Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO202200047 VSMP - SWPPP 2023-02-14of AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Tel. (434) 296-5832 • Fax (434) 972-4126 1'rRGiNZP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) For Construction Activities At: Project Name: Southwood — Villages 3 & 4 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. John Desmond 434-293-9066 kDchocki Lie. No. 5T41 yfru SWPPP Preparation Date: October 24, 2022 Revised: February 13, 2023 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 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GENERAL VPDES PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES OF STORMWATER FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (VAR10) 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. PERMIT #: PLAN/ID #: TECHNICAL CRITERIA: IIB ❑ IIC ❑ A. Construction Activity Operator (Permittee). The person or entity that is applying for permit coverage and will have operational control over construction activities to ensure compliance with the general permit. A person with signatory authority for this operator must sign the certification in Section V. (per Part III. K. of the VAR10 Permit). Operator Name: Contact person: Address: City, State and Zip Code: Phone Number: Primary and CC Email: B. Electronic correspondence. To receive an emailed coverage letter or to pay by credit card, you must choose YES and include a valid email. May we transmit correspondence electronically? YES ❑ NO ❑ Section II. Construction Activity Information. A. Include a site map showing the location of the existing or proposed land -disturbing activities, the limits of land disturbance, construction entrances and all waterbodies receiving stormwater discharges from the site. B. Project site location information. Construction Activity Name: Address: City and/or County and Zip Code: Construction Activity Entrance Location (description, street address and/or latitude/longitude in decimal degrees): Latitude and Longitude (6-digit, decimal degrees format): C. Acreage totals for all land -disturbing activities to be included under this permit coverage. Report to the nearest one -hundredth of an acre. Total land area of development (include entire area to be disturbed as approved in the Stormwater Management Plan): Primary estimated area to be disturbed (include portions with Erosion and Sediment Control Plan approval only): Off -site estimated area to be disturbed (if applicable): D. Property Owner Status: FEDERAL ❑ STATE ❑ PUBLIC ❑ PRIVATE ❑ E. Nature of the Construction Activity Description (i.e. commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, environmental, utility): F. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) name(s) (if the site is discharging to a MS4): G. Estimated Project Dates (MM/DD/YYYY). Start Date: Completion Date: H. Is this construction activity part of a larger common plan of development or sale? YES ❑ NO ❑ Rev 11/2020 PAGE 1 16 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 T NAME(S) OF RECEIVING WATERBODY Section III. Off -site Support Activity Location Information. List all off -site support activities and excavated material disposal areas being utilized for this project. Include additional areas on a separate page. Off -site Activity Name: Address: City or County: Off -site Activity Entrance Location (description, street address and/or latitude/longitude in decimal degrees): Latitude and Longitude (6-digit, decimal degrees format): Is this off -site activity an excavated material disposal area? YES ❑ NO ❑ If this off -site activity is an excavated material disposal area, list the contents of the excavated fill material: Willa separate VPDES permit cover this off -site activity? YES ❑ NO ❑ Section IV. Other Information. A. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the General VPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities prior to submitting the Registration Statement. By signing the Registration Statement, the operator is certifying that the SWPPP has been prepared. B. Has an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan been submitted to the VESC Authority for review? YES ❑ NO ❑ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval Date (for the estimated area to be disturbed MM/DD/YYYY): C. Has land -disturbance commenced? YES ❑ NO ❑ D. Annual Standards and Specifications. If this project is utilizing approved Annual Standards and Specifications (AS&S), attached the completed AS&S Entity Form. AS&S Entity Name (if different from the Operator identified in Section I): E. Billing information (leave blank if same as the Operator identified in Section I. above). This entity will receive Annual Permit Maintenance and Permit Modification Fee invoices (if applicable). Billing Name: Contact Name: Address: City, State and Zip Code: Phone Number: Primary and CC Email: Rev 11/2020 PAGE 2 16 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR30) 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 (H) the person has day-to-day operational control of those activities at a project that are necessary to ensure compliance with a storm water 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 req uired by the storm water pollution prevention plan or comply with other permit conditions). In the context of storm water discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), operator means the operator of the regulated MS4 system. 