.84
304.7
52.7%
160.5
144.2
Transitional***
9.96
34.3
25.0%
8.6
25.7
Channel Erosion
49.0
52.7%
25.8
23.2
R ulated-MS4 Sub -Totals
898.5
50.7%
455.9
442.6
Future Growth
-5.1
5.1
Total Loads
928.4
49.8%
462.6
465.7
** Non-MS4 Permitted WLA includes individual VPDES, ISWGP, and other general permited loads.
The Allocation Scenario Load for Transitional Land Use equals the construction WLA
LA components = 13.4
WLA components = 452.3
TMDL - MOS = 465.7
ix
Table ES.6. Sediment TMDL load allocation scenarios for Schenks Branch.
Land Use/ Source Group
Area
(acres)
Existing
Sediment
Load
(tons/yr)
Allocation Scenario
%
Reduction
Load Reduction
Needed (tons/yr)
Allocated Load
(tons/yr)
Non -Regulated Areas
Forest
5.1
0.1
0.1
Harvested Forest
0.1
0.01
42.9%
0.00
0.01
Impervious developed
22.9
7.8
57.1%
4.5
3.4
Pervious developed
75.7
10.9
57.1%
6.2
4.7
Transitional"'
1.0
4.3
25.0%
1.1
3.2
Channel Erosion
0.2
57.1%
0.1
0.1
Non-MS4 Permitted WLA"
-3.0
1 3.0
SSOSI
1 0.00011
100.0%1
0.0001
1 0.0
Non -Regulated Sub -Totals
23.4
38.1 %
8.9
14.5
Regulated-MS4 Areas
Forest
44.48
1.3
1.3
Impervious developed
475.54
162.4
57.1%
95.7
66.8
Pervious developed
770.51
110.7
57.1%
63.2
47.5
Transitional"'
3.07
13.3
25.0%
3.3
10.0
Channel Erosion
2.6
57.1%
1.5
1.1
Re ulated-MS4 Sub -Totals
290.4
56.4%
163.6
126.7
Future Growth
I
1
-1.6
1.6
Total Loads
1
1 313.8
54.5%
171.0
142.8
" Non-MS4 Permitted WLA includes individual VPDES, ISWGP, and other general permited loads.
The Allocation Scenario Load for Transitional Land Use equals the construction WLA.
LA components = 8.3
WLA components = 134.5
TMDL - MOS = 142.8
Future Implementation
The goal of the TMDL program is to establish a three -step path that will
lead to attainment of water quality standards. The first step in the process is to
develop TMDLs that will result in attainment of water quality standards. This
report represents the culmination of that effort for the benthic impairments on
Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek. The second
step is to develop a TMDL implementation plan. The final step is to implement
the TMDL implementation plan and to monitor stream water quality to determine
if water quality standards are being attained.
x
As an alternative to a TMDL implementation plan, watershed plans have
also been utilized to identify the actions needed to restore water quality in an
impaired waterbody. Typically, the Commonwealth has developed theses plans
in instances wherein a stream is impaired, the sources of pollution are well
understood, and a TMDL has not been developed. However, their application
may be more far reaching. A watershed plan could be appropriate in
circumstances such as those present in Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks
Branch, and Meadow Creek, where numerous local and regional planning efforts
are currently underway to address regulatory requirements for MS4 permits. In
such instances, a watershed plan could be utilized as a broader, more
generalized tool to weave together existing plans with additional non -regulatory
non -point source pollution controls.
Watershed stakeholders will have opportunities to provide input and to
participate in the development of the implementation or watershed plan, which
will also be supported by regional and local offices of VADEQ and other
cooperating agencies.
Public Participation
Public participation was elicited at every stage of the TMDL development
in order to receive inputs from stakeholders and to apprise the stakeholders of
the progress made. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings and public
meetings were organized for this purpose. During the original timeframe of this
project, a total of two public meetings and five TAC meetings took place from
January 2011 until February 2012. Since the original TMDL was rejected by
EPA, another series of meetings was held during the current revision phase to
re -open the TMDL starting in June 2014 in order to address EPA comments and
to re -submit the TMDL. A series of six TAC meetings took place until the project
was culminated at a public meeting held on June16, 2015.
Reasonable Assurance
Through the public participation process, follow-up monitoring, current
implementation actions for the Moores Creek Bacteria IP, the respective
Xi
jurisdictional TMDL Action Plans in MS4 areas, as well as ongoing efforts to
reduce sediment to the Chesapeake Bay, such as the MS4s' Chesapeake Bay
TMDL Action plans, there is reasonable assurance that the Lodge Creek, Moores
Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek sediment TMDLs will be
implemented and water quality will be restored.
xii
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.1.1. TMDL Definition and Regulatory Information
Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA) Water Quality Planning and Management
Regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require states to identify water bodies that violate
state water quality standards and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) for such water bodies. A TMDL reflects the pollutant loading a water
body can receive and still meet water quality standards. A TMDL establishes the
allowable pollutant loading from both point and nonpoint sources for a water
body, allocates the load among the pollutant contributors, and provides a
framework for taking actions to restore water quality.
1.1.2. Impairment Listing
The subjects of this TMDL study are impaired stream segments along
Moores Creek and its tributary, Lodge Creek, and along Meadow Creek and its
tributary, Schenks Branch. These four impaired segments are located within the
Rivanna River Basin and straddle the boundary between the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as shown
in Figure 1-1.
1
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Orgmia
Legend
Impaired Streams
Moores Creek
Lodge Creek
- Meadow Creek
Schenks Branch
Other streams
Watershed
- Meadow Creek
Moores Creel'
]0 ! 500 5 000
� mor ,,
Figure 1-1. Location of Impaired Segments and Major Watersheds
Moores Creek and its tributary, Lodge Creek, were originally listed as
impaired on Virginia's 2008 and 2006 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment
Integrated Reports, respectively, due to water quality violations of the general
aquatic life (benthic) standard. Meadow Creek and its tributary, Schenks Branch,
were originally listed as impaired in the same reports in 2006 and 2008,
respectively, also due to water quality violations of the general aquatic life
(benthic) standard.
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has delineated
the benthic impairment as 6.37 miles on Moores Creek, extending from its
confluence with the Ragged Mountain Reservoir receiving stream, downstream to
its confluence with the Rivanna River. The DEQ 2010 Fact Sheets for Category 5
Waters (VADEQ, 2010) state that Moores Creek was impaired based on
assessments at DEQ biological station 2-MSC000.60 and citizen monitoring
station, 2-MSC-MSC04-SW. The sources of impairment were listed as "Municipal
(Urbanized High Density Area)" and "Non -Point Source".
2
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Orgmia
DEQ delineated a benthic impairment on an unnamed tributary to Moores
Creek, listed as 1.57 miles. The "unnamed tributary" is known locally as Lodge
Creek, but also contains a portion of Rock Creek. The impaired segment extends
1.37 miles from the headwaters of Lodge Creek to its confluence with Rock Creek
and along a 0.20 mile segment of Rock Creek down to its confluence with Moores
Creek. This impaired segment will be referred to as Lodge Creek for the
remainder of this report. The Lodge Creek watershed is a sub -watershed of the
Moores Creek watershed. The DEQ 2010 Fact Sheets for Category 5 Waters
(VADEQ, 2010) state that this segment was impaired based on assessments at
DEQ biological station 2-XRC001.15 and citizen monitoring station, 2-XRC-
XRC01-SW, with the impairment attributed to "Non -Point Source".
The benthic impairment on Meadow Creek was delineated as 4.0 miles,
extending from its headwaters to its confluence with the Rivanna River. The DEQ
2010 Fact Sheets for Category 5 Waters (VADEQ, 2010) cite Meadow Creek as
being impaired based on assessments at DEQ biological station 2-MWC000.60
and at citizen monitoring stations 2-MWC-MWC01-SW and 2-MWC-MWC03-SW.
The source of impairment in Meadow Creek was stated as "Non -Point Source."
The benthic impairment on Schenks Branch extends 1.13 miles from its
headwaters downstream to its confluence with Meadow Creek. Schenks Branch
watershed is a sub -watershed of the Meadow Creek watershed. The DEQ 2010
Fact Sheets for Category 5 Waters (VADEQ, 2010) state that Schenks Branch
was impaired based on assessments at DEQ biological stations 2-SNK000.88, 2-
XSN000.08 and 2-XSN000.18, and citizen monitoring stations 2-SNK-SHK02-SW
and 2-SNK-SHV0I-SW. The sources of impairment in Schenks Branch were
considered to be "Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area)" and "Non -Point
Source".
1.1.3. Pollutants of Concern
Pollution from both point and nonpoint sources can lead to a violation of
the benthic standard. A violation of this standard is assessed on the basis of
measurements of the in -stream benthic macro -invertebrate community. Water
3
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Orgmia
bodies having a benthic impairment are not fully supportive of the aquatic life
designated use for Virginia's waters.
1.2. Designated Uses and Applicable Water Quality Standards
1.2.1. Designation of Uses (9 VAC 25-260-10)
"A. All state waters, including wetlands, 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 reasonably be
expected to inhabit them; wildlife; and the production of edible
and marketable natural resources (e.g., fish and shellfish)."
SWCB, 2011.
1.2.2. General Standard (9 VAC 25-260-20)
The general standard for a water body in Virginia is stated as follows:
"A. State waters, including wetlands, shall be free from
substances attributable to sewage, industrial waste, or other
waste in concentrations, amounts, or combinations which
contravene established standards or interfere directly or
indirectly with designated uses of such water or which are
inimical or harmful to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
Specific substances to be controlled include, but are not limited
to: floating debris, oil scum, and other floating materials; toxic
substances (including those which bioaccumulate); substances
that produce color, tastes, turbidity, odors, or settle to form
sludge deposits; and substances which nourish undesirable or
nuisance aquatic plant life. Effluents which tend to raise the
temperature of the receiving water will also be controlled."
SWCB, 2011.
The biological monitoring program in Virginia that is used to evaluate
compliance with the above standard is run by DEQ. Evaluations of monitoring
data from this program focus on the benthic (bottom -dwelling) macro (large
enough to see) invertebrates (insects, mollusks, crustaceans, and annelid
worms) and are used to determine whether or not a stream segment has a
benthic impairment. Changes in water quality generally result in alterations to the
quantity and diversity of the benthic organisms that live in streams and other
19
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
water bodies. Besides being the major intermediate constituent of the aquatic
food chain, benthic macro -invertebrates are "living recorders" of past and present
water quality conditions. This is due to their relative immobility and their variable
resistance to the diverse contaminants that are introduced into streams. The
community structure of these organisms provides the basis for the biological
analysis of water quality. Qualitative and semi -quantitative biological monitoring
have been conducted by DEQ since the early 1970's. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) II was
employed beginning in the fall of 1990 to utilize standardized and repeatable
assessment methodology. For any single sample, the RBP II produces water
quality ratings of "non -impaired," "slightly impaired," "moderately impaired," or
"severely impaired." In Virginia, benthic samples are typically collected and
analyzed twice a year in the spring and in the fall.
The RBP II procedure evaluates the benthic macro -invertebrate
community by comparing ambient monitoring "network" stations to "reference"
sites. A reference site is one that has been determined to be representative of a
natural, non -impaired water body. The RBP II evaluation also accounts for the
natural variation noted in streams in different eco-regions. One additional
product of the RBP II evaluation is a habitat assessment. This is a stand-alone
assessment that describes bank condition and other stream and riparian corridor
characteristics and serves as a measure of habitat suitability for the benthic
community.
Beginning in 2006, DEQ switched their bioassessment procedures. While
the RBP II protocols were still followed for individual metrics, a new index, the
Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI), was developed based on comparison of
observed data to a set of reference conditions, rather than with data from a
reference station. The new index was also calculated for all previous samples in
order to better assess trends over time.
Determination of the degree of support for the aquatic life designated use
is based on biological monitoring data and the best professional judgment of the
regional biologist, relying primarily on the most recent data collected during the
5
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Orgmia
current 5-year assessment period. In Virginia, any stream segment with an
overall rating of "moderately impaired" or "severely impaired" is placed on the
state's 303(d) list of impaired streams (VADEQ, 2002).
2
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 2: WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1. Water Resources
Four watersheds are separately described in this study: Moores Creek,
Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch. Lodge Creek lies entirely
within the City of Charlottesville, while each of the other watersheds include
portions within both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
The Moores Creek watershed (22,313.8 acres) comprises the 12-digit
hydrologic unit JR15 and includes the Lodge Creek sub -watershed (469.3 acres),
while the Meadow Creek watershed (5,838.4 acres) is in the headwater portion of
hydrologic unit JR14 and includes the Schenks Branch sub -watershed (1,399.0
acres). All four watersheds are components of the HUC5 watershed, H28. These
watersheds include portions of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County,
Virginia, and are part of the Rivanna River basin. The combined watersheds are
28,152.2 acres (11,393.0 ha) in size. Lodge Creek is tributary to Moores Creek,
and Schenks Branch is tributary to Meadow Creek, and both Moores Creek and
Meadow Creek are tributaries to the Rivanna River, eventually flowing into the
James River and the Chesapeake Bay. The locations of the study watersheds
are shown in Figure 2-1.
7
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Legend /
Impaired Streams f/)
Lodge Creek
®Meadow Creek y�
Moores Creek
�SthenKS Branch (`
—Other Streams
- wateroodles o,
Wartersheds
0 Lodge Creek {
O Meadow Creek
O Moores Creek ~
n Schenks Branch
l � c
�f �I
�Npd
Moores Creek i
N
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Figure 2-1. Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch
Watersheds
2.2. Eco-region
The Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch
watersheds are located entirely within the Piedmont Upland sub -division of the
Northern Piedmont ecoregion. The Northern Piedmont is a transitional region of
low rounded hills, irregular plains, and open valleys in contrast to the low
mountains of ecoregions to the north and west and the flat coastal plains of the
ecoregion to the east. The natural vegetation in this ecoregion is predominantly
E
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Appalachian oak forest as compared to the mostly oak -hickory -pine forests of the
Piedmont ecoregion to the southwest (USEPA, 2002).
2.3. Soils and Geology
The soils found in Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and
Schenks Branch watersheds are primarily in the Chester, Cullen, Culpeper,
Elioak, Hayesville, Hazel and Rabun series. These series form various
complexes, many with rock outcrops. The Chester series of lesser extent (fine -
loamy, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults) consists of very deep and well
drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in materials weathered from
micaceous schist. The Cullen series (Very -fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic
Hapludults) consists of very deep, well drained soils of moderate permeability
that are formed in residuum from mixed mafic and felsic crystalline rocks. The
Culpeper series (Fine, kaolinitic, mesic Typic Hapludults) consists of very deep,
well drained soils. These soils are formed in arkosic metasandstones, meta-
arkose and metagraywacke and are on summits, shoulders and backslopes of
ridges in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Elioak series (Fine,
kaolinitic, mesic Typic Hapludults) consists of very deep, well drained,
moderately permeable soils on uplands. These soils are formed in materials
weathered from micaceous crystalline rocks. The Hayesville series (Fine,
kaolinitic, mesic Typic Kanhapludults) consists of very deep, well drained soils on
gently sloping to very steep ridges that are formed in residuum weathered from
igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. The Hazel series (Coarse -loamy,
mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrudepts) consists of moderately deep and
excessively drained soils that are formed on uplands in material weathered
dominantly from sandstone and phyllites. The Rabun series (Fine, kaolinitic,
mesic Typic Rhodudults) consists of deep, well drained soils that are formed in
residuum weathered from dark colored rock high in ferromagnesium minerals
(USDA-NRCS, 2010).
0
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
2.4. Climate
Climate data for the Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and
Schenks Branch watersheds were based on meteorological observations made
at the Charlottesville 2W Climatic Data Center station (441593) located within the
Albemarle County portion of the Moores Creek watershed. Average annual
precipitation at this station is 48.87 inches. Average annual daily temperature at
the station is 57°F. The highest average daily temperature of 78°F occurs in July
while the lowest average daily temperature of 35°F occurs in January, as
reported in the 1971-2000 climate normals (NCDC-NOAA, 2010). For the
modeling simulations, unique precipitation and temperature time -series were
created at the centroid of each watershed from the Climate Forecast System
Reanalysis (CFSR) project (cfsr.bse.vt.edu).
2.5. Land Use
Land uses for the Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and
Schenks Branch watersheds were derived from the 2009 Rivanna River Basin
Commission's Rivanna Watershed and Vicinity Land Use/Land Cover Map
geodatabase (RRBC, 2009) and the 2009 National Agricultural Statistics Service
cropland data layer (NASS, 2009). In general, the RRBC land use data were
used as the primary source. In the Albemarle County portions of each watershed,
the NASS cropland categories were considered refinements of the RRBC "Open
Land" category, and the six NASS urban development categories were used to
interpret forest cover in those areas as pervious urban areas. Additionally, the
RRBC "Open Land" and "Impervious" land use categories were used to represent
the pervious and impervious portions of urban/residential areas. The calculations
of derived areas for the barren and harvested forest land uses are described in
the modeling section. The 10 land use categories from the RRBC and the 6
cropland and 6 urban development categories from NASS were grouped into the
12 categories summarized in Table 2-1. The RRBC categories of land uses are
shown in Figure 2-2. The Moores Creek totals are for those areas upstream from
10
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
monitoring station 2-MSC000.60, whose rationale is explained later in section
5.1.
Table 2-1. RRBC/NASS Land Use Summary
Land Use Group
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek*
Meadow
Creek*
Schenks
Branch
Area in acres
Row crop
0.0
92.5
0.0
0.0
Hay
0.0
804.9
33.8
0.0
Pasture
0.0
217.3
9.3
0.0
Forest
52.7
13,243.2
672.8
49.6
Open Space
115.2
3,534.1
1,031.6
353.4
pul - pervious urban low intensity
112.31
1,621.2
922.4
352.5
purr - pervious urban medium intensity
115.7
1,226.4
736.9
268.9
puh - pervious urban high intensity
25.8
285.8
312.3
118.8
iul - impervious urban low intensity
30.9
280.5
375.4
161.7
ium - impervious urban medium intensit
5.1
46.3
71.6
25.4
iuh - impervious urban high intensity
11.1
120.1
257.1
68 11
water
0.4
236.2
17.3
0.7
Total
469.3
21,708.5
4,440.E
1,399.0
* Moores Creek excludes Lodge Creek; Meadow Creek excludes Schenks Branch.
11
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Legend
9reams
Q City Boundary
OSubwatershed Bcundense
ODeaduaus Tree Cover
- C erween Tree Cover
O Open Land
_ wrier
- Impandous
- Rne Rannd'.n
- F0r95l Harve6
_ Ochar"ineyard
- Bare Earth
GOC Course / r
7501,500 3,000 4,500 6,000monn Meters
Figure 2-2. RRBC 2009 Land Use in the Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek,
and Schenks Branch Watersheds
2.6. Biological Monitoring Data
Biological monitoring consisted of sampling the benthic macro -invertebrate
community along with corresponding habitat assessments. The data for the
bioassessments in Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks
Branch were based on DEQ biological monitoring at the six DEQ monitoring sites
and various citizen monitoring data from the Save Our Streams and
StreamWatch organizations in the watershed. One primary biological monitoring
station was located in each of the four watersheds, supplemented with additional
sampling at two points on an unnamed tributary to Schenks Branch. The primary
biological stations were variably monitored between 3 and 13 times each during
the period 2002 - 2013. The locations of the DEQ biological and ambient
12
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
monitoring stations in these watersheds are shown in Figure 2-3, together with
the major tributary sub -watersheds.
Legend
* DEQ Monitoring Stations
Impaired Streams
— Lodge Creek
—Meadow Creek
MooresCreek
—9chenk's Branch
Other Streams -
-Waterhodks 2S1WCo00.60
Watersheds - 2-%SN00008 2-SN Lodge Creek Creek NOOO.18
OMeadaw Creek
O Moores Creek
O Schenks Branch 2-XRC00115 -
2-MSC00060
4 /
- 2NiSC004.43 r -'
C�K -
- � Moores Creek
0 05 1 2 3 4
=iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiles
Figure 2-3. Locations of DEQ Monitoring Stations in Moores Creek, Lodge Creek,
Meadow Creek, and Lodge Creek Watersheds
Biological samples were collected from a cross-section of the stream
channel and from both pool and riffle environments. The organisms in each
sample were separated out into identifiable family or species, and then a count
was made of the number of organisms in each taxa. A full listing of the benthic
macroinvertebrate taxa inventory or distribution within each biological sample is
given for Moores Creek and Lodge Creek in Table 2-2, for Meadow Creek in
Table 2-3, and for Schenks Branch and an unnamed tributary to Schenks Branch
in Table 2-4.
13
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-2. Taxa Inventory by Sample Date in Moores Creek (MSC) and Lodge Creek
(XRC)
Moores Creek Lodge Creek
Family
Tolerance
Value
Functional
Family
Group
Habit
2-MSC000.60
2-XRC001.15
o
m
o
v
o
v
m
m
Baetidae
2
Collector
1
2
Hydropsychidae
3
Filterer
clinger
19
Philopotamidae
3
Filterer
5
Simuliidae
3
Filterer
1
3
Tipulidae
3
Shredder
burrower
1
1
2
Baetidae
4
Collector
swimmer
41
3
7
10
Elmidae
4
Scraper
2
Heptageniidae
4
Scraper
clinger
3
3
3
Cambaridae
5
Shredder
1
1
1
Ancylidae
6
Scraper
clinger
1
9
2
Chironomidae (A)
6
Collector
3
31
1
72
6
88
5
Corbiculidae
6
Filterer
1
2
Empididae
6
Predator
sprawler
2
Hydropsychidae
6
Filterer
clinger
85
33
4
68
2
76
Hydropsychidae
6
Filterer
48
Simuliidae
6
Filterer
clinger
7
14
1
3
Corbiculidae
8
Filterer
sprawler
6
Lumbriculidae
8
Collector
3
10
7
4
6
1
3
1
Naididae
8
Collector
burrower
13
19
62
1
Physidae
8
Scraper
26
6
4
1
Naididae
9
Collector
burrower
1
38
Lumbricidae
10
Collector
lburrower
2
Tubificidae
10
Collector
burrower
4
Chironomidae (A)
(blank)
1
60
Heptageniidae
(blank)
7
Hydropsychidae
(blank)
Filterer
7
5
No. of Species
26
261
261
261
261
261
26
26
Abundance
102
97
106
186
103
164
1041
107
%Filterer-Col lector
96.1%
95.9%
87.7%
84.9%
81.6%
99.496
93.3%
43.0%
% Haptobenthos
93.1%
37.1%
20.8%
10.2%
75.7%
3.09
75.0%
%Shredder
1.0%
1.0%1
0.5%
1.9%
0.69
1.0%
- Dominant
2 species
in each
sample.
An additional 15 families were identified with just loccurrence in all samples.
14
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-3. Taxa Inventory by Sample Date in Meadow Creek (MWC)
Meadow Creek
Family
Y
Tolerance
Value
Functional
Family
Y
Group
Habit
2-MSC000.60
v
0
0
v
0
0
.i
m
0
0
m
0
0
.+
m
0
0
o
M
m
o
0
..
0
o
'
0
0
..
.�
.i
..
C)
o
.
.+
M
m
o
..
M
m
0
..
M
0
..
v
0
Elmidae
1
Scraper
1
1
2
1
Baetidae
2
Collector
12
Hydropsychidae
1 3
Filterer
clinger
1
2
Philopotamidae
3
Collector
clinger
6
Philopotamidae
3
Filterer
1
1
3
Simuliidae
3
Filterer
2
Tipulidae
3
Shredder
burrower
4
14
32
3
2
3
12
Baetidae
4
Collector
swimmer
12
2
12
2
1
Elmidae
4
Scraper
clinger
1
4
2
4
Elmidae
4
1
1
Heptageniidae
4
Scraper
clinger
2
Tipulidae
4
Collector
8
31
13
5
9
Tricladida
5
Collector
2
2
1
Chironomidae (A)
6
Collector
79
16
20
9
101
67
18
Hydropsychidae
6
Filterer
clinger
68
27
43
6
5
55
Hydropsychidae
6
Filterer
10
3
6
2
Hydroptilidae
6
Scraper
9
5
Simuliidae
6
Filterer
clinger
6
5
45
3
1
Lumb6culidae
8
ICollector
7
1
4
1
4
2
7
1
12
5
Naididae
8
Collector
burrower
37
1
1
7
24
Unknown
8
Collector
1
3
Naididae
9
Collector
burrower
1
8
48
Tubificidae
9
Collector
burrower
2
Chironomidae (A)
(blank)
16
33
135
22
84
Elmidae
(blank)
Omnivore
2
1
Hydropsychidae
(blank)
Filterer
57
19
15
44
8
No. of Species
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
Abundance
138
109
101
105
117
107
106
109
107
220
110
110
%Filterer-Collector
97.1%
86.2%
64.4%
97.1%
98.3%
95.3%
93.0%
76.1%
66.4%
37.3%
74.5%
21.8%
%Hap[obenthos
4.3%
63.3%
35.6%
83.8%
5.1%
9.3%
64.2%
1.8%
%Shredder
2.9%
12.8%
31.7%
2.9%
1.7%
2.8%
11.3%
- Dominant 2 species in each sample.
An additional 9 families were identified with just 1 occurrence in all samples.
15
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-4. Taxa Inventory by Sample Date in Schenks Branch (SNI) and an Unnamed
Tributary to Schenks Branch (XSN)
Schenks Rmnch Unnamed Tributaries to Schenks Rranrh
Family
Tolerance
al ue
Functional
Family
Group
Habit
2-SNK000.88
2-XSN000.08
2-XSN000.18
ZZ
zz�zz�
�
ZZ
<
�
ZZ
�
o
Baetidae
2
Collector
12
2
Hydropsychidae
3
Filterer
clinger
5
1
Simuliidae
3
Filterer
4
1
Tipulidae
3
Shredder
burrower
1
2
3
4
2
3
5
Tipulidae
3
3
Baetidae
4
Collector
swimmer
]
5
2
Tipulidae
4
Collector
1
1 3
4
1
2
2
Tipulidae
4
Shredder
3
1
2
Tricladida
5
Collector
2
Aneplidae
6
Scraper
clinger
1
1
1
1
3
Cambaridae
6
Collector
1
2
Chironomidae(A
6
Collector
49
28
27
105
14
50
28
23
25
12
40
Crangonyctidae
6
swimmer
4
Empididae
6
Predator
1
1
Hydropsychidae
6
Filterer
clinger
4
21
17
66
12
9
44
Hydropsychidae
6
Filterer
33
4
1
Simuliidae
6
Filterer
clinger
2
Lumbriculidae
8
Collector
15
5
16
1 1
1 38
1 2
12
1 3
1 3
2
5
11
16
Naididae
8
Collector
burrower
108
44
98
5
62
66
67
19
23
60
Physidae
8
Scraper
3
1
2
1
4
4
1
9
1
41
Unknown
8
Collector
2
Naididae
9
Collector
burrower
44
47
1
62
20
n
67
Tubificidae
9
Collector
burrower
1
2
1
Lumbricidae
10
Collector
burrower
5
2
Sparganop hilidae
10
lector
burrower
1
1
1
Tubificidae
10
lector
burrower
1
3
1
Chironomidae(A
(blank)
:Filtcrcr
58
59
42
32
41
64
41
Hydropsychidae
(blank)
2
33
1
23
1
Sphaeriidae
(blank)
erer
sp..Icr
1
2
No. of Species
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29M96.2
29
29
29
29
29
Abundance
183
92
205
112
109
110
110
194
110
109
124
112
101
105
109
110
152
%Filterer -Collector
97.8%
95.9%
97.6%
100%
96.3%
45.5%
46.4%
72.2%
64.5%
54.1%
100%
98.3%
100%
86.7%
35.8%
62.7%
]3.9%
%Haptolacmim ,
2.2%
22. %
8.3%
64.2%
3.1%
0.9%
1.9%
14.5%
41.9%
2.8%
%Shredder
6.2%
4.6%
� I- Dominant 2species in each sample.
An additional 10 families were identified with just 1 occurrence in all samples.
DEQ, with assistance from USEPA Region 3, has recently upgraded its
biomonitoring and biological assessment methods to those currently
recommended in the mid -Atlantic region. As part of this effort, a study was
performed to assist the agency in moving from a paired-network/reference site
approach based on the RBP II to a regional reference condition approach, and
has led to the development of the Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) for
Virginia's non -coastal areas (Tetra Tech, 2003). This multi -metric index is based
on 8 biomonitoring metrics, with a scoring range of 0-100, that include some
different metrics than those used previously in the RBP II, but are based on the
same taxa inventory. A maximum score of 100 represents the best benthic
community sites. The current proposed threshold criteria would define "non-
16
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
impaired" sites as those with a VSCI of 60 or above, and "impaired" sites as those
with a score below 60 (VADEQ, 2006). The VSCI scores for Moores Creek and
Lodge Creek are shown in Table 2-5, for Meadow Creek in Table 2-8, and for
Schenks Branch and an unnamed tributary in Table 2-7.
Table 2-5. Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) Scores for Moores Creek (MSC) and
Lodge Creek (XRC)
Stationli)
I 2-MSC000.60
I 2-XRC001.15
ColiDate
1 10/26/06 03/20/08 10/17/11
04/29/02 10/16/02 04/21/04 09/30/09 03/28/12
VSCI Metric Values
TotTaxa
6
11
12
10
10
7
11
8
EPTI-ax
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
3
%Ephem
2.9
4.0
10.0
22.0
2.9
4.3
9.3
2.7
%PT-Hydropsychidae
1.0
4.5
%Scrap
2.9
5.0
13.6
14.5
14.4
6.5
0.9
%Chiro
2.9
30.7
0.9
38.7
5.8
53.7
4.7
54.5
%2Dom
90.2
63.4
76.4
60.8
74.0
91.5
80.4
89.1
HBI
6.0
6.5
5.8
6.2
6.1
6.7
6.1
6.6
VSCI Metric Scores
Richness Score
27.3
50.0
54.5
45.5
45.5
31.8
50.0
36.4
EPT Score
18.2
36.4
36.4
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
27.3
%Ephem Score
4.8
6.5
16.3
36.0
4.7
7.0
15.2
%PT-H Score
2.8
12.8
%Scraper5core
5.7
9.6
26.4
28.1
28.0
12.7
1.8
%Chironomidae Score
97.1
69.3
99.1
61.3
94.2
46.3
95.3
45.5
%2Dom Score
14.2
5 ..9
34.2
56.7
37.5
12.3
28.4
15.8
%MFBI Score
59.3
52.1
62.0
56.5
56.8
48.9
58.0
49.7
VSCI
28.3
34.9
42.7
37.8
35.6
20.6
34.7
22.6
VSCI Rating
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Stressed
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
- Primary biological effects.
17
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
A/bemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-6. Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) Scores for Meadow Creek (MWC)
Stationli)
i 2-MWCOOO.60
CollDate
04/2VO4 10/27/04 05/12/O8 10/27/08 03/30/09 04/30/10 11/Ol/10 03/18/11 10/17/11 03/28/12 03/28/12 09/24/12 04/O8/13
VSCI Metric Values
TotTaxa
5
1 7
8
7
6
9
11
it
9
8
6
8
5
EPTTax
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
3
1
1
4
1
%Ephem
8.7
1.8
11.8
0.9
1.9
2.8
0.9
10.9
%PT - Hydropsychidae
0.8
5.6
0.9
9.1
7.3
%Scrap
0.9
3.9
0.8
2.8
5.6
4.5
10.0
0.9
1.8
5.5
1.8
%Chiro
57.2
14.7
19.6
8.5
85.6
62.0
16.8
30.0
14.5
70.0
52.7
20.0
76.4
%2Dom
84.1
77.1
57.8
93.0
91.5
84.3
68.2
58.2
77.3
79.1
87.3
65.5
95.5
Hill
6.3
5.7
4.8
6.0
6.1
6.3
5.5
5.3
5.8
6.0
6.6
5.8
5.8
VSCI Metric Scores
Richness Score
22.7
1 31.8
36.4
31.8
27.3
40.9
50.0
50.0
40.9
36.4
27.3
36.4
22.7
EPT Score
9.1
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
36.4
27.3
27.3
9.1
9.1
36.4
9.1
%Ephem Score
14.2
3.0
19.2
1.5
3.0
4.6
1.5
17.8
%PT-HScore
2.4
15.8
2.6
25.5
20.4
%Scraper Score
1.8
7.6
1.6
5.4
10.9
8.8
19.4
1.8
3.5
10.6
3.5
%Chi ronomidae Score
42.8
85.3
80.4
91.5
14.4
38.0
83.2
70.0
85.5
30.0
47.3
80.0
23.6
%2Dom Score
23.0
33.1
60.9
24.5
12.2
22.7
45.9
60.4
32.8
30.2
18.4
49.9
21.0
%MFBI Score
54.8
63.1
76.4
59.2
57.6
54.6
66.4
68.4
61.6
59.1
150.1
62.3
61.6
VSCI
20.8
29.5
37.4
28.4
16.7
22.9
39.1
36.1
36.6
20.8
19.5
39.2
17.7
VSCI Rating
Severe
stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
I - Primary biological effects.
Table 2-7. Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) Scores for Schenks Branch (SNIn
and an Unnamed Tributary to Schenks Branch (XSN)
Stationl0
i 2-SNK000.M
2-xSN000.08
2-xsNoian
CullDate,
03/3o/OS 03/M/0803/30/09 0.3/3] m N/M/Ml 111OV10 03/ 11 11/07/11 m/22112 m/24/12 M/24/u 04 -/13
0v fE 03/20/08 m 0900/W/10 11/01/M M/18/11 10/17/11
M/30/M
VXI Metric Values
TmTaxa
1 8
1 ]
1 5
1 ]
1 2
1 6
1 9
1 13
1 4
1 ]3
1 11
1 6
1 4
1 )
1 6
1 6
1 ]
1 4
1 10
4
Erne,
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 3
1
1 2
1 2
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 1
1 1
%Ephem
63
2.7
4.5
81
4.9
L9
%PT-H dro s &idae
%Saap
16
2.0
1.9
09
5.5
4.5
L2
0.9
0.9
10
8.6
3.6
261
%Chiro
26.8
MR
365
M2
93.8
12.8
517
37.3
516
n.5
29.1
33.6
W.0
B.7
21.7
ns
16.2
37.3
58.2
25.5
%2Dom
M.8
73.5
V.5
82.4
Me
na
927
627
964
62.7
57.0
94.5
M.6
79.7
M.9
91.3
63.8
98.2
MA
643
HBI
7.4
69
7.0
7.1
1 5.9
6.3
68
6.4
1 6.8
6.5
6.2
7.2
1 7.2
7.2
7.3
64
1 65
7.3
66
7.5
VSCI Metric Scares
Richness Score
364
31.8
22.7
31.8
9.1
27.3
40.9
59.1
182
59A
%.a
27.3
18.2
318
27.3
27.3
31.8
181
45.5
18.2
EPTScare
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
27.3
18.2
18.2
9.1
9A
9.1
9.1
18.2
9.1
9.1
%Ephem Scare
10.2
0.4
7.4
13.3
7.9
3.1
%PT-H Score
%Soap.,Score
12
4.0
3.7
18
MR
8.8
2.3
1.8
1.8
1.9
16.6
7.0
50.6
%Chimnomidae 5mre
73.2
714
615
61.8
6.3
87.2
47.3
62.7
46A
84.5
70.9
66A
610
76.3
78.3
27.2
83.8
62.7
41.8
74.5
9420om Scare
20.5
38.3
18.1
n.5
33.1
10.5
519
5.3
519
62.2
7.9
15.0
29.4
21.8
4.6
52.3
26
W.2
51.5
%MFBISca,.
38.2
M.2
4A1
43.3
W.7
54.9
465
52.5
47.2
5L9
56.6
4L2
41.5
415
MA
53.5
51.1
444
49.5
369
VXI
216
28.1
20.1
n.4
11.9
26A
19.5
n.8
10.6
35.5
343
19.2
168
23.s
M
17A
32.1
166
229
".a
VXI Red,
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
Severe
Stress
I - Primary biological effects.
The VSCI scores for all six monitoring sites clearly fall within the
"impaired" category, as shown in Figure 2-4.
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
100
u 90
x
80
v
c 70
c 60
c 50
O
U
E 40
30
20
> 10
Non -impaired
Impaired
0 'i
Mar-00 Mar-02 Mar-04 Mar-06 Mar-08 Mar-10 Mar-12 Mar-14
♦2-MSC000.60 ♦2-XRC001.lS 2-MWC000.60 ♦2-SNK000.88 ®2-XSN000.08 2-XSN000.18
Figure 2-4. VSCI Scores for Moores Creek (MSC), Lodge Creek (XRC), Meadow Creek
(MWC), Schenks Branch (SNK), and Schenks Branch Unnamed Tributary (XSN)
A qualitative analysis of various habitat parameters was conducted in
conjunction with each biological sampling event. Habitat data collected as part of
the biological monitoring were obtained from DEQ through the EDAS database.
Each of the 10 parameters included in the habitat assessment was rated on a
scale of 0-20, with a maximum score of 20 indicating the most desirable
condition, and a score of 0 indicating the poorest habitat conditions. The best
possible overall score for a single evaluation is 200. Many of the "poor" to
"marginal" habitat scores shown in these two tables relate fairly closely with the
sediment stressor. The habitat assessment data are shown for Moores Creek
and Lodge Creek in Table 2-8, for Meadow Creek in Table 2-12, and for Schenks
Branch and an unnamed tributary in Table 2-10.
19
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, OrgIma
Table 2-8. Habitat Evaluation Scores for Moores Creek (MSC) and Lodge Creek (XRC)
StationlD
2-MSC000.60
2-XRC001.15
Collection Date
W
o
0
m
0
W
0
0
o
0
N
00
0
Channel Alteration
13
18
13
10
9
17
13
8
Bank Stability
8
17
15
14
14
11
6
16
Vegetative Protection
18
17
14
91
121
20
14
6
Embeddedness
11
14
18
13
13
13
13
14
Channel Flow Status
18
18
18
10
20
9
8
17
Frequency of riffles (or bends)
11
17
16
18
17
19
18
17
Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
41
121
10
2
4
2
4
4
Sediment Deposition
16
14
9
11
13
18
18
17
Epifaunal Substrate / Available Cover
13
16
16
19
11
18
16
15
Velocity / Depth Regime
16
17
18
9
13
8
12
10
10-metric Total Habitat Score
128
1601
147
115
126
135
122
124
Average Station Score
145
124.4
= - Marginal or Poor habitat metric rating.
Table 2-9. Habitat Evaluation Scores for Meadow Creek (MWC)
StationlD
2-MWC000.60
Collection Date
v
o
N
v�i
n
o
o
M
m
o
m
v
0
m
o
m
m
v
Channel Alteration
19
18
18
18
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
Bank Stability
8
2
9
4
6
8
4
4
13
10
10
4
Vegetative Protection
20
18
16
18
18
18
18
16
18
18
18
10
Embeddedness
81
5
121
S1
12
9
11
12
13
11
9
9
Channel Flow Status
8
15
18
10
8
13
15
18
18
18
17
18
Frequency of riffles (or bends)
18
18
17
17
17
18
17
18
18
18
18
17
Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
20
18
18
18
18
18
18
16
17
17
18
17
Sediment Deposition
6
3
10
10
9
11
7
3
4
8
8
10
Epifaunal Substrate / Available Cover
13
15
16
16
17
17
16
12
17
14
14
14
Velocity / Depth Regime
13
16
17
13
16
16
14
13
16
17
15
16
10-metric Total Habitat Score
133
128
151
129
140
146
138
130
152
149
1451
132
Average Station Score
139.4
= - Marginal or Poor habitat metric rating.
20
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, OrgIma,
Table 2-10. Habitat Evaluation Scores for Schenks Branch (SNK), and an Unnamed
Tributary to Schenks Branch (XSN)
StationlD
2-SNK000.88
2-XSN000.08
2-XSN000.18
Collection Date
n
0
�
0
m
0
w
0
I
0
ry
0
m
0
I
0
m
0
o
.i
0
m
0
0
o
.+
.-i
o
~
.�
m
M
m
0
n
0 0
~
ry
W
ry
1
m
0
ry
v
ry
M
0
m
.i
W
o
0
0
�n
o
0
m
m
0
m
0
I
0
ry
m
0
m
0
I
0
m
m
0
0
0
m
0
0
0
o
.-i
~
.i
W
a
1
m
0
.i
.i
r
0
o
n
0
I
0
m
1
m
0
Channel Alteration
6
10
2
10
6
7
4
10
4
10
6
12
7
12
6
7~
5
2
Bank Stability
14
17
12
14
10
15
16
14
14
16
6
14
10
10
12
8
8
5
Vegetative Protection
17
11
12
12
16
13
11
15
14
15
18
12
14
13
6
5
10
14
Embeddedness
2
13
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
5
12
8
12
7
15
111
6
Channel Flow Status
161
171
15
16
15
131
17
17
17
16
151
16
10
15
14
13
18
15
Frequency of riffles or bends
16
18
18
18
17
16
18
17J131134
16
18
16
18
17
13
17
17
Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
3
9
6
8
6
6
7
9
4
7
7
8
6
5
7
2
Sediment Deposition
7
13
14
16
17
10
16
17
4
11
15
11
16
10
10
13
Epifaunal Substrate / Available Cover
11
16
18
18
17
18
17
16
10
15
15
15
15
8
14
14
Velocity / Depth Regime
13
10
13
14
14
11
14
14
13
11
13
14
11
10
9
13
10-metric Total Habitat Score
105
134
12
1138
130
121
132
141
97
128
115
128
110
94
109
101
Average Station Score
128.7
111.6
101
u- Marginal or Poor habitat metric rating.
2.7. Water Quality Data
2.7.1. DEQ Ambient Monitoring Data
DEQ monitored chemical and bacterial water quality at six different
stations with various periods of record between 1968 and the present, as shown
in Table 2-11. The Moores Creek (MSC) impaired segment was monitored at the
2-MSC000.60 biological station in 2006 and 2008, with ambient sample collection
at the same station from 1991 through 2007. Additional ambient sampling
occurred downstream at station 2-MSC000.11 from 1968-79, and again in 2003
and 2010; and upstream at station 2-MSC004.43 between 2005 and 2006. No
ambient data are available for 2-XRC001.15, except for physical parameters
collected on the date of biological sampling. The Meadow Creek (MWC) impaired
segment has been monitored at the 2-MWC000.60 biological station since 2004,
with ambient sample collection at the same station since 1991. The Schenks
Branch (SNK) impaired segment was monitored at the 2-SNK000.88 biological
station between 2005 and 2009, and at two locations on an unnamed tributary.
Ambient samples have been collected at the biological station and at one of the
unnamed tributary (XSN) sites (2-XSN000.08) since 2008.
21
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-11.Summary of Ambient Monitoring Data through October 2010
Station
Stream Name
Period
No. of
Samples
2-MSC000.11
Moores Creek
1968-1979
87
2-MSC000.60
1991- 2007
55
2-MSC004.43
2005 - 2006
9
2-MWC000.60
Meadow Creek
1991-2010
59
2-SNK000.88
ISchenks Branch
2008-2010
2
2-XSN000.08
ISchenks Branch UT
1 2008-20101
2
Chemical parameters included various forms of nitrogen and phosphorus -
ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite plus nitrate-N, total N, and total P;
dissolved oxygen (DO); various forms of solids - total solids, volatile solids, and
suspended solids; chemical oxygen demand (COD); alkalinity; chlorides; sulfates;
and total dissolved solids (TDS). Field physical parameters included temperature,
pH, DO, and conductivity.
All stream segments within these watersheds are Class III Non -tidal
Waters Coastal and Piedmont Zones (SWCB, 2011). Where applicable,
minimum and/or maximum water quality standards (WQS) are indicated on the
following plots, as are minimum detection limits (MDL) of various laboratory
analysis techniques. Plots of monthly ambient water quality monitoring sample
data are shown in Figures 2-5 through 2-27 for the six ambient monitoring
stations in this watershed.
36
Class III Maximum WQS: 32°C
■
a e OWEE
■
❑ ❑ ■
■❑ ■ ■
Figure 2-5. Field Temperature
10
Figure 2-5. Field Temperature
10
9
8
♦ 2-M6[000.11
S
n
Max WQS
Figure 2-6. Field pH
22
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
A/5emade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
19
1>
16
J 13
MAN No 0
EE 11
♦1-MS0000.11
g■2-M6C000.60
V 9
�
♦2-M6C004.43
>
X2-MWC000.60
6
X 2-6NK000.88
3
•2-%6N000.08
1
■
fll'.X
X
■ ■
X
■
Class in nz�o wQs
Figure 2-7. Field DO
1000
E
t
E
• 2-M9C000.11
■ 2-M9C000.60
• 1-M6C004.43
c
V
-�
°i
• z-xsNOoo.os
3
900
800
]00
600
soo
qpp
SC1'!!■IScreening, VB�O!
300
zao
100
0
4 4 4 4 4
1400
Jzoo
JOoo
800
600
400
zoo
0
♦
Jan-91 Jan-93 lan-96 lan-97 )an -99 Jan-01 Jan-03
♦2-MSC000.
60 ♦2-MWC000.60
1 lyulo c- Iv. L.av vvv
r iyuro 4-1 i. ranam my
m
E
0
m
YVV
800
]oo
soo
soo
400
300
Jan-91 Jan-93 Jan-96 Jan-9] Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03
♦2-MS[000.60 ♦2-MWCA00.60
Fi ure 2-12. Total Solids
so
]0
E bo
so
o ao
w 30 ♦ ♦ ��♦
iv 20 � ♦ ♦
10
0
Jan-91 Jan-93 Jan-95
2-M
Jan-9] Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03
♦S[000.60 ♦2-MWCA00.60
Figure 2-13. Volatile So
lids
180 ♦
160
J
m
E 140
120
100
80
60
40
zo
-�
n ♦
m
v
c
d
g
�^ 0
Jan-91 Jan-93 Jan -95 Jan-97 lanA9 Jan-01 lan-03 Jan-06 Jan-D] Ian-09
♦z-MSC000.60 ■2-MSfA04.43 ♦2-MW[000.60
X2-SNK000.88 X2-XSN000.08
Figure 2-14. Total Susaended Solids (TSS)
23
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibenzade County and City of Chadottesvitte, Vlrginia
450
400
J
m 350
E
300
ai
32 250
200
L
V
I50
Figure 2-15. Total Chloride
Fi ure 2-16. Total Sulfate
900
N
r
O
N J
v m
Qi E
8
G
m
f
0
Jan-91 JaMi3 JanAS Jan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03
♦2-MSC000.60 ♦2-MWC000.60
3?
800 ♦
]00
600
500
400
300
200 •
100
♦
Figure 2-17. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
0.2
a
m
E o.
z
e 0.1
x
z
0.
z
,s 0.0
c
E
E
E
6
2 •
s
1
s •
MDL
0
larf911an-93 Jan-95 lan-97 Jan-99 Jan4)1 Jan-03 Jan -OS lan-07 Jan-09
♦ 2-MSC000.60 ■ 2-MS[004.43 ♦ 2-MW[000.60
X 2-SNK000.88 * 2-%SN000.08
AA
Figure 2-18. Ammonia
6 00
m
E
c
m
O
2
m
H
0.00
Jan-91Jan -93 Jan-95 lan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 lan-05 Jan-07 lan-09
02-MS[000.60 02-MSC004.43 ♦2-MW[000.60
X2-SNK000.88 X2-XSN000.08
800 ♦
]00
600
500
400
300
200 •
100
♦
Figure 2-17. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
0.2
a
m
E o.
z
e 0.1
x
z
0.
z
,s 0.0
c
E
E
E
6
2 •
s
1
s •
MDL
0
larf911an-93 Jan-95 lan-97 Jan-99 Jan4)1 Jan-03 Jan -OS lan-07 Jan-09
♦ 2-MSC000.60 ■ 2-MS[004.43 ♦ 2-MW[000.60
X 2-SNK000.88 * 2-%SN000.08
AA
Figure 2-18. Ammonia
6 00
m
E
c
m
O
2
m
H
0.00
Jan-91Jan -93 Jan-95 lan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 lan-05 Jan-07 lan-09
02-MS[000.60 02-MSC004.43 ♦2-MW[000.60
X2-SNK000.88 X2-XSN000.08
Figure 2-17. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
0.2
a
m
E o.
z
e 0.1
x
z
0.
z
,s 0.0
c
E
E
E
6
2 •
s
1
s •
MDL
0
larf911an-93 Jan-95 lan-97 Jan-99 Jan4)1 Jan-03 Jan -OS lan-07 Jan-09
♦ 2-MSC000.60 ■ 2-MS[004.43 ♦ 2-MW[000.60
X 2-SNK000.88 * 2-%SN000.08
AA
Figure 2-18. Ammonia
6 00
m
E
c
m
O
2
m
H
0.00
Jan-91Jan -93 Jan-95 lan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 lan-05 Jan-07 lan-09
02-MS[000.60 02-MSC004.43 ♦2-MW[000.60
X2-SNK000.88 X2-XSN000.08
X
Figure 2-19. Total Nitrogen
0.35
J
m 0.30
E
„ 0.25
`o 0.20
L
w 0.15
0
6 0.10
0.05
0 oa
MDL
Jan-91 lan-93 Jan-95 Jan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 Jan -OS Jan-07 Jan-09
♦ 2-MSC000.60 ■ 2-MSC004.43 ♦ 2-MW0000.60
X 2-SNK000.88 X 2-XSN000.08
Figure 2-20. Total Phosphorus
24
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
z5
20
Z
5
PM
2-MSC000.11
j ■ ■
0
lun-68 lua-70 Jun-92 Jun-74 Jun-76 lun-78
♦T.MIN ■TKN ♦DissolvedN
Figure 2-21. Nitrogen - 2-10SC000.11
m
E
m
0
Z
2-MS0000.60
1.65
^-
1.45
1.25
1JOS
~ ♦�
D85
♦ • , ♦• ♦N
0.65
♦ ♦1
0.65
DIS
a ns
Jan-91 lanA3 Jan-95 Jan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 Jan-05 Jan-07 Jan-09
♦TOfaIN ■TKN ANWedN
Figure 2-22. Nitrogen - 2-MSC000.60
1 lyulc c-c.rr. nw vyou - c-lrwvvv�.w
18s
2-MW0
e
000.60
1.65
♦
Figure 2-24. Nitrogen - 2-MWC000.60
2-MSC000.11
Jun-68 Jun-70 Jun-92 lun-74 Jun-96 Jun-78
♦To1aIP ♦ Dissolved P
Figure 2-25. Phosphorus - 2-MSC000.11
o.zs
2-MSC000.60
0.20
E
N 0.15
0
L 0.10
n
o
♦
bIDL
i
r N
D.os
♦ ♦
•r �
000
Jan-91 lanA3 Jan-95 lan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 Jan -OS Jan-07 lan-09
♦TOUIP ♦ Dissolved P
Figure 2-26. Phosphorus- 2-MSC000.60
Intentionally left blank to allow side -by -side
display of corresponding N and P samples from
each monitoring site.
0
.35
2-MW0000.60
0.30
m
E
0.25
•
0.20
L
n
OAS
r
0.10
n
MDL
0.05
ON
Jan
-91 lanA3 Jan-95 Jan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 Jan -OS Jan-07 Jan-09
♦TobIP ♦ Dissolved P
Figure 2-27. Phosphorus - 2-MWC000.60
25
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
2.7.2. DEQ Metals Monitoring Data
Stream sediment and water column samples have been collected and
analyzed for a standard suite of metals and toxic substances periodically in three
of the four impaired watersheds. None of the tested substances in channel
bottom sediments exceeded any of the known probable effect concentrations
(PECs; MacDonald et al., 2000), or alone any of the minimum detectable
threshold effects concentrations (TECs) shown in red in Table 2-12; and none of
the tested substances in the water column exceeded known freshwater aquatic
life, public water supply (PWS), or human health criteria (SWCB, 2011) shown in
red in Table 2-13. Values shown in purple were either at or below their respective
minimum detection limits. Multiple numbers divided by a "F indicate varying
minimum detection limits between samples. In both tables, the blue numbers
under the column heading "No." indicate the number of samples that were taken
during the indicated period and the "Value" column represents the average
concentration from all samples.
26
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-12. DEQ Channel Bottom Sediment Monitoring for Metals
Parameter Name
Parameter
Code
2-MSC000.60
2-MWC000.60
2-SNK000.88
Minimum
Detection
I Limit
Consensus -Based
1991-2003
1991-1997
2008
TEC
PEC
No.
Value
No.
Value
No.
1 Value
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
AL MUD DRY WGT MG/KG-AL
1108
1
10900
2
4065
1
5110
#N/A
ALDRIN SEDUG/KG DRY WGT
39333
2
30/100
2
30/100
0
30/100
ANTI MONYSEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1098
1
12
2
5
1
5
5
ARSEN IC SEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1003
2
5
3
5
1
5
5
9.79
33
BERYLIUMSEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1013
2
5
3
5
1
5
5
CD MUD DRY WGT MG/KG-CD
1028
2
5
3
5
1
1
5
CDANEDRYTECH and METMUDUG/KG
39351
1
5001
2
40/500
0
40/500
CHROMI UMSEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1029
2
1 14.5
3
1 14.33
1
1 15.5
#N/A
COPPER SEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1043
2
18.5
3
9
1
17.4
#N/A
31.61
149
DDD MUD UG/KG
39363
2
10/100
2
10/100
0
10/100
DDE MUD UG/KG
39368
2
10/100
2
10/100
0
10/100
DDT MUD UG/KG
39373
2
30/100
2
30/100
0
30/100
DICOFOL SED, DRYWT, UG/KG
79799
2
70/100
2
70/100
0
70/100
DIELDRI NSEDUG/KG DRY WGT
39383
2
10/100
2
10/100
0
10/100
ENDRIN SEDUG/KG DRY WGT
39393
2
30/100
2
30/100
0
30/100
FE MUD DRY WGT MG/KG-FE
1170
1
24800
2
106751
1
17400
#N/A
HEPTCHLRSEDUG/KG DRY WGT
39413
2
10/100
2
10/100
0
10/100
HPCLEPDX SED,DRYWT,UG/KG
75045
2
30/100
2
10/100
0
10/30/100
LEAD SEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1052
2
14
3
14
1
28.7
#N/A
35.81
128
MERCURY SEDMG/KG DRY WGT
71921
2
1 0.3
3
1 0.3
1
1 0.1
0.3
0.16
1.06
MN MUD DRY WGT MG/KG-MN
1053
1
315
2
124.5
1
232
#N/A
NICKEL SEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1068
2
8.5
3
5.67
1
7.4
5
22.7
48.6
PCBS TOTSED DRYWT UG/KG
39526
2
30/500
2
30/500
0
30/500
PCP SEDUG/KG DRY WGT
39061
2
50/70
2
50/70
0
50/70
SELENI UMSEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1148
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
SI LVER SEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1078
2
5
3
5
1
1
5
THALLIUMSEDMG/KG DRYWGT
344W
1
5
2
5
1
5
5
THALLI UMSEDMG/KG DRY WGT
344W
1
5
2
5
1
5
TOXAPHENSEDUG/KG DRY WGT
39403
2
140/1000
2
50/1000
0
140/50/1221
ZI NC SEDMG/KG DRY WGT
1093
2
521
3
36.331
1
61.8
#N/A
1 1211
459
27
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
A/bemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-13. DEQ Water Column Monitoring for Metals
Parameter Name
Parameter
Code
2-MSC000.11
2-MSC000.60
2-MWC00O.6O
Minimum
Detection
Limit
Freshwater
Human
1970-2003
1991-2003
1991-1997
Chronic
(ug/L)
Acute
(ug/L)
PWS
(ug/L)
Other
(ug/L)
No.
Value
No.
Value
No.
Value
ALUMINUMAL,DISSUG/L
1106
1
6.74
2
4.835
0
#N/A
14
4,300
ANTIMONYSB,DISS UG/L
1095
1
0.16
2
0.1
0
0.1
5.6
640
ARSENICAS,DISS UG/L
1000
1
0.24
2
0.14
0
#N/A
150
340
10
ARSENIC AS,TOT UG/L
1002
11
4.09
0
0
2
BARIUM BA,DISS UG/L
1005
1
18.00
1
24
0
#N/A
2,000
BERYUUMBE,DISS UG/L
1010
1
0.1
1
0.1
0
0.1
CADMIUM CD,DISS UG/L
1025
1
0.1
2
0.1
0
0.1
1.11
3.91
5
CADMIUM CD,TOT UG/L
1027
14
10
0
0
10
CAL HARD CA MG MG/L
46570
1
37.00
1
33
0
#N/A
CALCIUM CA,DISS MG/L
915
1
10.20
2
7.5
0
#N/A
CHROMI UMCR,DISS UG/L
1030
1
0.1
2
0.1
0
0.1
11
16
50
CHROMIUMCR,TOTUG/L
1034
23
13.48
0
0
10
COPPER CU,DISS UG/L
1040
1
1.53
2
0.93
0
#N/A
9
13
1,300
COPPER CU,TOT UG/L
1042
22
9.55
0
0
10
FLUORIDE F,TOTAL MG/L
951
0
6
0.20
7
0.19
0.1/0.3/0.5
IRON FE,DISS UG/L
1046
1
78.00
2
50/100
0
1
50/100
1
300
IRON FE,TOT UG/L
1045
4
564.93
0
0
#N/A
LEAD PB,DISS UG/L
1049
1
0.1
2
0.1
0
0.1
14
120
15
LEAD PB,TOT UG/L
1051
22
11.95
0
0
0
MANGN ESE MN UG/L
1055
3
89.96
0
0
#N/A
MANGN ESEMN,DISS UG/L
1056
1
45.00
2
37.5
0
#N/A
50
MERCURY HG,DISS UG/L
71890
0
1
0.2
0
0.2
0.77
1.4
MERCURY HG,TOTAL UG/L
71900
22
0.55
0
0
0.3/0.5
MERCURY-TL,FILTERED WATER
50091
1
1.86
1
1.51
0
1.5
MGNSIUM MG,DISS MG/L
925
1
1 2.80
2
2.65
0
1
#N/A
NICKEL NI,DISS UG/L•
1065
10
0.45
2
0.27
0
#N/A
20
180
610
4600
SELENIUMSE,DISS UG/L
1145
1
0.5
2
0.5
0
0.5
5
20
170
4200
SILICA DISOLVED MG/L
955
0
6
14.18
6
14.27
#N/A
SILVERAG,DISS UG/L
1075
1
0.1
2
0.1
0
0.1
3.4
Tf- WUMfL,DISSUG/L
1057
1
0.2
2
0.2
0
0.2
0.24
0.47
ZINCZN,DISS UG/L1
1090
1
6.81
2
1
0
1
120
120
7,400
26,000
ZINCZN,TOTUG/L
1092
23
22.60
0
0
10
< Nine of the ten samples were below the minimum detection limit.
2.7.3. DEQ Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Monitoring Data
A series of sediment samples were taken and analyzed for toxic organic
compounds beginning in March 2009 at various sites along the Rivanna River,
Moores Creek, Meadow Creek, Schenks Branch, and at two sites along an
unnamed tributary to Schenks Branch.
Many samples at the Schenks Branch sites exceeded the probable effects
concentration (PEC) for a variety of PAH congeners, as shown in Table 2-14.
Values in blue -shaded cells were below the threshold effect concentration (TEC)
and values in light red -shaded cells were above the PEC for the given compound.
28
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Alrginia
The literature describes several indices to determine both the dominant
PAH source type and the relative potential for toxicity from the cumulative
concentrations of various congeners, as shown in Table 2-15. While the two
different tools used for this study do give slightly different results, the major PAH
sources appear to be fairly consistently pyrogenic in nature; while the potential for
toxic effects varies greatly between the two tools.
In Table 2-15, PH/AN is the ratio of Phenanthrene to Anthracene; FL/PY is
the ratio of Fluoranthene to Pyrene; and Meth/PH is the ratio of 3 different
methylphenthrene compounds to phenanthrene. All three ratios are between
parent PAHs and their weathered products and can be used to differentiate
between petrogenic and pyrogenic sources of PAHs.
Table 2-14. Summary of Major PAH Congener Values vs Consensus -Based TECs and PECs
in DEQ Monitoring (March 2009 - September 2010)
All Measurements are in ua/ko
C
B
�
C
N
N
p
U
C
d
N
L
L
N
d
C
L
b
b
2
N
L
L
L
C
L
N
OT.
L
L
75
L
N
C
O
y
O
O
O
C
C
a
Sample
C
C
C
LL
¢
T
o
Stream Name
Sample Site
Date
z
¢
¢
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
01/19/10
52
167
7.9
13A
381
108
1493
1252
986
920
1548
418
1453
1743
1529
1100
2-MWC000.04
06/29/10
17.6
26.61
30.5
27
740
69.8
1460
1130
615
590
856
308
493
457
12.6
304
Meadow
2-MWC000.60
03/03/09
23.6
43.11
6.3
12.1
173
33.1
600
574
446
397
456
171
339
207
148
01/19/10
4.9
10
<12.9
2.2
57
8.61
261
219
113
122
182
69
129
106
25
83
Creek
2-MWC001.16
06/29/10
11.9
28.81
12.5
12.5
123
28.8
505
503
349
288
396
141
279
222
12.5
157
01/19/10
<12.9
12.91
4
3.9
57
6.4
153
108
53
68
113
44
62
76
20
65
2-MWC001.28
06/29/10
11.6
14.5
34.1
24.8
248
35.8
491
344
215
264
350
1131
160
177
14.5
118
Moores Creek
2-MSC000.11
09/13/10
12.8
5.4
9.77
12.8
238
39.1
648
485
301
368
406
152
227
196
53.3
157
Rivanna River
2BRVN039.91
09/13/10
36.4
30.1
15.8
22.2
421
47.5
1530
1220
664
1120
1480
465
722
842
163
657
2BSNK001.20
09/13/10
7.61
5.5
23.7
35.8
1140
97.4
1620
1140
688
770
812
272
495
463
89.8
343
01/19/10
14
37
8.6
15
280
43
959
784
433
451
721
253
525
436
98
359
2-SNK000.02
06/29/10
34.51
38
72
56.4
739
139
1870
1490
865
883
1140
377
633
676
14.4
459
Schenks
Branch
2-SNK000.88
03/03/09
25.2
52.4
34.7
52.4
777
114
1944
1808
810
850
897
323
576
442
318
01/19/10
12.7
43
4.4
13
376
42
767
676
255
282
460
197
341
327
189
297
2-SNK001.02
06/29/10
12.6
12.6
49.8
58.3
748
90.71
1170
771
449
433
455
159
234
300
12.6
201
Schenks Dry
01/19/10
28
521
19
18
330
54
1292
1059
598
629
1208
429
839
739
169
597
Channel
PC7002
06/29/10
67
82.71
35.6
46.4
802
136
2520
2240
1230
1300
2240
539
917
1350
17.8
968
01/19/10
73
176
137
148
1826
344
3462
2725
689
1319
2564
782
2100
2526
471
1991
2-XSN000.04
06/29/10
22.3
29
30.5
40.2
842
117
2440
1930
1020
1260
1460
359
614
869
12.1
584
Schenks X-
Trib
01/19/10
111
93
187
239
3424
522
6281
4311
1981
2982
4145
1561
3075
3285
1806
2565
2_XSN000.19
06/29/10
157
85.6
152
183
2750
398
7380
5350
2780
4060
5100
1100
2400
2190
606
1480
X-tdb
01/19/10
22
58
10
10
146
44
761
9041
523
402
1140
418
692
548
151
438
PC7022
06/29/10
21.4
35.2
11.5
13.8
137
41.8
590
758
623
477
802
286
344
416
13.8
261
Stormwater
Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC)
176
77.41
204
57.2
423
195
108
166
150
33
Probable Effect Concentration (PEC)
561
536
1170
8451
2230
1520
1050
1290
1450
29
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, WgIma
Table 2-15. Indices for Determining the Type of Source and Potential for Toxicity
Stream Name
Sample Site
Sample
Date
PH/AN
Ratio
FUPY
Ratio
Meth/PH
Ratio
Mean-PEC
Quotient
2-MWC000.04
01/19/10
3.53
1.19
--
0.65
06/29/10
10.60
1.29
0.22
0.52
2-MWC000.60
03/03/09
5.23
1.05
--
0.26
Meadow
Creek
2-MWC001.16
01/19/10
6.63
1.19
--
0.09
06/29/10
4.27
1.00
0.65
0.21
2-MWC001.28
01/19/10
8.91
1.42
--
0.05
06/29/10
6.93
1.43
0.24
0.18
Moores Creek
2-MSC000.11
09/13/10
6.09
1.34
0.34
0.23
Ri%mnna Rieer
2BRVN039.91
09/13/10
8.86
1.25
0.32
0.57
2BSNK001.20
09/13/10
11.70
1.42
0.16
0.60
Schenks
2-SNK000.02
01/19/10
6.51
1.22
--
0.35
06/29/10
5.32
1.26
0.23
0.68
Branch
2-SNK000.88
03/03/09
6.82
1.08
--
0.70
2-SNK001.02
01/19/10
8.95
1.13
--
0.27
06/29/10
8.25
1.52
0.21
0.41
Schenks Dry
Channel
PC7002
01/19/10
6.11
1.22
--
0.48
06/29/10
5.90
1.13
0.30
0.92
Schenks X-
2-XSN000.04
01/19/10
5.31
1.27
--
1.27
06/29/10
7.20
1.26
0.25
0.83
Trib
2-XSN000.19
01/19/10
6.56
1.46
--
2.31
06/29/10
6.91
1.38
0.21
2.57
X-trib
Stormwater
rC7022
01/19/10
3.32
0.84
--
0.34
06/29/10
3.28
0.78
0.56
0.29
Green = petrogenic sources (Neff et al., 2005)
Gray = pyrogenic sources (Neff et al., 2005)
Values > 0.5 indicate potential toxicity (McDonald et al., 2000)
2.7.4. DEQ - Other Relevant Monitoring or Reports
Chlordane -related sampling: An error in reported units on an earlier
sample taken in March 3, 2009 resulted in additional samples being tested for
chlordane and related parameters at various locations around the Meadow Creek
and Schenks Branch watersheds on January 19, 2010 and June 29, 2010. Table
2-16 contains the corrected values for the original date together with the later
data for Meadow Creek; Table 2-17 lists the data for Schenks Branch. The
parameter values resulting from analysis of these samples showed that one later
sample (highlighted in yellow in the table) had elevated chlordane concentrations
greater than its Probable Effects Concentration in an unnamed tributary of
Schenks Branch.
30
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
A/bemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-16. Chlordane -Related Samples in Meadow Creek
Parameter
Code
Parameter Name
2-MWC000.04
MWC0.60
2-MWC001.16
2-MWC001.28
Consersus-Based
m
0
o
$
a
m
o
m
0
m
0
0
TEC
(Ds/kg)
PEC
Iue/kg)
00687
CARBON, ORGANIC, IN BED MATERIAL (GM/KG AS C)
15.61
3.03
3.54
2.6
5.04
9.94
39413
HEPTACHLOR IN BOT. DEP. (UG/KILOGRAM DRYSOLIDS)
0
2.25
0
2.5
0
2.9
50784
ALPHA -CHLORDANE SEDIMENT,DRY WT,BOT. DEP UG/KG
0
1.755
DAB
2.6
1.5
2.6
1.73
3.24
17.6
50966
GAMMA -CHLORDANE, DRY WEIGHT, SEDIMENT UG/KG
0
1.755
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.9
3.24
17.6
5042
HEXACHLOROBENZENE SEDI MENT,DRV,WT,UG/KG
0
2.25
0
2.5
0
2.9
75045
HEPTACHLOREPDXI DE SEDI MENT,DRV,WT,UG/KG
0
2.25
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.9
2.47
16.0
82007
PFCE TSAND IN SEDIMENT ONADRY WEIGHT BASIS
79.48
95.62
94.23
93.3
94.48
78.2
82008
ISEDIMENT PRCTSIZE CIASS.0039-.0625 SILT DRY WT
13.34
2.5
1 2.911
3.711
2.831
13.43
82009
ISEDIMENT PRCTSIZE CIASS<.0039 CLAY DRY WT
7.17
1.87
1 2.871
2.981
2.691
8.37
Table 2-17. Chlordane -Related Samples in Schenks Branch
Code
Para meter Name
2-SNK000.02
SNKO.88
2-SNK001.02
2-XSN000.04
2-XSN000.19
PC]OD2
PC7022
uensus-BaseParameterParamet
0
0
m
0
TEC
(uK/kg)
PEC
(uK/kg)
00687
CARBON,ORGANIC,INBEDMATERIAL(GM/KGASC)
9.51
17.6
5.D6
11.2
26.27
14.3
25.99
60.6
69.77
46.6
41.34
29.2
39413
HEPTACHLORIN90T.DEP. (UG/KILOGRAMDRYSOUDS)
0
2.9
0
2.5
0
2.4
0
3.3
0
3.6
0
2.8
50784
ALPHA-CHLORDANESEDIMENT,DRYWT,BOT.DEP UG/KG
2.6
5.18
4.1
0
12
0
7.78
0
27
3.8
10.7
3
2.21
3.24
1L6
50966
GAMMA{HWRDANE,DRYWEIGWSEDIMEWT /KG
2.6
5.18
5.2
0
13.6
0
8.27
0
30.2
3.8
10.7
3.3
2.8
3.24
17.6
5042
HDACHLOROBENZENE SEDIMENT,DRY,WT,UG/KG
0
2.9
0
2.5
0
2.4
0
3.3
0
3.6
0
2.8
5045
HEPTACHLOR EPDXI DE SEDI MENT,DRY,WT,UG/KG
2.6
2.9
0
2.5
0
2.4
0
3.3
3.8
3.6
3
2.8
2.47
H.D
82007
PERCENTSAND INSEDIMEMONADRYWEIGI-FRSIS
86.94
78.76
92.D9
83.43
82.97
89.69
93.12
57.65
20.8
23
55.58
73.16
82008
SEDIMENT PRCTLSIZE CISS.0039-.0625 SILT DRY WT
6.69
14.61
4.28
..54
10.31
6.96
3.66
25.03
54.21
50.09
30.98
14.97
82009
SEDIMENT PRCTLSIZE CUSS <.0039 CLAY DRYWT
6.36
6.641
1 3. 41
7.031
6.72
3.351
3.221
17. 21
24.991
26.96
13A41
11.87
Diurnal dissolved oxygen (DO) tests: No violations were observed of either
the minimum dissolved oxygen standard of 4.0 mg/L, or the daily average
standard of 5.0 mg/L for Class III waters, as shown in Figure 2-28.
J 12
rn
E 10
0
8
c
rn
6
>1
X
O
4
MI
81
6 2
rA
N
07/31/08 08/02/08 08/04/08 08/06/08 08/08/08
Schenks Branch Meadow Creek
Figure 2-28.4-Day Diurnal DO Results on Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch
31
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Relative Bed Stability (RBS) Analysis: The RBS analysis showed that both
Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch had a high percentage of fine sediment in
the streams that directly contribute to embeddedness - the filling of the interstitial
spaces in the channel bottom, as shown in Table 2-18. This percentage is very
similar to that found in the Rivanna River (RVN), where sediment was determined
to be one of the most probable stressors for its benthic impairment.
Table 2-18. RBS Analysis Results for Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch
Mean
Mean
Station
Sample
Substrate
LRBS
Embeddedness
oho fines
Date
(channel + margin)
Size (mm)
%
2-SNK000.88
08/11/08
1.626
-0.029
42.6
22.9
2-MWC000.60
08/11/08
1.200
-0.248
54.2
22.9
2-RVN033.65
1 07/12/071
1
1
1 23.8
Pollutant Response Program (PReP) Reports: The majority of reported
incidences in these watersheds related to sewage overflows during storm events.
Two incidents were of note, however, as shown in Table 2-19, since they were
both petroleum -related, and the high PAH samples in this watershed were
collected 9 months later in March 2009.
Table 2-19. Selected PReP Incidences
Incident
Date
Site Name
Quantity
Released
Unit
Material
Released
Receiving
Water
Incident Summery
Unknown
Meadow
Caller reported a petroleum sheen and odor on
06/25/08
Near English Inn
-1
Gallons
Petroleum
Creek
Meadow Creek.
A tar truck had a ruptured diesel fuel line that released
Schenks
06/23/OS
Tar Truck Fuel Release
15
Gallons
diesel fuel
15 gallons of fuel onto roadway and into storm drain
Branch
that leads to a stream called schenks branch.
Reported petroleum releases: The distribution of petroleum releases in the
watersheds from DEQ's VEGIS database, as of August 2010, is illustrated in
Figure 2-29 and summarized in Table 2-20. Those releases reported as "2006" in
the figure and "pre2007" in the summary are comprised of an unknown number of
years of data that were first entered in the database in 2006. These data
represent releases from existing petroleum storage tanks to surrounding land
areas as reported to Virginia's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program.
32
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Legend
Reported Petroleum Releases By Year
0 2006
• 2007
• 2008
0 2009
• 2010
Watersheds
OUpper Meadow Creek
OSchenks Branch
O Lower Meadow Creek o m w o-
0o m o
OMoores Creek o° o ° " ° o'e
r o
oB
o
�611
♦ A,Y
U 300 0 °O°0 O
O ♦ O O
b O O
OO O
° O ® O O
O O
O
• O 00
eek °
H`o0�esc 0 °O
• °
p 8 O
�O
O
O
° N
o
e�
0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000
Figure 2-29. Reported Petroleum Releases By Year
Table 2-20. Distribution of Reported Petroleum Releases by Watershed and Year
Watershed
Year
pre2007
2007
2008
2009
2010
Upper Meadow Creek
116
12
10
8
5
Schenks Branch
44
2
4
0
3
Lower Meadow Creek
8
2
0
1
0
Moores Creek
111
14
8
7
2
Total
279
30
22
16
10
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
2.7.5. DEQ Permitted Point Sources
• General Discharge Permits
o There was one general discharge permit for a single-family home in
the Moores Creek watershed, as of August 2014.
• VPDES Permits
o As of December 2014, there were no active DEQ VPDES permits in
the watershed. Three permits had been active in the recent past.
Table 2-21 includes a summary of reported monthly discharges, as
required by VPDES permits. Figure 2-30 shows the location of all of
the VPDES facilities and DEQ monitoring stations.
Table 2-21. Summary of Monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports from VPDES Facilities
Facility Name
Units
Mean Monthly
Measurement
Charlottesville
Oil Bulk Plant
Southwoods
STP
Virginia Oil
Flow
(MGD)
ave
0.0101
0.0364
0.0010
max
0.0103
0.0711
0.0018
TSS
(mg/L)
ave
37.4
max
40.2
FC
no/100 mL
ave
pH
min
6.9
6.7
6.7
max
6.9
7.5
6.7
DO
m /L
min
TP
m /L
ave
TN
m /L
ave
TKN
m /L
ave
BOD5
(mg/L)
ave
25.5
max
26.6
CBOD5
(mg/L)
ave
max
NH4 Jun -Nov
(mg/L)
ave
max
NH4 Dec -May
(mg/L)
ave
max
NO2 + NO3, Total
m /L
ave
Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Total Recoverable TPH
(mg/L)
14.2
8.1
No. of Samples
48
50
110
Beginning Date
31-Jan-01
31-Jan-01
31-Jan-01
Ending Date
30-Nov-05
30- r-05
30-Se -10
Receiving Waters
Moores Cr.
Moores Cr.
Schenks Br.
Status
Inactive
Inactive
Inactive
34
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Alrginia
Legend
• VPDES Permitted Facilities
DEC Montoring stations j n
Other Streams
Waterloodles
Watersheds
Lodge Greek _
Meatlaw Greek I ( 2-MWC000.60
Moores Creek
Kqi for-ciwemWr 2-SNk .08
Schenks Branch 1✓ 1 )- _ XSN000IS
�� 2-XSN000_t8
i
i
nT�l f
z-xacoot.ls
/ \ 2-MSC00060
2-MSC6a4 43 /
Moores Creekx IN
/
0 05 1 2 3 4
Miles
Figure 2-30. VPDES Facilities and DEQ Monitoring Sites
• Industrial Stormwater Permits
As of December 2014, there were 4 active industrial stormwater permits in
the impaired watersheds, shown in Table 2-22. None are listed in Lodge
Creek or Schenks Branch.
Table 2-22. Industrial Stormwater Permits in Moores Creek and Meadow Creek
VPDES
Source
Area
Permit
Facility Name
Receiving Stream
Type
(acres)
Impervious
Number
Northrop Grumman Systems
VAR050876
ISWGP
Meadow Creek UT
1.358
96.83
Corporation
VAR050974
BFI Waste Servics LLC of
ISWGP
Meadow Creek UT
1.3
90
Charlottesville
VAR051372
University of Va - Parking and
ISWGP
Meadow Creek
3.39
95
Transportation Dept
VAR051960
Charlottesville Area Transit-Admin
ISWGP
Moores Creek UT
7.73
78.6
Maint and O rtn
35
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, WgIma
2.7.6. VCU InStar (http://instar.vcu.edu) - Fish Inventory Data
Fish inventory data were limited to two samples taken in 2009, as shown
in Table 2-23.
Table 2-23. Summary of Fish Inventory Data
Types of
No. of
Stream
Habitat
Date
Site Code
Site Description
Fish Comments
Fish
fish
Score
Score
4 had lesions; 178
07/17/09
H28003
Moores Creek
17
174
77
had a black spot
Unnamed Tributary to
09/09/09
H28011
4
94
74
118
Rivanna River
2.7.7. 305(b)/303(d) Combined Report Monitored Violations
• Moores Creek: In the earliest three biennial reports between 1998 and
2002 (VADEQ, 1998, 2000, 2002), station 2-MSC000.60 was listed
with a bacterial impairment, continuing through the present, with
additional bacterial impairments shown downstream at station 2-
MSC000.11 and upstream at station 2-MSC004.43. Beginning in 2006,
citizen monitoring indicated the possibility of a biological impairment,
which was later confirmed at station 2-MSC000.60 in both 2008 and
2010. No violations have been reported for temperature or pH
standards. An earlier DO exceeded its standard and several minor total
phosphorus concentrations have been flagged at "threatened' levels,
as noted with the other data in Table 2-24.