9VAC25-880-70. Part I II. K. Signatory Requirements. Registration Statement. All Registration Statements shall be signed as follows: a. For a corporation: by o responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this chapter, a responsible corporate officer means: (i) a president secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy -making or decision -making functions for the corporation; or (ii) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided the manager is authorized to make management decisions that govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long-term compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for state permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures; b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For purposes of this chapter, a principal executive officer of a public agency includes: (i) the chief executive officer of the agency or (ii) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency. Certification: "I certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand this Registration Statement and that this document and all attachments were prepared in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." Printed Name: Signature (signed in ink): Date Signed: Section VI. Submittal Instructions. Submit this form to the VSMP Authority. If the locality is the VSMP Authority, please send your Registration Statement submittal directly to the locality; do NOT send this form to DEQ. A list of local VSMP Authorities is available here: VSMP Authorities. If DEQ is the VSMP Authority please send to: If the locality is the VSMP Authority, please send to: Department of Environmental Quality Office of Stormwater Management Suite 1400 PO Box 1105 Richmond VA 23218 constructioneo@deg.virl;inia.gov Rev 11/2020 PAGE 3 16 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR10) REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019 INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE DO NOT PRINT OR SUBMIT This Registration Statement is for coverage under the General VPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities. This form covers the following permit actions: new permit issuance, existing permit modification with an increase in acreage, existing permit modifications that result in a plan modification but do not result in an increase in disturbed acreage, and reissuance of an active permit coverage. Application type. Select NEW PERMIT ISSUANCE to obtain a new permit coverage. Modifications are for modifying an existing, active permit coverage. Select MODIFICATION WITH ACREAGE INCREASE when the previously approved acreage(s) increases (permit modifications are not performed for decreases in acreage unless they result in plan changes — see Modification WITHOUT Acreage Increase). Select MODIFICATION WITHOUT ACREAGE INCREASE when there is a change to the site design resulting in a change to the approved plans with no increase in acreage(s) Select EXISTING PERMIT REISSUANCE to extend an expiring permit coverage for the next permit cycle and include the existing permit number. Section I. Operator/Permittee Information. A. Construction Activity Operator (Permittee). The person or entity that is applying for permit coverage and will have operational control over construction activities to ensure compliance with the general permit. For companies, use the complete, active, legal entity name as registered with a state corporation commission. Entities that are considered operators commonly consist of the property owner, developer of a project (the party with control of project plans and specifications), or general contractor (the party with day-to-day operational control of the activities at the project site that are necessary to ensure compliance with the general permit). If an individual person is listed as the operator, that person (or a legal representative of) must sign the certification in Section V. An operator may be one of the following: 9VAC25-870-10. Definitions "Operator" means the owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to the Act and this chapter. In the context of stormwater associated with a large or small construction activity, operator means any person associated with a construction project that meets either of the following two criteria: (i) the person has direct operational control over construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications or (h) the person has day-to-day operational control of those activities at a project that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other state permit or V5MP authority permit conditions (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers at a site to carry out activities required by the stormwater pollution prevention plan or comply with other permit conditions). In the context of stormwater discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (M54s), operator means the operator of the regulated M54 system. "Owner" means the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions including, but not limited to, sanitation district commissions and authorities, and any public or private institution, corporation, association, firm or company organized or existing under the laws of this or any other state or country, or any officer or agency of the United States, or any person or group of persons acting individually or as a group that owns, operates, charters, rents, or otherwise exercises control over or is responsible far any actual or potential discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes or pollutants to state waters, or any facility or operation that has the capability to alter the physical, chemical, or biological properties of state waters in contravention of § 62.1-44.5 of the Code of Virginia, the Act and this chapter. "Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a state, governmental body, including a federal, state, or local entity as applicable, any interstate body or any other legal entity. B. May we transmit correspondence electronically? If you choose YES to this question and provide an email address in Section I. A., all correspondence, forms, invoices and notifications will be transmitted by email to the operator. This will also give the operator the ability to pay by credit card and to receive Dermit coverage aooroval letters immediately uoon Dermit aooroval. Section II. Construction Activity Information. A. A site map indicating the location of the existing or proposed land -disturbing activities, the limits of land disturbance, construction entrances and all water bodies receiving stormwater discharges from the site must be included with the submittal of this form. Aerial imagery maps or topographic maps showing the required items are acceptable. Plan sheet sized site maps are not required. Please consult your VSMP authority if you have additional questions regarding site map requirements. B. Construction Activity Name and location. Provide a descriptive project name (it is helpful to use the same naming convention as listed on the Stormwater Management plans), 911 street address (if