36
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-24. 305(b) Water Quality Standard Violations - Moores Creek
CONVENTIONAL WATER COLUMN
MONITORING DATA
OTHER WATER COLUMN DATA
SEDIMENT
FISH TISSUE
BENTHIC
#ViolaOom/#Sam Ies/Status
#Violations/Status
Monitoring
Station
Type
Temperature
DlssoNeO
Oxygen
pH
Fecal
Coltiorm
E. Coll
Total
phosphorus
Chlorophyll
A
Metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Bio Mon
1998
2-MSC000.60
A
0 /20 - S
22O-S
0 MO- S
5/18-P
/-
/-
/-
/
/
O/S
O/S
0/S
/
0
2000
2-MSC000.60
A
0/22-S
022-S
022-S
M19-P
/-
/-
l-
l
/
0"
am
/
/
0
2002
2-MSC000.60
A
026-S
026-S
026-S
V23-P
/-
024-S
/-
O/S
o/S
O/S
0'S
/
/
0
2004
amsc000m
A
029-S
029-S
029-S
627-M
/-
/-
/-
/
01S
/
/
/
/
LP
2LISC-1-SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
hP
2006
2MSC000.11
A
N1-W
0'1-W
all-W
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
O/S
O/S
/
/
/
MI
2MSC000.60
A
Wn-S
022-S
O122-S
mo-S
/-
im-S
0110-S
/
0/S
a3
/
/
/
hP
2MSCISOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
AP
2MSC4SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
LP
2003
2-MSCOOD.11
A
0/1-W
Oil-W
Oil-W
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
O/S
/
/
/
/
HP
2-MSC000.60
AB
WM-S
0/31-S
N33-S
933-W
/-
1/15-W
O/10-W
/
01S
us
/
/
/
IM
2-MSC004.43
A
D/9-S
0/9-S
03-S
/-
/-
0/9-W
/-
/
/
05
/
/
/
IM
2010
2LMSC000.11
A
0R-W
Oil-W
N1-W
/-
/-
/-
/-
0/S
/
/
/
/
/
IM
2-MSCOOD.W
AB
O/34-S
031-S
am-S
/-
3/28- N
/-
1 0/S
a/s
/
/
/
/
IM
2-MSC004.43
A
O/9-S
019-S
03-S
/-
1 319-M
/-
03-NA
/
0'S
/
/
/
/
HP
2-MSC4SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
I/I
/
/
/
HP
2-MSC-MSC04-SW
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
IM
• Lodge Creek: The 2010 Fact Sheet for Impaired Waters identifies the
initial listing date for this segment as 2006, although that fact is not
reflected in the 305(b) biomonitoring results shown below in Table
2-25, which show an initial impaired (IM) rating in 2010. Citizen
monitoring played a role in getting the stream segment listed. No
violations have been reported for temperature, DO, or pH standards.
No total phosphorus concentrations have reached "threatened" levels.
No ambient monitoring is available for this station.
Table 2-25.305(b) Water Quality Standard Violations - Lodge Creek
ONVENTIONAL WATER COLUM
MONITORING DATA
OTHER WATER COLUMN DATA
SEDIMENT
FISH TISSUE
BENTHIC
iNiolabons/# Samples/Status
#Violations/Status
Monitoring
Station
Type
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
PH
Fecal
Coliform
E. Coll
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyl
IA
Metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
BIo
Mon
2004
2&XRC001.15
0/4-S
I 0/4-S
0/4-S
I /-
I /-
I /
I /-
/
/
/
/
/
/
0
2006
2XRC001.15
B
013-S I 0/3-8 0/3-S I /- I /- I / I I I / I I / I / I / I 1 0
2008
2-XRC001.15
I B
I 013-S I 013-SIM-S I /- I /- I / I I/I I / I I / 1 0
2010
2&XRC001.15
I B
0/1-W
1 0/1-W
0/1-W
1 /-
1/-1
IM
2-XRC-XRC01-SOS
I CMDN
I
I
I/-
I/ -I
I
I/I
I /
I
I/I
1 0
2-XRC-XRC01-SW
I CMON
1
0
37
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Meadow Creek: Citizen monitoring led to the initial listing of this stream
segment as a benthic impairment in 2006, as shown in Table 2-26. The
segment continued to show impairment in the DEQ biological samples
for the 2008 and 2010 assessments. The Meadow Creek bacteria
impairment was included in the Rivanna River Bacteria TMDL. No
violations have been reported for temperature or pH standards
violations, although 1 DO violation occurred prior to 1998. No total
phosphorus concentrations have reached "threatened" levels.
Table 2-26.305(b) Water Quality Standard Violations - Meadow Creek
CONVENTIONAL WATER COLUMN
MONITORING DATA
OTHER WATER COLUMN DATA
SEDIMENT
FISH TISSUE
BENTHIC
#Violabon5/#
Sam les/Stalus
#Violations/Status
Monitoring
Station
Type
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
pH
Fecal
Colilorm
E. Coll
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll
A
Halals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Sio Man
1998
2-M.vC000.60
A
0 /22 - S
I 122-5
JDJI22 - IS
I T19-T
I /-
I
/-
/
I O/S
I O/S
I 01S
1
0
2000
2-141JC000.60
A
Wn-5 0/22-5 022-5 019-T /- /- l- / l OVJ 0v0 / l 0
2002
2-hfivC000.60
A
026-5
026-5
026-S
4a3-P
/-
0124-5
/-
/
/
0/S
O/S
/
/
0
2LWC-8-SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
MP
2MNC-SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
LP
2004
aM✓tlC000.6o
A
0119-5
0/19-5
N19-S
]/18-M
/-
/-
/-
O/S
(yS
/
/
/
/
LP
2MNC-3-SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
0
2MNC-8B-SOS
CMON
2MNC-8-SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
LP
2MNC-SOS
CMON
/-
2006
2MNC000.60
A
Or20-S
020-S
020-5
3/8-IM
/-
0118-5
/-
/
/
0/S
/
/
/
0
2MNC3S0S
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
LP
2MNC8SOS
CMON
I
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
M
2MNCSOS
CMON
I
/-
I /-
I /-
I /-
I /-
I /
I /
I /
I
I /
/
LP
2008
2-MNCOOO.60
AB
0116-5
0/15-S
N16-S
1/3-W
1 /-
1 O115-W
/-
/
/
O/S
/
/
/
IM
2MNC-M✓dC01-SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
I /-
I /-
I /-
I /
I/I
/
I/I
/
I/I
IM
2010
2-WVC000.60
AS
011046-S
/-S
0/36-5
/-
M6-1
/-
/-
01S
0/8
O/S
0'S
/
/
IM
2-10N63-SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
N1-NA
/
/
/
/
/
/
0
2-M1V6MNC01-SOS
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
6P
2-M.vC-MdVC01-$lN
CMON
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/-
/
/
/
/
/
/
IM
2-MNGMNC03SW
CMON
• Schenks Branch: Schenks Branch was initially listed with a benthic
impairment in 2008 according to the 2010 TMDL Fact sheets, but the
305(b)/303(d) data only identify the impairment in 2010 as shown in
Table 2-27, both on its main channel and at two unnamed tributary
stations. The Schenks Branch bacteria impairment was not monitored
prior to development of the Rivanna River Bacteria TMDL, but is
subject to reductions applicable to Meadow Creek. No violations have
38
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Orgmia
been reported for temperature, DO, or pH standards violations. No total
phosphorus samples have been analyzed at these sites.
Table 2-27. 305(b) Water Quality Standard Violations - Schenks Branch
CONVENTIONAL WATER COLUMN
MONITORING DATA
OTHER WATER COLUMN DATA
SEDIMENT
FISH TISSUE
BENTHIC
#Violatiors/#Sam
les/Staus
#Violations/Status
Monitoring
Station
Type
Temperature
Dissolved
Ox en
PH
Fecal
COliform
E.Coli
Total
phas horns
Chlorophyll
A
Metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Bio Mon
W02
2SNK-SOS
CMON
/-
l-
I-
l-
l-
l-
I-
l
I
I
l
l
I
MP
WN
2SNK-SOS
WON
/- /- /- /- /- /- /- / / / / / / 0
260E
2-SNK000.86
AB
0/1-W
0/1-W
0/1-W
/-
/-
/-
I-
1
I
I
l
l
I
0
2-XSN000.08
AB
0/1-W
Oil -W
Oil
I /-
/-
/-
I-
1
I
I
l
l
I
0
2-XSN000.18
AB
0/1-W
0/1-W
0/1-W
/-
/-
/-
I-
l
I
I
l
1
I
0
2610
QSNK000.88
AB,CR
0/1016-S
/-S
0113- S
/-
3/3-IM
/-
I-
/
O/S
0/S
0/S
/
I
HP
2-SNK-SHK0l-SOS
CMON
/-
l-
I-
l-
l-
l-
I-
l
I
I
l
l
I
LP
2-SNK-SHK02-SW
CMON
/-
l-
I-
l-
l-
l-
I-
l
I
I
l
l
I
IM
2-SNK-SHVOi-SW
CMON
/-
l-
I-
l-
l-
l-
I-
l
I
I
l
l
I
IM
2-SNK-SOS
CMON
/-
l-
I-
l-
l-
l-
I-
l
I
I
l
l
I
IM
2-XSNO00.08
AB,CR
0/8-S
018-S
0/8-S
/-
516-IM
/-
I-
/
O/S
I
1
l
I
0
2-XSN000.18
B
0/1-W
0/1-W
oil
/-
/-
/-
I-
l
I
I
l
l
I
IM
2.7.8. Virginia DCR Data
• Agricultural BMP Cost -Share Data: Only one agricultural BMP, a CREP
riparian forest buffer (CRFR-3), was reported as being active and
installed with state or federal cost -share money in any of these
watersheds.
Table 2-28. Installed Agricultural BMPs from DCR Cost -Share Database
Area
Area
BMP
Date
Practice
12-Digit
Installed
benefitted
Watershed Name
Type
Installed
Life (yrs)
HUC
(ac)
(ac.)
CRFR-3
21.3
21.3
Apr-04
15
JR15
Moores Creek
• Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permits
As of Fall 2010, the VSMP permits include those related to temporary
construction as listed in Table 2-29, as well as permits under the Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program issued to Albemarle County, the
City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, the Virginia Department of
Transportation, and Piedmont Virginia Community College.
39
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-29. Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Construction Permit Summary
VAR Permit Number
IMF Actnity Name
Recent Water(s)
Est Project
Start Date
Est Project
End Date
Total Land
Area ac
Disturbed
Area ac
Moores Creek Permits
VAR10-10-101860
Awn Park SubdMsion
Biscuit Run UT Moores Cr.
01Jan-07
5
5
VAR70-11-100521
Piedmont Virginia Community College - Parking Lot
Expansion - Commercial
Biscuit Run/Moores Creek
11-Oct-10
30Jan-11
2.1
2.1
VAR10-10-100232
Claude Moore Medical Education Building Project
Moores Creek
01Jan-08
30- -10
1.1
1.1
VAR10-10-101226
Habitat for Humanity - Nunley St.
Moores Creek
15-Se 7
31-Dec-10
2.7
2.2
VAR10-10-100506
Huntley Subdivision PUD
Moores Creek
03Jan-04
03Jan-11
22.8
17.1
VAR10-10-103459
Moores Creek Wastewater Treament Plant - Industrial
Infrastructure; Ex ansioNlm rowments of a Wastewater
Moores Creek
01-Sep-09
30Jun-14
89.5
12
VAR70-10-102595
Piedmont Virginia Community College
Moores Creek
10-No"8
11-Mar-10
37.43
2.7
VAR70-10-100019
Ragged Mountain Water main replacement Phase 2 and 3
Moores Creek
20- r-09
20-Oct-09
1.4
1.4
VAR10-10-100581
Sieg Warehouse
Moores Creek
27-Mar-09
24JuW9
2.9
1.76
VAR10-10-100864
South Lavin Project
Moores Creek
01-Ma -07
0
5.5
VAR10-11-100543
Stadium Road Sanitary Sewer Collector Rehabilitation Phase
II & III - Municipal Sanitary Sever R acemenUU rade
Moores Creek
01-Oct-10
31-Aug11
11.1
11.1
VAR10-10-104400
Uniwmity of Virginia - UniwmiData Center - Commemial
Moores Creek
01- r-10
01- -10
1.3
1.3
VAR10-10-101429
Forest Hill Park
Moores Creek UT
18-Ma -09
18-Dec-09
7.4
5.9
VAR10-10-100907
UVA - CAS and ITE Buildings
Moores Creek UT
24-NovO8
01-Dec-11
3.9
3.9
VAR10-10-101452
UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital
Morey Creek UT Moores Cr.
17-Feb-09
10Se 10
8.5
2.6
VAR10-10-102277
Brookwood
Rock Creek Moores Cr.
01-Au
30Jul-Jul
12.72
12
VAR10-10-103169
Rock Creak Villa es -Residential
Rock Creek Moores Cr.
30-Se 9
01Jan-11
4.05
1.05
VAR10-10-102980
Buford Middle School Campus
Rock Creek UT Moores Cr.
01Jun-09
01Se 10
18.09
1.09
Lodge Creek Permits
VAR10-10-104882
University of Virginia -Alderman Road Housing Phase III
Utilities
Lodge Creek
24-May-10
11-Aug-10
2.2
2.2
VAR10-10-102543
University, of Virginia
Lode Creek
30Jun-09
30-A -12
4.6
4.6
Meadow Creek Permits
VAR10-10-103013
Meadow Creek Parkway Replacement - Sewer
Replacement/Upgrade
Meadow Creek
01-Aug-09
01-Dec-10
5.09
5.09
VAR10-10-104009
Meadow Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Upgrade Design -
Contract B - Sewer Re Iacement/U rode
Meadow Creek
01-DecO9
30-Dec-11
13.15
13.15
VAR10-10-104086
St. Annes - Belfield School - Commemial
Meadow Creek
01- r-09
30Se 10
13.7
13.7
VAR10-10-102424
UVA - Beware Hall
Meadow Creek
01-Ma-08
15-M -10
2.38
2.38
VAR10-10-103872
Abbington Crossing - Clubhouse Replacement - Replacement
of an Existing Apartment Clubhone, Swimming Pool &
Playground
Meadow Creek UT
19-Oct-10
31-May-10
2
0.8
VAR10-10-103802
Hillsdale Drive Extended - Commercial
Meadow Creek UT
01-No,09
01-May-101
14.6
8.3
VAR10-10-104445
Red Lobster- Commercial Construction of a New Restaurant
Meadow Creek UT
15-Mar-10
30Jun-10
2.13
2.5
VAR10-11-100300
Treesdale Park - Residential
Meadow Creek UT
15-Au-10
15-A -ll
6.6
5.9
VAR10-10-103098
University of Virginia - Band Rehearsal Hall - Educational Bldg
- New Construction
Meadow Creek UT
10-NovO9
01-Dec-10
1.05
1.05
VAR10-10-103803
Whole Foods Market - Commercial
Meadow Creek UT
01-No 09
01-r.1 -10
3.76
4.09
VAR10-10-101596
Northfields
Town Branch Creek Meadow Cr.
23-Mar-09
30Se 09
13.5
1.6
Schenks Branch Permits
VAR10-10-104284
Wellington Court -Residential
Schenks Branch
01Jun-11
01Jul-12
1.4
1.3
VAR10-10-104008
Meadow Creek Sanitary Sever Interceptor Upgrade Design -
Contract A - Sever ReplacementlUpgmde
Schenks Branct /Meadow Creek
01-Dec-09
30-Apr-11
14.31
14.31
2.7.9. Local Sources of Information
Several sources of local information were also considered in the stressor
analysis, including stream corridor assessments (SCAs) that were conducted by
Albemarle County in 2002, and by the City of Charlottesville in 2005 (Table 2-30),
and a companion habitat assessment by the County (Table 2-31). Another
interesting source of local information was a series of YouTube videos produced
,1
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, WgIma
by a local citizen titled "Charlottesville City of Trash" that highlighted problems in
Lodge Creek, Rock Creek, and Moores Creek. The videos highlight sewer
system overflows to Lodge Creek, leaching from the Avon sanitary landfill (closed
in 1974), illegal dumping, and impacts on channel stability from urban runoff. The
videos are available at: htto://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaXewYgz5XQ&feature=related.
Table 2-30. Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA) - Summary of Potential Problems, 2005
Receiving Length of Reach Insufficient Dump Erosion Obstruc- Pipes/ Public
Stream Crossings
Stream Reach (ft) Code Buffers Sites Sites lions Ditches I Utilities
Citv of Charlottesville Stream Corridor Asssessment, 2005
Lodge Creek
IMooresCreek
1 6,165
1 LOD
1 67
1 10
1 2
1 78
1 19
1 31
1 29
Pollock's Branch
IMoores Creek
2,682
POL
32
12
0
42
8
10
19
Rock Creek
Moores Creek
4,985
ROC
9
11
5
77
0
41
6
Schenk's Branch
IMeadow Creek
6,526
SC1
53
10
1
82
22
96
21
St. Charles Creek
IMeadow Creek
1 2,763
1 STC
18
13
1 0
41
16
19
7
Albemarle Countv Stream Corridor Assessment, 2002
Between Biscuit&MHS
Moores Creek
3,225
BBM
0
2
1
1
0
4
0
Biscuit Run
Moores Creek
38,753
BIS
6
7
5
3
0
1
2
Branchlands/Berkeley
Meadow Creek
5,832
BRB
4
4
0
2
2
17
2
Cow Branch/MHS
Moores Creek
21,386
Cow
5
17
0
2
3
12
4
Meadow Creek Above Branchlands
Meadow Creek
7,784
MAB
1
8
3
4
1
15
3
Meadow Creek Below Branchlands
Meadow Creek
12,567
MBB
4
5
0
5
0
10
10
Moores Creek Above Biscuit
Moores Creek
17,109
MOA
9
12
0
3
2
13
7
Moores Creek Below Biscuit
Moores Creek
19,372
MOB
10
5
4
3
2
14
7
Morey Creek
IMoores Creek
32,710
MOR
8
14
1
6
0
1
5
Ragged Mtn Creek
IMoores Creek
10,839
RMC
1
5
1
0
1
8
4
City Totals
23,121
179
56
8
320
65
197
82
County Totals
169,577
48
79
15
29
11
95
44
41
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 2-31. Stream Corridor- Habitat Assessment, Albemarle County (2002)
Y
Y
C
C
1O
Y
C
C
N
_
tlq
0
s
S00
t
t
m
Stream Segment
Receiving
•�
a
£
:
w
0
w
0
Stream
\
o
0
'�
s
•�;
O
w
N
N
L
O
Q
M
>
3
3
c
y
v
o
v
o
m
m
a
a
W
c
W
N
H
>
>
m
Sao
m
w
9
ow
c
w
m
c
w
c
c
c
c
W
a
E
l
>
s
v
LL
m
m
m
m
m
m
A
m
w
>
a
>
Between Biscuit&MHS
Moores Creek
11
13.5
7.5
14
12
12
8.5
3
3
3.5
3.5
6
6
Biscuit Run
Moores Creek
11.4
10.9
9.1
9.8
12.8
15.4
10.1
5.6
5.9
6.1
6.2
7
8
Branchlands/Berkeley
Meadow Creek
12
14
11.7
13.3
14.3
12
13
7
6.3
7.3
6.3
5.3
5
Cow Branch/MHS
Moores Creek
12.2
11.2
10.8
11.2
13.7
13.7
13.2
6.2
6.2
5.8
5.8
3.7
3.8
Meadow Creek Above Branchlands
Meadow Creek
10.7
9.3
9.3
8.7
10
14
10.3
4
4
5
5
6.3
8
Meadow Creek Below Branchlands
Meadow Creek
11
9.2
10
9.7
11.7
12.2
10.5
4.3
4.3
4
5.2
6.3
8
Moores Creek Above Biscuit
Moores Creek
1 12.6
8.6
13.1
9
13.4
14.4
10.4
6.6
6.6
6.9
6.7
6.7
5.4
Moores Creek Below Biscuit
Moores Creek
12.4
10.2
16
8.2
13.2
12.2
11.6
6.6
6
6
6
3.8
5.8
Morey Creek
Moores Creek
9.3
8.1
7.9
7.9
12.6
10.1
9.2
5.2
5.9
4.9
5.2
4.2
5
Ragged Mtn Creek
Moores Creek
11.2
10.5
10.71
9
1 15.21
14.7
1 11.5
1 5.81
5.81
6.5
1 6.5
1 6.8
1 6
"Poor" or "Marginal" habitat score.
A 1998 State of the Basin report from the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission also provided this information on Meadow Creek, which was
one of eight stations in the report for which morphological measurements were
taken in conjunction with chemical and biological monitoring:
"This river segment is entrenched with a high width/depth
ratio. Particle distribution is bimodal with peaks in the silt/clay, sand,
and cobble ranges. This segment classifies as a Rosgen F4 stream.
Meadow Creek presents an interesting case: the particle
distribution is among the healthiest in the basin with good
representation of particles in both the gravel and cobble ranges. At
a glance, one may assume that aquatic habitat availability is good
here. However, given the highly urbanized nature of the watershed,
habitat availability may not be the limiting factor, as evidenced by
low SOS scores. Entrenchment is one of the lowest in the basin,
with steep muddy and silty banks, characteristic of urban hydrology.
This urban type hydrology, with quick, steep storm hydrographs,
appears to be transporting sediment bedload sufficiently through
rapids and runs, based on the particle distribution (this is a kind of
urban "flushing" effect). A take-home message for Meadow Creek
may be that, given a relatively good streambed structure, the creek
42
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
may be an excellent candidate for restoration if water quality issues
can be addressed' (TJPDC, 1998).
2.7.10. Related TMDLs and/or Implementation Plans
The following are other TMDLs and implementation plans which also affect
the four benthic-impaired stream segments that are the subject of this report.
Findings from these studies, and actions planned may have relevance and
benefit for sediment reductions resulting from these TMDLs.
• 2002: Moores Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
o http://www.deq.virginia.gov/portals/0/DEQ/Water/TMDL/appt
mdls/jamesrvr/moorecr3. pdf
• 2012: Moores Creek Bacteria Implementation Plan 2012 Update
o http://deg.state.va.us/Portals/0/DEQ[Water/TMDUImplementatio
nPaans/mooresip pdf
• 2008: Benthic TMDL Development for the Rivanna River Watershed
sediment
o http://www.deg.virginia.gov/portals/0/DEQ/Water/TMDUappt
mdls/jamesrvr/rivannabc.pdf
o Temp, DO, and pH not stressors; metals and organics
generally low; P and toxicity - possible stressors; sediment
and embeddedness were suboptimal and confounded by
increased runoff from urban areas.
o Upper portions of watershed have unstable streambanks and
modified hydrology.
o RBS results on Rivanna mainstem similar to those in Meadows
and Schenks.
• 2009: Bacteria TMDL Development for the Rivanna River Mainstem,
North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and Tributaries, Meadow
Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek Watersheds
o http://www.deq.virginia.gov/portals/0/DEQ/Water/TMDUappt
mdls/jamesrvr/rivannaec.pdf
43
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
2.7.11. Sanborn Insurance Maps
• Historic Sanborn Insurance Maps were reviewed for the City of
Charlottesville to investigate potential legacy sources of PAH
compounds in Schenks Branch (http://sanborn.umi.com).
• The 1929 and 1929-1950 maps showed development around Schenks
Branch that included 3-4 oil and gas companies and 2 refineries
located on Harris St. between Rivanna Ave. and Concord Ave.
• The 1920 map does not show any of these companies being in place.
Also, no additional maps exist beyond 1950 but current Google maps
show none of these companies are still in existence at the specified
locations, although the location of the VPDES permit for Virginia Oil is
in this general area.
• There is currently a heating oil company (GOCO Oil) located on Harris
St. near Concord Ave., and a concrete company (Allied Concrete)
located on Harris St.
44
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 3: BENTHIC STRESSOR ANALYSIS
3.1. Introduction
TMDLs must be developed for a specific pollutant. Since a benthic
impairment is based on a biological inventory, rather than on a physical or
chemical water quality parameter, the pollutant is not explicitly identified in the
assessment, as it is with physical and chemical parameters. The process
outlined in USEPA's Stressor Identification Guidance Document (USEPA, 2000)
was used to identify the critical stressor for each of the impaired watersheds in
this study. A list of candidate causes was developed from the listing information,
biological data, published literature, and stakeholder input. Chemical and
physical monitoring data from DEQ monitoring provided additional evidence to
support or eliminate the potential candidate causes. Biological metrics and
habitat evaluations in aggregate provided the basis for the initial impairment
listing, but individual metrics were also used to look for links with specific
stressors, where possible. Volunteer monitoring data, land use distribution,
Virginia Base Mapping Project (VBMP) aerial imagery, and visual assessment of
conditions in and along the stream corridor provided additional information to
investigate specific potential stressors. Logical pathways were explored between
observed effects in the benthic community, potential stressors, and intermediate
steps or interactions that would be consistent in establishing a cause and effect
relationship with each candidate cause. The information in this chapter is
adapted from the original Stressor Analysis Report for Moores Creek, Lodge
Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch presented to the Technical Advisory
Committee on January 6, 2011, the revision distributed on June 14, 2011, and
updated monitoring data available through Fall 2013.
45
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
3.2. Analysis of Stressors for Moores Creek
The suspected sources of the benthic impairment in Moores Creek were
listed as Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area) and Non -Point Source in the
2010 List of Impaired Waters. The primary DEQ monitoring station for both
ambient and biological monitoring is 2-MSC000.60. In order to further
discriminate sources, a stressor analysis was performed on all available data.
The stressor may be something that either directly affected the benthic
community or indirectly affected its habitat. Virginia SCI ratings suggest that the
benthic community has been "severely impaired' in the two samples taken in
October 2006 and March 2008, with a slight improvement to "stressed' in
October 2011.
A list of candidate stressors was developed for Moores Creek and
evaluated to determine the pollutant(s) responsible for the benthic impairment. A
potential stressor checklist was used to evaluate known relationships or
conditions that may show associations between potential stressors and changes
in the benthic community. Available evidence was then summarized for each
potential stressor. Depending on the strength of available evidence, the potential
stressors were either "eliminated', considered as "possible" stressors, or
recommended as the "most probable" stressor(s). Candidate stressors included
ammonia, hydrologic modifications, metals, nutrients, organic matter, PAHs, pH,
sediment, TDS/conductivity/sulfates, temperature, and toxics. The evaluation of
each candidate stressor is discussed in the following sections.
3.2.1. Eliminated Stressors
• Ammonia
High values of ammonia are toxic to many fish species and may
impact the benthic community as well. Although values were
occasionally as high as 0.11 mg/L, most of the values recorded at DEQ
ambient monitoring stations were at or below the minimum detection
limit (MDL) of 0.04 mg/L and, therefore, ammonia was eliminated from
further consideration as a stressor for Moores Creek.
46
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Metals
Increased metals concentrations lead to low diversity and low
total abundance of benthic organisms, with specific reduced
abundance of metal -sensitive mayflies and increased abundance of
metal -tolerant chironomids (Clement, 1994). Total organism
abundance was moderate with hydropsychidae and chironomidae
dominating other organisms. Although these may be associated with
elevated metals, no water column concentrations were found that
violated either their chronic freshwater or public water supply
standards, and no sediment concentrations exceeded their sediment
PECs. Therefore, metals were eliminated from further consideration as
a possible stressor.
• pH
Benthic macroinvertebrates require a specific pH range of 6.0 to
9.0 to live and grow. Changes in pH may adversely affect the survival
of benthic macroinvertebrates. Treated wastewater, mining discharge
and urban runoff can potentially alter in -stream levels of pH. No
violations of the minimum or maximum pH standard were reported at
any of the DEQ stations on the impaired segment. Therefore, pH was
eliminated from further consideration as a stressor.
• TDS/Conductivity/Sulfates
Total dissolved solids (TDS) are the inorganic salts, organic
matter and other dissolved materials in water. Elevated levels of TDS
cause osmotic stress and alter the osmoregulatory functions of
organisms (McCulloch et al., 1993). The average TDS and conductivity
measurements reported in DEQ monitoring data for Moores Creek
watershed were all considerably lower than the reference watershed
screening values of 500 mg/L and 500 µmhos/cm, respectively.
Therefore, this suite of stressors was eliminated from further
consideration as a possible stressor.
47
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Temperature
Elevated temperatures can stress benthic organisms and
provide sub -optimal conditions for their survival. Moores Creek is
classified as a Class III Non -tidal Piedmont and Coastal stream with a
maximum temperature standard of 32°C. No violations of the
temperature standard were recorded by DEQ ambient monitoring, or by
monitoring during collection of the biological samples. Low riparian
vegetation habitat metric scores were observed during one biological
sampling, but did not correspond with elevated temperature levels.
Therefore, no evidence supported temperature as a stressor, and it
was eliminated.
3.2.2. Possible Stressors
• Hydrologic Modifications
Hydrologic modifications can cause shifts in the supply of water,
sediment, food supply, habitat, and pollutants from one part of the
watershed to another, thereby causing changes in the types of
biological communities that can be supported by the changed
environment. Several of the tributaries of Moores Creek near the outlet
contain large concentrations of urban, impervious areas, which
contribute to modified hydrology in a watershed. Several other
tributaries contain minor impoundments, though these are far removed
from the main channel and the outlet. Although these modifications are
considered as "pollution" and not "pollutants" covered by the TMDL
legislation, hydrologic modifications are considered a possible stressor
as they are likely to increase channel erosion and sediment loads
downstream.
• Nutrients
Excessive nutrient inputs can lead to excessive algal growth,
eutrophication, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations which may
adversely affect the survival of benthic macroinvertebrates. In
lE
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMVLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
particular, dissolved oxygen levels may become low during overnight
hours due to plant respiration.
The benthic community in Moores Creek can be characterized
as being dominated by chironomidae and hydropsychidae - organisms
possibly associated with excessive nutrients - and has a low diversity,
with these two organisms comprising more than 63% of each sample.
Dissolved N and P concentrations are above eutrophication sufficiency
levels in lakes, and several samples have exceeded DEQ's "threatened
water" TIP levels. Downstream from the sewage treatment plant (STP),
nutrient levels have been exceedingly high, although these are not
responsible for the upstream impairment. Furthermore, the Moores
Creek STP has been reissued a VPDES permit, effective August 1,
2011, that requires considerable reductions to meet its new average
annual concentration limits of 0.5 mg/L TP and 6.0 mg/L TN. Since,
however, there were no recorded instances of DO standard violations,
nutrients are only considered to be a possible stressor and
downstream concentrations will be considerably reduced when the
STP comes into compliance with its new limits.
• Organic Matter
Excessive organic matter can lead to low in -stream dissolved
oxygen concentrations, which may adversely affect the survival and
growth of benthic macroinvertebrates. Potential sources of organic
matter in Moores Creek include sewer system overflows, runoff from
manured agricultural areas, and runoff from impervious areas. Organic
enrichment is supported by the moderate to high values of the Modified
Family Biotic Index (MFBI) and the abundance of Hydropsychidae and
Simuliidae - typical of organic -enriched sites. On the other hand, the
levels of BOD5, TOC, and COD are all very low; there have been no
monitored DO standard violations; and there were low levels of TKN to
TN in 2007 at the biological monitoring site. High levels of TKN relative
to TN were observed in the 1970's downstream from the STP, but
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
these measurements were downstream from where the biological
monitoring occurred and were most likely attributable to the STP.
Therefore, organic matter is considered to be a possible stressor, but
probably not the most likely one causing the original impairment.
• PAHs
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are ubiquitous
contaminants derived from fossil fuels and their incomplete
combustion. Some are highly potent carcinogens. PAHs generally
occur as mixtures of tens to hundreds of related hydrocarbon
compounds. While individual PAHs can cause toxicity at certain levels,
cumulative effects from multiple compounds at lower levels are also
suspected of causing toxicity. PAHs have been detected in the one
sample taken in September 2010, but none of the compounds
exceeded their PECs, indicative of levels that could cause toxicity; nor
did it have a Mean-PEC Quotient that would indicate the possibility of
cumulative toxicity. Therefore, because these substances have been
detected, they are listed as possible, but not probable sources.
• Toxics
Toxic substances by definition are not well tolerated by living
organisms. The presence of toxics as a stressor in a watershed may be
supported by very low numbers of any type of organisms, low organism
diversity, violations of freshwater aquatic life criteria or consensus -
based PECs for metals or inorganic compounds, by low percentages of
the shredder population, reports of fish kills, or by the presence of
available sources. Since there are known historical and current point
source (PS) dischargers, one with petroleum -related discharges, and a
low percentage of shredders present, toxicity is a possibility. However,
there are abundant organisms present, including observed fish, and no
violations of sediment -related PECs or in -stream Aquatic Life Use
criteria for metals or PAHs. Because of the presence of some of these
50
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
sources, toxics are considered to be a possible stressor, but certainly
not the most likely one.
3.2.3. Most Probable Stressors
The most probable stressor to the benthic community is considered to be
sediment based on the following summary of available evidence.
• Sediment
Excessive sedimentation can impair benthic communities
through loss of habitat. Excess sediment can fill the pores in gravel
and cobble substrate, eliminating macroinvertebrate habitat. Potential
sources of sediment include residential runoff, forest harvesting
operations, construction sites, and in -stream disturbances.
Sediment loads may arise from agricultural runoff, livestock with
stream access, barren areas, construction sites, and forest harvesting,
but channel erosion from unstable banks and washoff from impervious
areas are the most obvious contributors. Sediment is supported as a
stressor for this impairment through the poor habitat metrics related to
sediment including embeddedness and bank stability. Ambient TSS
concentrations are low, but no storm samples were taken to check for
higher concentrations expected during storm events. The Albemarle
County Stream Corridor Assessment in 2002 also noted many riparian
sites along Moores Creek and many tributaries with insufficient buffer
and active erosion, and poor habitat metrics related to bank stability
and bank vegetation. Sediment is considered the most probable
stressor in Moores Creek because of the poor habitat metrics related to
sediment and the inventory of areas with poor vegetative cover and
bank stability.
51
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
3.3. Analysis of Candidate Stressors for Lodge Creek
The suspected source of the benthic impairment in Lodge Creek was listed
as Non -Point Source in the 2010 List of Impaired Waters. The DEQ biological
station on this stream segment is 2-XRC001.15. There is no DEQ ambient
monitoring on this stream segment. In order to further discriminate sources, a
stressor analysis was performed on all available data. The stressor may be
something that either directly affected the benthic community or indirectly
affected its habitat. Virginia SCI ratings suggest that the benthic community has
been "severely impaired" throughout the period from 2002 to 2012.
A list of candidate stressors was developed for Lodge Creek and
evaluated to determine the pollutant(s) responsible for the benthic impairment. A
potential stressor checklist was used to evaluate known relationships or
conditions that may show associations between potential stressors and changes
in the benthic community. Available evidence was then summarized for each
potential stressor. Depending on the strength of available evidence, the potential
stressors were either "eliminated', considered as "possible" stressors, or
recommended as the "most probable" stressor(s). Candidate stressors included
ammonia, hydrologic modifications, metals, nutrients, organic matter, pH,
sediment, TDS/conductivity/sulfates, temperature, and toxics. The evaluation of
each candidate stressor is discussed in the following sections.
3.3.1. Eliminated Stressors
• Ammonia
High values of ammonia are toxic to many fish species and may
impact the benthic community as well. While there are no DEQ
ambient monitoring stations on Lodge Creek, all recorded values
monitored downstream on Moores Creek were at or below the
minimum detection limit (MDL) of 0.04 mg/L and, therefore, it was
eliminated as a stressor for Lodge Creek.
52
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Metals
Increased metals concentrations lead to low diversity and low
total abundance of benthic organisms, with specific reduced
abundance of metal -sensitive mayflies and increased abundance of
metal -tolerant chironomids (Clement, 1994). Total organism
abundance was moderate with either hydropsychidae or chironomidae
organisms dominating each sample. Although these may be
associated with elevated metals, and although no samples were taken
on Lodge Creek itself, no elevated water column or sediment
concentrations were found downstream in Moores Creek that
exceeded their respective public water supply standards or sediment
PECs. Therefore, metals were eliminated as a possible stressor.
• pH
Benthic macroinvertebrates require a specific pH range of 6.0 to
9.0 to live and grow. Changes in pH may adversely affect the survival
of benthic macroinvertebrates. Treated wastewater and urban runoff
can potentially alter in -stream levels of pH. No violations of the
minimum or maximum pH standard were reported for any field
measurements taken at the time of each biological sample. Therefore,
pH was eliminated from further consideration as a stressor.
• TDS/Conductivity/Sulfates
Total dissolved solids (TDS) are the inorganic salts, organic
matter and other dissolved materials in water. Elevated levels of TDS
cause osmotic stress and alter the osmo-regulatory functions of
organisms (McCulloch et al., 1993). The field conductivity values
measured concurrently with the biological samples taken in Lodge
Creek were all considerably lower than the reference watershed
screening values of 500 µmhos/cm. Therefore, this suite of stressors
was eliminated from further consideration as a possible stressor.
53
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Temperature
Elevated temperatures can stress benthic organisms and
provide sub -optimal conditions for their survival. Lodge Creek is
classified as a Class III Non -tidal Piedmont and Coastal stream with a
maximum temperature standard of 32°C. No violations of the
temperature standard were recorded during field measurements taken
concurrently with the biological samples. Therefore, no evidence
supported temperature as a stressor, and it was eliminated.
3.3.2. Possible Stressors
• Nutrients
Excessive nutrient inputs can lead to excessive algal growth,
eutrophication, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations which may
adversely affect the survival of benthic macroinvertebrates. In
particular, dissolved oxygen levels may become low during overnight
hours due to plant respiration. The benthic samples from Lodge Creek
can be characterized as being dominated by either chironomidae or
hydropsychidae - organisms possibly associated with excessive
nutrients - and as having low diversity, with the two dominant
organisms comprising more than 70% of each sample. Consistent
poor ratings are also given for riparian vegetation in the habitat
assessment. However, since all DO measurements have been in
compliance with the water quality standard, nutrients have only been
considered to be a possible stressor.
• Organic Matter
Excessive organic matter can lead to low in -stream dissolved
oxygen concentrations, which may adversely affect the survival and
growth of benthic macroinvertebrates. Potential sources of organic
matter in Lodge Creek include sewer system overflows and runoff from
impervious areas. Organic enrichment is supported by the moderate to
high values of the Modified Family Biotic Index (MFBI), the abundance
54
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
of hydropsychidae and simuliidae - typical of organic -enriched sites,
and the reports of frequent sewer system overflows. On the other hand,
the DO levels recorded at the time of biological sampling were all
above the minimum water quality standard. The % of filterer-collectors
was highly variable from sample to sample, indicating availability of
organic inputs in each of the Spring samples. Therefore, organic matter
is considered to be a possible stressor, but not the most likely one
causing the original impairment.
• Toxics
Toxic substances by definition are not well tolerated by living
organisms. The presence of toxics as a stressor in a watershed may be
supported by very low numbers of all types of organisms, low organism
diversity, violations of freshwater aquatic life criteria or consensus -
based PECs for metals or inorganic compounds, by low percentages of
the shredder population, reports of fish kills, or by the presence of
available sources. There are no current PS dischargers in Lodge
Creek, although University of Virginia facilities are found in upstream
areas of the watershed. There are abundant organisms present. Since
there were no suspected sources of metals in the watershed, no
sediment samples had been collected and analyzed. Because of the
unknown constituents in sewer overflows, toxics are considered to be a
possible stressor, but with a fairly remote likelihood.
3.3.3. Most Probable Stressors
The two most probable stressors to the benthic community are considered
to be hydrologic modifications and sediment based on the following summary of
available evidence.
• Hydrologic Modifications
Hydrologic modifications can cause shifts in the supply of water,
sediment, food supply, habitat, and pollutants from one part of the
55
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
watershed to another, thereby causing changes in the types of
biological communities that can be supported by the changed
environment. The Lodge Creek watershed contains a large amount of
urban impervious areas, comprising 19.6% of the watershed, and
frequent sewer system overflows. Although these modifications are
considered as "pollution" and not "pollutants" covered by the TMDL
legislation, hydrologic modifications are considered a most probable
stressor as they modify hydrologic regimes, which are likely to increase
channel erosion and sediment loads downstream.
• Sediment
Excessive sedimentation can impair benthic communities
through loss of habitat. Excess sediment can fill the pores in gravel
and cobble substrate, eliminating macroinvertebrate habitat. Potential
sources of sediment include residential runoff, forest harvesting
operations, construction sites, and in -stream disturbances.
Sediment loads may arise from barren areas and construction
sites, but channel erosion from unstable banks and washoff from
impervious areas are the most obvious contributors. Supportive
evidence includes consistent ratings of "poor" for riparian vegetation in
Lodge Creek; observations of many sites with insufficient buffer and
active erosion areas in the 2005 City of Charlottesville's Stream
Corridor Assessment; and citizen -narrated video footage on YouTube
that shows the contribution from unstable stream banks in the area
during storm runoff. Sediment is considered to be a most probable
stressor in Lodge Creek because of its poor riparian vegetation, the
inventory of areas with insufficient buffer and active erosion, and visual
evidence of bank instability.
56
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
3.4. Analysis of Candidate Stressors for Meadow Creek
The suspected source of the benthic impairment in Meadow Creek was
listed as Non -Point Source in the 2010 List of Impaired Waters. The DEQ
ambient and biological monitoring station along this stream segment is conducted
at 2-MWC000.60. In order to further discriminate sources, a stressor analysis
was performed on all available data. The stressor may be something that either
directly affected the benthic community or indirectly affected its habitat. Virginia
SCI ratings suggest that the benthic community has been "severely impaired'
throughout the period from 2004 to 2013.
A list of candidate stressors was developed for Meadow Creek and
evaluated to determine the pollutant(s) responsible for the benthic impairment. A
potential stressor checklist was used to evaluate known relationships or
conditions that may show associations between potential stressors and changes
in the benthic community. Available evidence was then summarized for each
potential stressor. Depending on the strength of available evidence, the potential
stressors were either "eliminated', considered as "possible" stressors, or
recommended as the "most probable" stressor(s). Candidate stressors included
ammonia, hydrologic modifications, metals, nutrients, organic matter, PAHs, pH,
sediment, TDS/conductivity/sulfates, temperature, and toxics. The evaluation of
each candidate stressor is discussed in the following sections.
3.4.1. Eliminated Stressors
• Ammonia
High values of ammonia are toxic to many fish species and may
impact the benthic community as well. Most of the values recorded at
the DEQ ambient monitoring station were at or below the minimum
detection limit (MDL) of 0.04 mg/L and, therefore, ammonia was
eliminated from further consideration as a stressor for Meadow Creek.
57
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Metals
Increased metals concentrations lead to low diversity and low
total abundance of benthic organisms, with specific reduced
abundance of metal -sensitive mayflies and increased abundance of
metal -tolerant chironomids (Clement, 1994). Total organism
abundance was moderate with hydropsychidae and chironomidae
dominating other organisms. Although these may be associated with
elevated metals, no water column or sediment concentrations were
found that exceeded their respective public water supply standards or
sediment PECs. Therefore, metals were eliminated from further
consideration as a possible stressor.
• pH
Benthic macroinvertebrates require a specific pH range of 6.0 to
9.0 to live and grow. Changes in pH may adversely affect the survival
of benthic macroinvertebrates. Treated wastewater, mining discharge
and urban runoff can potentially alter in -stream levels of pH. No
violations of the minimum or maximum pH standard were reported at
the DEQ station on the impaired segment. Therefore, pH was
eliminated from further consideration as a stressor.
• TDS/Conductivity/Sulfates
Total dissolved solids (TDS) are the inorganic salts, organic
matter and other dissolved materials in water. Elevated levels of TDS
cause osmotic stress and alter the osmo-regulatory functions of
organisms (McCulloch et al., 1993). The average TDS and conductivity
measurements reported in DEQ monitoring data for Meadow Creek
watershed were all considerably lower than for the reference
watershed screening values of 500 mg/L and 500 µmhos/cm,
respectively. Therefore, this suite of stressors was eliminated from
further consideration as a possible stressor.
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Temperature
Elevated temperatures can stress benthic organisms and
provide sub -optimal conditions for their survival. Meadow Creek is
classified as a Class III Non -tidal Piedmont and Coastal stream with a
maximum temperature standard of 32°C. No violations of the
temperature standard were recorded by DEQ ambient monitoring or by
monitoring during collection of the biological samples. Therefore, no
evidence supported temperature as a stressor, and it was eliminated.
3.4.2. Possible Stressors
• Nutrients
Excessive nutrient inputs can lead to excessive algal growth,
eutrophication, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations which may
adversely affect the survival of benthic macroinvertebrates. In
particular, dissolved oxygen levels may become low during overnight
hours due to plant respiration.
The benthic community in Meadow Creek can be characterized
as being dominated by chironomidae and hydropsychidae - organisms
associated with excessive nutrients - and as having low diversity, with
the two dominant organisms averaging more than 70% of each sample.
Dissolved N and P concentrations are above eutrophication sufficiency
levels in lakes, although no samples have exceeded DEQ's
"threatened water" TP levels. However, since all DO measurements
are in compliance with the minimum water quality standard, nutrients
are only considered to be a possible stressor.
• Organic Matter
Excessive organic matter can lead to low in -stream dissolved
oxygen concentrations, which may adversely affect the survival and
growth of benthic macroinvertebrates. The primary potential source of
organic matter in Meadow Creek is runoff from impervious areas.
Organic enrichment is supported by the moderate to high values of the
59
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Modified Family Biotic Index (MFBI) in 11 of 13 samples, low SC/FC
ratios (all < 0.5) ; and high percentages of filterer-collectors. On the
other hand, there have been no monitored DO standard violations and
no excessive diurnal DO fluctuations. Therefore, organic matter is
considered to be a possible stressor, but not the most likely one
causing the original impairment.
• PAHs
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are ubiquitous
contaminants derived from fossil fuels and their incomplete
combustion. Some are highly potent carcinogens. PAHs generally
occur as mixtures of tens to hundreds of related hydrocarbon
compounds. While individual PAHs can cause toxicity at certain levels,
cumulative effects from multiple compounds at lower levels are also
suspected of causing toxicity. PAHs have been detected in the seven
samples taken at a combination of 4 different sites on 3 different
sampling dates. Of these, only one out of 9 compounds with
established PECs exceeded its PEC in one sample, indicative of levels
that could cause toxicity; and two of the samples had a Mean-PEC
Quotient that would indicate the possibility of cumulative toxicity. This
station is, however, just downstream from its confluence with Schenks
Branch, which appears to be the source of high PAHs in the
watershed. Therefore, because these substances have been detected
at potentially toxic levels, they are listed as possible stressors.
Although the possibility of PAH toxicity is a concern, PAHs are not
listed as a probable cause of the aquatic life use impairment, because
other pollutants are considered to more directly impact the abundance
and diversity of the benthic community .
• Toxics
Toxic substances by definition are not well tolerated by living
organisms. The presence of toxics as a stressor in a watershed may be
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
supported by very low numbers of any type of organisms, low organism
diversity, violations of freshwater aquatic life criteria or consensus -
based PECs for metals or inorganic compounds, by low percentages of
the shredder population, reports of fish kills, or by the presence of
available sources. Since there are multiple historical and current oil
processing and refining facilities in the watershed, many reports of
petroleum releases, a violation of one PAH PEC, and, except for one
Spring 2008 sample, a consistently low percentage of shredders,
toxicity is a possibility. However, there are abundant organisms present
and there have been no violations of sediment -related PECs or in -
stream Aquatic Life Use criteria for metals. Because of the presence of
some of these sources, toxics are considered to be a possible stressor,
but not the most likely one.
3.4.3. Most Probable Stressors
The two most probable stressors to the benthic community are considered
to be hydrologic modifications and sediment based on the following summary of
available evidence.
• Hydrologic Modifications
Hydrologic modifications can cause shifts in the supply of water,
sediment, food supply, habitat, and pollutants from one part of the
watershed to another, thereby causing changes in the types of
biological communities that can be supported by the changed
environment. Meadow Creek watershed contains a large amount of
urban impervious area (23%) and there is a considerable amount of
channelization in the Schenks Branch tributary. Although these
modifications are considered as "pollution" and not "pollutants" covered
by the TMDL legislation, hydrologic modifications are considered a
most probable stressor as they modify hydrologic regimes, which are
likely to increase channel erosion and sediment loads downstream.
61
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Sediment
Excessive sedimentation can impair benthic communities
through loss of habitat. Excess sediment can fill the pores in gravel
and cobble substrate, eliminating macroinvertebrate habitat. Potential
sources of sediment include residential runoff, forest harvesting
operations, construction sites, and in -stream disturbances.
Sediment loads in the Meadow Creek watershed may arise from
barren areas and construction sites, but channel erosion from unstable
banks and washoff from impervious areas are the most obvious
contributors. Sediment is supported as a stressor for this impairment
through the poor bank stability habitat metric, which is directly related
to sediment. Ambient TSS concentrations are low, but no samples
were taken during storm events when higher TSS concentrations would
be expected. The City of Charlottesville's Stream Corridor Assessment
in 2005 also noted many riparian sites along Meadow Creek and
tributaries with insufficient buffer and active erosion. Sediment is
considered a most probable stressor in Meadow Creek because of the
poor habitat metric related to sediment, and the inventory of areas with
insufficient buffer and active erosion.
62
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
3.5. Analysis of Candidate Stressors for Schenks Branch
The suspected source of the benthic impairment in Schenks Branch was
listed as Non -Point Source in the 2010 List of Impaired Waters. The primary DEQ
monitoring stations along this stream segment and an unnamed tributary are 2-
SNK000.88 and 2-XSN000.08, which are used for both ambient and biological
monitoring. In order to further discriminate sources, a stressor analysis was
performed on all available data. The stressor may be something that either
directly affected the benthic community or indirectly affected its habitat. Virginia
SCI ratings suggest that the benthic community has been "severely impaired'
throughout the period from 2005 to 2013.
A list of candidate stressors was developed for Schenks Branch and
evaluated to determine the pollutant(s) responsible for the benthic impairment. A
potential stressor checklist was used to evaluate known relationships or
conditions that may show associations between potential stressors and changes
in the benthic community. Available evidence was then summarized for each
potential stressor. Depending on the strength of available evidence, the potential
stressors were either "eliminated', considered as "possible" stressors, or
recommended as the "most probable" stressor(s). Candidate stressors included
ammonia, hydrologic modifications, metals, nutrients, organic matter, PAHs, pH,
sediment, TDS/conductivity/sulfates, temperature, and toxics. The evaluation of
each candidate stressor is discussed in the following sections.
3.5.1. Eliminated Stressors
• Ammonia
High values of ammonia are toxic to many fish species and may
impact the benthic community as well. Although ammonia was not
monitored in Schenks Branch, most of the values recorded at the
downstream DEQ ambient monitoring station on Meadow Creek were
at or below the minimum detection limit (MDL) of 0.04 mg/L and,
63
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
therefore, it was eliminated from further consideration as a stressor for
Schenks Branch.
• Metals
Increased metals concentrations lead to low diversity and low
total abundance of benthic organisms, with specific reduced
abundance of metal -sensitive mayflies and increased abundance of
metal -tolerant chironomids (Clement, 1994). Total organism
abundance was moderate with chironomidae and naididae dominating
other organisms. Although these may be associated with elevated
metals, no sediment concentrations were reported that exceeded their
sediment PECs in a 2008 sample. Therefore, metals were eliminated
from further consideration as a possible stressor.
• pH
Benthic macroinvertebrates require a specific pH range of 6.0 to
9.0 to live and grow. Changes in pH may adversely affect the survival
of benthic macroinvertebrates. Treated wastewater, mining discharge
and urban runoff can potentially alter in -stream levels of pH. No
violations of the minimum or maximum pH standard were reported at
any of the DEQ stations on the impaired segment. Therefore, pH was
eliminated from further consideration as a stressor.
• TDS/Conductivity/Sulfates
Total dissolved solids (TDS) are the inorganic salts, organic
matter and other dissolved materials in water. Elevated levels of TDS
cause osmotic stress and alter the osmoregulatory functions of
organisms (McCulloch et al., 1993). The average conductivity
measurements reported in DEQ monitoring data for Schenks Branch
watershed were all considerably lower than the reference watershed
screening values of 500 µmhos/cm, although they were much higher
than in nearby Moores Creek and Meadow Creek. Therefore, this suite
64
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
of stressors was eliminated from further consideration as a possible
stressor.
• Temperature
Elevated temperatures can stress benthic organisms and
provide sub -optimal conditions for their survival. Schenks Branch is
classified as a Class III Non -tidal Piedmont and Coastal stream with a
maximum temperature standard of 32°C. No violations of the
temperature standard were recorded by DEQ ambient monitoring or by
monitoring during collection of the biological samples. Although low
riparian vegetation habitat metric scores were observed, they did not
correspond with elevated temperature levels. Therefore, no evidence
supported temperature as a stressor, and it was eliminated.
3.5.2. Possible Stressors
• Nutrients
Excessive nutrient inputs can lead to excessive algal growth,
eutrophication, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations which may
adversely affect the survival of benthic macroinvertebrates. In
particular, dissolved oxygen levels may become low during overnight
hours due to plant respiration.
The benthic community in Schenks Branch can be characterized
as being partially dominated by chironomidae - an organism associated
with excessive nutrients - and having a low diversity, with the two
dominant organisms averaging more than 80% of all samples.
Elevated TN concentrations were observed in both samples taken from
Schenks Branch and an unnamed tributary. On the other hand, no
reported TP concentrations have exceeded "threatened" levels and no
DO standard violations were observed in either DEQ ambient field
monitoring or in a diurnal DO study. Therefore, nutrients have only
been considered to be a possible stressor.
65
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Organic Matter
Excessive organic matter can lead to low in -stream dissolved
oxygen concentrations, which may adversely affect the survival and
growth of benthic macroinvertebrates. The major potential source of
organic matter in Schenks Branch is impervious area runoff. Organic
enrichment is supported by the moderate to high values of the Modified
Family Biotic Index (MFBI), the usually high percentage of filterer-
collectors, and the large number of naididae organisms. On the other
hand, there have been no monitored DO standard violations and no
excessive diurnal DO fluctuations to support organic matter as being
excessive. Therefore, organic matter is considered as only a possible
stressor of the original impairment.
• PAHs
Introduction: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are
ubiquitous trace contaminants derived from fossil fuels and their
incomplete combustion. Some are highly potent carcinogens. PAHs
generally occur as mixtures of tens to hundreds of related hydrocarbon
compounds. While individual PAHs can cause toxicity at certain levels,
cumulative effects from multiple compounds at lower levels are also
suspected of causing toxicity. While water quality standards exist for
certain PAH compounds for Public Water Supplies and Other Surface
Waters in Virginia, no water column samples were analyzed in this
watershed for comparison against these standards. As is more usual,
sediment samples are periodically analyzed and compared with
consensus -based probable effects concentrations (PECs), which are
levels that could possibly cause toxicity. Nine of these PAH compounds
are considered EPA Priority Pollutants for which PECs have been
established.
Measured Values PAHs were detected in all 14 samples taken
from Schenks Branch and its tributaries in 2009 and 2010. The highest
values originated from a culverted headwater section of an unnamed
0
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
tributary to Schenks Branch, and then appear to have affected
downstream measurements in Schenks Branch and Meadow Creek.
Interpretation of Measured Values: About half of the PAH
congeners with established PECs exceeded their PECs in 5 of the
samples in the unnamed tributary. Likewise in Table 2-15, these same
5 samples had Mean-PEC Quotients > 0.5 (indicative of the possibility
of cumulative toxicity) at levels deemed potentially toxic and appeared
to influence 2 samples in Schenks Branch and 2 samples in Meadow
Creek with Mean-PEC Quotients greater than 0.5. Another measure of
cumulative toxicity is the Hazard Index (Neff et al., 2005), but since this
measure is based on water column measurements and no water
column samples were analyzed, this measure could not be evaluated.
PAHs have been shown to directly affect mortality in sensitive
aquatic species, according to a review by Ingersoll et al. (2001). PAHs,
however, have become fairly common and have been detected in
many places around Virginia that have sampled and analyzed for
PAHs, as is shown in Table 3-1. This table represents a selection from
all of the Probability Monitoring (ProbMon) sites that DEQ sampled for
PAHs during 2005 and 2006. This selection includes those stations
with the largest number of PAHs detected per sample. These samples
were then matched with one or more benthic sample Virginia Stream
Condition Indices (VSCI) that were evaluated during approximately the
same period (October 2003 through May 2006), though from different
sample dates. Although very few PAHs exceeded their respective
PECs and no sample had a Mean-PEC Quotient greater than 0.5,
many stations with healthy benthic communities (VSCI > 60) reported
the presence of many different PAH compounds. Since both impaired
and non -impaired stations reported the presence of PAHs, their
presence alone is not sufficient proof of cause and effect.
67
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 3-1. VSCI Scores from ProbMon Sites in Virginia with PAH Measurements
(Shaded VSCI scores greater than 60 indicate non -impairment)
DEQ Station
ID
Sampling
Date
Stream Ndme
Most
Recent
VSCI
No. of
VSCI
samples
No. of PAH
parameters
/sample
No. of PAH
parameters
> MnL
No. of PAH
parameters
> PEC
(max = 9)
Mean-PEC
Quotient
6CNFH069.13
04/05/06
North Fork Holston River
65.01
2
32
28
0
0.143
6BLUR000.60
04/06/06
Laurel Branch
62.92
2
32
22
0
0.051
6ASLV000.85
09/04/06
Sullivan Branch
51.00
2
32
17
0
0.148
6CNFH014.72
03/27/06
North Fork Holston River
53.30
1
32
16
0
0.026
6ARP0002.45
03/30/05
Russell Prater Creek
45.91
2
19
16
0
0.146
6APNR034.58
03/31/05
POUND RIVER
42.34
3
19
15
0
0.096
6CNFH033.45
09/06/05
North Fork Holston River
NN/A
0
15
14
0
0.056
9-TOM006.92
05/02/06
Toms Creek
60-77
3
32
13
0
0.040
6BPOW123.64
04/28/05
Powell River
kN/A
0
17
13
1
0. 350
2-RGR001.11
04/13/06
Roaring Run
71.83
5
32
12
0
0.025
2-PLP002.24
03/29/06
Phelps Branch
62.25
2
32
12
0
0.039
9-NEW056.13
05/15/06
New River
kN/A
0
32
11
0
0.099
5AXG1001.I9
04/25/06
unnamed Tributary to elackwater
38.34
4
32
11
0
0.060
9-LFK005.39
04/07/05
Laurel Creek
70.19
2
19
11
0
0.018
1APAR001.78
05/12/05
Parish Run
RN/A
0
19
10
0
0.031
2-CWP006.89
05/12/05
Cowpasture River
81.90
2
19
10
0
0.030
2AXQT000.66
05/10/06
Johns Run, UT (JHN)
77.33
1
32
10
0
0.054
4AXM0001.98
05/23/05
Mill Creek, IT (MCA)
7746
1
19
10
0
0.047
6APNR034.58
05/01/06
POUND RIVER
42.34
3
32
10
0
0.024
3-1FTN018.83
O5/23/06
Mountain Run
25.42
2
32
9
0
0.026
2-XYC000.31
1 04/13/06
IT TO CHICKAHOMINY RIVER
38.96
2
32
0
0.012
3-XFB001.00
03/30/06
unnamed ❑rib to Massaponax Cree
48. 99
2
32
8
0
0.025
6BPOW170.76
I 03/29/05
Powell River
r NN/A
1 0
1 17
1 8
1
0.332
While PAHs appear to affect the abundance of the most
sensitive benthic species, the causative link between PAHs in
sediment and overall benthic community health is still debatable.
Possible Sources of PAHs in the watersheds As explained in
the introduction to this possible stressor, many different sources of
PAHs are present in urban watersheds. A few of the common sources
are listed in Table 3-2 as excerpted from Neff et al. (2005). In addition
to these general sources, spills of petroleum products (one fairly
significant) had been reported in two separate incidences in Meadow
Creek and Schenks Branch (Table 2-19) the summer before the first
samples were taken in March 2009. Two dischargers in these
watersheds have VPDES permits that allow total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH) and that have reported average annual TPH
concentrations many times greater than the water quality standards for
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
total PAHs. While TPH includes many other types of hydrocarbons, it
may also include PAHs, though the proportion in these discharges is
unknown. There have also been multiple oil processing and refining
facilities in the Schenks Branch watershed for many years, and the
significant amount of impervious area in these watersheds no doubt
receives large amounts of coal -tar based sealants, which have recently
been identified as a major source of PAHs in some urban settings (Van
Metre and Mahler, 2010; USGS, 2009).
Table 3-2. Common Types of PAHs from Pyrogenic and Petrogenic Sources as
indicated by differing ranges of PAH isomer ratios, phenanthrene to
anthracene (PH/AN) and fluoranthene to pyrene (FL/PY) (Neff et al., 2005)
Source I PH/AN FL/PY
Primarily pyrogenic sources
Coke oven emissions
1.27- 3.57
0.76- 1.31
Iron/steel plant (soot)
0.24
0.62
Iron/steel plant (flue gas)
0.06
1.43
Wood -burning emissions
6.41
1.26
Auto exhaust soot (gasoline)
1.79
0.9
Diesel engine soot
0.06
1.26
Diesel exhaust particles
1.3- 7.8
0.25- 1.38
Highway dust
4.7
1.4
Urban runoff
0.56- 1.47
0.23- 1.07
Creosote
0.11- 4.01
1.52 - 1.70
Coal tar
3.11
1.29
Coke oven emissions
0.24
1.49
Creosote -contaminated sediment
0.34
1.59
Urban sediment
0.22
0.79
Primarily petrogenic sources
60 crude oils (mean)
52
0.25
Australian crude oil
>370'
0.78
Italian crude oil
>232'
0.08
Alaska crude oil
>262'
0.2
Diesel fuel (No. 2 fuel oil)
>800,
0.38
No. 4fuel oil
11.8
0.16
Bunker C residual fuel oil
14.8
0.14
Road paving asphalt
20
<0.113
West Virginia coal(2samples)
11.2,27.9
0.95,1.03
"Anthracene orfluoranthene concentration was below the
detection limit.
Reasons for Not Naming PAHas a Most Probable Stressor. As
substances with carcinogenic properties, PAHs are a concern in the
watershed, but they are not the most likely cause of the present benthic
M
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
impairment. Since sampling for PAHs has occurred only recently
(2009-2010), it is not known whether the high values may be attributed
to specific incidences, e.g. the PReP spills (2008), or to more long-term
chronic conditions, e.g. reported UST petroleum releases over many
years. Low values of the VSCI have been monitored since 2004, so if
the high PAHs resulted from the 2008 spills, it would be obvious that
sources other than PAH were responsible for the poor health of the
benthic community. As it stands, it is not possible to definitively
describe the onset of high PAH measurements or its relationship with
benthic health. What we do know is that PAHs adsorb to sediment with
low partitioning to the water column and that baseflow is minimal in the
unnamed tributary to Schenks Branch. Also, since the entire flow to the
unnamed tributary at the monitoring point flows through a culvert, all
contributions are likely from spills, stormwater runoff, or illicit
discharges through the storm drains, with storage in the bottom
sediments in between storms. The amounts appear to be small overall,
and since sediment is transported by stormflow, this loading could be
minimized by installation of a constructed wetland at the outlet of the
culvert to trap and allow biodegradation of the contaminants. So, while
PAHs are a possible stressor and definitely a concern that should be
addressed in the implementation plan, they are not considered the
most probable cause of the impairment. As will be discussed in the
next section, sediment was determined to be one of the most probable
causes for the benthic impairment, and since PAHs adsorb readily to
fine sediments, control of sediment will also reduce PAH loading from
suspected source areas.
• Toxics
Toxic substances by definition are not well tolerated by living
organisms. The presence of toxics as a stressor in a watershed may be
supported by very low numbers of any type of organisms, low organism
diversity, violations of freshwater aquatic life criteria or consensus-
70
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
based PECs for metals or inorganic compounds, by low percentages of
the shredder population, reports of fish kills, or by the presence of
available sources. Since there are multiple historical and current oil
processing and refining facilities in the watershed, many reports of
petroleum releases, several violations of PAH PECs, one recent
violation of the chlordane PEC, and a consistently low percentage of
shredders, toxicity is a possibility. However, there are abundant
organisms present, small fish have been observed, and there have
been no violations of sediment -related PECs or in -stream Aquatic Life
Use criteria for metals. Because of the presence of some of these
sources, toxics are considered to be a possible stressor, but not the
most likely one.
3.5.3. Most Probable Stressors
The two most probable stressors to the benthic community are considered
to be hydrologic modifications and sediment based on the following summary of
available evidence.
• Hydrologic Modifications
Hydrologic modifications can cause shifts in the supply of water,
sediment, food supply, habitat, and pollutants from one part of the
watershed to another, thereby causing changes in the types of
biological communities that can be supported by the changed
environment. Schenks Branch watershed contains a large amount of
urban impervious area and some of the headwater tributaries are
enclosed in culverts. Although these modifications are considered as
"pollution" and not "pollutants" covered by the TMDL legislation,
hydrologic modifications are considered a most probable stressor, as
they change the hydrologic regime in a watershed, which leads to
increases in channel erosion and sediment loads downstream.
71
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
• Sediment
Excessive sedimentation can impair benthic communities
through loss of habitat. Excess sediment can fill the pores in gravel
and cobble substrate, eliminating macroinvertebrate habitat. Potential
sources of sediment include residential runoff, forest harvesting
operations, construction sites, and in -stream disturbances.
Sediment loads may arise from barren areas and construction
sites, but channel erosion from unstable banks and washoff from
impervious areas are the most obvious contributors. Sediment is
supported as a stressor for this impairment through the poor habitat
metrics related to sediment including riparian vegetation and channel
alteration. The City of Charlottesville's Stream Corridor Assessment in
2005 also noted many riparian sites along Schenks Branch and its
unnamed tributary with insufficient buffer and active erosion. Even
though the relative bed stability (RBS) metrics showed only moderate
impacts from anthropogenic sources, the %fines metric value, which
impacts interstitial habitat niches in the channel bottom, was similar to
those on the main stem of the Rivanna River, where the %fines metric
was used as partial justification for naming sediment as the most
probable stressor for its benthic impairment. Sediment is considered a
most probable stressor in Schenks Branch because of the poor habitat
metrics related to sediment, and the inventory of areas with insufficient
buffer and active erosion.
72
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
3.6. Summary
The Moores Creek (VAV-H28R_MSC01A00) stream segment is
severely impaired for its aquatic life use, with individual VSCI sample
scores of 28.3, 34.9, and 42.7, where a score of 60 or above represents a
non -impaired condition (scale: 0 - 100). The Moores Creek watershed is
impacted by a variety of agricultural and urban land uses. Sediment was
selected as the most probable stressor based on the repeated poor scores
for sediment metrics in the habitat assessments and the observations of
insufficient buffer, erosion and bank instability at many locations in the
watershed.
The Lodge Creek (VAV-H28R_XRC01A04) stream segment is
severely impaired for its aquatic life use, with individual VSCI sample
scores ranging from 20.6 to 37.8, where a score of 60 or above represents
a non -impaired condition (scale: 0 - 100). The Lodge Creek watershed is
impacted by urban land uses. Hydrologic modifications and sediment
were selected as the most probable stressors based on the high percent
imperviousness, repeated poor scores for riparian vegetation, and the
observations of insufficient buffer, erosion, and bank instability at many
locations along the stream.
The Meadow Creek (VAV-H28R_MWC01A00) stream segment is
severely impaired for its aquatic life use, with individual VSCI sample
scores ranging from 16.7 to 39.2, where a score of 60 or above represents
a non -impaired condition (scale: 0 - 100). The Meadow Creek watershed
is impacted by urban land uses. Hydrologic modifications and sediment
were selected as the most probable stressors based on the high percent of
impervious area, repeated poor scores for sediment metrics in the habitat
assessments, and the observations of insufficient buffer and active erosion
sites at many locations in the watershed.
The Schenks Branch (VAV-H28R_SNK01A02) stream segment is
severely impaired for its aquatic life use, with individual VSCI sample
scores from both this segment and its unnamed tributary ranging from 11.9
73
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
to 35.5, where a score of 60 or above represents a non -impaired condition
(scale: 0 - 100). The Schenks Branch watershed is impacted by urban
land uses. Hydrologic modifications and sediment were selected as the
most probable stressors based on the high percent of impervious area,
repeated poor scores for sediment metrics in the habitat assessments, and
the observations of insufficient buffer and active erosion sites in many
riparian locations along the stream.
74
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 4: SETTING REFERENCE SEDIMENT LOADS
Since there are no in -stream water quality standards for sediment in
Virginia, an alternate method was needed for establishing a reference endpoint
that would represent the "non -impaired" condition.
4.1. Sediment
In the past, a reference watershed approach has been used based on a
single reference watershed that has similar characteristics as the TMDL
watershed, except that it has a healthy benthic community. One problem with this
approach can be finding a suitable reference watershed, especially in minimally -
impaired and urban watersheds. A second problem with this approach is in
identifying the threshold sediment load that is sufficient for attainment of
biological integrity, since the load from the reference watershed may be overly
conservative.
For the Moores and Meadow Creek sediment impairments, the procedure
used to set TMDL sediment endpoint loads is a modification of the methodology
used to address sediment impairments in Maryland's non -tidal watersheds (MDE,
2006, 2009), hereafter referred to as the "all -forest load multiplier" (AIIForX)
approach. The AIIForX approach has previously been approved for use in Virginia
by EPA in the Little Otter River and Buffalo Creek sediment TMDLs (Yagow et al.,
2015). AIIForX is the ratio of modeled sediment loads from the same watershed:
the existing condition load divided by the load from an all -forest condition. The
AIIForX approach was applied locally, using the monitoring stations with
impairments and a multiple selection of monitoring stations with healthy biological
scores. Two separate regressions were developed between the average Virginia
Stream Condition Index (VSCI) biological index scores at individual monitoring
stations and the corresponding AIIForX ratio from their contributing watersheds,
one for the impaired urban watersheds (Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and
Schenks Branch) and select comparison watersheds, and a second one for the
impaired rural watershed (Moores Creek) and select comparison watersheds.
75
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
The value of AIIForX along the regression line, corresponding to the VSCI
impairment threshold value of 60, is the AIIForX threshold value which is used to
set the TMDL. The full AIIForX methodology is detailed in Appendix D.
4.1.1. Selection of Local Comparison Watersheds
The selected comparison watersheds were nearby watersheds (within 30
miles) that have healthy biological communities as measured by the VSCI.
Additional criteria used for selection of the comparison watersheds included:
• Average VSCI > 60 and a minimum VSCI > 55
• Minimum of 3 VSCI samples
• The most recent VSCI sample has been since January 2005
• 2Id - 4`h order streams
• No multiple comparison watersheds along the same stream
Fifteen potential comparison watersheds were identified for application of
the AIIForX approach with the sampling locations in each of the four impaired
watersheds. After performing load calculations, separate regression equations
were determined as being most applicable for the 3 urban and 1 rural impaired
watersheds. For the urban impaired watersheds (Lodge Creek, Schenks Branch,
and Meadow Creek), the number of comparison watersheds was reduced to
thirteen (13), as AIIForX values for two of those watersheds were larger than
those of all impaired watersheds, and therefore, not appropriate for setting
corresponding sediment reduction targets. In a similar manner for the rural
impaired watershed (Moores Creek), the number of comparison watersheds was
reduced to eight (8). Table 4-1 summarizes the various characteristics in support
of the selection criteria for the urban impaired watersheds, while Table 4-2
summarizes the same for the rural impaired watershed. The impaired watersheds
in these two tables are highlighted in red. Locations of the comparison
watersheds and the urban impaired watersheds are shown in Figure 4-1, and for
the rural impaired watershed in Figure 4-2, along with corresponding DEQ
biomonitoring stations.
76
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 4-1. Comparison Watershed Characteristics for Urban Impaired Watersheds
StationlD
Stream Name
Sub-
ecoregion
Code
Ewregion Name
VAHU6
No. of
Samples
Min
VSCI
Ave
VSCI
First
Sampling
Date
last
Sampling
Date
2-MWC000.60
Meadow Creek
64c
Northern Piedmont
JR14
13
16.71
28.06
04/21/04
04/08/13
2-SNK000.88
Shenks Branch
64c
Northern Piedmont
JR14
12
11.91
23.70
03/30/OS
04/08/13
2-XRC001.15
Lodge Creek
64c
Northern Piedmont
JR15
5
20.56
30.26
04/29/02
03/28/12
1BNAKOOO.30
Naked Creek
67a
Central Appalachian Ridges and Valleys
PS36
3
64.90
67.12
10/28/08
03/25/10
2-BKMOD4.79
Buck Mountain Creek
64c
Northern Piedmont
1R06
10
59.19
68.23
05/23/O5
11/O1/10
2BTYSOOD.85
SF Tye River
66a
Blue Ridge
1M21
3
73.46
79.58
05/21/02
11/09/10
2-MCK011.68
Mechunk Creek
45e
lPiedmont
1R18
5
57.92
65.93
04/11/08
11/04/11
2-RCHOO1.25
Roach River
64c
Northern Piedmont
1R09
5
57.96
67.83
10/29/08
11/07/11
2-RK1003.40
Rock Island Creek
45e
Northern Inner Piedmont (45e)
JM43
3
71.98
76.23
10/23/08
10/28/10
2-SFR000.60
Swift Run
64c
Northern Piedmont
1RIO
6
62.53
66.62
03/25/03
11/07/11
2-SKM001.63
Stockton Creek
64c
Northern Piedmont
JR01
3
65.85
68.47
03/30/09
10/17/11
2-WDC002.90
Wards Creek
64c
Northern Piedmont
1R05
5
69.24
72.38
04/26/04
10/25/05
3-RAP082.43
Rapidan River
66a
Blue Ridge Mountains
RA24
41
59.71
79.98
09/21/94
10/23/12
3-ROE000.75
I Rose River
64c
Northern Piedmont
RA31
11
57.43
66.51
05/24/06
10/26/10
3-SOTOO1.00
South River
64c
Northern Piedmont
RA26
3
64.18
66.51
04/12/12
10/24/12
8-BRC001.88
Beaver Creek
45e
Piedmont
YO12
30
64.58
73.55
04/21/97
IV06/12
Note: Impaired watersheds are in red type; comparison watersheds are in black.
Table 4-2.Comparison Watershed Characteristics for the Rural Impaired Watershed
StationlD
Stream Name
Sub-
ecoregion
Code
Ewregion Name
VAHU6
No. of
Samples
Min
VSCI
Ave
VSCI
First
Sampling
Date
last
Sampling
Date
2-MSCOOO.60
Moores Creek
64c
Northern Piedmont
JR15
3
28.30
35.32
10/26/06
10/17/11
SBNAKOOO.30
Naked Creek
67a
Central Appalachian Ridges and Valleys
PS36
3
64.90
67.12
10/28/08
03/25/10
2-BKMOO4.79
Buck Mountain Creek
64c
Northern Piedmont
1R06
10
59.19
68.23
05/23/05
11/O1/10
2BTYSOOD.85
SF Tye River
66a
Blue Ridge
1M21
3
73.46
79.58
05/21/02
11/09/10
2-RCH001.25
Roach River
64c
Northern Piedmont
1R09
5
57.96
67.83
10/29/081
11/07/11
2-WDC002.90
Wards Creek
64c
Northern Piedmont
1R05
5
69.24
72.38
04/26/04
10/25/05
3-RAP082.43
Rapidan River
66a
Blue Ridge Mountains
RA24
41
59.71
79.98
09/21/94
10/23/12
3-ROE000.75
Rose River
64c
Northern Piedmont
RA31
11
57.43
66.51
OS/24/06
10/26/10
8-BRC001.88
Beaver Creek
I 45e
lPiedmont
YO12
30
64.58
73.55
04/21/97
11/06/12
Note: The impaired watershed is in red type; comparison watersheds are in black.
77
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Legend
mpaired DEa Stations
# Meadow Creek
* Schenks Branch
* Lodge Creek
• DED BiomoModng Stations
Streams
OCentricity Boundaries
urban Comparison watersheds
Impaired Urban Sub- atersheds
Lodge Creek
Meadow Creek
Schenks Branch
EcoRegions
Ridge and Valley
Blue Rego
Northam Piedmont
Piedmont
?IAGK0118a
NAK =.Naked Creel
BKM = Buck Mount
TYS = SF Tye River
MCK = Mech`unk Cr
RCN = Roach River
RKI =,Rock Island f
= wara
= Rapid
= Rose
= South
= Beavf
�V
�eyaRcam
Figure 4-1. Location of Urban Impaired and Comparison Watersheds
78
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Figure 4-2. Location of Rural Impaired and Comparison Watersheds
Although these TMDLs are developed for sediment, attainment of a
healthy benthic community will ultimately be based on biological monitoring of the
benthic macro -invertebrate community, in accordance with established DEQ
protocols. If a future review should find that the reductions called for in these
TMDLs based on current modeling are found to be insufficiently protective of
local water quality, then revision(s) will be made as necessary to provide
reasonable assurance that water quality goals will be achieved.
79
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 5: MODELING PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF THE SEDIMENT TMDLS
A key component in developing a TMDL is establishing the relationship
between pollutant loadings (both point and nonpoint) and in -stream water quality
conditions. Once this relationship is developed, management options for reducing
pollutant loadings to streams can be assessed. In developing a TMDL, it is
critical to understand the processes that affect the fate and transport of the
pollutant(s) and that cause the impairment in the water body of concern.