available), city/county of the construction activity, and the 6-digit latitude and longitude in decimal degrees format for the centroid, main construction entrance or start and end points for linear projects (i.e. 37.1234N/-77.1234W). C. Acreage totals for all land -disturbing activities, on- and off -site, to be included under this permit. Acreages are to be reported to the nearest one -hundredth acre (two decimal places; i.e. 1.15 acres). Provide the total acreage of the primary development site as approved on the Stormwater Management Plans and the primary on -site estimated acreage to be disturbed by the construction activity as approved under the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. The off -site estimated area to be disturbed is the sum of the disturbed acreages for all off -site support activities to be covered under this general permit. Do not include the off -site acreage totals in the primary, on -site total and estimated disturbed acreage totals. Permit fees are calculated based on your disturbed acreage total for all on- and off -site areas being disturbed under this permit coverage (the sum of all on -site and off -site disturbed acreages). D. Property owner status. The status of the construction activity property owner. Any property not owned by a government entity or agency (i.e. federal, state or local governments) is PRIVATE. Rev 11/2020 PAGE 4 16 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR10) REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019 INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE DO NOT PRINT OR SUBMIT E. Nature of the construction activity description. Choose the designation that best describes the post -construction use of this project (you may choose more than one). (i.e. Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural, Environmental, Educational, Oil and Gas, Utility, Transportation, Institutional, etc.). Describe the post -construction use of the project (i.e. Commercial — one new office building and associated parking and utilities; Transportation — Linear roads, sidewalks and utilities; Agricultural-3 Poultry Houses, etc.). F. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) name(s) if discharging to a MS4. If stormwater is discharged through a MS4 (either partially or completely), provide the name of the MS4(s) that will be receiving water from this construction activity. The MS4 name is typically the town, city, county, institute or federal facility where the construction activity is located. G. Estimated project dates. Provide the estimated project start date and completion date in Month/Day/Year or MM/DD/YYYY format (i.e. 07/30/2019). H. Is this construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development or sale? "Common plan of development or sale" means a contiguous area where separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules per 9VAC25-870-50. Definitions. Le. a subdivision, commercial development, business park, etc. I. 6th Order Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) and associated Receiving Water Name(s). Provide all 6th order HUCs and receiving waterbody names, for the primary site and any Off -site areas included under this permit coverage, that could potentially receive stormwater runoff discharging from this activity. The HUC can be either a 12-digit number (i.e. 0208010101) or 2-letter, 2-number code (i.e. JL52). Include additional HUCs or receiving waters on a separate page. You may utilize DEQL s web -based GIS application, VEGIS, to obtain this information. • VEGIS application link: DEQ's VEGIS Mapping Application • Instructions for utilizing DEQ's VEGIS application link: CGP-GIS HUC Instructions Section III. Off -site Support Activity Location Information. This general permit also authorizes stormwater discharges from support activities (e.g., concrete or asphalt batch plants, equipment staging yards, material storage areas, excavated material disposal areas, borrow areas) located on -site or off -site provided that (i) the support activity is directly related to a construction activity that is required to have general permit coverage; (ii) the support activity is not a commercial operation, nor does it serve multiple unrelated construction activities by different operators; (iii) the support activity does not operate beyond the completion of the construction activity it supports; (iv) the support activity is identified in the Registration Statement at the time of general permit coverage; (v) appropriate control measures are identified in a SWPPP and implemented to address the discharges from the support activity areas; and (vi) all applicable state, federal, and local approvals are obtained for the support activity. Off -site activity name and location information. Provide a descriptive off -site project name, 911 street address (if available), construction entrance location (address or decimal degrees coordinates and description), city/county and the 6-digit latitude and longitude in decimal degrees (i.e. 37.1234N, 77.1234W) of all off -site support activities. Indicate whether the off -site support activity will be covered under this general permit or a separate VPDES permit. If excavated material (i.e., fill) will be transported off -site for disposal, the name and physical location address, when available, of all off -site excavated material disposal areas including city or county; 6-digit latitude and longitude in decimal degrees (i.e. 37.1234N,-77.1234W) and the contents of the excavated material. List additional off -site areas to be included under this permit coverage on a separate page. Off -site areas not included on this registration will need to obtain coverage under a separate VPDES permit. Section IV. Other Information. A. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be prepared prior to submitting the Registration Statement per 9VAC25-880. See 9VAC25-880-70. Part II. of the General Permit for the SWPPP requirements. B. If the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the estimated area to be disturbed listed in Section II. C. has been submitted to the VESC Authority for review and plan approval, choose YES. If you are submitting this application to reissue an existing permit coverage, please provide the date that the VESC Authority approved the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the estimated area to be disturbed. C. If land disturbance has commenced, choose YES. "Land disturbance" or "land -disturbing activity" means a man-made change to the land surface that may result in soil erosion or has the potential to change its runoff characteristics, including construction activity such as the clearing, grading, excavating, or filling of land per §62.1-44.15:24. Definitions. D. If this project is using approved Annual Standards and Specifications (AS&S), attach the completed AS&S Entity Form. If the AS&S Entity is different from the operator identified in Section I. A., list the AS&S Entity Name. The AS&S entity is the entity or agency that holds the approved annual standards & specification. Please indicate if this project is also requesting a plan waiver. • AS&S Entity Form link: Annual Standards and Specifications Entity Information Form Rev 11/2020 PAGE 5 16 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT (VAR10) REGISTRATION STATEMENT 2019 INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE DO NOT PRINT OR SUBMIT E. Billing information. If the person or entity responsible for billing/invoicing is different from the operator, please complete this section. If they are the same, leave this section blank. Section V. Certification. A properly authorized individual associated with the operator identified in Section I. A. of the Registration Statement is responsible for certifying and signing the Registration Statement. A person must physically sign the certification, a typed signature is unacceptable. State statutes provide for severe penalties for submitting false information on the Registration Statement. State regulations require that the Registration Statement be signed as follows per 9VAC25-880-70 Part III. K. 1.: a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this part a responsible corporate officer means: (i) A president secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy -making or decision -making functions for the corporation, or (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 permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures. b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively. c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For purposes of this part a principal executive officer of a public agency includes: (i) The chief executive officer of the agency, or (ii) A senior executive officer having responsibility far the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency. Section VI. Submittal Instructions. Submit this form to the VSMP Authority that has jurisdiction for your construction activity. The VSMP Authority maybe either DEQ or your locality depending on the location and type of project. If your project is under the jurisdiction of a Local VSMP Authority, please contact the locality for additional submittal instructions. A blank area is provided for the Local VSMP Authority's mailing address. Who is the VSMP Authority for my oroiect? DEQ or the locality? • DEQ: DEQ is the VSMP Authority and administers permit coverage for land -disturbing activities that are: ➢ within a locality that is not a VSMP Authority; ➢ owned by the State or Federal government; or ➢ utilizing approved Annual Standards and Specifications. • The Locality: The local government (locality) is the VSMP Authority and administers permit coverage for all other projects not covered by DEQ as listed above. For these projects, please submit permit forms directly to the Local VSMP Authority. A list of Local VSMP Authorities is available on DEQ's website here: Local VSMP Authority List. www.deg.virginia.gov/Progra mslwate r/StormwaterM a nageme nt/VSM PPerm its/Constructio nGenera I Perm it. aspx Email the completed and signed form to: constructiongp@deg.virginia.gov Rev 11/2020 PAGE 6 16 Section 2. Notice of general permit coverage (This notice is to be posted near the main entrance according to 9VAC25-880-70, Part II, section C.) (Provide a copy of the DEQ coverage letter when obtained) Issued — 10/2014 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 a residential community, parking lots and associated site work, utilities, and landscaping. The total limits of disturbance on this project is 25.24 acres. These improvements are being made within the property boundary. The property is bounded by Route 631 and a residential development to the north and west, biscuit run stream and mobile homes to the east, and a residential development and forest to the south. 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 (S WPPP) Albemarle County Section 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. (Provide a reduced, I lx17 copy of the latest Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Do not reference only.) Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County PROTECT DESCRIPTION THIS PROJECT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY TWO PUBLIC ROADS FOUR PRIVATE ALLEYS TOW PARKING LOTS, A ROUNDABOUT, AND ASSOCIATED 5➢E WORK, UMATUES B LANDSCAPING, ALONG WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD. LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING ARE 25.24 ACRES. ADJACENT PROPERTY THE PROPERTY IS BOUNDED BYROUTE63I AND A RESIDENTIAL DEWLOPMENTTOTHE NORTH AND WEST, BISNRRUN STREAM AND MOBILE HOMESTO THE EAST, AND A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FORESTTO THE SOUTH. EXISTING SIZE CONDITIONS THE EXISTING SITE IS MOSTLY WOODED AND CONSISTS OF MODULE HOMES. OFF -SITE AREAS NO OFESRE AREAS WILL BE DISTURBED. ANY OFF -SITE LAND -DISTURBING ACTNTTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT SHALL HAVE AN APPROVED ESE PLAN. CRITICAL EROSION AREAS EARLY ESTABLISHMENT AND PROPER MAINTENANCE OF PERIMETER CONTROLS WILL PROVIDE SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3'.1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH BLANKET MATIING. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL VEGETATIVE AND STRUCTURAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CURRENT ADDITION OF THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE VESCH SHALL BE ADHERED TO UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED OR APPROVED BY A VARIANCE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE REQUEST OF WE COUNTY INSPECTOR. STORMWATER RUNOFF CONSIDERATIONS A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONVEYED TO ONE STORMTECH ARCH DETENTION PIPE WITH ISOLATOR FEW AND ONE DETENTION PIPE WITH A CONTECH JELLYFISH FILTER STRUCTURE. THESE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED M MEET STORMWATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS. ALL OTHER AREAS WILL SHEET FLAW INTO THE SURROUNDING VEGETATED AREAS. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH VEMH AND THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE, INCLUDING WE INSPECTION OF ALL MEASURES AFTER ALL RAIN EVENTS. STRUCTURAL PRACTICES: 1. TEMMMRY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - 3.02 A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATIONINDICATEDONTHEPUNS. R IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS MEASURE BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. US PURPOSE IS TO REDUCE THE MOUNT OF MUD TRANSPORTED ONTO PAVED PUBLIC ROADS BY MOTOR VEHICLES OR RUNOFF. 2. SILT FENCE BARRIER -3.05 SILT FENCE SEDIMENT BARRIERS SHAL L BE INSTALLED DOWNSWPE OF ARTIST WITH MINIMAL GRAZES M FILTER SEDIMENT-IADEN RUNOFF FROM SHEET FLOW AS INDICATED. ITS PURPOSE IS M INTERCEPT SMALL AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT FROM DISTURBED AREAS AND PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE SITE. 3. STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION -3.W STONE FILTERS SHALL BE PLACED AT THE INLET OF ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURE AS INDICATED ON PLANS. US PURPOSE IS TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING WE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM PRIORM PERMANENT STABILIZATION. 4. 'EVERSION DIN E-3.09,3.11A3.12 A TEMPORARY RIDGE OF COMPACTED MIL TO DIVERT WATER FROM A CERTAIN AREA. 5. SEDIMENT FEAR -3.13 A TEMPORARYBARRIER OR DAM WITH A CONTROLLED STORMWATER RELEASE TO MINN SEDIMENT -LINEN RUNOFF FROM DISTURBED PLEA$ IN YYEP AND 9RY STORAGE LONG ENOUGH FOR THE MAJORITY OF SEDIMENT TO SETTLE OUT. 5.1. MAINTENANCE OF SEDIMENT TRAP INSPECT TRAP EMBANKMENT WEEKLY TO ENSURE IT IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND HAS NOT BEEN DAMAGED DURING CCNSTRUCTON ACITWTES. THE TRAP SHyL BE CHECKED AFTER EVERY RAINFALL EVENT. ONCE TH E SEDIMENT HAS REACHED THE DESIGNATED GLEANIXUT LEVEL IT SHALL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED CF. 6. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN -3.14 A TEMPORARY DAM WITH A CONTROLLED STORMWATER RELEASE STRUCTURE ISM BE USED TO OBTAIN SEDIMENT-UDEN RUNOFF MOM DISTURBED AREAS LONG ENOUGH FOR THE MAJORITY OF WE SEDIMENTM SETTLE OUT. 5.1. MAINTENANCE OF SEDIMENT BASIN -INSPECT BASIN EMBANKMENT WEEKLY TO ENSURE T IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND HAS NOT BEEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTNTES. THE MAN SHAMBE CHECKEDARTEREVERY RAINFALL EVENT. ONCE THE SEDIMENT HAS REACHED THE DESIGNATED CLEW qT LEVEL IT SHALL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISMSEO Of. 6. OUTLET PROTECTION - 3.18 STRUCTURALLY FINED APRONS OR OFFER ACCEPTABLE ENERGY DISSIPATING DEVICES PLACED AT THE OUTLETS OF PIPE CHANNEL OR PAVED SECTIONS. Z. WSTCOMOL-3.39DUSTCONIROLISMBEUSEDTHROUGHTHESMINMEASSUBIERTOSURFACEANDAIR MOVEMENT. VEGETATIVE PRACTICES L MISCUE (TEMPORARY STOCKPILE) -3.30 MRSOIL SHALL BE STRIPPED FROM AREAS TO BE GRADED AND STOCKPILED FOR LATER SPREADING. STOCKPILE LOCATIONS SHALL BE LOCATED ONSITE AND SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SILT FENCE AND VEGETATION. 2. TEMPORARY SEEDING -3.31 ALL DENUDED AREAS WHICH WILL BE LEFT DORMANT FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS SHALL BE BE WITH FAST GERMINATING TEMPORARY VEGETATION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING GRADING OF THOSE AREAS. SELECTION OFTHE SEED MIXTURE SHALL DEPEND ON THE TIME OF YEAR IT IS APPLIED. 3. PERMANENT SEEDING -3.32 FOLLOWING GOADING ACTIVITIES, ESTABLISH PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER BY PLANTING SEED TO REDUCE EROSION, STABILIZE DISTURBED ARM, AND ENHANCE NATURAL BEAUTY. 4. SOIL STABILIZATION BIANKETS B MAPPING -3.36APREFIGURE COVERING BLANKET OR SOIL STABILIZATION MAT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON PREPARED PLANTING AREAS OF CHANNELS TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT AND REINFORCE ESTABLISHED TURF. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES L PROVIDE SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES AS A FIRST STEP IN GRADING, SEED AND MULCH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. 2. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING OR OTHER STABILIZATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER GOADING. 3. I$OIAW TRENCHING FOR UTILITIES 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 AN BE STABILIZED WITH PERMANENT SEEDING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISH ED GRADING. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH M. B SPEC. 3.32, PERMANENT SEEDING. SEE. TYPE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED FOR 'MINIMUM CARE (AWNS" AND "GENERAL SLOPES' IN ME HANDBOOK FOR SLOPES LESS THAN 3:1. FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1, SEE. TYPE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED FOR 'LOW MAINTENANCE SLOPES IN TABLE 3.32-D OF THE HANDBOOK. FOR MULCH (STRAW OR FIBER) SHALL BE USED ON ALL SEEDED SURFACES. IN ALL SEEDING OPERATIONS SEED, FERTILIZER AND LIME SHALL BE APPLIED PRIOR TO MULCHING. SEQUENCE OF INSTALLATION PRASE I (SEE SEEM C3.4-0.8 ) 1. APRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED WITH ALMMARLE COUNTY ENS INSPECTOR, CONTRACTOR OWNER, AND ENGINEER. THIS MEETING SHALL TAKE PLACE AT ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNED' DEVELOPMENT BUILDING. CLEARING LIMITS MUST BE RAGGED PRIOR TO ME MEETING WITH ONE (1) WEEK OF NOTICE. 2. INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, SILT PENCE, DIVERSION DIKES, INLET PROTECTION, AND OTHER PERIMETER MEASURES. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE NOTE 1 FOR STABILIZATION MEASURES ALONG DIVERSIONS WITH A SLOPE GREATER THAN 2%. 