Pollutant transport to water bodies is evaluated using a variety of tools, including
monitoring, geographic information systems (GIS), and computer simulation
models. In the development of the sediment TMDLs for the Moores Creek,
Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch watersheds, the relationship
between pollutant sources and pollutant loading to the stream was defined by
land uses and areas assessed from the NASS 2009 cropland data layer and the
Rivanna River Basin Commission's 2009 land use data, together with non -land
based loads and simulated output from a watershed load computer model. The
modeling process, input data requirements, and TMDL load calculation
procedures are discussed in this chapter.
5.1. Reassessment of the Moores Creek Impaired Stream
Segment for the Sediment TMDL
DEQ delineates an impaired stream segment, corresponding to any given
biological monitoring station, as the entire stream segment from the headwaters
or the nearest upstream confluence with a named stream to the nearest major
downstream confluence. In the case of Moores Creek, the 0.6 mile portion of the
impaired segment between the 2-MSC000.60 monitoring station and the
downstream confluence receives a major discharge from the Moores Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Since the WWTP discharges downstream
from the biological monitoring point, it does not contribute to the upstream
impairment, but its existing and permitted TSS loads traditionally would get
factored into the overall existing and TMDL loads for the watershed. However,
.E
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
since the WWTP is discharging well below its permitted TSS load limit,
incorporating the difference between its current TSS load (87.7 tons/yr) and its
permitted annual load (503.1 tons/yr) would require load reductions from other
sources in the watershed, over and above those required at the identified point of
impairment.
A discussion about the impairment delineation was held between
representatives of DEQ's permit, assessment, and TMDL staffs to explore a more
reasonable approach to address this issue. The agreed upon solution was to
base sediment load calculations only on those portions of the watershed
upstream from the 2-MSC000.60 biological monitoring station. A delineation of
the new watershed boundary for Moores Creek reduces the watershed area used
to calculate sediment loads by a very small amount (54.5 ha), and eliminates the
additional load reductions that would be necessitated by including the WWTP
permitted load. Since the WWTP already has a sediment WLA as part of the
larger Rivanna River Benthic TMDL, it is not being excluded from the TMDL
process, but is being represented more appropriately in a larger watershed where
it is actually upstream from the impairment. This approach will exclude the
WWTP from the Moores Creek TMDL and IP. The remainder of the TMDL
analysis and calculations described in this report are based on this new
watershed boundary.
5.2. Model Selection
The model selected for development of the sediment TMDLs in the
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch watersheds
was the Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF2010) model,
originally developed by Haith et al. (1992), with modifications by Evans et al.
(2001), Yagow et al. (2002), and Yagow and Hession (2007). The model was run
in metric units and converted to English units for this report.
The loading functions upon which the GWLF model is based are
compromises between the empiricism of export coefficients and the complexity of
process -based simulation models. GWLF is a continuous simulation spatially -
RE
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
lumped parameter model that operates on a daily time step. The model
estimates runoff, sediment, and dissolved and attached nitrogen and phosphorus
loads delivered to streams from complex watersheds with a combination of point
and non -point sources of pollution. The model considers flow inputs from both
surface runoff and groundwater. The hydrology in the model is simulated with a
daily water balance procedure that considers different types of storages within
the system. The GWLF model was originally developed for use in non -gaged
watersheds. Although one study recommends hydrologic calibration to improve
runoff simulation estimates (Dai et al., 2000), absence of observable flow in the
many comparison watersheds in this study led to the decision to simulate loads in
a non -calibrated mode.
GWLF uses three input files for weather, transport, and nutrient data. The
weather file contains daily temperature and precipitation for the period of
simulation. The transport file contains input data primarily related to hydrology
and sediment transport, while the nutrient file contains primarily nutrient values
for the various land uses, point sources, and septic system types. The Penn
State Visual Basic'" version of GWLF with modifications for use with ArcView was
the starting point for additional modifications (Evans et al., 2001). The following
modifications related to sediment were made to the Penn State version of the
GWLF model, as incorporated in their ArcView interface for the model, AvGWLF
v. 3.2:
• Urban sediment buildup was added as a variable input.
• Urban sediment washoff from impervious areas was added to total sediment
load.
• Formulas for calculating monthly sediment yield by land use were corrected.
• Mean channel depth was added as a variable to the streambank erosion
calculation.
The GWLF2006 version of GWLF (Yagow and Hession, 2007) was used in
previous TMDL studies. The GWLF2006 version includes a correction to the flow
accumulation calculation in the channel erosion routine that was implemented in
December 2005 (VADEQ, 2005). This version also includes modifications from
Schneiderman et al. (2002) to include an unsaturated zone leakage coefficient, to
91
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
remove the annual boundary for transported sediment distribution, and to add in
missing bounds for the calculation of erosivity using Richardson equations which
were intended to have minimum and maximum bounds on daily calculations.
These minimum and maximum bounds were not included in GWLF 2.0, and have
been added to keep calculations within physically expected bounds. Delivered
loads were also recoded as a function of transported, instead of detached,
sediment. The current GWLF2010 version restored the original annual boundary
for transported sediment distribution to correct a minor calculation error.
Erosion in GWLF is generated using a modification of the Universal Soil
Loss Equation. Sediment supply uses a delivery ratio together with the erosion
estimates, and sediment transport takes into consideration the transport capacity
of the runoff. Stream bank and channel erosion was calculated using an
algorithm by Evans et al. (2003) as incorporated in the AVGWLF version (Evans
et al., 2001) of the GWLF model and corrected for a flow accumulation coding
error (VADEQ, 2005).
Since simulated sediment loads were required from the fifteen comparison
watersheds as well as from the four impaired watersheds, model input data were
created for each of the comparison watersheds, as well as for all of the impaired
watersheds. Model development for all watersheds was performed by assessing
the sources of sediment in each watershed, evaluating the necessary parameters
for modeling loads, and finally applying the model and procedures for calculating
loads.
Since Lodge Creek and Schenks Branch are tributaries to Moores Creek
and Meadow Creek, respectively, they are nested within the downstream
watersheds. However, loads from the land segments were simulated uniquely, so
that the land areas and associated loads do not overlap. Total loads to
downstream segments were summed from all upstream segments, with
adjustments to sub -watershed loads to account for differential delivery factors
(representative of in -stream attenuation and a function of cumulative upstream
watershed area). Also, since channel erosion is calculated as a power function of
cumulative upstream area, channel erosion for individual sub -watersheds that
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
received flow from upstream sub -watersheds was a subtractive process. Channel
erosion for a downstream sub -watershed was calculated as the channel erosion
from the cumulative watershed at its outlet minus the channel erosion calculated
for upstream sub -watersheds.
The Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch
impaired segments and their corresponding modeled watersheds are shown in
Figure 5-1, with the outlet of Moores Creek watershed aligned with DEQ station
2-MSC000.60, as discussed in the previous section.
Legend
Impaired Streams
— Lodge Creek n
'Meadow Creek te,
Moores Creek Fyt'"c e
— Schen Ks Branch /
Other Streams
_ Wateroodles
Watersheds
Lodge Creek
Meadow Creek
Mcores CreeK
OSchenks Branch JJ 1( �✓'�,7•
,�Gte
{ �pd
Moores Creek
IN
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
h1iles
Figure 5-1. Moores and Meadow Creeks Impaired Streams and Watersheds
MH
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
5.3. Input Data Requirements
5.3.1. Climate Data
The climate data for all of the Moores Creek and Meadow Creek and
comparison watersheds were extracted from the Climate Forecast System
Reanalysis (CFSR) program interface hosted at Virginia Tech (cfsr.bse.vt.edu).
This system extracts and interpolates precipitation and temperature data for the
period 1979-2010 from all available national weather sources using the 4 to 8
nearest NCDC, NOAA, NEXRAD, and other weather data to create continuous,
seamless daily precipitation and temperature records for any given location.
Locations were defined by centroid coordinates that were generated through GIS
analysis for each impaired and comparison watershed in order to generate a
unique precipitation and temperature input data set for each watershed. The
period of record used for sediment TMDL modeling was a nineteen -year period
from January 1992 through December 2010, with the preceding 9 months of data
used to initialize storage parameters.
5.3.2. Existing Land Use
For setting the TMDL endpoints using the AIIForX method, modeled land
uses for Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, Schenks Branch and the
comparison watersheds were all derived from the USDA National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) digital cropland data layer for 2009.
For simulation of existing loads in the impaired watersheds, the land use
distribution was determined through a cross -tabulation of the 2009 NASS data
and the 2009 land use data generated by the Rivanna River Basin Commission
for Albemarle County. The NASS categories used in AIIForX and the hybrid
NASS/RRBC data used for simulating existing loads were both further
consolidated into general land use categories of Row Crop, Hay, Pasture, Forest,
and various "developed urban" categories. The NASS land use distributions used
in AIIForX modeling are shown in Table 5-1, while the NASS/RRBC land use
distributions used for the TMDL load simulations are shown in Table 5-2. The
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Alrginia
NASS/RRBC analysis for the TMDL simulations included additional information
allowing explicit evaluation of pervious and impervious areas for the various
development intensity land use categories, as well as hay and pasture areas.
Table 5-1. NASS Land Use Group Distributions for AIIForX Modeling
Simulated Watershed
Watershed
Code
Row
Cro
Hay/Pasture
Forest
Barren
Urban
Open
Space
Low
Intensity
developed
Medium
intensity
developed
High
intensity
developed
Water
Total
Area in acres
Impaired Watersheds
Lodge Creek
LGC
0.8
3.1
75.8
3.9
275.1
34.0
58.4
17.6
468.6
Moores Creek
MSC
29.5
1,693.9
14,135.0
57.3
4,526.8
407.2
573.4
165.2
121.7
21'710.0
Meadow Creek
I MWC
1 7.7
69.51
779.61
35.812,248.21
274.61
693.41
327.6
2.31
4,438.7
Schenks Branch
I SINK
1 0.71
27.51
64.71
13.11
821.81
97.21
282.31
92.81
1 1,400.1
Comparison Watersheds
Naked Creek
NAK
249A
2,607.0
23,591.1
13.9
1,327.3
37.9
10.8
4.6
0.8
27,843.0
Swift Run
SFR
33.4
6,804.3
16,810.4
32.9
3,090.2
108.8
47.8
8.5
151.1
27,087.4
Buck Mountain Creek
BKM
20.1
1,922.3
10,722.7
7.5
739.5
7.1
15.5
13,434.9
Rose River
ROE
6.2
196.8
9,188.9
4.7
452.5
6.3
3.9
1.5
9,860.9
Rapidan River
RAP
4.4
8,826A
2.5
243.4
9,076.6
South River
SOT
36.4
4,393.6
11,195.6
10.9
1,058.9
13.1
5.0
0.8
49.6
16,763.8
Roach River
RCH
8.5
3,090.5
12,998.3
12.3
1,195.7
18.5
4.6
16.3
17,344.8
Stockton Creek
SKM
20.3
3,422.7
7,967.1
22.7
2,095.3
75.6
68.8
12.4
17.0
13,701.9
Mechunk Creek
MCK
24.3
3,758.5
8,850.7
9.21
901.2
12.31
1.0
34.1
13,591.3
SF Tye River
TYS
175A
8,030.5
4.5
443.3
1.4
2.3
6.2
8,663.6
Rock Island Creek
RKI
1 15.2
704.0
4,807.2
2.1
203.8
1.2
3.9
5,737.4
Raccoon Creek
RCC
30.6
1,011.6
2,351.2
1.4
135.0
0.5
4.6
3,534.9
Beaver Creek
BRC
3.1
339A
4,165.7
2.7
265.0
0.5
0.8
4,777.3
Great Run
GRA
505.5
2,875.3
3,136.8
5.6
546.5
7.6
2.3
0.8
7,080.4
Wards Creek
WDC
4.6
659.4
3,421A
2.2
212.1
1.1
1 1.5
4,302.4
Table 5-2. NASS/RRBC Land Use Group Distributions for TMDL Modeling
Simulated
Watershed
WatershedL
Code
Hay
Pasture
Forest
Open
Space
Low
intensity
Developed
Medium
intensity
Developed
High
intensity
Developed
Water
Total
Area in acres
Impaired Watersheds
Lodge Creek
LGCrr
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.7
115.2
143.2
120.8
36.9
0.4
469.3
Moores Creek
MSCrr
92.5
804.9
217.3
13,243.2
3,534.1
1,901.7
1,272.7
405.9
236.2
21,708.5
Meadow Creek
MWCrr
0.0
33.8
9.3
672.8
1,031.6
1,297.8
808.5
569.4
17.3
4,440.6
Schenks Branch
SNKrr
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.6
353.4
514.2
294.3
186.8
0.7
1,399.0
For the AIIForX modeling, the Hay and Pasture acreages were combined
and reassigned based on distributions by corresponding land -river segment in
the Phase 5.3.2 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (CBWM), whereas for the
existing load modeling, explicit categories of pasture and hay were identified from
the cross -tabulated NASS/RRBC digital imagery.
RM
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
The following sub -division procedures were used for both modeling
scenarios. The Row Crop category was subdivided into hi -till and low -till
categories based on Conservation Tillage Information Center (CTIC) data as
used in the 2006 Virginia Statewide NPS Watershed Assessment (Yagow and
Hession, 2007). From the Pasture category, the 'riparian", and "animal feeding
operation" land uses were calculated as fractions of the total Pasture area also by
CBWM land -river segment. The remaining Pasture area was sub -divided into
10% "good', 65% "fair", and 25% "poor" pasture land uses, based on an
assessment by local conservation personnel.
For the AIIForX modeling, the "developed' categories were sub -divided
into pervious and impervious portions, with "Open Space" assigned to the
pervious portion of the "low intensity developed' land use. Impervious
percentages were calculated as 20%, 50%, and 80%, respectively, for the low
intensity, medium intensity and high intensity developed areas. For the existing
load modeling, the pervious and impervious portions of each developed land use
were determined explicitly from the RRBC/NASS data analysis.
Areas associated with individual MS4 permits are intertwined in these
watersheds and dominate non -regulated areas in 3 of the watersheds. For
purposes of these TMDLs, the existing loads for the MS4 permit areas are
calculated in aggregate for each watershed. For purposes of the follow-up Action
Plans to be developed by each MS4 permittee, however, jurisdictional
representatives requested an explicit delineation of landuses and baseline loads
which are included in Appendix F. To assist in this effort, the jurisdictions
prepared draft digital layers of their determined "regulated MS4" boundaries. A
cross -tabulation of the regulated MS4 areas and the NASS/RRBC landuse
categories was then performed that also then assisted in the separation of non -
regulated areas from regulated MS4 areas, explicitly within each watershed.
Although any given landuse is simulated identically in both regulated MS4 and
non -regulated areas, this separation was used to derive the "harvested forest"
and "barren" acreages differently in the regulated MS4 areas than in the non -
regulated areas, as follows. A "harvested forest' land use was created as 1% of
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
the Forest acreage (excluding forest areas within regulated MS4 areas), similar to
procedures used in the CBWM (USEPA, 2010). The "barren" category area was
re -assigned as 1 % of developed land uses in AIIForX modeling, and for existing
load modeling, as 1 % of Open Space and Developed land uses in non -regulated
areas and as 1% of Pasture, Hay, Open Space, and Forest in regulated MS4
areas.
The AIIForX simulated land uses and their derivations are summarized in
Table 5-3, while detailed AIIForX and existing land use distributions are included
in Appendix B.
Table 5-3. AIIForX Modeled Land Use Categories
NASS Groups
NASS Land Uses
% Impervious
Modeled Land Use Categories
Row CropCorn,
sorghum,
soybeans, winter
0
Hi -till cropland
Lo-till cropland
Hay
Alfalfa, other hays
0
Hay
Pasture
Pasture/grass,
shrubland, grassland
herbaceous
0
Good pasture
Fair pasture
Poor Pasture
Riparian pasture
Animal feeding operation
Forest
Deciduous forest,
evergreen forest, mixed
0
Forest
Harvested forest
Barren
Barren
0
Barren
Pervious—LDI
Open Space
0
Pervious LDI
LDI
Developed, low
intensity (LDI)
20.0%
Impervious LDI
Pervious LDI
MDI
Developed, medium
intensity (MDI)
50.0%
limpervious MDI
IPervious MDI
HDI
Developed, high
intensity (HDI)
80.0%
lImpervious HDI
IPervious HDI
Each land use within a sub -watershed formed a hydrologic response unit
(HRU). Model parameters were then calculated for each HRU using GIS analysis
to reflect the variability in topographic and soil characteristics across each
watershed. A description of model parameters follows in section 5.5.
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
5.4. Future Land Use
Future land use was not explicitly simulated, as any urban growth in
Albemarle County 2010 Census Urbanized Areas has already been included
within its regulated MS4 area. Also, since future land use changes would be
expected to change from rural to developed land uses, and rural unit erosion
rates tend to be higher than those from most developed land uses, using existing
loads from which to base reductions to TMDL target loads will be conservative.
5.5. GWLF Parameter Evaluation
All parameters were evaluated in a consistent manner for all watersheds in
order to ensure their comparability. All GWLF parameter values were evaluated
from a combination of GWLF user manual guidance (Haith et al., 1992),
AVGWLF procedures (Evans et al., 2001), procedures developed during the
2006 statewide NIPS pollution assessment (Yagow and Hession, 2007), and best
professional judgment.
Hydrologic and sediment parameters are all included in GWLF's transport
input file, with the exception of urban sediment buildup rates, which are in the
nutrient input file. Descriptions of each of the hydrologic and sediment
parameters are listed below according to whether the parameters were related to
the watershed location, to the month of the year, or to individual land uses. The
GWLF parameter values used for each of the Moores Creek, Lodge Creek,
Meadow Creek, Schenks Branch, and comparison watersheds are detailed in
Appendix C.
MN
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
5.5.1. Hydrology Parameters
Watershed -Related Parameter Descriptions
• Unsaturated Soil Moisture Capacity (SMC, cm): The amount of moisture in
the root zone, evaluated as a function of the area -weighted soil type
attribute - available water capacity.
• Recession coefficient (day'): The recession coefficient is a measure of the
rate at which streamflow recedes following the cessation of a storm, and is
approximated by averaging the ratios of streamflow on any given day to
that on the following day during a wide range of weather conditions, all
during the recession limb of each storm's hydrograph. This parameter
was evaluated using the following relationship from Lee et al. (2000):
RecCoeff = 0.045 + 1.13/(0.306 + Area in square kilometers)
• Seepage coefficient: The seepage coefficient represents the fraction of
flow lost as seepage to deep storage. This parameter defaults to "0" when
not calibrated.
• Leakage coefficient: The leakage coefficient represents the fraction of
infiltration that bypasses the unsaturated zone through macro -pore flow.
An increase in this coefficient decreases ET losses and increases
baseflow. This parameter defaults to "0" when not calibrated.
The following parameters were initialized by running the model for a 9-month
period prior to the period used for load calculation:
• Initial unsaturated storage (cm): Initial depth of water stored in the
unsaturated (surface) zone.
• Initial saturated storage (cm): Initial depth of water stored in the saturated
zone.
• Initial snow (cm): Initial amount of snow on the ground at the beginning of
the simulation.
• Antecedent Rainfall for each of 5 previous days (cm): The amount of
rainfall on each of the five days preceding the current day.
Month Related Parameter Descriptions
• Month: Months were ordered, starting with April and ending with March - in
keeping with the design of the GWLF model.
• ET CV: Composite evapotranspiration cover coefficient, calculated as an
area -weighted average from land uses within each watershed.
• Hours per Day: Mean number of daylight hours.
• Erosion Coefficient: This is a regional coefficient used in Richardson's
equation for calculating daily rainfall erosivity. Each region is assigned
separate coefficients for the months October -March, and for April -
September.
90
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Land Use -Related Parameter Descriptions
• Curve Number: The SCS curve number (CN) is used in calculating runoff
associated with a daily rainfall event, evaluated using SCS TR-55
guidance (USDA-SCS, 1986).
5.5.2. Sediment Parameters
Watershed -Related Parameter Descriptions
• Sediment delivery ratio: The fraction of erosion -detached sediment -that
is transported or delivered to the edge of the stream, calculated as an
inverse function of watershed size (Evans et al., 2001).
Land Use -Related Parameter Descriptions
• USLE K-factor: The soil erodibility factor was calculated as an area -
weighted average of all component soil types.
• USLE LS-factor: This factor is calculated from slope and slope length
measurements by land use. Slope is evaluated by GIS analysis, and
slope length is calculated as an inverse function of slope.
• USLE C-factor: The vegetative cover factor for each land use was
evaluated following GWLF manual guidance, Wischmeier and Smith
(1978), and Hession et al. (1997); and then adjusted after consultation with
local NRCS personnel.
• Daily sediment buildup rate on impervious surfaces: The daily amount of
dry deposition deposited from the air on impervious surfaces on days
without rainfall, assigned using GWLF manual guidance.
Streambank Erosion Parameter Descriptions (Evans et al., 2003)
• % Developed land: percentage of the watershed with urban -related land
uses - defined as all land in MIDI and HDI land uses, as well as the
impervious portions of LDI.
• Animal density: calculated as the number of beef and dairy 1000-lb
equivalent animal units (AU) divided by the watershed area in acres.
• Curve Number: area -weighted average value for the watershed.
• K Factor: area -weighted USLE soil erodibility factor for the watershed.
• Slope: mean percent slope for the watershed.
• Stream lenoth: calculated as the total stream length of natural perennial
stream channels, in meters.
• Mean channel depth (m): calculated from relationships developed either
by the Chesapeake Bay Program or by USDA-NRCS by physiographic
region, of the general form: y = a * Ab, where y = mean channel depth in
feet, A = drainage area in square miles, and "a" and "b" are regression
coefficients (USDA-NRCS, 2005). The mean channel depth was then
converted from feet to meters.
91
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
5.6. Supplemental Post -Model Processing
AIIForX and existing load simulations were performed using GWLF without
accounting for existing BMPs. After modeling on individual watersheds was
completed, model output was post -processed in a Microsoft Excel'" spreadsheet
to summarize the modeling results and to account for existing levels of BMPs
already implemented within each watershed.
The extent and effect of existing agricultural BMPs in the AIIForX modeling
were based on passthru factors used in Virginia's 2014 Nonpoint Source
Watershed pollutant load assessment, which accounted for BMPs active as of the
end of 2007. The factors assigned for each impaired or comparison watershed
were from the encompassing Virginia sixth -order VAHU6 watersheds (JR15 and
JR14, respectively) that comprise the Moores Creek and Meadow Creek
watersheds.
The extent and effect of existing agricultural BMPs in the TMDL modeling
were also based on the 2014 passthru factors, as well as from the following
BMPs recently installed under the Moores Creek 2012-2014 §319
Implementation Grant:
• 2,310 feet of internal fencing for rotational grazing
• 2,225 feet of stream fencing
• 1.6 acres of forest buffer
Load reductions from these 3 BMPs were calculated and shown in the
allocation table for Moores Creek, as a credit towards its agricultural load
allocation.
Sediment BMPs are required on harvested forest lands and on disturbed
lands subject to Erosion and Sediment (E&S) regulations. A sediment efficiency
of 60% was used for BMPs on harvested forest land, while sediment reductions
from disturbed land was assumed to be subject to E&S permits with a sediment
efficiency of 40% (USEPA, 2010). Existing BMPs were assumed to be achieving
92
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
only half of those potential efficiencies with full potential in the allocation
scenarios.
5.7. Representation of Sediment Sources
Sediment is generated in the Moores Creek and Meadow Creek
watersheds through the processes of surface runoff, in -channel disturbances,
and streambank and channel erosion, as well as from natural background
contributions and permitted sources. Sediment generation is accelerated through
human -induced land -disturbing activities related to a variety of agricultural,
forestry, mining, transportation, and residential land uses.
Permitted sediment dischargers in Moores Creek and Meadow Creek
watersheds currently include only stormwater discharges. Stormwater discharges
include construction permits regulated through Virginia's Erosion and Sediment
Control Program and urban stormwater runoff from MS4, municipal, industrial and
general permits.
5.7.1. Surface Runoff
During runoff events, sediment loading occurs from both pervious and
impervious surfaces around the watershed. For pervious areas, soil is detached
by rainfall impact or shear stresses created by overland flow and transported by
overland flow to nearby streams. This process is influenced by vegetative cover,
soil erodibility, slope, slope length, rainfall intensity and duration, and land
management practices. During periods without rainfall, dirt, dust and fine
sediment build up on impervious areas through dry deposition, which is then
subject to washoff during rainfall events. Pervious area sediment loads were
modeled using a modified USLE erosion detachment algorithm, monthly transport
capacity calculations, and a sediment delivery ratio in the GWLF model to
calculate loads at the watershed outlet. Impervious area sediment loads were
modeled in the GWLF model using an exponential buildup-washoff algorithm.
93
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
5.7.2. Channel and Streambank Erosion
Streambank erosion was modeled within the GWLF model using a
modification of the routine included in the AVGWLF version of the GWLF model
(Evans et al., 2001). This routine calculates average annual streambank erosion
as a function of percent developed land, average area -weighted curve number
(CN) and K-factors, watershed animal density, average slope, streamflow
volume, mean channel depth, and total perennial stream length in the watershed.
The 2007 Agricultural Census reported no livestock operations within the
City of Charlottesville, with the majority of the pasture areas located in the
Albemarle portion of Moores Creek. Since the StreamWatch organization
recently created a GoogleMap overlay of the Rivanna River Basin to inventory
beef and dairy operations, this source was used to refine our estimate of the
number of livestock in the watersheds. Livestock population, which figures into
animal density, was estimated based on a stocking density of 0.1667 animal units
per acre of available pasture (AU/acre).
5.7.3. Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)
Sanitary sewer overflows are non -permitted releases of untreated or
partially treated sewage that occur generally during rainfall -runoff events due to
undersized pipes, blockages, power outages to pumping stations, or groundwater
infiltration into sewer lines. These typically occur at manholes or pumping
stations, although they can also take the form of backups into buildings and
private residences. SSOs are not included explicitly in the CBWM, because of the
highly variable nature of these sources. However, since data are available locally
to estimate the loads resulting from this source, loads from this source have been
added to the existing baseline scenario. The data used to estimate the volume of
flows from SSOs came from DEQ's Pollution Response Program (PReP), based
on municipal- and citizen -reported incidences of spills that entered surface
waters. In addition to the reported incidences with flow into surface waters as
shown in Table 5-4, there were numerous other spills on the land surface that did
not run off to surface waters. In order to calculate baseline loads, the average
annual quantity of SSO releases was calculated by watershed from July 2006
94
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
A/bemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
through April 2011, and multiplied by the average TSS concentration reported by
the Moores Creek WWTP for 6 overflow events from 2009-2011 (69.17 mg/L).
The average annual quantity and sediment loads from SSOs are reported in
Table 5-5.
Table 5-4. DEQ PReP Reported Incidences of SSOs
Date
Reported
Site Name
Site Address
Watershed(gallons)
Quantity
in Water
07/13/06
City of Charlottesville
Cleveland ANe-Stadium Road
Lode Creek
1,800
10/16/09
City of Chadottesulle
100 Harmon St
Lode Creek
1,000
11/12/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St SW heavily wooded area, MH 14-001 and 21-404
Lode Creek
1,500
11/13/09
City of Chadottesulle
Hartmans Mill Rd MH21-382 and 21-381
Lode Creek
1,500
11/19/09
,City of Chadottesulle
100 Harmon St, MH 2O-016
Lode Creek
1,000
11/19/09
City of Chadottesulle
1033 5th St SW, MH 13-018
Lode Creek
2,000
11/19/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St SW, MH 21-404
Lode Creek
2,500
11/19/09
City of Chadottesulle
Brookwood or, MH 13-367
Lode Creek
1,000
11/19/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St SW, MH 13-006
Lode Creek
500
11/19/09
City of Chadottesulle
Behind Old Fifth Cir, MH 14-005B
Lode Creek
1,500
12/03/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St SW
Lode Creek
500
12/03/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St SW, MH 13-002
Lode Creek
1,000
12/09/09lCity
of Chadottesulle
McIntire Rd MH 07-037
Lode Creek
1,500
12/09/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St Circle MH 14-005B
Lode Creek
1,000
12/09/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St SW, MH 13-018, 13367, 13-004, & 13-002
Lode Creek
1,500
12/09/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St., Heavily wooded area MH 14-001
Lode Creek
1,000
09/02/07
Albemarle Co. Service Auth.
195 Woodlake or
Meadow Creek
500
06/01/09
Flooded Basement
2209 N. Burkshire Rd.
Meadow Creek
300
11/19/09
City of Chadottesulle
Barracks Rd, MH22-206
Meadow Creek
1,000
12/27/10
Albemarle County Service
Authority (unpenmitted)
495 Brookway or
Meadow Creek
1,000
09/02/07
Albemarle Co. Serv. Auth.
226 Blackthorn Ln
Moores Creek
500
11/02/09
City of Chadottesulle
5th St. Southwest in heavily wooded area, MH 14-001
Moores Creek
1,000
01/17/10
Rhenna Water & Sewer
MH along 36 " bypass line to holding pond, located
below#1 eq. basin.
Moores Creek
90,000
11/19/02
City ofChadottesville
I McIntire Rd, MH 07-037
Schenks Branch
1,000
01/25/10
City of Chadottesulle
15th St SW wooded area, MH# 14-001 & 21404
Lodge Creek
1,500
Table 5-5. Summary of SSO Annual Average Quantities and Sediment Loads, 07/06 - 04/11
Watershed(gallons)
Quantity in
Water
Average
Quantity
al/ r
TSS Load
Ibs/ r
TSS Load
tons/ r
Lode Creek
22,300
4,812.0
2.78
0.00139
Meadow Creek
2,796
603.3
0.35
0.00017
Moores Creek
91,497
19,743.7
11.40
0.00570
Schenks Branch
999
215.61
0.12
0.00006
M
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
5.7.4. Permitted Point Sources (including General Permits)
There is one VPDES permit holder with an individual permit within the
study watershed boundaries, although it does not have a TSS monitoring
requirement. In addition, there are two facilities with general concrete permits and
one single-family home septic system discharge permit. The two concrete
facilities were permitted for process water discharge, but are not currently
discharging. The existing load from the facility without TSS monitoring
requirements was based on reported average flow and TSS concentrations from
monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports submitted to DEQ, while all waste load
allocation (WLA) loads were based on the average daily flow and TSS
concentration included as permit limits. Current and permitted flows,
concentrations, and sediment loads for the permitted facilities are reported in
Table 5-6.
Table 5-6. Summary VPDES Current and Permitted Flows, Concentrations, and Loads
Baseline Conditions
WLA Permit Conditions
Average
Average
TSS
Average
Average
TSS
Permit
Permit
Number
Facility Name
Type
Flow
[TSS]
Load
Flow
[TSS]
Load
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(tons/yr)
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(tonslyr)
VA0087351
Virginia Oil
VPDES
0.0010
—
0.0073
—
Allied Concrete
VAG110064
Company -
General
0.065
30
2.97
Charlottesville
VAG111032
1 HT Ferron Company
General
1
1
1
1 0.052
1 30
1 2.38
VAG408447
I SFH Septic System
I General
I
I
I
1 0.001
1 30
10.046
5.7.5. Industrial Stormwater
As of December 2014. there were four active Industrial Storm Water
General Permits (ISWGPs) - three (3) in the Meadow Creek watershed, and one
(1) in the Moores Creek watershed. Current loads for each facility were simulated
as part of the unregulated urban pervious and impervious land use categories.
Permitted WLA loads for each facility were calculated as the permitted area of the
facility times the permitted average TSS concentration of 100 mg/L times the
average annual runoff. Average annual runoff was calculated as an area-
96
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
weighted average of the pervious and impervious fractions simulated for each
site, as shown in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7. Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISWGP) WLA Loads
VPDES
Permitted
Average
TSS
Source
Area
%
Average TSS
Annual
Permit
Facility Name
Receiung Stream
WLA
Type
(acres)
Impervious
Concentration
Runoff
Number
(tons/yr)
(mg/L)
(in/yr)
Northrop Grumman Systems
VAR050876
ISWGP
Meadow Creek UT
1.358
96.83
100
23.19
0.36
Corporation
BFI Waste SeMcs LLC of
VAR050974
ISWGP
Meadow Creek UT
1.3
90
100
21.79
0.32
Chadoltesulle
VAR051372
University of Va - Parking and
ISWGP
Meadow Creek
3.39
95
100
22.81
0.88
Transportation Dept
Chadoltesulle Area Transit-Admin
VAR051960
ISWGP
Moores Creek UT
7.73
78.6
100
19.72
1.73
Maint and O rtn
Average Annual Runoff= % pervious' Ave Ann pervious developed runoff+ % impervious' Ave Ann impervious developed runoff
Annual precipitation = 40.91 inches (Albemarle County) and 43.89 (City of Charloltesulle)
TSS Load (tons/yr) = Xacres' Y mg/L' Z in/yr' 102,801.6 Uacre-inch' 1 Ib/453,600 mg' 1 ton/2000 Ibs = X' Y' Z' 0.000113317
5.7.6. Construction Stormwater
The Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) permits are for
control of erosion and sediment on construction sites and the location of
disturbed areas will change from year to year as some construction is completed
and other begun. Existing loads from these sources were simulated explicitly
from the "barren" land use.
Aggregated construction WLA loads for each sub -watershed were
calculated from the existing loads for the "barren" land use and the average %
reduction from all non -excluded and permitted loads, needed to reduce loads to
the target TMDL load during the allocation scenario.
The current list of VSMP construction permits is shown in Table 5-8, with
total disturbed areas of 89.80 acres in Moores Creek (excluding Lodge Creek),
6.8 acres in Lodge Creek, 58.56 acres in Meadow Creek (excluding Schenks
Branch), and 15.61 acres in Schenks Branch.
97
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 5-8. Summary of VSMP Permits and Disturbed Areas
VAR Permit Number
ActhAty Name
Receiu Waters
Est Project
Start Date
Est Project
End Date
Total Land
Area ac
Disturbed
Area ac
Moores Creek Permits
VAR10-10-101860
Awn Park SubdiNsion
Biscuit Run UT Moores Cr.
01Jan-07
5
5
VAR10-11-100521
Piedmont Virginia Community College - Parking Lot
Expansion - Commercial
Biscuit Run/Moores Creek
11-oct-10
30Jan-11
2.1
2.1
VAR10-10-100232
Claude Moore Medical Education Building Project
Moores Creek
01Jan-08
30- -10
1.1
1.1
VAR10-10-101226
Habitat for Humanity - Nunley St.
Moores Creek
15-Se 7
314)ec-10
2.7
2.2
VAR10-10-100506
Huntley Subdi%ision PUD
Moores Creek
03Jan-04
03Jan-11
22.8
17.1
VAR10-10-103459
Moores Creek Wastewater Treament Plant - Industrial
Infrastructure; Expansion/Improvements at a Wastewater
Moores Creek
01-Sep-09
30Jun-14
89.5
12
VAR10-10-102595
Piedmont Virginia Community College
Moores Creek
10-Nov-08
11-Mar-10
37.43
2.7
VAR10-10-100019
Ragged Mountain Water main replacement Phase 2 and 3
Moores Creek
20- r-09
20-Oct-09
1.4
1.4
VAR10-10-100581
Sieg Warehouse
Moores Creek
27-Mar-09
24Jul-09
2.9
1.76
VARi0-10-100864
South Lavin Project
Moores Creek
01-M -07
0
5.5
VAR10-11-100543
Stadium Road Sanitary Sewer Collector Rehabilitation Phase
II & III - Municipal Sanitary Sever Replacement/Upgrade
Moores Creek
01-Oct-10
31-Aug-11
11.1
11.1
VAR10-10-104400
Uniwnsity, of Virginia - UnhiersitData Center - Commercial
Moores Creek
01- r-10
01- -10
1.3
1.3
VAR10-10-101429
Forest Hill Park
Moores Creek UT
18-M -09
184Dec-09
7.4
5.9
VAR10-10-100907
UVA - CAS and ITE Buildings
Moores Creek UT
24-1,1ov08
014Dec-11
3.9
3.9
VAR10-10-101452
UVA Long Term Acute Care Hospital
Morey Creek UT Moores Cr.
17-Feb-09
10Se 10
8.5
2.6
VAR10-10-102277
Brookwood
Rock Creek Moores Cr.
01-Au -06
30JUI-10
12.72
12
VAR10-10-103169
Rock Creak Villa es - Residential
Rock Creek Moores Cr.
30-Se 9
01Jan-11
4.05
1.05
VAR1(t-10-102980
Buford Middle School Campus
Rock Creek UT Moores Cr.
01Jun-09
01Se 10
18.09
1.09
Lod a Creek Permits
VAR10-10-104882
Unisersity of Virginia -Alderman Road Housing Phase III
Utilities
Lodge Creek
24-May-10
11-Aug-10
2.2
2.2
VAR10-10-102543
Urnwrsity of Virginia
Lode Creek
30Jun-09
30-A 12
4.6
4.6
Meadow Creek Permits
VAR10-10-103013
Meadow Creek Parkway Replacement - Sever
ReplammenVUpgrade
Meadow Creek
01-Aug-09
014)ec-10
5.09
5.09
VAR10-10-104009
Meadow Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Upgrade Design -
Contract B - Sever Re Iacement/U rade
Meadow Creek
01-Dec-09
304Dec-1 l
13.15
13.15
VAR10-10-104086
St. Annex - Belfield School - Commercial
Meadow Creek
01 r-09
30Se 10
13.7
13.7
VAR10-10-102424
UVA -Bawro Hall
Meadow Creek
01-Ma-08
15-M -10
2.38
2.38
VAR10-10-103872
Abbington Crossing - Clubhouse Replacement - Replacement
of an Existing Apartment Clubhouse, SvAmming Pool &
Playground
Meadow Creek UT
19-Oct-10
31-May-10
2
0.8
VAR10-10-103802
Hillsdale Doe Extended - Commercial
Meadow Creek UT
01-Nov09
01-M -10
14.6
8.3
VAR10-10-104445
Red Lobster- Commercial Construction of a New Restaurant
Meadow Creek UT
15-Mar-10
30Jun-10
2.131
2.5
VAR10-11-100300
Treesdale Park - Residential
Meadow Creek UT
15-A 10
15-A 11
6.61
5.9
VAR10-10-103098
Uniwrsity of Virginia - Band Rehearsal Hall - Educational Bldg
- New Construction
Meadow Creek UT
10-Now09
01-Dec-10
1.05
1.05
VAR10-10-103803
Whole Foods Market - Commercial
Meadow Creek UT
01-Nov-09
01-M -10
3.76
4.09
VAR10-10-101596
Northfield$
Town Branch Creek Meadow Cr.
23-Mar-09
30Se 09
13.5
1.6
Schenks Branch Permits
VAR10-10-104284lWellinciton
Court -Residential
ISchenks Branch
I 01Jun-11
01Jul-12
1.4
1.3
VAR10-10-104008
Meadow Creek Sanitary Sever Interceptor Upgrade Design -
Contract A - Sever Replacement/Upgrade
Schenks Brancl /Meadow Creek
01-Dec-09
30-Apr-I1
14.31
14.31
5.7.7. Municipal Stormwater
There are two exclusive Phase II MS4 stormwater permits in the impaired
watersheds belonging to Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Overlapping these are two additional MS4 permits for the University of Virginia
and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). In addition, a fifth MS4
permit for Piedmont Virginia Community College is wholly within the Albemarle
4y
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, OrgIma
County MS4 within Moores Creek watershed. Regulated MS4 areas were
delineated by Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of
Virginia. The county's regulated MS4 area specifically excluded the PVCC
campus, and the city's regulated MS4 area excluded areas identified as VDOT
facilities and roadways and areas regulated by VPDES industrial stormwater
permits. A map of the respective regulated MS4 drainage areas and their
intersection with the four watersheds is shown in Figure 5-2.