3. CLEAR ANC GRADE SEDIMENT TRUE, VASINS AND INSTALL ASSOCIATED SMRMWAWR PIPES AND STRUCTURES, PER SHEETS C3.4-C3.8. SEVERAL TEMPORARY PIPES AND STRUCTURES ARE M BE USED, AS SHOWN ON THESE BREEDS. CLEAN WATER FROM SEDIMENT BA BASIN #5I5 TO BE ROUTED AROUND SEDIMENT SIN X4 DUE TO CAPACITY LIMITATION. 4. AFTER ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE, SITE WORK CAN BEGIN. 5. SEED ALL DENUDED ARM PER VESCH STANDARDS. 6. INSTALL BLANKET MATTING FOR ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1, AS SHOWN ON SHEETS C3.4-C3.8. 2. ALL STORMWATER PIPING AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR 5ILT/SEDIMENT. IF PRESENT, SILT/SEDIMENT SHALL BE CLEANED BIT OF WE SYSTEM M ME SATISFACTION OF THE CBS INSPECTOR. PHASE 11(SEE SHEETS C3.9-0.13) 1. BEGIN BRINGING THE SITE TO PROPOSED GRADE CONSTRUCTING WE PROPOSED ROADS AS SHOWN ON SHEET$ C3.9-C3.13. 2. CONVERT THE PHASE I SEDIMENT BASIN#2 INTO WE PHASE II EXCAVATED DROP INLET SEDIMENT TRAP *1 AS SHOWN ON SHEET 0.10. 3. CONVERT THE PHASE I SEDIMENT BASIN 93 INTO WE PHASE II PIPE OUTSET SEDIMENT MR 42 AS SHOWN ON SHEET 4. CONVERT THE PHASE I SEDIMENT BASIN #4INTO THE PHASE IISW[MENT BASIN #4 AS SHOWN ON SHEET 0.11. 5. INSTALLTHE PROPOSED STORM PIPES AND STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON SHEETS C3.9-C3.13. SEE GLLLUM ON SMEAR C3.9-C3.13 FOR TEMPORARY PIPES AND STRUCTURES. CLMN WATER FROM SEDIMENT BASIN #5 AS WELL SEVERAL INDUS SHALL ITH BE ROUTED AROUND SEDIMENT BASIN #4 WTEMPORARY STORM SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE (AS SHOWN ON SHEETS C3.3-C3.13) DUE M CAPACITY UMDATON OF SEDIMENT BASIN #4. 6. INSTALL ADDITIONAL INLET PROTECTION, SHOWN ON SHEETS 0.9-C3.13. AS THE STORM SYSTEM IS CONSTRUCTED AND BECOMES OPERATIONAL. Z. INSTALL THE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON SHEETS C3.9-C3.13. S. ALL STORMWATER PIPING& STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR SILL/SEDIMENT. IF PRESENT, SILT/SEDIMENT SHALL BE CLEANED WT MR WE SYSTEM M THE SATISFACTION OF ME EAS INSPECTOR. 9. SEED ALL DENUDED AREAS PER VESCH STANDARDS. 10. INSTAL BLANKET MAMNG FOR ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3a, AS SHOWN ON SHEETS C3.9-C3.13. PHASE III (SEE SHEETS 0.14-0.16) 1. ONCE THE SITE UPHILL FROM THE PHASE 11 EXCAVATED DROP INLET SEDIMENT TRAP It AND PIPE OUTSET SEDIMENT TRAP #2 BECOME PERMANENTLY STABILIZED, THESE TRAPS CAN BE REMOVED UPON APPROVAL FROM THE IRS INSPECTOR. 2. INSTALL ADDITIONAL INLET PROTECTION AS SHOWN ON SHEETS C3.E4-C3.10 AS THE STORM SYSTEM IS CONSTRUCTED AND BECOMES OPERATIONAL. 3. FINE GRADE PROJECT AREA. APPLY PERMANENT WILE STABILIZATION TO THESE AREAS WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADE IS ACHIEVED. 4. ALL STORMWATER PIPING& STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR SILT/SEDIMENT. IF PRESENT, SILCSEDIMENT SHALL BE CLEANED OUT MR THE SYSTEM TO THE SATISFACTION OF WE FAS INSPECTOR. 5. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND ALL CONTRIBUTING AREAS ARE STABILIZED, EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CAN BE REMOVED UPON APPROVAL FROM THE IRS INSPECTOR. SEDIMENT TRAPS AND BASINS ARE M BE CONVERTED INTO SWM FACILITIES AS SHOWN ON SHEETS CID- C6.9. APPLY PERMANENT SOIL STABILIZATION M THESE AREAS WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADE IS ACHIEVED. MINIMUM STANDARDS: AN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM ADOPTED BY A DISIRICTOR LOCALITY MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CRTERIA, TECHNIQUES AND METHODS: MS-1. PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED M DENUDED AREAS WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER FINAL GRADE IS REACHED ON ANY PORTION OF WE SITE. TEMPORARY MIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS M DENUDED AREAS THAT MAY NOT BE AT FINAL GRADE BUT WILL REMAIN DORMANT FOR LONGERWNN 30 DAYS. PERMMEWT ABILIZATION SHALL BE APPLIW TO AREAS TMT ARE TO BE HEEL WARRANT TOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. MS-2. DURING CONSTRUCTION OF WE PROJECT, MIL STOCKPILES AND BORROW AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED OR PROTECTED WITH SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE MR THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL SOIL STOCKPILES ON SITE AS WELL AS BORROW ARM AND SOIL INTENTIONALLY TRANSPORTED MOM THE PROJECT SIZE. MS-3. A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ON DENUDED AREAS NOT OTHERWISE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED UNTIL GROUND COVER IS ACHIEVED THAT IS UNIFORM, MATURE ENOUGH TO SURVIVE AND WILL INHIBIT EROSION. M54. SEDIMENT TRAPS, PERIMETER DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND OTHER MEASURES INTENDED M TRAP SEDIMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP IN ANY HAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITY AND SHALL BE MADE FUNCTIONAL BEFORE UPSLOPE LAND DISTURBANCE TAKES PLACE. M5-5. STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIED M EARTHEN STRUCTURES SUCH AS DAMS, DIKES AND DIVERSIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. MS-6. SEDIMEMJFMSSHAM BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BASED UPON THE TOTAL DRONAGEAREAMBE SERVED BY THE TRAP. A. THE MINIMUM STORAGE CAPACITY OF A SEDIMENT TRAP $HALL BE 134 CUBIC YARDS PER ACRE OF DRAINAGE AREA AND THE TRAP SHALL ONLY CONTROL DRAINAGE AREAS LESS MAN THREE ACRES. MS-0. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED M 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 STABILIZING MEASURE UNTIL WE PROBLEM IS CORRECTED. MS-8. CONCENTRATED RUNOFF SMALL NOT FLOW DOWN CUT OR FILL SLOPES UNLESS CONTAINED WITHIN AN ADEQUATE TEMPoMRY OR PERMANENT CHANNEL. FLUME OR SLOPE DRAIN STRUCTURE. MS9. WHENEVER WATER SEEPS FROM A SLOPE FACE, ADEQUATE DRAINAGE OR OFFER PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED. MS-10. ALL STORM SEWER INLETS THAT ARE MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED SO THAT SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER CANNOT ENTER ME CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST BEING FILTERED OR OTHERWISE TREATED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT. MS -IL BEFORE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SIGH MWATER CONVEYANCE CHANNELS OR PIPES ME MADE OPERATIONAL, ADEQUATE OUTSET PROTECTION AND ANY REQUIRED 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 BETAKEN TO MINIMIZE ENCROA) IMENT, CONTROL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND STABILIZE THE WORK AREA M ME GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE DURING CONSTRUCTION. NONRRODIBLE MATERIAL SHALL BE USED MR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAUSEWAYS AND COFFERDAMS. EARTHEN FILL MAY BE USED FOR THESE STRUCTURE IF ARMORED BY NONERODIBLE COVER MATERIALS. MS-13. WHEN A LIVE WATERCOURSE MUST BE CROSSED BY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MORE THAN TWICE IN MY SIX-MONTH PERIOD, A TEMPORARY VEHICULAR STREAM CROSSING CONSTRUCTED OF NONERODIBE MATERIAL SHALL BE PROVIDED. MS-14. ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS PERTAINING M WORKING M OR CROSSING WE WATERCOURSES SHALL BE MET. MS-15. THE BED AND BAMKS OF A WATERCOURSE SHALL BE STABILIZED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WORK IN ME WATERCOURSE IS COMPLETED. MS-16. UNDERGROUND UTMEIY LINES SMALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS IN ADDITION TO OTHER APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. NO MORE THAN 500 LINEAR FEET OF TRENCH MAY BE OPENED AT ONE TIME. B. EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON WE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES. C. EFFLUENT FROM DEWATERING OPEMTIMS SHALL BE FILTERED OR PASSED THROUGH AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE, OR BOTH, AND DISCHARGED IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT FLOWING SINEWS OR OFF-SM PROPERTY. D. MATERIAL USED FOR BACKFIWNG TRENCHES SHALL MENROPERLY COMPACTED IN ORDER M MINIMIZE EROSION AND PROMOTE STABIUMFION. E. 0.ETABILIIATIOH SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. E APPLICABLE SAFETY REGULATIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. MS-tZ. WHERE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTES INTERSECT PAVED OR PUBLIC ROADS, PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT BY VEHICULAR TRACKING ONTO THE PAVED SURFACE. WHERE SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORTED ONTO A PAVED OR PUBLIC ROAD SURFACE, THE ROAD SURFACE SHALL BE CLEANED MORWGHMATMEENDOFEACHDAY. SEOIMENTSHAMBE REMOVED FROM THE ROADS BY SHOVELING 0R SWEEPING AND TWWSPoRTW TO A SEOIMEM W NTROL DISPOSALAREA. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWEDONLYAPPERSEDIMENTIS REMOVED INTHIS MANNER. THIS PROVISION SHALL APPLYTO INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS AS WELL AS M LARGER HAND -DISTURBING ARNMES. MS-18. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY MEASURES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE LOCAL PROGRAM AUTHORITY. TRAPPED SEDIMENT AND THE DISTURBED $OIL AREAS RESULTING FROM THE DISPOSITION OF TEMPORARY MEASURES SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED M PREVENT FURTHER EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. MS-19JMOPERTIES AND WATERWAYS DOWNSTREAM FROM DEVELOPMENT SITES SHALL BE PROTECTED MOM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION, EROSION AND DAMAGE DUE TO INCREASE IN VOLUME, VELOCITY AND PEAK FLOW RATE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR THE STATED FREQUENCY STORM OF 24-HOUR DURATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND CRIIERN LISTED IN SECTION 19 OF VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WAC25-NO-40 MINIMUM STANDARDS. GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: ES-1: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL VEGETATIVE AND STRUCTURAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES ACCORDING M 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 CONTROLLING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY WILL MAKE A CONTINUING REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE METHODS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF WE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. ES-3: PLACE ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PRIOR M OR AS THE FIRST STEP IN CLEARING, GRADING, OR LAND DISTURBANCE. ES4 MAINTAIN A COPY OFTHE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ON THE SIZE ATALL TIMES. ES-5: PRIORM COMMENCING RAND -DISTURBING ACINRIES IN AREAS OTHERTHAN INDICATED ON THEE PLANS(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMBED TO, OFFSITE BORROW OR WASTE AREA), SUBMIT A SUPPLEMENTARY EROSION COUNCIL PLAN TO THE ARCHITEMENGINEER AND THE CONTROLLING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE. ES-6: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NECESSARY TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION AS DETERMINED BY THE RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBER. (MODIFIED NOTE) ES-7 : ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL DRAIN M APPROVED SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE AT ALL TIMES DURING LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT. ISd: DURING DEWATERING OPERATIONS, PUMP WATER INTO AN APPROVED FILTERING DEVICE. ES-9 : INSPECT ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURE DAILY AND AFTER EACH RUNOFF- PRODUCING RAINFALL EVENT. MAKE ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS OR CLEANUP TO MAINTAIN WE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IMMEDIATELY. 27B-ELIOAK LOAM, 2TO ]PERCENT SLOPES. MORE THAN BB INCHES TO RESTRICTIVE FEATURE, WELL DRAINED, HYDROLOGIC MIL GROUP:B 21C-EUCAK LOAM, T TO ISPERCENT BOOKS. MORE THAN BO INCHES TO RESTRICTIVE FEATURES, WELL DRAINED, HYDROLOGIC MIL GRAN P: B 39D - HAZEL LOAM, 15 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPE, 20 TO 40INCHES TO ETHIC BEDROCK, EXCESSIVELY DRAINED, HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP:B ORE -HAZEL LOAM. 25 TO 45 PERCENT SLOPES. N TO 401NCHES TO UFFIC BEDROCK EXCESSIVELY DMINE0, HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP'. B ERNST CONSERVATION SEEDS RIGHT-0FMAY NON-NATIVE VrWDS MIX-ERNMX-152 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PRICED B 3D03% FESNCA RUBRA CREEPING RED FESCUE INO ZO00% LOLIUMPERENNE PERENNIAL RYMEASS, IAS FAS7R4LL ROL' 'FASFFIRMAGL' (TURFTYPE) 2000% PRLEUM PRATENSE, TIMOTHY, CLIMAXIGO T1ONAD, 1203% EWFOLIUMRYBRIDUM ALSIKE CLOVER 325 To.