Legend
Major roads
O TMDL watersheds
- Industrial Pennits
Regulated MS4 Areas
Abemade County
City of Charlottesville
Piedmont Virginia Commundy College
University of Virginia
- VDOT
My
0.3 06 yL 1.8
Figure 5-2. Regulated MS4 Areas within the Impaired Watersheds
As described in section 5.3.2 and shown in Figure 5-2, a digital layer of
jurisdictional "regulated MS4" boundaries was cross -tabulated with the
NASS/RRBC landuse categories in order to quantify land uses occurring in both
non -regulated and regulated MS4 areas, as shown in Table 5-9.
99
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, OrgIma
Table 5-9. Land use distribution between Non -regulated and Regulated-MS4 areas
rRegulated Areas
Row Crops
Pasture
Hay
Forest
Harvested Forest
Impervious developed
Pervious developed
Transitional
i-Regulated Sub -Totals
ulated-MS4 Areas
Pasture
Hay
Forest
Impervious developed
Pervious developed
Transitional'
u1ated-MS4 Sub -Totals
al Land Area
Water:
Total Watershed Area:
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
I Creek
Schenks
Branch
Area in acres
0.00
86.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
199.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
710.86
0.00
0.00
2.64
11,933.58
73.99
5.06
0.03
120.54
0.75
0.05
0.88
440.17
27.52
22.90
4.62
2,704.68
84.56
75.75
0.06
31.79
1.16
1.00
8.23
16, 227.65
187.97
104.76
0.00
16.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
93.86
35.81
0.00
50.04
1,189.06
598.09
44.48
156.81
1,180.17
1,337.67
475.54
252.66
2,759.24
2,249.84
770.51
1.12
13.91
9.96
3.07
460.63
5,252.25
4,231.37
1, 293.60
468.86
21,479.91
4,419.34
1,398.36
0.44
236.21
17.35
0.67
469.31
21,716.121
4,436.691
1,399.03
Sediment loads were simulated by land use category, and then sub-
divided on an area proportional basis to the regulated MS4 and non -regulated
components. The above distribution was used to calculate the portion of loads
attributable to regulated MS4 areas, since they included a variety of land uses.
Because the regulated MS4 boundaries are intermingled, the regulated MS4
loads were aggregated in both the existing loads and in the TMDL WLAs.
Regulated MS4 WLA loads were calculated as the sum of the existing
loads from their composite land use categories times the overall % reduction
needed to reduce loads from all non -excluded and permitted sources to the target
TMDL load in each watershed during the allocation scenario.
100
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
5.8. Accounting for Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variations
5.8.1. Selection of Representative Modeling Period
Selection of the modeling period was based on the availability of daily
weather data and the need to represent variability in weather patterns over time
in the watershed. A long period of weather inputs was selected to represent long-
term variability in the watershed. The model was run using a weather time series
from April 1991 through December 2010, with the first 9 months used as an
initialization period for internal storages within the model. The remaining 19-year
period was used to calculate average annual sediment loads in all watersheds.
5.8.2. Critical Conditions
The GWLF model is a continuous simulation model that uses daily time
steps for weather data and water balance calculations. The period of rainfall
selected for modeling was chosen as a multi -year period that was representative
of typical weather conditions for the area, and included "dry", "normal' and "wet'
years. The model, therefore, incorporated the variable inputs needed to
represent critical conditions during low flow - generally associated with point
source loads - and critical conditions during high flow - generally associated with
nonpoint source loads.
5.8.3. Seasonal Variability
The GWLF model used for this analysis considered seasonal variation
through a number of mechanisms. Daily time steps were used for weather data
and water balance calculations. The model also used monthly -variable parameter
inputs for evapo-transpiration cover coefficients, daylight hours/day, and rainfall
erosivity coefficients for user -specified growing season months.
5.9. Existing Sediment Loads
Existing sediment loads were simulated for all individual land uses with the
GWLF model, as discussed previously. The resulting loads in the four impaired
watersheds are given in Table 5-10, together with aggregate unit -area loads
(tons/ac) for each land use.
101
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 5-10. Existing Sediment Loads in the Moores and Meadow Creeks
Watersheds
Land Use/Source
Categories
LGCrr
MSCrr
MWCrr
SNKrr
Unit -
Area Loads
Are
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks`
Branch
Sediment Load (tons/ r)
(tons/ac)
HiTill Rowcro hit
0.0
43.6
0.0
0.0
2.22
LoTill Rowcro lot
0.0
30.5
0.0
0.0
0.46
Pasture as
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.01
0.09
Pasture (pas_0
0.0
55.8
0.0
0.0
0.41
Pasture as
0.0
43.0
0.0
0.0
0.82
Riparian pasture tr
0.0
38.1
0.0
0.0
7.05
AFO afo
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.00
Ha ha
0.0
218.7
14.4
0.0
0.28
Forest for
1.1
410.8
19.9
1.5
0.03
Harvested forest h
0.0
30.5
0.2
0.01
0.25
Transitional barren
5.0
133.7
38.3
17.71
3.14
Pervious LDI ur LDI
32.3
553.4
272.2
102.6
0.12
Pervious MDI (pur_MDD
3.8
22.8
36.4
15.5
0.11
Pervious HDI ur HDI
0.8
3.2
7.6
3.4
0.10
Impervious LDI im LDI
30.5
334.7
201.8
70.6
0.27
Impervious MIDI(imp MDI
13.5
127.6
170.7
70.2
0.45
Impervious HDI im HDI
4.9
54.9
115.8
29.5
0.45
SSOs
0.00139
0.00570
0.00017
0.00006
Channel Erosion
0.7
215.8
51.2
2.8
Point Sources
0.01
0.01
0.0
0.0
Total Sediment Load
92.61
2,318.91
928.4
313.8
102
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 6: TMDL ALLOCATIONS
The objective of a TMDL is to allocate allowable loads among different
pollutant sources so that appropriate actions can be taken to achieve water
quality standards (USEPA, 1991). The stressor analysis indicated that sediment
was the "most probable stressor (pollutant)" in all four watersheds, although
hydrologic modification was also cited as a non -pollutant stressor in three of the
four watersheds, primarily related to the large amounts of impervious surfaces in
those watersheds. Since TMDLs are typically only developed for pollutant
stressors, sediment will serve as the basis for development of the TMDL in each
watershed. The AIIForX approach was used to set appropriate sediment TMDL
endpoints and to quantify the margin of safety (MOS) for each TMDL watershed.
Separate AIIForX regressions were developed for the three urban watersheds
(Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch) and for the one rural
watershed (Moores Creek) along with the selected comparison watersheds. The
detailed AIIForX endpoint calculations are in Appendix D.
6.1. Sediment TMDLs
6.1.1. TMDL Components
The sediment TMDL for each watershed was calculated, and its
components distributed, using the following equation:
TMDL = YWLA + YLA + MOS
where YWLA = sum of the wasteload (permitted) allocations;
YLA = sum of load (nonpoint source) allocations; and
MOS = margin of safety.
The sediment TMDL was based on the value of the AIIForX threshold, the
point on the regression line where VSCI equals 60, the biological impairment
threshold. The sediment TMDL load of each TMDL watershed was calculated as
the respective AIIForX threshold value times its all -forest sediment load. The
AIIForX endpoint for the urban watersheds was 5.543, while the AIIForX endpoint
103
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMVLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
for the rural watershed was 3.762. Details of the derivation of AIIForX for the
TMDL and comparison watersheds are provided in Appendix D.
The WLA in each watershed is comprised of sediment loads from a
number of individual industrial stormwater, municipal, and commercial permitted
sources, as well as aggregated loads from construction runoff in each watershed.
The WLA for regulated MS4 areas and construction areas were calculated as the
existing loads times the average % reduction (from all non -permitted or non -
excluded landuses) needed to achieve the TMDL target load and a Future
Growth WLA, calculated as 1 % of the TMDL.
An explicit MOS for each TMDL watershed was also calculated using the
AIIForX method. The 80% confidence interval was developed around the chosen
value of AIIForX, based on the number of watersheds included in the regression
and the standard deviation of their AIIForX values. The MOS was set equal to the
difference between the value of AIIForX at VSCI = 60 and the value of AIIForX at
the lower confidence interval limit, multiplied times the all -forest sediment load for
each watershed, amounting to 9.5% of the TMDL for the urban watersheds, and
6.3% for the rural watershed.
The LA was calculated explicitly as the loads resulting from fully managed
harvested forest lands, level 2 erosion and sediment control measures, and the
average % reduction (from all other non -regulated landuses) needed to achieve
the TMDL target load and the Future Growth WLA. This procedure results in an
LA consistent with the TMDL equation, such that LA = TMDL - WLA - MOS. The
TMDL load and its components for each TMDL watershed are shown in Table
6-1.
In Table 6-1, TMDL loads were calculated based on the sources
contributing from each unique stream segment and its contributing drainage area,
exclusive of in -stream contributions received from upstream watersheds.
104
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Alrglma
Table 6-1. Sediment TMDLs and Components (torn for Lodge Creek, Moores
Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek
Impairment
TMDL WLA LA I MOS
Sediment Load tons) r
Cause Group Code B28R-04-BEN
Lodge Creek
51.69
46.25
0.51
4.93
VAR040051 City of Chadottesulle
VAV-H28R_XRC01AD4
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
45.55 tons/yr
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
construction aggregate WLA
0.18 tons/ r
Future Growth WLA
0.52 tons/yr
Cause Group Code H28R-02-BEN
Moores Creek'
2,185.60
809.58
1,237.62
138.40
VAR040051 City of Chadottesulle
VAV-H28R_MSC01A00
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
713.81 tons/yr
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
VAR040108 Piedmont Virginia Community College
ISWGP Permits AR051960
1.72 tons/ r
General Permits AG111032, VAG408447
2.42 tons/ r
construction aggregate WLA
69.77 tons/yr
Future Growth WLA
21.86 tons/yr
Cause Group Code H28R-05-BEN
Meadow Creek'
514.80
452.33
13.40
49.07
VAR040051 City of Chadottesulle
VAV-H28R_MWC01A00
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
442.64 tons/yr
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
ISWGP Permits (VAR051372, VAR050974)
(VAR050876)
1.55 tons/yr
construction aggregate WLA
2.99 tons/ r
Future Growth WLA
5.15 tons/ r
Cause Group Code H28R-07-BEN
Schenks Branch
157.79
134.52
8.23
15.04
VAR040051 City of Chadottesulle
VAV-H28R_SNK01A02
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
126.73 tons/yr
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
General Permits AG110064)
2.97 tons/ r
construction aggregate WLA
3.24 tons/ r
Future Growth WLA
1.58 tons/ r
Moores Creek excludes Lodge Creek; Meadow Creek excludes Schenks Branch.
6.2. Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment
The USEPA has mandated that TMDL studies submitted since 2007
include a maximum "daily" load (MDL), in addition to the average annual load
shown in Section 6.1 (USEPA, 2006a). The approach used to develop the MDL
was provided in Appendix B of a related USEPA guidance document (USEPA,
105
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMVLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
2006b). This appendix entitled "Approaches for developing a Daily Load
Expression for TMDLs computed for Longer Term Averages" is dated December
15, 2006. This guidance provides a procedure for calculating an MDL (tons/day)
for each watershed from the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation
(CV) based on annual loads over a period of time for the long-term average (LTA)
annual TMDL load (tons/yr). The "LTA to MDL multiplier" (X) for each of the four
watersheds was calculated from the 2002-2010 simulated output of total annual
sediment load, using the following equation in Microsoft Excel:
X = exp(2.778'sgrt(In(power(CV,2)+1))-0.5'In(power(CV,2)+1)).
A summary of the statistics and resulting "LTA to MDL multiplier" are
shown in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. "LTA to MDL multiplier" Statistics
Annual Load Measures
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
English tons/ r
Minimum Annual Load
83
1,235
9061
352
Maximum Annual Load
592
12,284
5,1831
2,160
Standard Deviation
134
2,9691
1,0641
451
Average Annual Load
1 231
4,4851
2,0371
827
Unitless
Coefficient of Variation
1 0.58141
0.66191
0.52251
0.5460
"LTA to MDL" Multiplier
1 3.8711
4.4491
3.4701
3.628
Based on Table B-1 (USEPA, 2006a)
The standard deviation and coefficient of variation (CV) are measures of
the range of annual sediment load. The "LTA to MDL" multiplier was calculated
from the USEPA guidance. The MDL was calculated as the TMDL divided by
365 days/yr and multiplied by the "LTA to MDL" multiplier.
Since the WLA represents permitted loads, no multiplier was applied to
these loads. Therefore the daily WLA and components were converted to daily
loads by dividing by 365 days/yr. The daily LA was calculated as the MDL minus
the daily WLA minus the daily MOS. The resulting sediment MDL and associated
components for the Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks
Branch impaired segments are shown in Table 6-3 in units of tons/day.
106
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, WgIma
Expressing the TMDL as a daily load does not interfere with a permit
writer's authority under the regulations to translate that daily load into the
appropriate permit limitation, which in turn could be expressed as an hourly,
weekly, monthly or other measure (USEPA, 2006a).
Table 6-3. Maximum "Daily" Sediment Loads and Components (tons/day) for
Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek
Impairment
MDL WLA LA MOS
Sediment Load(tons/day)
Cause Group Code 13281R-04-BEN
Lodge Creek
0.55
0.126
0.37
0.05
VAV-H28R_XRC01AD4
VAR040051 City of CharlottesHlle
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
0.125 tons/day
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
construction aggregate WLA
0 tons/day
Future Growth WLA
0.0014 tons/day
Cause Group Code H28R-02-BEN
Moores Creek'
26.64
2.219
22.73
1.69
VAV-H28R_MSC01A00
VAR040051 City of Charlottesville
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
1.955 tons/day
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
VAR040108 Piedmont Virginia Community College
ISWGP Permits (VAR051960)
0.005 tons/day
General Permits AG111032, VAG408447
0.007 tons/day
construction aggregate WLA
0.191 tons/da
Future Growth WLA
0.06 tons/da
Cause Group Code H28R-05-BEN
Meadow Creek'
4.90
1.239
3.19
0.47
VAV-H28R_MWC01A00
VAR040051 City of Charlottesville
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
1.213 tons/day
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
ISWGP Permits (VAR051372, VAR050974)
AR050876
0.004 tons/day
construction aggregate WLA
0.008 tons/day
Future Growth WLA
0.014 tons/day,
Cause Group Code H28R-07-BEN
Schenks Branch
1.57
0.368
1.05
0.15
VAV-H28R_SNK01AD2
VAR040051 City of Charlottesville
VAR040074 Albemarle County
VAR040073 University of Virginia
0.347 tons/day
VAR040115 Virginia DOT
General Permits AG110064
0.008 tons/day
construction aggregate WLA
0.009 tons/day
Future Growth WLA
0.004 tons/day
Moores Creek excludes Lodge Creek; Meadow Creek excludes Schenks Branch.
107
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
6.3. Allocation Scenarios
The target load for the allocation scenario in each watershed is the TMDL
minus both the MOS and 1% of the TMDL allocated as a Future Growth WLA.
Both the TMDL and MOS were quantified using the AIIForX methodology,
discussed in Section 6.1.
Sediment loads were simulated with GWLF. The extent and effect of
existing agricultural BMPs in the AIIForX modeling were based on passthru
factors used in the 2014 Nonpoint Source Watershed pollutant load assessment,
which accounted for BMPs active as of the end of 2007.
Several allocation scenarios were created for each watershed. In each
scenario, SSOs were to be eliminated and Forest and Permitted WLAs were not
subjected to reductions. Areas of harvested forest and construction are transient
sources of sediment subject to existing regulations. Their reduction efficiencies
were currently estimated as only half of those possible. Both allocation scenarios
assume that these practices will meet their potential reduction efficiencies with
better enforcement of existing regulations. The allocation scenario selected by
the local Technical Advisory Committee used equal percent reductions from all
other sources. The selected allocation scenarios are detailed in Table 6-4
through 6-7 for Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks
Branch, respectively. The resulting loads for all land uses within Regulated MS4
areas comprised the WLA for the aggregated MS4 areas within each watershed.
Sub -totals of existing load, overall average % reduction needed, the load
reduction needed and the allocated load are shown separately for Non -regulated
and Regulated MS4 areas, with overall totals shown at the bottom of the table.
The total loads that comprise the WLA and LA components of the TMDL are
color -coded in the table and summed below the table along with the TMDL Target
Load (TMDL - MOS).
Kv
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 6-4. Lodge Creek: Sediment TMDL Load Allocation Scenario
Land Use/ Source Group
Area
(acres)
Ebsting
Sediment
Load
(tons/yr)
Allocation Scenario
% Reduction
Load Reduction
Needed (tons/yr)
lAdlocated Load
(tons/yr)
Non -Regulated Areas
Forest
2.64
0.056
0.056
Harvested Forest
0.03
0.0043
42.9%
0.0018
0.0024
Impervious developed
0.88
0.273
52.2%
0.142
0.131
Pervious developed
4.62
0.663
52.2%
0.346
0.317
Transitional***
0.06
0.238
25.0%
0.059
0.178
Channel Erosion
0.011
52.2%
0.006
0.005
Non-MS4 Permitted WLA**
10.000
SSOs
0.0014
100.0%1
0.001
0.000
Non -Regulated Sub -Totals
1.25
44.7%
0.56
0.69
Regulated-M84 Areas
Forest
50.04
1.06
1.06
Impervious developed
156.81
48.60
52.2%
25.35
23.25
Pervious developed
252.66
36.24
52.2%
18.91
17.34
Transitional***
1.12
4.80
25.0%
1.20
3.60
Channel Erosion
0.64
52.2%
0.34
0.31
R ulated-MS4 Sub -Totals
91.3
50.1 %
45.8
45.6
Future Growth
-0.5
0.5
Total Loads
1
92.6
49.5•/
45.8
46.8
** Non-MS4 Permitted WLA includes individual VPDES, ISWGP, and other general permited loads.
*** The Allocation Scenario Load for Transitional Land Use equals the construction WLA
LA components = 0.5
WLA components = 46.2
TMDL - MOS = 46.8
109
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 6-5. Moores Creek: Sediment TMDL Load Allocation Scenario
Existing Load Reduction
Land Use/ Source Group Area Sediment Allocation Scenario from §319
(acres) Load % Load Reduction Allocated Load Implementation
(tons/yr) Reduction Needed (tonsryr) (tonsiyr)
Non -Regulated Areas
Hay
710.9
193.21
14.2%
27.4
165.8
Forest
11,933.6
373.9
373.9
rvested Forest
120.5
30.5
42.9%
13.1
17.41
ous developed
440.2
140.5
14.2%
19.9
120.6
ous developed
2,704.7
286.8
14.2%
40.6
246.2
Transitional***
31.8
93.0
25.0%
23.3
69.77
cannel Erosion
163.0
14.2%
23.1
139.9
rmitted WLA**
1
-4.1
4.1
SSOs
0.0057
100.0%
0.0057
0.0
d Sub -Totals
1
1,483.4
1 11.6'/
171.9
1,311.6
Areas
I ImDervious develooedl 1.180.171 376.71 14.2%1 57.4 1 319.31
Channel Erosion 1 52.81 14.2%1 7.5 1 45.3
R ulated-MS4 Sub -Totals 835.5 14.6'/ 121.7 713.8
Future Growth -21.9 21.9
Total Loads 2,318.9 11.7% 271.7 2,047.2
** Non-MS4 Permitted WLA includes individual VPDES, ISWGP, and other general permited loads.
*** The Allocation Scenario Load for Transitional Land Use equals the construction WLA
LA components = 1,237.6
WLA components 809.6
TMDL - MOS = 2,047.2
65.9
110
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 6-6. Meadow Creek: Sediment TMDL Load Allocation Scenario
Land Use/ Source Group
Area
(acres)
Existing
Sediment
Load
(tonstyr)
Allocation Scenario
% Reduction
Load Reduction
Needed (tonstyr)
Allocated Load
(tonstyr)
Non -Regulated Areas
Forest
74.0
2.2
2.2
Harvested Forest
0.7
0.17
42.9%
0.07
0.10
Impervious developed
27.5
9.8
52.7%
5.2
4.7
Pervious developed
84.6
11.5
52.7%
6.0
5.4
Transitional***
1.2
4.0
25.0%
1.0
2.99
Channel Erosion
2.2
52.7%
1.1
1.0
Non-MS4 Permitted WLK*
-1.6
1.6
SSOs
0.00021
100.0%1
0.0002
0.0
Non -Regulated Sub -Totals
29.8
1 39.8%
1 11.9
18.0
Regulated-MS4 Areas
Hay
35.81
14.4
52.7%
7.6
6.8
Forest
598.09
17.7
17.7
Impervious developed
1,337.67
478.4
52.7%
253.5
225.0
Pervious developed
2,249.84
304.7
52.7%
160.5
144.2
Transitional***
9.96
34.3
25.0%
8.6
25.7
Channel Erosion
49.0
52.7%
25.8
23.2
Re ulated-MS4 Sub -Totals
898.5
50.7%
455.9
442.6
Future Growth
-5.1
5.1
Total Loads
928.4
49.8%
462.6
466.7
* Non-MS4 Permitted WLA includes individual VPDES, ISWGP, and other general permited loads.
The Allocation Scenario Load for Transitional Land Use equals the construction WLA
LA components = 13.4
WLA components = 452.3
TMDL - MOS = 465.7
111
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table 6-7. Schenks Branch: Sediment TMDL Load Allocation Scenario
Land Use/ Source Group
Area
(acres)
Existing
Sediment
Load
(tons/yr)
Allocation Scenario
%
Reduction
Load Reduction
Needed (tons/yr)
IPJlocated Load
(tons/yr)
Non -Regulated Areas
Forest
5.1
0.1
0.1
Harvested Forest
0.1
0.01
42.9%
0.00
0.01
Impervious developed
22.9
7.8
57.1 %
4.5
3.4
Pervious developed
75.7
10.9
57.1 %
6.2
4.7
Transitional"'
1.0
4.3
25.0%
1.1
3.2
Channel Erosion
0.2
57.1%
0.1
0.1
Non-MS4 Permitted WLA"
-3.0
3.0
SSOsi
i 0.0001
100.0%1
0.0001
0.0
Non -Regulated Sub -Totals
23.4
38.1%
8.9
14.5
Regulated-MS4 Areas
Forest
44.48
1.3
1.3
Impervious developed
475.54
162.4
57.1 %
95.7
66.8
Pervious developed
770.51
110.7
57.1 %
63.2
47.5
Transitional"'
3.07
13.3
25.0%
3.3
10.0
Channel Erosion
2.6
57.1%
1.5
1.1
Re ulated-MS4 Sub -Totals
290.4
56.4%
163.6
126.7
Future Growth
-1.6
1.6
Total Loads
1
1 313.8
54.5%
171.0
142.8
" Non-MS4 Permitted WLA includes individual VPDES, ISWGP, and other general permited loads.
The Allocation Scenario Load for Transitional Land Use equals the construction WLA.
LA components = 8.3
WLA components = 134.5
TMDL - MOS = 142.8
112
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 7: TMDL IMPLEMENTATION
The goal of the TMDL program is to establish a three -step path that will
lead to attainment of water quality standards. The first step in the process is to
develop TMDLs that will result in meeting water quality standards. This report
represents the culmination of that effort for the benthic impairments on Lodge
Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek. The second step is
to develop a TMDL implementation plan. The final step is to implement the TMDL
implementation plan and to monitor stream water quality to determine if water
quality standards are being attained.
As an alternative to a TMDL implementation plan, watershed plans have
also been utilized to identify the actions needed to restore water quality in an
impaired waterbody. Typically, the Commonwealth has developed theses plans
in instances wherein a stream is impaired, the sources of pollution are well
understood, and a TMDL has not been developed. However, their application
may be more far reaching. A watershed plan could be appropriate in
circumstances such as those present in Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks
Branch, and Meadow Creek, where numerous local and regional planning efforts
are currently underway to address regulatory requirements for MS4 permits. In
such instances, a watershed plan could be utilized as a broader, more
generalized tool to weave together existing plans with additional non -regulatory
non -point source pollution controls.
Once a TMDL has been approved by the State Water Control Board
(SWCB) and then the USEPA, measures must be taken to reduce pollutant levels
in the stream. These measures, which can include the use of better treatment
technology and the installation of BMPs, are implemented in an iterative process
that is described along with specific BMPs in the implementation plan. The
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.deq.state.va.us/tmdI/implans/ipguide.pdf. With successful completion
113
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
of implementation plans, Virginia begins the process of restoring impaired waters
and enhancing the value of this important resource. Additionally, development of
an approved implementation plan will improve a locality's chances for obtaining
financial and technical assistance during implementation.
EPA's "Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect
Our Waters" is an additional resource for the development of watershed plans,
and is available online at:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook index.cfm. While the guidance for
developing watershed plans and TMDL implementation plans is similar, there are
clear and subtle differences between these water quality improvement tools.
Although both a watershed plan and an implementation plan are voluntary,
watershed plans can be tailored to address general pollution whereas
implementation plans only address the pollutant for which the associated TMDL
was developed. Watershed plans developed in accordance with EPA's guidance
(and thereby eligible to receive funding through EPA's Section 319 Program)
must include a numeric endpoint that is expected to result in restoration of water
quality. While TMDL implementation plans must also be developed to show
attainment of a numeric endpoint, they differ in this respect in that this endpoint
must be equal to the associated pollutant -specific TMDL. In circumstances such
as those present in Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow
Creek where numerous endpoints are being considered in the development of
TMDL Action Plans and other planning efforts, a watershed plan could serve as a
useful tool in integrating these efforts with those focused on accomplishing the
sediment load reductions identified in this TMDL.
DEQ will work closely with watershed stakeholders, interested state
agencies, and support groups to develop an acceptable plan to guide water
quality improvement efforts and to meet the water quality targets in each
watershed. The de -listing of each impaired stream segment, however, will be
based on biological health and not on numerical pollution loads.
114
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
7.1. Staged Implementation
Implementation of BMPs in these watersheds will occur in stages. The
benefit of staged implementation is that it provides a mechanism for developing
public support and for evaluating the efficacy of the TMDL in achieving the water
quality standard.
In general, Virginia intends for the required reductions to be implemented
in an iterative process that first addresses those sources with the largest impact
on water quality. Among the
sediment
sources
identified in these four
watersheds, the following BMPs
should be
useful in
effecting the necessary
reductions: livestock stream
exclusion,
riparian
buffers, grazing land
management, improved and
enhanced
erosion
and sediment (E&S)
management, street sweeping, and urban infiltration and detention BMPs.
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.
7.2. Link to ongoing Restoration Efforts
Implementation of this TMDL will contribute to on -going water quality
improvement efforts in these four watersheds. Ongoing restoration efforts include
the Meadow Creek Stream Restoration project which was coordinated with a
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority project to upgrade a Sanitary Sewer
Interceptor along the stream; existing MS4 programs in Albemarle County, the
City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, the Piedmont Virginia
115
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMVLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Community College, and along VDOT properties; incorporation of urban
stormwater management practices, such as the rain garden in Greenleaf Park;
constructed wetlands for a 40-ac residential area and a 4-ac wetland included in
the mitigation plan for Ragged Mountain Dam, both within the Moores Creek
watershed; and retrofitting green roofs on existing municipal buildings, such as
the Charlottesville City Hall/Police Building. In addition, efforts will be made to
learn from, and coordinate with, other existing TMDLs for bacteria and sediment
in the Rivanna River Basin and the Moores Creek Bacteria TMDL Implementation
Plan (RRBC, 2012).
The watershed areas of Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks
Branch are comprised primarily of Regulated MS4 areas, with the majority of the
Non -regulated areas comprised of forest and pervious developed (residential)
land uses. The vast majority of the sediment load arises from the Regulated MS4
areas. The required load reductions from these areas will be addressed in the
respective jurisdictional TMDL Action Plans and possibly coordinated through an
inter -jurisdictional Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Technical
Advisory Committee recommended exploration of the development of an inter -
jurisdictional MOU that could be utilized as a tool to help coordinate these parallel
efforts. Many BMPs have already been implemented in these areas; their
associated reduction credits will be fully described in individual jurisdiction Action
Plans. An interim aggregated summary of the BMPs implemented since 2009 is
provided in Appendix E.
The Moores Creek watershed contains Non -regulated forest and pervious
developed areas, as well as Regulated MS4 areas that will be addressed in a
similar manner as those in the other three watersheds. Also within the Moores
Creek watershed is a sizeable amount of agricultural land for which load
reductions would typically be addressed through an implementation plan.
However, a bacteria TMDL was completed for Moores Creek in 2004, and an
implementation plan was developed to address that TMDL in 2012. Funding was
awarded to the Thomas Jefferson SWCD to implement this plan through a §319
implementation grant. The sediment load reductions credited to BMPs installed in
116
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
the Moores Creek watershed are equal to the agriculture reductions called for in
the allocation scenario in Table 6-5. This suggests that sediment reduction goals
for agricultural land in Moores Creek will be accomplished once these BMPs
have become fully established. Besides ongoing implementation efforts in the
Regulated MS4 areas, the primary focus of implementation in MooresCreek
appears to be the pervious developed (residential) land uses in Non -regulated
areas. These sediment loads are minor with respect to those from the Regulated
MS4 areas. Residential sources are not affiliated with traditional cost -share
funding sources, but have been the focus of the Rivanna Stormwater Educational
Partnership (RSEP), an inter -jurisdictional committee that educates the public in
practices that reduce potential sources of water pollution, and that promotes the
use of practices which reduce stormwater runoff by individual homeowners. Due
to the minor sediment loads from residential areas and pre-existing partnerships
concentrating on these areas, the local Technical Advisory Committee
recommends that a Watershed Plan be developed, in lieu of an Implementation
Plan, to address the remaining Non -regulated sources in this watershed.
7.3. Reasonable Assurance for Implementation
7.3.1. TMDL Monitoring
DEQ will continue monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat at
the following stations in accordance with its biological monitoring program: 2-
XRC001.15, 2-MSC000.60, 2-SNK000.88, and 2-MWC000.60. TSS will be
monitored at the same set of stations in accordance with DEQ's ambient
monitoring program, with the exception of 2-XRC001.15. DEQ will continue to
use data from these monitoring stations to evaluate improvements in the benthic
community and the effectiveness of TMDL implementation in attainment of the
general water quality standard.
7.3.2. TMDL Modeling
If in a future review, the reductions called for in these TMDLs based on
current modeling are found to be insufficiently protective of local water quality,
117
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
then revision(s) will be made as necessary to provide reasonable assurance that
water quality goals will be achieved.
7.3.3. Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
While section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and current USEPA
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 waste load allocations can and will be implemented. Federal regulations also
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 USEPA for review.
EPA lists minimum elements that need to be included in any watershed
plan for an impaired waterway. These are the nine critical requirements for
section 319 funding and include: a) the identification of the causes of the
impairment, b) estimated load reductions from management measures, c) an
estimate of the nonpoint source management measures needed to achieve load
reductions, d) costs of technical and financial assistance needed, e) public
education and outreach portion, f) schedule for implementation, g) description of
milestones on way to target, h) benchmarks to measure whether loading
reductions are being achieved, i) a monitoring section to measure whether
success is being made (http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/nonpoinU9elements-
WtrshdPlan-EpaHndbk.pdf).
State Regulations
Additionally, Virginia's 1997 Water Quality Monitoring, Information and
Restoration Act (WQMIRA) directs the State Water Control Board to "develop and
implement a plan to achieve fully supporting status for impaired waters" (Section
62.1-44.19.7). WQMIRA 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
118
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
environmental impacts of addressing the impairments. USEPA 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.
For the implementation of the WLA component of the TMDL, the
Commonwealth utilizes the Virginia NPDES program and elements of the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program (VSMP), which typically include consideration
of the WQMIRA requirements during the permitting process. Requirements of
the permit process should not be duplicated in the TMDL process and
implementation plan development, especially those implemented through water
quality based effluent limitations. However, those requirements that are
considered BMPs may be enhanced by inclusion in the TMDL IP, and their
connection to the targeted impairment. New permitted point source discharges
will be allowed under the waste load allocation provided they implement
applicable VPDES requirements.
7.3.4. Implementation Funding Sources
Implementation funding sources will be determined during the
implementation planning process by the local watershed stakeholder planning
group with assistance from DEQ and DCR. Potential sources of funding include
Section 319 funding for Virginia's Nonpoint Source Management Program, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Enhancement and
Environmental Quality Incentive Programs, the Virginia State Revolving Loan
Program, and the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund, although other
sources are also available for specific projects and regions of the state. The
TMDL Implementation Plan Guidance Manual contains additional information on
funding sources, as well as government agencies that might support
implementation efforts and suggestions for integrating TMDL implementation with
other watershed planning efforts.
119
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
7.3.5. Reasonable Assurance Summary
Watershed stakeholders will have opportunities to provide input and to
participate in the development of the implementation or watershed plan, which
will also be supported by regional and local offices of DEQ, DCR, and other
cooperating agencies. The original contract funding for this project included
implementation plan development, but the funds were reallocated for model
refinement and presenting additional allocation scenarios with the MS4 landuse
data.
If 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 USEPA and DEQ, DEQ also submitted a draft
Continuous Planning Process to USEPA 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.
Taken together, the follow-up monitoring, WQMIRA, public participation,
the Continuing Planning Process, and the current implementation through the
Moores Creek Bacteria IP, the Comprehensive Improvement Programs, the
respective jurisdictional TMDL Action Plans in MS4 areas, as well as ongoing
efforts to reduce sediment to the Chesapeake Bay, such as the MS4s'
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action Plans, all comprise a reasonable assurance that
the Lodge Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek sediment
TMDLs will be implemented and water quality will be restored.
120
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 8: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation was elicited at every stage of the TMDL development
in order to receive inputs from stakeholders and to apprise the stakeholders of
the progress made. All Public Meetings and Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) meetings included presentations and discussions relevant to the
impairment in all four watersheds.
A general information meeting was held on October 13, 2010 at the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) Water Center
Conference Room in Charlottesville, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting was to
differentiate the TMDL study from a previous public meeting on a related water
quality issue, to provide an overview of the impaired stream segments and the
TMDL process, and to discuss the results of a series of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) measurements that had been collected in response to
concerns raised at the fore -mentioned public meeting. This informational meeting
was attended by 18 people.
The first TAC meeting was held on December 9, 2010 in the TJPDC Water
Center Conference Room, where the preliminary results from the stressor
analysis were presented, and comments were solicited from the stakeholder
group. The TAC meeting was attended by 18 people.
The first public meeting was held on January 6, 2011 at the Walker Upper
Elementary School, 1564 Dairy Road in Charlottesville. At this meeting
stakeholders from various environmental agencies and organizations were
encouraged to share information about their organizations and activities in the
impaired watersheds in the form of posters and displays. DEQ then presented an
overview of the TMDL study process and some preliminary findings from the
stressor analysis. The first public meeting was attended by 30 people.
A second TAC meeting was held on June 9, 2011 in the TJPDC Water
Center Conference Room where the modeling procedures based on Chesapeake
121
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Bay modeling outputs and calculation methodology were described and
discussed. The second TAC meeting was attended by 22 people.
A third TAC meeting was held on July 7, 2011 in the TJPDC Water Center
Conference Room where revisions of local inputs to the model were described
and discussed. The third TAC meeting was attended by 20 people.
A fourth TAC meeting was held on August 18, 2011 in the TJPDC Water
Center Conference Room where the draft TMDL report was presented and plans
were made for the simplified public document and for the final public meeting
prior to the initiation of the implementation planning process. The fourth TAC
meeting was attended by 20 people.
A fifth TAC meeting was held on February 9, 2012 in the TJPDC Water
Center Conference Room where an update on the draft TMDL report was
presented including the latest revisions to load calculations, MS4 delineations,
and planning for the final public meeting prior to the initiation of the
implementation planning process. The fifth TAC meeting was attended by 17
people.
A public meeting to present the draft sediment TMDL reports for the Lodge
Creek, Moores Creek, Schenks Branch, and Meadow Creek watersheds to
address their benthic impairments was held on March 15, 2012 at CityScape in
Charlottesville, Virginia. This intended final TMDL public meeting was attended
by 19 stakeholders and served as the initiation of the TMDL implementation
planning phase, which is a continuation of this project. The public comment
period ended on April 14, 2012.
Since the original TMDL was rejected by EPA, another series of meetings
was held during the current revision phase to re -open the TMDL starting in June
2014 in order to address EPA comments and to re -submit the TMDL. The first
TAC meeting during this revision phase was held on June 24, 2014 at the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) Water Center
Conference Room in Charlottesville, Virginia, where an update was presented on
the status of the previous sediment TMDLs on the four Charlottesville impaired
122
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
segments, some planned sediment TMDL endpoint and modeling revisions,
followed by discussion on the structure and nature of public participation during
the revision phase. A total of 15 people were in attendance at this TAC meeting.
The next TAC meeting was held on August 14, 2014, also at the TJPDC in
Charlottesville. Recent DEQ monitoring data were presented followed by the
change to the GWLF model, and the AIIForX method for setting sediment TMDL
endpoints. MS4 and Census Urbanized Area (CUA) boundaries were then
discussed along with jurisdictions intention to minimize their regulated MS4 areas
within those boundaries. Preliminary sediment loads and reductions generated by
GWLF were presented along with changes from the previous modeling. A total of
15 people were in attendance at this TAC meeting.
Another TAC meeting was held on October 21, 2014 at the TJPDC.
Considerable time was spent comparing the reasons behind the differences in
loads and reductions between the proposed and previous modeling, as well as
discussions on the impact of DEQ's Chesapeake Bay MS4 Action Plan guidance.
The load and reduction differences arose from shifts in both internal and external
boundaries, different models, and differences in land use parameters. Proposed
compromise adjustments were then presented. A decision was made by the
group for jurisdictions to define their "regulated MS4" boundaries as best as
possible by the end of 2014. A total of 20 people attended the meeting.
In a TAC meeting held on January 30, 2015 at the TJPDC, the focus was
on the definition of regulated MS4 areas and clarification by DEQ Central Office
on permitted areas within MS4 boundaries and their relationship with Census
Urbanized Areas (CUAs). At this point, load reductions were being accounted
from all BMPs reported by jurisdictions as of 12/31/2014 using CBWM reduction
efficiencies. TAC members recommended that load reductions be calculated,
instead, using Chesapeake Bay Action Plan guidance for consistency with what
they will need to use in developing action plans to meet the allocated WLAs from
these TMDLs. A sub -group of jurisdictional representatives will discuss how to
proceed together with the BSE contractor. Allocations and regulated/non-
regulated splits based on the tentative regulated MS4 digital data layer were then
123
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
presented to the group. Further discussion resulted in a recommendation to
remove the "harvested forest" landuse and to revise the derivation of the "barren"
acreage in regulated MS4 areas. Twenty-two people attended this meeting.
Another TAC meeting on March 9, 2015 was held to review the latest
revisions to the TMDL. The final regulated MS4 area delineation was presented
and the basis for the TMDL target load using the AIIForX procedure was
reviewed. In this draft, BMPs were represented tentatively as the inventoried
BMPs as of 12/31/14 minus the Meadow Creek stream restoration which might
be considered a mitigation measure and had previously accounted for a
significant load reduction. The resulting existing load scenarios were then
presented, along with allocation scenarios that illustrated regulated MS4 areas as
the dominant source of sediment versus the non -regulated areas, except for
Moores Creek. Group discussion then followed about the need for an
implementation plan versus action plans, with a third alternative of a watershed
plan being introduced. A watershed plan could provide a simpler means of
addressing the minor remaining reductions needed from the non -regulated areas,
and still meet requirements for remediation under state law. Twenty people were
in attendance.
A TAC meeting was held on April 15, 2015, also at the TJPDC. Since the
last TAC meeting, discussions were held with individual jurisdictions regarding
how best to determine the eligibility of various BMPs for credit and how to
calculate load reductions from all eligible urban BMPs following the Chesapeake
Bay Action Plan guidance. The consensus was that reductions to meet MS4
WLAs should be calculated in individual jurisdictional Action Plans and, in order
to maintain consistency between the TMDL study and the Action Plans, the
decision was made to not quantify the load reductions from urban BMPs in the
TMDL report, but only to include an inventory of their extents to show that
progress is being made. A reference will be included to state that the final load
reduction accounting will be done in just one place - the Action Plans. The
existing loads were then presented using a new baseline that represented
existing BMPs as those used in Virginia's 2014 NPS Assessment, based on
124
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
BMPs active as of 12/31/07, against which allocation scenarios and reductions
would be based. A request was made that during the review of the latest draft
report, that TAC members especially focus on the TMDL implementation chapter
in order to best capture our current understanding of the path forward, before a
final draft is submitted to DEQ for wider circulation and public comment by the
end of the month.
125
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
A/bemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES
Clement, W.H. 1994. Benthic invertebrate community responses to heavy metals in the upper
Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. J. North Amer. Benth. Soc. 13:30-44.
Dai, T., R. L. Wetzel, T. R. L. Christensen, and E. A. Lewis. 2000. BasinSim 1.0, A Windows -
Based Watershed Modeling Package. User's Guide. Special Report in Applied Marine
Science and Ocean Engineering #362. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of
William & Mary. Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Evans, B. M., S. A. Sheeder, K. J. Corradini, and W. S. Brown. 2001. AVGWLF version 3.2.
Users Guide. Environmental Resources Research Institute, Pennsylvania State
University and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Watershed Conservation.
Evans, B.M., S. A. Sheeder, and D.W. Lehning, 2003. A spatial technique for estimating
streambank erosion based on watershed characteristics. J. Spatial Hydrology, Vol. 3, No.
Haith, D. A., R. Mandel, and R. S. Wu. 1992. GWLF. Generalized Watershed Loading
Functions, version 2.0. User's Manual. Department of Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, Cornell University. Ithaca, New York.
Hession, W. C., M. McBride, and L. Misiura. 1997. Revised Virginia nonpoint source pollution
assessment methodology. A report submitted to the Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation, Richmond, Virginia. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
Patrick Center for Environmental Research. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ICPRB. 2011. Virginia Assessment Scenario Tool. Rockville, MD.: Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin. Available at: http://vasttool.ora. Accessed 7 November 2011.
Ingersoll, C.G., D.D. MacDonald, N. Wang, J.L. Crane, L.J. Field, P.S. Haverland, N.E. Kemble,
R.A. Lindskoog, C. Severn, and D.E. Smorong. 2001. Predictions of sediment toxicity
using consensus -based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. Arch Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 41: 8-21.
Lee, K.Y., T.R. Fisher, T.E. Jordan, D.L. Correll, and D.F. Weller. 2000. Modeling the
hydrochemistry of the Choptank River Basin using GWLF and Arc/INFO: 1. Model
calibration and validation. Biogeochemistry 49:143-173.
MacDonald, D. D., C. G. Ingersoll, and T. A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of
consensus -based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 39:20-31.
McCulloch, W.L., W.L. Goodfellow, and J.A. Black. 1993. Characterization, identification and
confirmation of total dissolved solids as effluent toxicants. In: Environmental Toxicology
and Risk Assessment, 2nd Volume, STP1216. J.W. Gorsuch, F.J. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll,
and T.W. La Point (ads.). Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials.
pp. 213-227.
MDE. 2006. A Methodology for Addressing Sediment Impairments in Maryland's Non -Tidal
Watersheds. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of the Environment. Available at:
t 20070728.pdf . Accessed 26 October 2012.
MDE. 2009. Addendum: Updates to "A Methodology for Addressing Sediment Impairments in
Maryland's Nontidal Watersheds" for Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
developed starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009.
NASS. 2009. Cropland Data Layer. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available at:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1 a.htm. Accessed 29 June 2011.
NCDC-NOAA. 2010. U.S. Climate Normal. Available at: http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.aov/cai-
m= . Hccessea zu uecemper zu-i u.
Neff, Jerry M., Scott C. Stout, and Donald G. Gunter. 2005. Ecological risk assessment of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments: Identifying sources and ecological
hazard. Integrated Environ. Assess. Manage. 1(1):22-33.
RRBC. 2009. Rivanna Watershed and Vicinity Land Use/Land Cover Map. Charlottesville, VA:
Rivanna River Basin Commission. Available at:
http://www.rivannariverbasin.ora/Rivanna-maps-tools.php. Accessed 29 June 2011.
126
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
RRBC. 2012. Moores Creek Bacteria Implementation Plan. Revised July 2012. Submitted to the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Charlottesville, VA: Rivanna River
Basin Commission.
Schneiderman, E.M., D.C. Pierson, D.G. Lounsbury, and M.S. Zion. 2002. Modeling the
hydrochemistry of the Cannonsville Watershed with Generalized Watershed Loading
Functions (GWLF). J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 38(5): 1323-1347.
Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Design of
Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments: Washington, DC.
SWCB (State Water Control Board). 2011. 9 VAC 26-280 Virginia Water Quality Standards.
Available at:
http://water.epa.aov/scitech/swauidance/standards/wgsli brary/upload/vawqs.[)df.
Accessed 23 June 2015.
Tetra Tech, 2003. A stream condition index for Virginia non -coastal streams. Prepared for
USEPA, USEPA Region 3, and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Available
at:
http://www.deg.state.va.us/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterQualityMonitori ng/vastrmoon.pdf.
Accessed 23 June 2015.
TJPDC. 1998. Rivanna River Basin Project, State of the Basin. Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission (TJPDC, at al. Available at:
http://www.tjvdc.ora/pdf/rep envi rivBasin.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2011.
USDA-NRCS. 2005. Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves. Available at:
wmc.ar.nres.usda.gov/technical/HHSWR/Geomorphic/index.htmi . Accessed 31
December 2005.
USDA-NRCS. 2007. Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSD) with series extent mapping
capabilities. Available at: https://soilsedes.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.asp. Accessed 23
June 2015.
USDA-NRCS. 2010. VA 003 - Albemarle County, Virginia. Tabular and spatial data. Soil Data
Mart. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Available at: http://sdmdataaccess.nres.usda.aov . Accessed 23 June 2015.
USEPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality -based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-
001. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1998a. Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130)
(Section 303(d) Report). Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, USEPA.
USEPA. 1998b. National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress (40 CFR Part 130)
(Section 305(b) Report). Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, USEPA.
USEPA. 2000. Stressor identification guidance document. EPA-822-B-00-025. Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and
Development.
USEPA. 2002. Mid -Atlantic Eco-regions. Available at:
http://www.epo.aov/wed/vanes/ecoregions/reg3 eco.htm. Accessed 21 December 2010.
USEPA. 2006a. Memorandum from Benjamin H. Grumbles, Subject: Establishing TMDL "Daily"
Loads in Light of the Decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Friends
of the Earth, Inc. vs. EPA et al., No. 05-5015 (April 25, 2006) and Implications for NPDES
Permits, November 15, 2006.
USEPA. 2006b. An Approach for Using Load Duration Curves in the Development of TMDLs.
Appendix B: Approaches for developing a daily load expression for TMDLs computed for
longer term averages. Washington, DC: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
December 15, 2006.
USEPA. 2007. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA 625/R-00/008. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owm/upload/2004 07 07 septics septic 2002 osdm all.p
df. Accessed 23 June 2015.
USEPA. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Phase 5.3 Community Watershed Model. Section 4: Land Use.
EPA 903510002 - CBP/TRS-303-10. December 2010. Annapolis, MD: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Available at:
ftp:/tftp.chesapeakebay.net/Modeling/P5Documentation/. Accessed 31 January 2011.
127
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
USGS. 1997. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic atlas 730-L. Henry Trapp, Jr. and Marilee A.
Horn (ads.). Available at: http://capp.water.usas.00v//awa/pub/ch I/L-type.ascii .
Accessed: 30 January 2008.
USGS. 2009. Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Urban Stormwater,
Madison, Wisconsin, 2005-08. Open -File Report 2009-1077. Reston, VA: U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
VADCR, 2004. Chapter 4.1: Nonpoint Source Assessment, Prioritization, and Activities. Virginia
Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report. Available at:
pdf. Accessed 23 June 2015.
VADEQ, 1998. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 1998 305(b) Report to the EPA Administrator
and Congress for the Period July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997. Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Richmond, Virginia.
VADEQ, 2000. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 2000 305(b) Report to the EPA Administrator
and Congress for the Period January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1998. Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Richmond, Virginia.
VADEQ. 2002. 2002 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report. Richmond, Virginia.
VADEQ, 2005. Memorandum from June Schneider, entitled "Error in Channel Erosion Calculation
using GWLF". December 16, 2005. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Richmond, Virginia.
VADEQ. 2006. Using probabilistic monitoring data to validate the non -coastal Virginia Stream
Condition Index. VIDEO Technical Bulletin WQA/2006-001. Richmond, Va.: Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality; Water Quality Monitoring, Biological Monitoring
and Water Quality Assessment Programs.
VADEQ. 2007. Water quality guidance manual for Y2008 305(b)/303(d) integrated water quality
report. Richmond, Va.: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
VADEQ, 2010. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)1303(d) Integrated Report. August 2010
Draft. Richmond, Virginia. .
VADEQ. 2014. Guidance Memo No. 14-2012. Commonwealth of Virginia; Department of
Environmental Quality; Water Division. Richmond, VA. August 18, 2014.
Van Metre, P.C. and B.J. Mahler. 2010. Contributions of PAHs from coal -tar pavement sealcoat
and other sources to 40 U.S. lakes. Science of the Total Environment 409: 334-344.
VBMP, 2002. Virginia Base Mapping Program. Available through Virginia Geographic Information
Network (VGIN). Richmond, Virginia.
Wischmeier, W. H. and D. D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses - A guide to
conservation planning. Agriculture Handbook 537. Beltsville, Maryland: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration.
Yagow, G., S. Mostaghimi, and T. Dillaha. 2002. GWLF model calibration for statewide NPS
assessment. Virginia NPS pollutant load assessment methodology for 2002 and 2004
statewide NPS pollutant assessments. January 1 - March 31, 2002 Quarterly Report.
Submitted to Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation. Richmond, Virginia.
Yagow, G. and W.C. Hession. 2007. Statewide NPS Pollutant Load Assessment in Virginia at the
Sixth Order NWBD Level: Final Project Report. VT-BSE Document No. 2007-0003.
Submitted to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond,
Virginia.
Yagow, G., B. Benham, K. Kline, R. Zeckoski, C. Wallace. 2012a. A method for disaggregating
existing model pollutant loads for subwatersheds. Watershed Science Bulletin. 3(1):49-
61.
Yagow, G., K. Kline, C. Wallace, and B. Benham. 2012b. Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow
Creek, and Schenks Branch Watersheds TMDL Implementation Plan; Albemarle County
and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation. Final Draft: August 17, 2012.
128
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Yagow, G., K. Kline, and B. Benham. 2015. TMDLs for Benthic Impairments in Little Otter River
(Sediment and Total Phosphorus), Johns Creek, Wells Creek, and Buffalo Creek
(Sediment). Town of Bedford, Bedford and Campbell Counties, Virginia. VT-BSE
Document No. 2013-0001. Final: January 9, 2015. EPA approval: February 3, 2015.
129
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, OrgIma
Appendix A: Detailed Land Use Distributions
Table A-1. Land Use Distributions for Simulating AIIForX Conditions in Moores Creek
and Meadow Creek Watersheds
Modeled Land
Use/Source Categories
TMDL Watersheds
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Area in acres
HiTill Rowcro hit
0.21
6.7
1.81
0.2
LoTill Rowcro lot
0.6
22.7
6.0
0.6
Pasture as
0.2
101.7
4.3
1.7
Pasture as
1.2
661.1
27.7
10.9
Pasture as
0.5
254.3
10.6
4.2
Riparian pasture tr
0.0
17.7
0.0
0.0
AFO afo
0.0
2.81
0.0
0.0
Ha ha
1.2
656.31
26.9
10.6
Forest for
75.1
13,993.7
771.9
64.1
Harvested forest h
0.8
141.4
7.8
0.6
Transitional barren
3.9
57.3
35.8
13.1
Pervious LDI ur LDI
275.1
4,526.8
2,248.2
821.8
Pervious MDI ur MDI
29.2
286.7
346.7
141.2
Pervious HDI ur HDI
3.5
33.0
65.5
18.6
Impervious LDI im LDI
34.0
407.21
274.61
97.2
Impervious MDI(imp MDI
29.2
286.7
346.7
141.2
Impervious HDI im HDI
14.1
132.1
262.0
74.2
Total Simulated Area
468.6
21,588.4
4,436.4
1,400.1
Water
0.0
121.7
2.31
0.0
Total Area 468.6 21,710.0 4,438.7 1,400.1
130
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table A-2. Land Use Distributions for Simulating AIIForX Conditions in Comparison
Watersheds
AIIForX Comparison Watersheds
Modeled Land
Use/Source Categories
Naked
Creek
Swift
Run
Buck
Mountain
Creek
Rose
River
Rapidan
River
South
River
Roach
River
Stockton
Creek
Me.hunk
Creek
SF Tye
River
Rock
Islantl
Creek
Raccoon
Creek
Beaver
Creek
Great
Run
Wards
Creek
Area in acres
HiTill Rowcro hit
69.7
20.9
4.6
0.3
0.0
7.5
3.4
4.6
5.7
0.0
0.0
7.8
0.7
26.0
1A
LoTill Rowcro lot
179.7
12.5
15.6
5.9
0.0
28.9
5.2
15.7
18.6
0.0
0.0
22.8
2.4
479.5
3.6
Pasture as
220.0
575.2
162.5
16.7
04
373.1
261.2
289.3
317.7
14.8
0.0
85.5
28.8
244.2
55.7
Pasture as fl
1,430.3
3,738.6
1,056.2
108.E
2.5
2,424.9
1,698.1
1,880.6
2,065.1
96.2
0.0
555.6
187.3
1,587.3
362.3
Pasture as
550.1
1,437.9
406.2
41.8
0.9
932.7
653.1
723.3
794.3
37.0
0.0
213.7
72.0
610.5
139.3
Riparian pasture tr
13.5
27.5
7.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.5
13.8
15.2
0.9
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
2,7
AFO afo
1.9
4A
1.2
0.1
0.0
3.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
0.1
0.0
1.0
0.4
2.0
0.4
Ha ha
391.0
1,020.7
288.3
29.5
0.7
659.0
463.6
513.4
563.8
26.3
0.0
151.7
50.9
431.3
98.9
Forest for
23,355.2
16,642.3
10,615.5
9,09Z0
8,738.1
11,083.6
12,868.4
7,887.4
8,762.2
Z950.2
0.0
2,327.7
4,124.1
3,105.4
3,387.2
Harvested forest drA
235.9
168A
107.2
91.9
88.3
112.0
130.0
79.7
88.5
80.3
0.0
23.5
41.7
31.4
34.2
Transitional barren
13.9
32,91
7.5
4.7
2ZI
10.91
12.3
22.7
9.21,
4.5
0.0
1.4
2.7
5.6
2.2
PeNous LDI ur LDD
1,327.3
3,090.2
739.5
452.5
2434
1,058.9
1.195.7
2,095.3
901.2
443.3
0,0
135.0
265.0
546.5
212A
Pervious MDI ur MIDI)
5A
23.9
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.5
2.3
34.4
0.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
Pervious HDI(put HDD
0.9
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Impervious LDI(imp LDD
37.9
108.8
7.1
6.3
0.0
13.1
18.5
75.6
12.3
1A
0.0
0.5
0.5
7.6
1.1
Impervious MDI im MDI
5A
23.9
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.5
2.3
34.4
0.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
Impervious HDI imp HDD
3.7
6.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Simulated Area
27,842.2
26,936.3
13.419.4
9.859.3
9,076.6
16,714.2
17,328.5
13,684.9
13,557.2
8,657.4
0.0
3,530.2
4,776.5
7,079.6
4,300.8
Water
0.8
151A
15.5
1.5
0.0
496
163
17.0
34A
6.2
39
46
08
08
15
I mat Neat 27.843.0 27,087A 13,434.9 9,860.9 9,076.6 16,7638 1]344.8 13,701.9 13,591.3 8,663.6 39 3,53,19 4,7773 7,0804 4,3024
Table A-3. Land Use Distributions for Simulating Existing Conditions in Moores
Creek and Meadow Creek Watersheds
Modeled Land
Use/Source Categories
Existing
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Area in acres
HiTill Rowcro hit
0.01
19.61
0.0
0.0
LoTill Rowcro lot
0.0
66.5
0.0
0.0
Pasture as
0.0
21.0
0.0
0.0
Pasture as
0.0
136.3
0.0
0.0
Pasture as
0.0
52.4
0.0
0.0
Riparian pasture tr
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
AFO afo
0.0
0.9
0.01
0.0
Ha ha
0.0
804.7
35.8
0.0
Forest for
52.71
13,122.6
672.1
49.5
Harvested forest h
0.0
120.5
0.7
0.1
Transitional barren
1.2
45.7
11.1
4.1
Pervious LDI ur LDI
226.4
5,132.2
1,950.5
702.2
Pervious MDI ur MDI
25.8
285.5
312.2
118.7
Pervious HDI ur HDI
5.1
46.2
71.6
25.3
Impervious LDI im LDI
115.7
1,222.2
736.7
268.8
Impervious MDI im MDI
ju.91
280.2
374.1
161.6
Impervious HDI(imp HDO
11.11
120.1
257.1
68.0
Total Simulated Area
468.9
21,482.1
4,422.0
1,398.4
Water
0.51
230.41
19.2
1.4
Total Area 469.4 21,712.5 4,441.1 1,399.8
131
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Appendix B: Detailed Simulated Sediment Loads
Table B-1. Simulated Sediment Loads for AIIForX Modeling in Moores Creek and
Meadow Creek Watersheds (Metric Units)
Land Use/Source Categories
TMDL Watersheds
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
LGC
MSCx
MWCx
SNK
Sediment
Load in
metric tons/yr
HiTill Rowcrop (hit)
0.3
13.9
6.6
1.0
LoTill Rowcrop (lot)
0.2
9.7
4.6
0.7
Pasture (pas_g)
0.0
8.0
0.7
0.2
Pasture as
0.4
242.7
21.3
6.7
Pasture (pas_p)
0.3
187.0
16.1
5.1
Riparian pasture (trp)
0.01
178.8
0.0
0.0
AFO (afo)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ha ha
0.3
161.9
13.7
4.3
Forest (for)
1.4
398.2
22.3
1.7
Harvested forest (hvf)
0.1
32.6
1.7
0.1
Transitional (barren)
15.1
161.8
157.3
51.6
Pervious LDI ur LDI
35.81
465.3
381.3
109.2
Pervious MIDI (pur_MDI)
3.91
23.1
51.5
16.8
Pervious HDI (pur_HDI)
0.5
2.4
8.3
2.3
Impervious LDI (imp_LDI)
8.2
105.7
88.6
23.1
Impervious MDI im MDI
11.6
125.1
192.11
55.6
Impervious HDI (imp_HDI)
5.6
58.5
133.1
29.2
Channel Erosion
0.3
121.1
33.5
1.7
Point Sources
,Existing Sediment Load
84.0
2,295.6
1,132.7
309.3
All -Forested Sediment Load
8.51
532.2
107.0
25.8
10.6
12.0
132
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table B-2. Simulated Sediment Loads for AIIForX Modeling in Comparison
Watersheds (Metric Units)
AIIForX Com arison Watersheds
Land Use/Source Categories
Naked
Creek
Swig
Run
Buck
Mountain
Creek
Rose
River
Rapidan
River
South
River
Roach
River
Stockton
Creek
Mechunk
Creek
SF Tye
River
Rock
Island
Creek
Raccoon
Creek
Beaver
Creek
Great
Run
Wards
Creek
NAK
SFR
BKM
ROE
RAP
SOT
RCH
SKM
NICK
TYS
RKI
RCC
BRC
GRA
WDC
Sediment
Load in metric tonslyr
HiTill Rowcro hh
29.2
34.6
12.9
1.2
0.0
9.3
7.5
10.4
13.3
0.0
6.0
23.0
1.5
78.2
2.7
LOTill Rowcro lot
17.5
4.1
8.9
4.1
0.0
7.1
2.3
7.2
8.9
0.0
6.1
13.9
1.1
274.9
1.9
Pasture (pas )
3.7
25.2
9.0
0.8
0.0
16.8
10.2
10.5
15.3
0.9
4.3
6.5
1.8
17.9
2.9
Pasture (pas_Q
110.5
756.7
268.2
26.6
0.8
5W.9
296.9
330.4
449.4
28.1
126.9
183.2
54.8
543.3
88.3
Pasture as
94.7
621.1
220.3
24.0
0.8
424.6
253.0
264.5
339.2
24.1
97.3
137.1
43.6
449.6
71.5
Ri adan pasture
116.5
595.7
209.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
242.7
253.9
324.9
29.5
93.1
132.7
0.0
0.0
68.6
AFO (afo)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ha (hay)
77.4
514.8
182.0
18.1
0.6
337.4
207.3
223.8
303.1
19.0
86.0
123.0
36.1
361.6
60.0
Forest for
642.8
373.9
360.3
137.5
193.7
299.0
305.6
220.8
240.6
214.1
99.3
65.2
84.1
77.8
132.1
Harvested forest (hA
49.31
29.4
28.31
12.81
18.9
22.71
24.31
17.6
19.21
17.21
7.7
4.91
6.81
6.0
10.4
Transitional (barren)
50.11
25.8
28.3
5.8
9.1
54.5
48.4
97.5
31.3
29.2
10.6
6.7
17.1
28.7
12.8
Perjious LDI(pur_LDI)
52.71
225.3
61.9
26.5
16.4
80.0
78.4
199.1
59.9
55.7
7.4
13.9
23.6
42.6
24.7
Pervious MDl ur MDD
0.31
1.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
3.8
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
Pervious HDI(purHDQ
0.11
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
hpervlous LDl(imp_LDQ
9.2
26.4
1.7
1.6
0.0
3.2
4.4
18.2
3.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
1.9
0.3
yn ervious MDI (imp_MDQ
2.2
9.6
0.0
0.8
0.0
1.0
0.9
13.7
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
yn ervicus HDI (1rnp_HDQ
1.5
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Channel Erosion
38.8
14.3
5.1
0.0
0.5
6.9
1.8
14.3
12.4
0.8
4.1
2.3
2.2
9.6
0.6
Point Somes
Existin Sediment Load
1,296.4
3,260.E
1,396.8
260.0
241.0
1763.8
1p83.9
1,690.3
1,820.5
419.5
549.1
712.5
272.9
1,892.E
476.E
All•Forested Sediment Load
700.1
513.0
407.5146.5
198.0
374.0
360.7
295.0
314.1
228.9
120.1
93.4
97.5
160A
147.2
AIIForX
1.9
6.4
1 3.4
1 1.8
1 1.2
1 4.7
1 4.1
1 5.7
1 5.8
1 1.8
1 4.6
1 7.6
2.8
11.8
3.2
133
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table B-3. Simulated Sediment Loads for Existing Conditions in Moores Creek and
Meadow Creek Watersheds (English Units)
Land Use/Source
Categories
LGCrr
MSCrr
MWCrr
SNKrr
Average Unit -Area
Loads
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Sediment Load (tons/ r)
(tons/ac)
HiTill Rowcro hit
0.0
43.6
0.01
0.0
2.22
LoTill Rowcro lot
0.0
30.5
0.0
0.0
0.46
Pasture as
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.09
Pasture as
0.0
55.8
0.0
0.0
0.41
Pasture as
0.0
43.0
0.0
0.0
0.82
Riparian pasture tr
0.0
38.1
0.0
0.0
7.05
AFO afo
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
Ha ha
0.0
218.7
14.4
0.01
0.28
Forest for
1.1
410.8
19.9
1.5
0.03
Harvested forest h
0.0
30.5
0.2
0.0
0.25
Transitional barren
5.0
133.7
38.3
17.7
3.14
Pervious LDI ur LDI
32.3
553.4
272.2
102.6
0.12
Pervious MIDI (pur_MDI)
3.8
22.81
36.4
15.5
0.11
Pervious HDI (Pur HDI
0.8
3.2
7.6
3.4
0.10
Impervious LDI(imp LDI
30.5
334.7
201.81
70.6
0.27
Impervious MDI(imp MDI
13.5
127.6
170.7
70.2
0.45
Impervious HDI(imp HDI
4.9
54.9
115.8
29.5
0.45
SSOs
0.00139
0.00570
0.00017
0.00006
Channel Erosion
1 0.7
215.8
51.2
2.8
Point Sources
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Sediment Load
92.6
2,318.9
928.4
313.8
134
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Appendix C: GWLF Model Parameters
The GWLF parameter values used for the Moores Creek and Meadow
Creek watershed simulations are shown in Table C-1 through Table C-3. Table
C-1 lists the various watershed -wide parameters and their values, Table C-2
displays the monthly variable evapo-transpiration cover coefficients, and Table C-
3 shows the land use -related parameters - runoff curve numbers (CN) and the
Universal Soil Loss Equation's KLSCP product - used for erosion modeling.
Calibrated parameters and their calibrated values are indicated in each of the
tables. Corresponding GWLF parameter values for the comparison watersheds
are shown in Table C-4 through Table C-6. Since the modeling was performed in
metric units, note that all of the input parameters are in metric units, even though
the simulated results shown in this report are presented in English units.
135
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table C-1. GWLF Watershed Parameters for Moores Creek and Meadow Creek
Watersheds
GWLF Watershed Parameters
units
TMDL Watersheds
LGC
TMSC
MWC
SINK
recession coefficient
(day-')
0.5581
0.0579
0.1069
0.2342
seepage coefficient
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
leakage coefficient
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
sediment deliNery ratio
0.1954
0.1192
0.1745
0.1902
unsaturated water capacity
(cm)
15.40
15.40
14.61
14.61
erosi,Aty coefficient Nov - A r
0.105
0.105
0.099
0.099
erosivity coefficient(growing season)
0.213
0.213
0.201
0.201
% deeelo ed land
(%)
23.5
5.3
29.2
29.2
no. of livestock
(AU)
0
173
7
7
area -weighted runoff curve number
76.27
69.34
79.37
79.37
area -weighted soil eroclibility
0.234
0.224
0.234
0.234
area -weighted sloe
(%)
8,88
16.78
9.83
9.83
aFactor
0.0003697
0.0001003
0.0004580
0.0004580
total stream length
m)
1,127.9
8,406.11
7,431.61
7,431.6
Mean Channel Depth
m
0.433
1.3711
0.8521
0.852
Table C-2. GWLF Monthly ET Cover Coefficients - Moores Creek and Meadow Creek
Watersheds
Watershed
ID
Apr
May
Jun
Jul*
AugSep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan**
Feb
Mar
Lode Creek
LGC
0.827
0.829
0.829
0.829
0.824
0.819
0.814
0.804
0.798
0.795
0.812
0.824
Moores Creek
MSC
0.948
0.954
0.956
0.956
0.935
0.914
0.893
0.850
0.829
0.815
0.885
0.934
Meadow Creek
MWC
0.787
1
0.7891
0.789
0.789
0.7841
0.780
0.775
0.765
0.760
0.757
0.7731
84
Schenks Branch
SINK
0.769
0.7701
0.770
0.770
0.7681
0.766
0.765
0.7611
0.759
0.758
0.764
0.768
July values represent the maximum composite ET coefficients during the growing season.
Jan values represent the minimum composite ET coefficients during the dormant season.
136
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, VIrgIma
Table C-3. GWLF Land Use Parameters - Moores Creek and Meadow Creek
Watersheds
Landuse
Lodge Creek
(LGC)
Moores Creek
(MSC
Meadow Creek
MWC
Schenks
Branch SNK
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
HiTiill Rowcro hit
0.2321
81.7
0.0225
66.6
0.1674
83.9
0.0000
90.9
LoTill Rowcro (lot)
0.0490
79.4
0.0901
73.3
1.4371
83.9
0.0616
75.5
Pasture as
0.0119
66.6
0.1599
82.0
0.0000
90.9
0.0045
69.2
Pasture as fi
0.0477
73.3
1.3739
82.0
0.0637
75.5
0.0446
73.9
Pasture as
0.0846
82.0
0.0000
91.0
0.0052
69.2
0.6258
89.6
Riparian pasture tr
0.7229
82.0
0.0608
72.9
0.0517
73.9
0.0202
76.1
AFO (afo)
0.0000
91.0
0.0082
65.6
0.5617
89.6
0.0181
76.1
Ha ha
0.0322
72.9
0.0822
70.7
0.0219
76.1
0.0188
76.1
Forest (for)
0.0034
65.6
0.6665
88.2
0.0182
76.1
0.0000
97.9
Harested forest (ITA
0.0343
70.7
0.0244
73.3
0.0171
76.1
0.0000
97.9
Transitional barren
0.5926
88.2
0.0180
73.3
0.0000
97.9
0.0000
97.9
Pervious LDI ur LDI
0.0197
73.3
0.0163
73.3
0.0000
97.9
0.1197
78.9
Pervious MDI ur MDI
0.0203
73.3
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
97.9
0.0291
77.0
Pervious HDI ur HDI)
0.0212
73.3
0.0000
98.0
0.7764
83.7
0.0099
59.6
Impervious LDI im LDI
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.1640
81.3
0.0398
67.3
Im ervious MDI (im MDI)
0.0000
98.0
0.4971
83.7
0.0228
70.2
0.0706
78.4
Im envious HDI im HDI
0.0000
98.0
0.1050
81.3
0.0913
76.1
0.6030
78.4
LDI = low intensity developed; MIDI = medium intensity developed; HDI = high intensity developed
Table C-4. GWLF Watershed Parameters for Comparison Watersheds
GWLF Watershed Parameters
units
AIIForX Comparison Watersheds
NAK
SFR
BKM
ROE
RAP
SOT
RCN
SKM
recession coeficient
da�
0.0550
0.0553
0.0657
0.0731
0.0755
0.0616
0.0610
0.0653
seepage coefficient
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
leakage coeficient
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
sediment delikery ratio
0.1105
0.1116
0.1374
0.1501
0.1533
0.1287
0.1273
0.136E
unsaturated water capacity
cm
14.17
13.73
13.94
5.79
6.60
13.18
12.67
15,79
erosivty coefficient(Nov -A r
0.083
0,117
0.088
0.083
0.083
0.117
0.088
0.088
erosiNty coefficient (growng season
0. 176
0.280
0.184
0.176
0.176
0.280
0.184
0.184
% deyeloped land
(%)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
no. of livestock
AU
349
3491
3491
349
349
349
349
349
area -weighted runoff cure number
65.47
65.47
65.47
65A71
65.47
65.47
65.47
65.47
area -weighted soil erodibility
0.212
0.212
0.212
0,212
0.212
0.212
0.212
0,212
area -weighted slope
(°h
15.58
15.58
15.58
15.58
15.58
15,58
15.58
15.58
aFactor
0.000032
0.000032
0,000032
0.000032
0.000032
0.000032
0.000032
0.000032
total stream length
m
31, 804.4
31,804.4
31,804.4
31, 804.4
31, 804.4
31, 804.4
31, 804.4
31, 804.4
Mean Channel Depth
(m)
1.195
1.195
1.195
1.195
1.195
1.195
1.195
1.195
GWLF Watershed Parameters
units
AIIForX Comparison Watersheds
MCK
TYS
RKI
RCC
BRC
GRA
WDC
recession coeficient
(day-)
1 0.0655
0.0770
0.0931
0.1224
0.1025
0.0840
0.1088
seepage coefficient
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
leakage coeficient
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
sediment delivery ratio
0.1370
0. 1551
0.1682
0.1790
0.1728
0.1620
0.1751
unsaturated water capacity
16.14
11.81
1744
16.53
16.97
17.14
13.97
erosive coefficient Nov -A r
0.119
0,066
0.112
0.110
0.127
0.117
0.088
erosi t coefficient rown season
P(AU)
0.264
0.187
0.252
0.226
0.240
0.280
0.184
% deyelo d land
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
no. of livestock384
18
72
103
35
294
67
area-wei hted runoff curve number
71.09
63.68
6923
73.77
64.80
65.54
62,89
area-wei hted soil erodibilit
0258
0.157
0.309
0,321
0322
0323
0201
area-wei Med slo
10,43
31.63
6.54
7.01
7.03
8.54
22.05
aFactor
0.000036
0.000003
0,000049
0.000062
0.000050
0.000059
0.000013
total stream Ie th
m
23,858.8
26,982.4
12,710.6
8,995.7
8, 079.8
19, 281.0
8, 576.4
Mean Channel Depth
(m)
1.192
1,041
0,920
0.795
0.871
0.980
0.844
137
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table C-5. GWLF Monthly ET Cover Coefficients - Comparison Watersheds
Watershed
ID
Apr
May
Jun
Jul*
AugSep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan"
Feb
Mar
Naked Creek
NAK
0.985
0.994
0.997
0.997
0.968
0.940
0.912
0.855
0.827
0.808
0.902
0.967
Swift Run
SFR
0.981
0.989
0.991
0.991
0.967
0.942
0.917
0.867
0.842
0.826
0.909
0.965
Buck Mountain Creek
BKM
0.987
0.995
0.998
0.998
0.970
0.943
0.915
0.860
0.833
0.814
0.906
0.968
Rose River
ROE
0.987
0.996
0.999
0.999
0.970
0.942
0.913
0.856
0.828
0.809
0.904
0.968
Rapidan River
RAP
0.988
0.997
1.000
1.000
0.971
0.941
0.912
0.854
0.825
0.805
0.903
0.969
South River
SOT
0.987
0.995
0.998
0.998
0.972
0.945
0.919
0.866
0.840
0.822
0.910
0.970
Roach River
RCH
0.986
0.994
0.996
0.996
0.970
0.943
0.916
0.863
0.836
0.818
0.907
0.968
Stockton Creek
ISKM
0.9781
0.9851
0.988
0.98811
0.96411
0.941
0.917
0.870
0.846
0.831
0.9091
0.962
Mechunk Creek
MCK
0.985
0.993
0.996
0.996
0.969
0.943
0.917
0.864
0.838
0.820
0.908
0.968
SF Tye River
TYS
0.988
0.996
0.999
0.999
0.971
0.942
0.914
0.858
0.829
0.810
0.905
0.969
Rock Island Creek
RKI
0.987
0.995
0.998
0.998
0.970
0.942
0.914
0.857
0.829
0.810
0.904
0.968
Raccoon Creek
RCC
0.985
0.994
0.996
0.996
0.969
0.942
0.914
0.859
0.832
0.814
0.905
0.967
Beaver Creek
BRC
0.988
0.996
0.999
0.999
0.971
0.944
0.916
0.860
0.832
0.814
0.906
0.970
Great Run
GRA
0.986
0.995
0.997
0.997
0.970
0.942
0.914
0.859
0.832
0.813
0.905
0.968
Wards Creek
WDC
0.987
0.995
0.998
0.998
0.970
0.943
0.915
0.860
0.832
0.814
0.906
0.968
" Jury values represent the maximum composite ETcoefficients during the growing season.
" Jan values represent the minimum composite ET coefficients during the dormant season.
Table C-6. GWLF Land Use Parameters - Comparison Watersheds
Landuse
)
Swift Run (SFR)
Buck Mountain
Creek(BKM)
Rose River
(ROE)
Rapidan River
(RAP)
South River
(SOT)
Roach River
(RCH)
Stockton Creek
(SKM)
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
HiTill Ro ro it
58.2
0.2138
86.2
0.0207
69.4
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.1034
74.2
0.0593
69.9
0.9280
63.4
LoTill Rovcro lot
ENakedreek
64.3
0.0214
69.0
0.0207
69.4
0.0000
98.0
0.2593
77.9
0.0172
56.3
0.1052
79.7
0.0000
91.0
Pasture as
85.4
0.0141
69.0
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.0548
75.6
0.0686
64.6
0.9068
79.7
0.0410
74.9
Pasture as
67.30.0142
69.0
0.0000
98.0
0.8373
70.5
0.0188
59.2
0.1218
76.7
0.0000
91.0
0.0062
68.3
Pasture as
67.3
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.1769
68.2
0.0753
67.1
1.0494
76.7
0.0400
69.9
0.0620
73.2
Po adan asture t
67.3
0.0000
98.0
0.7007
74.1
0.0361
44.0
0.1337
78.2
0.0000
91.0
0.0082
61.2
0.7064
89.3
AFO afo
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.1480
71.7
0.1444
53.5
1.1521
78.2
0.0463
66.1
0.0820
67.0
0.0135
75.5
H (hay)
0.0000
98.0
0.5560
78.9
1 0.0223
51.2
10.2563
70.5
1 0.0000
91.0
0.0078
54.8
1 0.9948
86.5
1 0.0045
75.5
Forest (for)
0.0000
98.0
0.1174
76.6
0.0892
60.0
2.1011
70.5
0.0508
68.1
0.0782
61.5
0.0229
69.9
0.0154
75.5
Harvested forest
0.3954
79.0
0.0214
61.5
0.1584
74.1
0.0000
91.0
0.0081
57.9
0.9746
84.1
0.0269
69.9
0.0000
98.0
Transitional(barren)
0.0835
76.7
0.0854
69.4
1.3622
74.1
0.0974
58.2
T808
64.2
0.0191
64.6
0.0516
69.9
0.0000
98.0
Pervious LDI ur LDQ
4
0.1517
79.3
0.0000
91.0
0.0110
41.4
1.2065
85.3
0.0165
64.6
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
Pervious MDI ur MDI
0.0821
69.0
1.2969
79.3
0.0602
62.9
0.1100
49.7
0.0208
67.1
0.0239
54.6
0.0000
98.0
0.6095
80.2
Pervious HDI ur HDI
0.1458
79.3
0.0000
91.0
0.0056
49.2
0.8322
79.0
0.0140
67.1
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.1287
78.0
Impervious LDI im LDI
1.2559
79.3
0.0577
69.3
0.0563
56.6
0.0219
53.5
0.0251
67.1
0.0000
98.0
0.4153
83.2
0.0263
64.0
Impervious MDI im MDI
0.0000
91.0
0.0094
60.5
0.2729
82.0
0.0219
53.5
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.0877
80.9
0.1051
71.3
Impervious HDI (mp_HDI)
0.0554
69.6
0.0943
66.4
0.0161
60.0
0.0219
53.5
0.0000
98.0
0.4570
79.3
0.0152
69.3
0.1865
80.6
Landuse(MC
Mechunk Creek
K
SF Tye River
S
Rock Island
Creek IRKII
Raccoon
Creek (RCC)
Beaver Creek
(BRC)
Great Run
(GRA
Wards Creek
DC
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
KLSCP
CN
HiTill Ro ro it
0.0709
71.1
0.0377
72.8
0.0155
77.8
0.0083
71.8
0.0000
98.0
0.4352
81.7
0.0234
70.2
LoTill Ro ro of
0.0081
53.0
0.8411
89.1
0.0152
77.8
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.0919
79.4
0.0935
761.1
Pasture as
0.0815
68.5
0.0062
75.1
0.0152
77.8
0.0000
98.0
0.4107
79.1
0.0225
66.6
0.1659
83.9
Pasture as
1.4852
87.2
0.0082
75.1
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.0867
76.8
0.0900
73.3
1.4371
83.9
Pasture s
0.0320
71.3
0.0082
75.1
0.0000
98.0
0.4943
78.5
0.0162
61.8
0.1597
82.0
0.0000
90.9
Riparian pasture (lrp)
0.0257
71.3
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.1044
76.2
0.0648
69.6
1.3739
82.0
0.0631
75.5
AFO (afo)
0.0364
71.3
0.0000
98.0
0.3417
80.6
0.0237
60.5
0.1151
79.5
0.0000
91.0
0.0051
69.2
Ha ha
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.0722
78.3
0.0949
68.3
0.9910
79.5
0.0607
72.9
0.0512
73.9
Forest for
0.0000
98.0
0.3994
84.9
0.0179
64.6
0.1685
78.8
0.0000
91.0
0.0082
65.6
0.5788
89.6
Harvested forest
0.0000
98.0
0.0844
82.5
0.0715
71.8
1.4517
78.8
0.0438
69.6
0.0820
70.7
0.0214
76.1
Transitional(barren)
0.3338
83.0
0.0173
72.3
0.1270
80.9
0.0000
91.0
0.0088
60.8
0.6619
88.2
0.0182
76.1
Pervious LDI ur LDQ
0.0705
80.6
0.0692
77.8
1.0900
80.9
0.0641
68.9
0.0876
66.7
0.0241
73.3
0.0171
76.1
Pervious MDI ur MDI
0.0185
68.9
0.1229
85.1
0.0000
91.0
0.0059
59.3
1.0722
86.3
0.0182
73.3
0.0000
97.9
PeMous HDI (pur_HDI)
0.0738
75.1
1.0536
85.1
0.0483
71.7
0.0592
65.4
0.0224
69.6
0.0163
73.3
0.0000
97.9
Impervious LDI (imp_LDI)
0.1311
83.2
0.0000
91.0
0.0042
63.6
0.9605
85.8
0.0263
69.6
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
97.9
Im rvious MDI (imp MDI)
1.1267
83.2
0.0467
77.0
0.0423
69.2
0.0167
68.3
0.0263
69.6
0.0000
98.0
0.0020
65.6
Im . W HDI im HDI
0.0000
91.0
0.0045
71.3
1.0970
87.5
0.0116
68.3
0.0000
98.0
0.0000
98.0
0.0020
65.6
LDI = low intensity developed; MDI = medium intensity developed; HDI = high intensity developed
138
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Appendix D: Setting TMDL Endpoints and MOS using the
AIIForX Approach
In the AIIForX approach, introduced in Chapter 4, the metric used for
setting a numeric sediment threshold is the All -Forest Load Multiplier (AIIForX),
calculated as the existing sediment load normalized by the corresponding load
under an all -forest condition. AIIForX is calculated as the existing sediment load
in any given watershed divided by the corresponding sediment load simulated
under an all -forest condition. When AIIForX is regressed against VSCI for a
number of healthy watersheds surrounding a particular TMDL watershed or set of
TMDL watersheds, the developed relationship can be used to quantify the value
of the AIIForX threshold that corresponds to the biological health threshold (VSCI
< 60) used to assess aquatic life use impairments in Virginia. The sediment
TMDL load is then calculated as the value of the AIIForX threshold times the all -
forest sediment load of the TMDL watershed. Since a number of watersheds are
used to quantify the regression, a confidence interval around the threshold was
used to quantify the margin of safety in the Total Maximum Daily Load equation.
Existing sediment loads were calculated for each of the four impaired
TMDL watersheds in this study and for each of fifteen (15) comparison
watersheds. A second model run, substituted forest land use -related parameters
for each of the other land uses, while preserving the unique characteristics of soil
and slope distributions across each watershed. A value of AIIForX was then
calculated for each watershed by dividing their existing sediment load by their all -
forest load. The modeling results for each watershed are summarized as long-
term averages for each watershed in Table D-1, along with average values for
the Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI).
139
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Orginia
Table D-1. Metrics used in the AIIForX Approach
Watershed Name
Abbrev.
Existing
Sediment Load
(metric tons/yr)
All -Forested
Sediment Load
(metric tons/yr)
AIIForX
Average
VSCI
TMDL Watersheds
Lodge Creek
I LGC
1 84.01
8.5
9.9
32.2
Moores Creek
MSCx
2,295.61
532.2
4.3
35.3
Meadow Creek
MWCx
1,132.71
107.0
10.6
29.7
Schenks Branch
SNK
309.31
25.8
12.0
22.6
Comparison Watersheds
Naked Creek
NAK
1,296.4
700.1
1.9
67.1
Swift Run
SFR
3,260.6
513.0
6.4
66.6
Buck Mountain Creek
BKM
1,396.8
407.5
3.4
68.2
Rose River
ROE
260.0
146.5
1.8
66.5
Rapidan River
RAP
241.0
198.0
1.2
80.0
South River
SOT
1,763.8
374.0
4.7
66.5
Roach River
RCH
1,483.9
360.7
4.1
67.8
Stockton Creek
SKM
1,690.3
295.0
5.7
68.5
Mechunk Creek
MCK
1,820.5
314.1
5.8
65.9
SF Tye River
TYS
419.5
228.9
1.8
79.6
Rock Island Creek
RKI
549.1
120.1
4.6
76.2
Raccoon Creek
RCC
712.5
93.4
7.6
73.1
Beaver Creek
BRC
272.9
97.5
2.8
73.E
Great Run
GRA
1,892.6
160.4
11.8
62.5
Wards Creek
WDC
476.6
147.2
3.2
72.4
After performing load calculations, separate regression equations were
determined as being most applicable for the 3 urban and 1 rural impaired
watersheds. For the urban impaired watersheds (Lodge Creek, Schenks Branch,
and Meadow Creek), the number of comparison watersheds was reduced to
thirteen (13), as in initial runs, AIIForX values for two of those watersheds were
larger than those of all impaired watersheds (RCC and GRA), and therefore, not
appropriate for setting corresponding sediment reduction targets. Even though
later simulations reduced RCC's AIIForX value, the final regression maintained its
exclusion. In a similar manner for the rural impaired watershed (Moores Creek),
the number of comparison watersheds was reduced to eight (8).
140
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Orgmia
The regression developed between AIIForX and VSCI for the urban and
comparison watersheds is shown in Figure D-1. The value of AIIForX used to set
the sediment TMDL load (the AIIForX threshold) was the value where the
regression line crossed the biological impairment threshold of VSCI = 60 (AIIForX
= 5.543), indicated by point B. The TMDL load for each watershed was then
calculated as its All -Forest sediment load times the AIIForX threshold (5.543). An
80% confidence interval was then calculated around the point where the
regression line intersects the biological impairment threshold (VSCI = 60). The
margin of safety (MOS) was calculated as the All -Forest sediment load times the
difference in AIIForX between the point where the regression crosses VSCI = 60
(AIIForX = 5.543) and the lower bound of the 80% confidence interval (AIIForX =
5.01), amounting to 9.5%. Note that the MOS is equal to this difference
expressed as a percentage of the AIIForX threshold, and therefore is the same for
all watersheds using this regression.
90
80
70
60
j 50
v
00
m
`a 40
Q
30
20
10
0
0.0
MOS = 9.5%
Y=
2.0 4.0 6.0
All -Forested Loac
B = AIIForX endpoint value used for the TMDL; AC = the 80% Confidence Interval (shown in green);
(B - A)/B = The MOS fraction; A = AIIForX value used for the target allocation load.
Figure D-1. Regression and AIIForX Threshold for Sediment in Urban Watersheds (Lodge
Creek, Meadow Creek, and Schenks Branch)
141
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
In a similar fashion, the regression developed between AIIForX and VSCI
for the rural and comparison watersheds is shown in Figure D-1. The value of
AIIForX used to set the sediment TMDL load (the AIIForX threshold) was the
value where the regression line crossed the biological impairment threshold of
VSCI = 60 (AIIForX = 3.762), indicated by point B. The TMDL load for each
watershed was then calculated as its All -Forest sediment load times the AIIForX
threshold (3.762). An 80% confidence interval was then calculated around the
point where the regression line intersects the biological impairment threshold
(VSCI = 60). The margin of safety (MOS) was calculated as the All -Forest
sediment load times the difference in AIIForX between the point where the
regression crosses VSCI = 60 (AIIForX = 3.762) and the lower bound of the 80%
confidence interval (AIIForX = 3.52). The MOS for Moores Creek was 6.3%.
90
80
70
J
60
u
> 50
u
en
m
`m 40
a'
R= 0.41
30
20
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
All -Forested Load Multiplier (AIIForX)
3 = AIIForX endpoint value used for the TMDL: AC = the 80% Confidence Interval (shown in area
'
1
y =-75895x + 88,553
' �
MOS = 6.3
3.762
(B - A)/B = The MOS fraction; A = AIIForX value used for the target allocation load.
Figure D-2. Regression and AIIForX Threshold for Sediment in the Rural Watershed (Lodge
Moores Creek)
Existing, TMDL, and MOS loads are shown in Table D-2 for each TMDL
watershed. Since the MOS is a measure of uncertainty in the TMDL, the
142
(B - A)/B = The MOS fraction; A = AIIForX value used for the target allocation load.
Figure D-2. Regression and AIIForX Threshold for Sediment in the Rural Watershed (Lodge
Moores Creek)
Existing, TMDL, and MOS loads are shown in Table D-2 for each TMDL
watershed. Since the MOS is a measure of uncertainty in the TMDL, the
142
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, OrgIma
implementation target load is the TMDL minus the MOS, and the percent
reduction is calculated as the change from the future load to the allocation target
load.
Table D-2. Calculation of the TMDL and MOS for each TMDL Watershed
AIIForX Calculation Components
units
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Total Sediment Load
tonstyr
92.6
2,253.0
928.4
313.8
AI -Forest Sediment Load
tonstyr
9.3
580.9
92.9
28.5
AIIForX @ VSCI = 60
5.54
3.76
5.54
5.54
TMDL Sediment Load
tonstyr
51.7
2,185.6
514.8
157.8
AIIForX@LCL80%CI
5.01
3.52
5.01
5.01
Margin of Safety (MOS)
tonstyr
4.931
138.40
49.07
15.04
Mar in of Safet %
9.5%
6.3%
9.5%
9.5%
TMDL Reduction Endpoint TMDL-MOS
tonstyr
46.8
2,047.2
465.7
142.8
Existing Sediment Load
92.6
2,253.0
928.4
313.8
Overall Reduction from Existing Load
tonstyr
45.8
205.76
462.6
171.0
Overall %Reduction from Existing Load
%
49.5%
9.1%
49.8%
54.5%
The relationship between AIIForX and the biological condition was further
validated with the following plots and regressions between AIIForX and various
independent sediment -related habitat metrics for the urban impaired watersheds:
average habitat sediment deposition in Figure D-2; average epifaunal substrate
in Figure D-3; and embeddedness in Figure DA The corresponding plots and
regressions for the rural impaired watershed are in Figures D-5 through D-7. The
impaired watersheds are indicated by the red markers and the comparison
watersheds in blue.
in
zo
w
1s
w
16
0
.N
14
om 12
w
10
Y
C
w 8
E
`m 6
w
N
w 4
W
m 2
w
i
0
0.0
4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
All -Forest Load Multiplier (AIIForX)
143
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Figure D-2. Urban AIIForX vs. Average Habitat Sediment Deposition Scores
20
N
c 18
u
a 16
V
14
V
N
12
N
� 10
C
m 8
w
a 6
W
m 4
m
> 2
4.0 8.0 12.0
All -Forest Load Multiplier (AIIForX)
16.0
Figure D-3. Urban AIIForX vs. Average Habitat Epifaunal Substrate Scores
18
m 16
°y 14
N
a 12
m 10
8
E 6
W
m y =-0.6254x + 16.489
m 4 Rz = 0.6329
¢ 2
0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
All -Forest Load Multiplier (AIIForX)
Figure D-4. Urban AIIForX vs. Average Embeddedness Scores
144
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
20
N
d
0 18
u
16
Y 14
.N
c 12
d
10
C
d 8
E
m 6
d
d 4
m
m
2
a
Q 0
0.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
All -Forest Load Multiplier (AIIForX)
Figure D-5. Rural AIIForX vs. Average Habitat Sediment Deposition Scores
20
N
$ 18
Y
y 16
Y
6 14
Y
N
12
VI
10
C
A
8
W
W
6
m 4
A
a 2
Q
0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
All -Forest Load Multiplier (AIIForX)
Figure D-6. Rural AIIForX vs. Average Habitat
145
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Figure U-/. KUral mt-orx vs. Average LMDeooeoness Scores
146
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Appendix E: Inventory of Ongoing Implementation in MS4
Areas of the Watersheds
The following table is an ongoing inventory summary of BMPs
implemented in the MS4 areas of each watershed and jurisdiction between 2009
and 2014 that will be revised in their respective Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action
Plans with the revised inventory used as the basis for calculating MS4 load
reductions. This inventory is included to illustrate the progress already being
made, but not fully accounted for, within this TMDL.
Jurisdiction
VASTtype
VASTplus
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Units
Bioretention/raingardens
Biofilter
0.00
5.62
1.28
3.08
acres
Bioretention
0.00
353.69
11.75
0.00
acres
Bioswale
Bioswale
0.00
0.00
3.73
0.00
acres
Albemarle
County
Dry Detention Ponds
Dry Detention Ponds
0.00
12.84
3.73
0.00
acres
Underground Detention
0.00
3.79
2.49
0.00
acres
Permeable Pavement
Permeable Pavement
0.00
3.811
1.57
0.00
acres
Urban Filtering Practices
Urban Filtering Practices
0.00
2.78
2.49
0.00
acres
Wet Ponds and Wetlands
Wet Ponds
0.00
181.56
221.58
0.00
acres
Impervious Surface Reduction
Rainwater harvest
0.00
4.62
0.00
0.00
acres
Bioretention/raingardens
Biofilter
0.00
4.80
0.57
7.90
acres
Bioretention
0.00
0.58
0.00
0.77
acres
Bioretention/raingardens
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.00
acres
Raingarden
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
acres
City of
Dry Detention Ponds
Dry Detention Ponds
0.00
12.971
0.00
0.00
acres
Underground Detention
0.00
2.97
0.00
0.00
acres
Charlottesville
Permeable Pavement
Permeable Pavement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
acres
StreetSweepLbs25x
StreetSweepLbs25x
21.41
119.52
120.94
94.90
acres
Urban Filtering Practices
Urban Filtering Practices
0.00
5.35
3.86
3.19
acres
Urban Infiltration
Urban Infiltration
0.00
2.91
0.00
2.60
acres
Wet Ponds and Wetlands
Constructed wetlands
0.00
41.90
0.00
0.00
acres
Impervious Surface Reduction
Rainwater harvest
0.00
1.08
0.00
0.54
acres
Bioretention/raingardens
Bioretention
0.00
8.241
2.25
0.00
acres
Green Roof
0.00
1.09
0.05
0.00
acres
Dry Detention Ponds
Dry Detention Ponds
0.00
6.87
0.00
0.00
acres
Hydrodynamic Structures
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
acres
Underground Detention
0.00
1.79
11.11
0.00
acres
University of
Dry Extended Detention Ponds
Dry extended detention ponds
0.00
6.23
0.00
0.00
acres
Virginia
Permeable Pavement- no sand
Porous pavers
0.00
0.09
0.27
0.00
acres
StreetSweepLbs25x
StreetSweepLbs25x
4.86
4.86
4.151
0.00
acres
Urban Filtering Practices
Urban Filtering Practices
0.00
0.00
4.621
0.00
acres
Urban Infiltration
Infiltration basin
0.00
0.00
1.41
0.00
acres
UrbStrmRest
UrbStrmRest
0.00
0.00
645.00
0.001
in. ft.
Impervious Surface Reduction
ICistem
0.00
14.61
0.091
0.00
acres
147
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Appendix F: Area and Load Distributions Among MS4
Entities
The following analysis was performed in part to provide local jurisdictions
with the background information that served as the basis for existing loads and
waste load allocations for individual jurisdictional regulated MS4 areas within the
Moores Creek and Meadow Creek watersheds.
For simulation of existing loads in the impaired watersheds, the land use
distribution was determined through a cross -tabulation of the 2009 NASS data
and the 2009 land use data generated by the Rivanna River Basin Commission
for Albemarle County. Best professional judgment was used to assign land use
categories based on the combination of the land use classifications from the two
different data sources. In addition, any occurrences of "row crop" or "hay" within
the City of Charlottesville or the portion of Schenks Branch in Albemarle County
were interpreted as "Open Space", and occurrences of "row crop" in Meadow
Creek were interpreted as "pasture". Adjustments were also made to areas
identified as "industrial permits" in order to preserve the digitized areas from the
City of Charlottesville digital layer, as shown in Table F-1. (The cross -tabulation
procedure was performed at a 30-meter cell size and misclassified some of the
smaller areas.)
Other land use sub -divisions were then created as explained in detail in
section 5.3.2. This resulted in the detailed distribution of GWLF simulated land
uses for each jurisdictional "regulated MS4" entity, as shown in Table F-2. Note
that all areas in these two figures are in metric units of hectares. Table F-3
contains the simulated sediment loads in metric tons/yr for the corresponding
land use distribution in Table F-2.
148
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table F-1. Categorized Land Use Distribution from the NASS/RRBC Re -assignment
Area in hectares
Watershed
Name
GWLF_LU2
land Use Name
Albemarle
County
Charlottesville
City
University
of Virginia
PVCC
VDOT
Industrial
permits
Non -
regulated
4
Forest
0.00
17.55
2.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
5
Open Space
0.00
41.14
4.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.17
6
pul- pervious urban low intensity
0.00
34.20
10.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
7
iul- impervious urban low intensity
0.00
38.17
8.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
Lodge Creek
8
pum- pervious urban medium intensity
0.00
3.87
6.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
9
ium- impervious urban medium intensity
0.00
4.95
7.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
10
puh- pervious urban high intensity
0.00
0.54
1.53
0.00
0.001
0.00
0.00
it
liuh- impervious urban high intensity
0.00
1.891
2.61
0.00
0.001
0.001
0.00
12
lwater
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Lodge Creek Total
0.00
142.31
41.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.33
2
Hay
11.43
1.98
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
Pasture
3.06
0.45
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
Forest
128.81
63.82
49.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.24
5
Open Space
148.34
196.32
55.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.28
Meadow
6
pul- pervious urban low intensity
157.43
143.12
57.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.21
Creek
7
iul- impervious urban low intensity
126.20
125.75
36.73
0.00
0.09
0.45
9.00
8
pum- pervious urban medium intensity
77.48
30.30
16.56
0.00
0.09
0.14
1.80
9
ium- impervious urban medium intensity
87.051
44.50
15.94
0.00
0.181
1.86
1.98
10
puh- pervious urban high intensity
14.31
1125
3.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
11
iuh- impervious urban high intensity
51.76
43.93
7.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.35
12
water
2.88
2.34
0.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.81
Meadow Creek Total
808.75
663.75
243.30
0.00
0.36
2.45
77.95
1
Row crop
1.80
0.27
0.18
0.36
0.00
0.00
34.83
2
Hay
33.48
0.00
0.09
4.50
0.00
0.00
287.68
3
Pasture
6.48
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.00
80.92
4
Forest
358.16
49.87
61.48
11.43
0.27
0.001
4,878.23
5
Open Space
395.43
127.061
28.89
12.78
1.08
0.49
874.47
Moores Creek
6
7
pul- pervious urban low intensity
iul- impervious urban low intensity
211.89
168.41
192.81
138.17
25.20
16.20
7.65
2.88
1.71
0.54
0.18
0.00
216.66
170.12
8
pum- pervious urban medium intensity
33.94
54.01
11.52
1.89
0.54
0.00
LIM
9
ium- impervious urban medium intensity
33.48
50.47
15.03
2.52
0.36
2.46
9.18
10
puh- pervious urban high intensity
5.40
10.44
1.98
0.18
0.09
0.00
0.63
11
iuh- impervious urban high intensity
10.08
30.69
5.94
0.18
0.18
0.00
1.53
12
water
22.59
1.53
0.81
1.08
0.63
0.00
68.95
Moores Creek Total
1,MG7
655.31
167.33
46.001
5.40
3.13
6,637.08
4
Forest
1.08
16.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
207
5
Open Space
5.76
11&101
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.72
6
pul- pervious urban low intensity
3.51
1ZL89
0.27
0.00
0.001
0.00
9.00
7
iul- impervious urban low intensity
2.07
101.35
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.31
Schenks
Branch
8
pum- pervious urban medium intensity
2.70
42.49
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.61
9
ium- impervious urban medium intensity
1.71
59.23
1.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.42
10
puh- pervious urban high intensity
0.18
9.36
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
11
iuh- impervious urban high intensity
0.27
26.28
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
12
water
0.09
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Schenks Branch Total
17.37
503.80
2.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
42.40
Grand To
2,097.19
3,965.18
457.53
46.00
5.76
&58
6,760.76
-These were landusesthatwere not expected in these Regulated M54areas, and sothese acreages were added to the pur_LDI
category, except in Albemarle County, where the pasture acreage was added to Hay.
- These were adjustments made to accommodate the two industrial permits that were not explicit in the Charlottesville digital
layer, and to account for the full areas of the digital permits, whose areas were not fully included during the cross -tabulation
procedure. Corresponding acreages were adjusted primarily in the "pum" and "ium" land uses.
These are the correct sum of ISWGP permit acreages in each watershed that correpond to acreages in the assessment PS worksheet.
189.93
1,796.57
8,785.32
566.18
11,338.00
149
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table F-2. Distributed GWLF Land Use Categories used for Sediment Load Simulation
Watershed
Name
Land use Name
Albemarle
County
Chadonesmne
co,
Unmerslty
of Vlrglnis
PVCC
VOOT
Industrial
PerMts
Non-
regulated
Total Area
Himl Rowno Mt
am
LOIDI Ro.m lo[
O.m
pastue b,as'(
Rm
Pasture(pasf)
MOD
Pasture(pas,,i(
O.m
Riparian pasture (try)
am
AFO(M0)
o.m
am
Forest for
Mm
17.55
2.70
am
am
am
lm
2132
Indge
Harvested forest no
001
0.01
Creek
Transitional (barren)
am
041149.42M
am
Mm
am
am
0.48
Pe"Imaffl(pur MI)
am
7193am
0.NO
am
1.m
9161
Pervlous Km(parMal(
am
3.87am
am
0.m
0.27
la"
Pervlous HEM (put
am
0.50am
Mm
.00
0.m
207
Impervious ml(Imp_ml)
am
341]am
am
0.m
0.m
4681
Impervious M01 (Imp M01(
am
A95am
am
am
a2]
1251
Im ervlou5 H01 Im H01
am
1.89am
am
am
am
4.50
wMer
am
0.Wam
Mm
•at
am
0.18
subtotal
am
14231
am
am
6m
3.33
189.P3
HiTlll Row[rop (hit(
ROO
LOTiII Rowrrop, (ot(
0.m
Pdrtme (pd5A(
ROO
Parture(pasf
MOD
Pasture
am
Riparian astute [
O.m
AFO(M0)
am
"(bay)
1a49am
Mm
am
am
14.9
Meadow
Forest (for)
128.81
63.82O.m
am
0.m
i9m
22193Creek
Harvestedtoea(ho)
am
aw
Tansitional(barren)
1.48
L93
a.m
am
am
0.4]
4.50pervlomml(PurLai
3a4.29
Mom
MOD
am
am
32.17
]89.3]
Pervlous MDl ur M01
JI.48
3030
1635
a.m
am
014
I-m
U6.36
Pervlous H01 ur HOI
14.31
11.n
3.15
am
am
am
0.27
28.%
Impervlous ml Qmp_IM)
12820
U5J5
M73
am
am
0.45
891
298.12
Impervious M01 (Imp_M01(
87.m
4450
15.84
am
a.m
Lm
L%
15139
Impervlous HOl (Imp_H01�
51.76
43.93
7.02
am
am
am
Lm
101.04
wMer
288
2.34
0.%
am
am
am
081
7.02
subbral
Stan
66 n
243.30
am
036
245
n.%
LT W
HITIR Rowcro M[
7.94
TM
WTIiR Rowrro (tot)
2689
2689
Pasure(.
0.65
7.84
8.49
Pasture(pas f(
4.21
5095
5577
Pasture(pas,,(
1.62
mm
21n
Riparian Pasture( try)
2.M
L18
AFO(M0)
IM
0.35
Hay(bay)
3348
4.50
Mm
am
287.64
325.0
Wore,
Forest for
358.16
49.87
61.48
1143
0.27
am
0.8ffi45
5310.66
mrve"edforert hvf
4878
". 8
Creek
Transitional (barren)
3.87
L27
an
am
0.01
am
U.86
18.49
Penameml(Pur LOII
5%.25
31A86
50.m
25.12
2.78
NO
I'Man
LI]6.9]
Pervlous M01(put M01(
33.84
SA01
11.52
189
Mm
am
13.72
115.53
Pervlous H01(purl-Ol)
5.40
1044
Lm
0.18
am
am
am
18.72
Impervious mlQmp_ml)
169.41
M17
1620
2.84
am
0.m
]6442
494.63
Im ervlou5 M01 Im M01
33A8
M47
15.03
2.52
0.36
246
9.09
113.41
Im ery ous H01 Im H01
N.m
3a69
5.94
am
0.18
0.00
1.511
48.59
wMer'
ZZ.591
1.53
0.81
1m
0.63
0.m
6495
95.59
sub -total
;2]l.m
X5.31
36).33
B.%
SAW313
46i1.m
$]8938
HFUIR Rownop (hit)
am
LOTiII Rowrrop (lot(
am
pdsture(pa5A(
o.m
Pastme(pasf(
am
Pa.ure(,, ,(
am
Riparian pasture (try)
am
AFO do
am
am
5[henks
Forest for
LOON
law
am
am
o.m
am
zm
2a m
Harvested forest (no)
am
o.02
emnch
Transitional (barren)
0.m
1-18
am
am
Mm
am
am
165
Pervoo lsml ur im
9.M
24 90
0.72
am
Mm
am
27.45
]E 4.18
PervmmK0l(pm MM(
2.]II
42.49
0.27
am
am
am
258
4804
Pervlous HER (put H01)
0.18
936
am
am
am
am
0.0
1a.26
Impervious ImUmp_UDU
2A]
N3.m
am
am
Mm
am
5.26
1m.]]
Im ervlou5 Mal Im M01
1.73
YIn
1.m
am
am
0.m
3.39
65.40
Im ervlou5 H01 Im H01
0.27
Mm
am
am
am
am
0.0
2].54
wMer
am
am
0.m
am
am
am
0.m
a.27
subtotal
1]3]
Sm.®
2.61
am
am
am
4 W
Y Tg
P.J..Total
;09].19
;965.18
4S/.53
B.%
5.]6
S.Y
G;Riax
1;341%
0 -The summations In these cells sefleathe re-dlndbutlons Wmfled in the table unde,.p 4.
150
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMOLs
Aibemade County and City of Charlottesville, Virginia
Table F-3. GWLF Distributed Sediment Loads (metric tons/yr)
Sediment lead In
Watershed
Name
Und Use Name
Albemarle
um
COy
Oiadomesvilie
City
University
Of Virginia
FVCC
VDOT
Industrial
Permits
Nor -
regulated
TOUT Uatl
HiTill Rowcrop (hit)
am
IOTII Rmarmp (lot)
Um
Pasture
Om
Pasture(pas_f)
am
Pasture (pas,)
0.00
Riparian pasture (trp)
0.m
AFO (90)
Ow
Ha ha
am
Forest(for)
OM
0.13
am
1.01
lodge
Harvested forest (hod)
I
I
U.ml
am
Creek
Transitional(bamen)
3.W
0.41
0.n
0.57
Pervious Wl(put _LDI)
n.93
4M
0.51
n.33
Pervious MDI(pur_MDI)
in
2.011
Om
3.44
Pervious HDl(put _HDI)
0.0
0.53
0J3
Impervious UEN(imp IDI
22.59
5.05
0.05
27..5O
Impervious MDl(imp_MDU
4E4
2.13
0.26
12.24
Impervious HOl(imp HDU
185
2.55
4.40
water
sub-tatal
0.m
59.50
22.n
am
0.m
0.m
1.19
MA3
Hirill Rowcro(hit)
0.00
IOTII Rowcrop (lot)
I
am
Pasture (pas,)
I
I
I
Om
Pasture (pas_Q
Om
Pasture (past')
am
Riparian pasture (tro)
0.00
AFO (at.)
Om
Ha ha
31m
13.08
Meadow
Forest((for)
154
4.8
IM
1.99
M03
Creek
Harmstedfomed(hvf)
0.15
0.15
Transitional (barren)
1L45
n.m
4.33
3.62
30.25
Pervious Wl(put _m1)
95.19
106.32
35.36
10.m
24..93
Pervious MDl ur MDI
20.25
T.92
4.33
102
am
0.47
33.02
Pervious HDl(pur_H01)
138
266
0.74
affil
GAS
Impervious Lp �1mp_ml)
n."l
D.20
n.55
0.03
On
5.47
1A3.03
Impervious MI�imp_MDI)
m.04
45.51
16.2D
11A
190
2.01
150.64
Imp ervious HDl (imp_HDU
5126
44.36
2.09
am
1.35
1m.m
water
suh-toM
3M62
30155
MAS
am
am
2n
25.1111
298.25
Hirill Rowcrop(hit)
39.52
39.52
WT111 R.rmp(lot)
27.65
22.65
Pasture (pas,)
013
1.54
1.62
Pasture a
3.86
46.n
50.58
Pasture past')
298
36.m
MA8
Riparian asture t
34.54
3454
AFO (90)
aml
am
Hay(hay)
2OW01
2.74
125.m
19A42
Wines
Forest (for)
25.131
3.50
4.31
am
0.02
am
338.87
3n.64
Harmstedfinest(hvf)
22.64
22.1A
Creek
Transitional barren
2540
A35
1.91
1.16
0.02
am
MAN
121.32
Pervious ml(put _m1)
14188
n.02
13.02
GOT
16
am
261.10
m202
Pervious MDl (put_MDI)
GOT
9.66
2.07
am
110
246
n7i
Pervious HDl �pur_HDI)
0.B5
1.64
0.31
0.03
0.m
am
2A4
Impervious L0l limp ml)
103.37
84.A1
9.95
1.D
0.33
1m.M
90.3.61
Im ery ous MDl im M01
3A18
51.52
15.35
257
UP
251
9.n
M.78
Impervious HDl (imp_HDI�
3034
3149
6.09
0.18
am
1.55
49.84
water
suh-total
3XO
MIN
53A6
15.6T
L26
270
1,190.02
1,902.91
Hirill Rowcrop (hit)
am
IOTIIR map (lot)
O.m
Pasture (paste)
am
Pasture Utas_Q
am
Pasture (pas,)
am
Riparian asture (trial
Um
AFO (90)
am
Ha ha
O.m
sdienks
Fomst(for)
OAT
In
0.13
1.32
&and
Harvestedfoms[ hvf
0.01
0.01
Transitional(bamen)
056
11.49
IN
3.92
16.02
Pervious ml(put _LDI)
3.02
Ram
an
8.99
93.m
Pervious MDl(pur M131)
0.79
12.47
am
O.76
30.30
Pervious HOl(put _HDI)
005
2A5
O.m
am
3.13
Impervious LM(imp_LDI)
122
59.65
am
3.m
mm
Impervious MDI(imp_MDU
L66
W.G
l.m
3.30
6.64
Im erv'ous H01 Um,-HDU
026
15.54
0.35
0.61
m.m
water
sub-loU1
2.114
25L63
I1
am
0.m
0.m
21A0
26212
PmjeRTolal
254.91
66224
Sn50
15.62
2m
4.92
1,232.44
3110.19
151
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, Wginia
To further assist local jurisdictions, the land uses and loads associated
with their regulated MS4 areas have been separated out in Figures F-4, F-5, and
F-6 for Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of
Virginia, respectively, with areas in acres and loads in English tons/yr.
Table F-4. Albemarle County Regulated MS4 Land Use Areas and Sediment Loads
Albemarle Countv Summary
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Area in acres
Sediment Load in tons/yr
Pasture (pas_g)
0.00
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.14
Pasture (pas_f)
0.00
0.00
10.41
0.00
4.26
Pasture (pas_p)
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
3.28
Hay(hay)
0.00
35.81
82.74
0.00
14.42
22.49
Forest (for)
0.00
318.28
885.01
2.67
9.41
27.70
0.08
Transitional (barren)
0.00
3.67
9.57
0.14
12.62
28.00
0.62
Pervious LDI (pur_LDI)
0.00
751.90
1,470.87
22.77
104.93
158.60
3.33
Pervious MIDI (pur_MDI)
0.00
191.461
83.63
6.671
22.32
6.691
0.87
Pervious HDI (pur_HDI)
0.00
35.36
13.35
0.44
3.73
0.93
0.06
Impervious LDI (imp_LDI)
0.00
311.83
416.15
5.12
85.41
113.95
1.34
Impervious MIDI (imp MIDI)
0.00
215.11
82.74
4.23
98.15
37.68
1.83
Impervious HDI (imp_HDI)
0.00
127.89
24.91
0.67
57.61
11.40
0.29
water
0.00
7.12
55.83
0.22
sub -watershed total
0.00
1,998.43
3,140.81
42.93
0.001
408.59
415.12
8.42
Regulated M54Total 5,182.17 832.14
Table F-5. City of Charlottesville Regulated MS4 Land Use Areas and Sediment Loads
Citv of Charlottesville Summary
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Area in acres
Sediment Load in tons/yr
Forest (for)
43.37
157.70
123.22
41.82
0.92
4.66
3.86
1.22
Transitional (barren)
1.02
4.91
3.15
2.92
4.34
16.91
9.21
12.67
Pervious LDI (pur_LDI)
185.15
839.84
787.91
609.85
26.44
117.20
84.96
89.11
Pervious MIDI (pur_MDI)
9.56
74.88
133.45
104.98
1.41
8.73
10.67
13.74
Pervious HDI (pur_HDI)
1.33
27.80
25.80
23.13
0.21
2.93
1.81
3.15
Impervious LDI (imp_LDI)
94.31
310.72
341.42
250.45
24.90
85.10
93.49
65.75
Impervious MIDI (imp_MDI)
12.23
109.95
124.71
146.35
5.34
50.17
56.79
63.53
Impervious HDI (imp_HDI)
4.67
108.54
75.85
64.95
2.04
48.89
34.71
28.19
water
0.00
5.78
3.78
0.44
sub -watershed total
351.651
1,640.131
1,619.281
1,244.891
65.581
334.601
295.481
277.37
Regulated M54Total
4,855.95
973.04
152
Moores Creek, Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch TMDLs
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, WgIma
Table F-6.University of Virginia Regulated MS4 Land Use Areas and Sediment Loads
University of Virginia Summary
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Lodge
Creek
Moores
Creek
Meadow
Creek
Schenks
Branch
Area in acres
Sediment Load in tons/yr
Forest (for)
6.67
122.11
151.91
0.00
0.14
3.61
4.76
Transitional (barren)
0.11
1.39
0.72
0.01
0.46
4.77
2.11
0.05
Pervious LDI (pur_LDI)
37.26
279.31
133.62
1.77
5.32
38.98
14.41
0.26
Pervious MDI (pur_MDI)
15.57
40.93
28.47
0.67
2.29
4.77
2.28
0.09
Pervious HDI (pur_HDI)
3.78
7.78
4.89
0.22
0.58
0.82
0.34
0.03
Impervious LDI (imp_LDI)
21.13
90.75
40.04
0.22
5.58
24.85
10.96
0.06
Impervious MDI (imp_MDI)
18.02
39.15
37.14
2.67
7.86
17.86
16.92
1.16
Impervious HDI (imp HDI)
6.45
17.35
14.68
0.89
2.82
7.82
6.72
0.39
water
0.44
2.45
2.00
0.00
sub -watershed total
109.431
601.201
413.481
6.451
25.051
103.481
58.491
2.03
Regulated MS4Total
1,130.57
189.04
153
Section 8. Qualified personnel
The following personnel are responsible for inspections;
(Provide the name, telephone number, and qualifications of the qualified personnel conducting
inspections.)
Mr. Andy Miller
Piedmont Housing Alliance
682 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
434.422.5497
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: Mr. Andy Miller
Company: Piedmont Housino Alliance
Title: Director of Real Estate Development
Signature: Andrew Miller
Date: ��(� ✓ 2022.04.01
Mr. Andy Miller
Piedmont Housing Alliance
682 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
434.422.5497
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: Mr. Andy Miller
Company: Piedmont Housing Alliance
Title: Director of Real Estate Development
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 Stonnwater 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
192TO 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.
7_1:M
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
(Y/N)
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 contraction
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 contraction
activity is in compliance with the SWPP and
general permit.
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
Stormwater Discharge
Cattail Identification
Date
Clarity
Floating Solids
Suspended
Solids
Oil Sheen
Otherobvious
indicators of
stormwater
pollution (list
and describe)
Visible
sediment
leaving the
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 1 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
(Y/N)
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 contraction
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 contraction
activity is in compliance with the SWPP and
general permit.
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
Stormwater Discharge
Cattail Identification
Date
Clarity
Floating Solids
Suspended
Solids
Oil Sheen
Otherobvious
indicators of
stormwater
pollution (list
and describe)
Visible
sediment
leaving the
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 1 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
(Y/N)
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 contraction
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 contraction
activity is in compliance with the SWPP and
general permit.
Operator/Duly Authorized Representative
Stormwater Discharge
Cattail Identification
Date
Clarity
Floating Solids
Suspended
Solids
Oil Sheen
Otherobvious
indicators of
stormwater
pollution (list
and describe)
Visible
sediment
leaving the
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 1 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)?