% AGROSTS PERENNANS, AUTUMN BENTGRX3S, 14. ALBANYPINESUSH- ALBANYPINE BUSH - NYEMTYPE NY ECOTWE BW% AGROSTISALBA REMOP BN UA% MIX PRICELB BULL: $3.51 SEEDING RATE: 4050 LB PER ACRE WOODLAND OPEMNM THE SN^OE-TOIERAM GRASSES AND CLOVER ARE GOOD FOR WOODLANDOPENING MDPARTIALLY$LADED$BE3. MIX FORMULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPENDING ONTHEAVAILABILITYBFEXISTINGANDNEWFRODLICT$. VUHILEWE FORMULA MAY CHANGE, THE GUIDING PHILOSOPHY AND FUNCTION OF THE MIX WILL NOT. SLOPE STABILIZATION SEED MIX PR CL n 0 V) z I 11/11/2022 At DENHA40 NIMMIC eY M. OENHARO PFICK� AV B. CTOfOCKJ sGui N/A o6 m V/ W g `J_ 1 O L� r D O V/ 49821 C3.0 0fr PIPEOIIRETCONDITONS tit A A A YFYFM - A MGURRAARU°""' Y A CLMtYI c, E5 ti 041 � CONSTRUCTION OF A SILT FENCE (WITHOUT WIRE SUPPORT) KRFIICRAD I. SEf THE RMICES, 2, EXCAVATE A 4 X 9" TRENCH 11. SIT POSTS AND IXLAVAS A a'Xl S. STARE Y]iAE FENCING R, ENRTME.FdM fONA4 T'c UPSIOPE AIANC TH8 llN8 OF SfAEES 3L TRENDS UPSLCPE ALONG ME ONE 6 E ROAD, O S NAN M E m3, B■�' IPE CONFLICT TO FIAT REA WITX NO RAN5,.g*DEFINEDCXPNNEL x 6TNGI 'IN .,.A -AMEN / �`� -� IIII L. �I F �� a' wTiry roNRSAOGRERArE NPO N, �snNert r` IUGAuo Esr�.ss mmnrw �ryG�E E w L i 1ffi� III II O� _ PW NEW � o zO e TD xx 1.. �I 6 o 9. 9TAPCE FLTER MATERIAL 4. BACKF'ILL AND COASACf STARTS AND EXTEND THE BXCnVATET SOIL SECTION A-0 KEY IN 6A'; RECOMMENDED To a, VATUDL O L cCMFAm ME x ATTACK TIE OLDER EXTEND 1HE MPE FENCE AND EXTEND li INTO EKCAVAIEp SOIL TIE TiExCrv. Ili A.N '�" O• rS Y a ^3 k Q IT RITO THE TRENCH. IT CLOTH CLOTH FOR ENDRE PERIMETER FlCnCI SECTION A -A w ��. IIII A � F `gF j / � .. _ D/ � _ F ae MFE OUTLETTO IffNBTRCEDo�NGRETE DRNN EPABE SECTION &B 8 '40 u III N£IL DEFINED PLAN VIEW CHANNEL IXIEHSIdi OF FABRIC ADD MRE INTO TIE FRENCH.CE 902 O SNEEf FLOW INSTALLATION � � STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (PERSPECTIVE VIEW DLIIX FABPIC y NNE_ Z a THE IIII SECTION A-0 FILTER KEY INWATTIRE RECOMMENDED $$F SB61 O GMY£L CURB INIfT SEDIMENT FILTER p SOLIDS A SHOULD BE NIGHER THAN POINT 3. OHAINAGEX'AY ENSTALLATION CLOTH FOR ENTIRE PERIMETER 1111112022 SIL�TNBFENCE WITH WIRE SUPPORT (FRONT ELEVATION) NOTES: M. DENNARD 1.APRONN LING MAY BE RIPRAP. GROUTED RIPRAP, EAMON BASKET, ORCONCR TPBIE 331A 2.Ie I5 ME LENGTH OF THE RIPMP APRON AS CALCUTATED USING PLATES 3.IBA AND 3.1&l ACCEPTABLE TEMPORARY SEEDING PLWTA4ITERWLS OUION REFERENCE FOR ALL REGIONS' /i / \ y •• OEyGy® py M. DENNMD mFdEA BY T NOT LESS THAN fi S. a=15 TMESTHE MAXIMUM STONE LUNETTES, BILL INCHES. VW PTING RATES SPECIES RATE IBSIACREI / �/ • $F 3.OS2 OP O SELL .1-FEB _15 .MIXOF . • H. QCRObJ SILT FENCE dA= MN IIII TTNUALRYEGRASS (LIXIUM MULIEFLORUM) va FlLiEn 1t N0:•rek R so-1DD RurwFF WMe1 CEREAL WINTER) RYE � WP1e� "" '',- OUTLET PROTECTION (SPROLE CEREAIE) r-'� ;.. �'•" N s�B FEE 16-APR. 30 ANNUALRYEGRASS fi0.1C0 •y ILODUM MULTI-FIDRUL7f '. ^� — ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ MAY1-AUG 31 GERMAMMILLET 5D (SETARW ITMpN) ••. CREEP NP.Dncrmxn NAVEVCDT O $51 BIx r STANDARD ORANGE VINYL OR PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION • ENNPKILL cauYFlR.BEw]..IORSmaRBEADARDRAT_. FENCE TTACHED TORONTS(PRE FENGALVCE ,rX I11 ill J TEMPORARY SEEDING PLANT MATERIALS IRON OR THICK OUTHEREDvnoD, STEEL KPVCPIASTIC), AT LEAST ) ) ) I I I 1 1 1 Q NOSCNC W ABOVE FINISH GRADE WITH SPAN BETWEEN POSTS NO GREATER TH UN ITON CENTER. EVERY NINTH POST SMALL /�y-�6/� CONTAIN A WARNING SIGN THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THE YrR RARAMTEARI.IYOWNRGANR W W ❑ FENCEASATREEPROTECTONFENCE ONOSCALE 'i uv-TartcnSnREas 0 06 3� r' as Nry. TABIE3..,C IP 90]-8 SRE SPECIFIC SEED NG MDOURES FORAPPAIFCHW WMOUNTAIN ARE' (n W TREE PROTECTION $TORMWATER INLET PROTECTION DD cWo 3os-1 �J,J H web RM�b TOTALLBSPERACRE MINIMUM CARE IAKN COMMERTUCKY REST 2C0.PRE100. CJ a DUJ O Z TEMPORARY DIVERSION DIKE TURF-TENIYPE 310NNIALTYPEWLL FESCUE B0.1Wi6 IMPROVED KENTUCKY PERENNIAL RYEGRA55' 0.10% KENTUCKYB TOGRASS 0.1pX SILT FENCE DROP INLET PROTECTION w J O SILTFENCECULVETEEMIET PROTECTION ENDNUIL - - HIGHAWINTENANCEIAWN MINIMUM OF THREE(3) UPTO FN RB VARIETESOFBWEGRASSFROM 2 X a' MOP NOTE��- FRANC GP lE R^L'F ` / RS > Q I Z O TOEOE FILL LVER ur ..n e� APPROVED LIST FOR USE IN VIRGINIA 125 LH5. y,pX, _ ( („) FRUiII F GENERAL SLOPE 3:1 LESS) ^� Q Z Z ES REO TOP GRASS 2LBS. REDT OP GRA FESCUE 12.LBS2 GG r IX. q O0ELI SEASONAL NURSE CROP' 20 LBS. LOW-MAINTENANCESLOPE STEEPER THAN 3:1) GAHAO ^ V150LBS O KENTUCKY 31 FESCUE 10BLBS_ Lf CARRIERS PERSPECDW NEWS W REDTOP SILT FILL FENCE ISO UM FENCE LFLO, ,IF NURSE MOP 20 US20 CRONTNETCX^ 150LBS. I © L z FLOW SBTANCE TOWARD EMBANKMENT ,�. n STAKE +{�F D O ^OPRONALSTONECOMBINATION lI Pl $ PLAN Fai ' PERENNIAL RYEGRASSNALL GERMINATE FASTER AND AT LOWER SOIL TEMPERATURES MAN FESCUE, THEREBY PROVIDING COVER AND EROSION RESISTANCE FOR SEEDBED. EC ^` MIry "' O,^ V/ O of 'TI " USE SEASONAL NURSE CROP IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEEDING DATES ,/.�, W rt; AS STATED BELOW DETAIL A DETAIL SECTION A A FLOV✓—� �S MMCN,AFRILOUGH AFH MAY I5TH ...ANNUAL RYE MARCHTHTHROUGHAUGUSTI5TX FO%TPILMILLET ELEVATION OF STAKE AND FABRIC ORIENTATION AUGUST I6TH THROUGH SEPTEMBER OCTOBER _.. ANNUAL RYE uurc 'AWv Tam NOYEMBER THROUGH FEBRUARY _. WINTER RYE yCaFlC APPLICATION 'NDOT03, Y.IS], /s, YE60R 05] COPASE O•�yS * ° °bl" mV Pin. MIS METIER OF INLET PROTECTION IS APPLICABLE MERE TIE SITE AGGREGATE TO REPIACESILTFENCE IN' RIFRAP Ima N^-eu" •;xiLx'.ue Duey Ls<.m+,l avn w� "'IFFIEPRO ISUSEOINCREASE TO30 LBS./ACRE ALL LEGUME SEED AI AREA (SOP( NO GREATER FEAR MEN A RHI T)OR HOGREENER 'NHEN XIGXVELOCItt Cf FLOW Lm.pniaupe xemrmnow a a q ewl Honer xni mamv r�nve oum W MIAST BE PRCPERLYIN'JCUTATEG KEEPING LOVEGRASS MAYAL50� ME IN THE wLETTM SHIRT OR 01ERLwp MwS (NOT IXCEEOIXGI DEAL ARE O DEAL IS EXPECTED INCLUDED INANY SLOPE OR LOW- MAINTENANCEMIXTURE DURING TOPICAL E METHOD GULL NOT APPLY TO INLETS RECISIONS PAVED WASH RACK NARMERSEEDING PERIODS; ADD 10.2E LOSlACRE IN MIXES CONCENTRATED FLOM. SUCH AS IN STREET OR HIGHWAY MEDIANS. 1ORNR. C.P }O&1 PCE PS 3ffi IP 3.0]-1 49821 CULVERT INLET PROTECTION PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PERMANENT SEEDING MIX FOR PIEDMONT AREA STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION BC3.1 NO Sak xo�e NO Srzk Imp 411 sediment Basin #1 Design w.,........ Is ra9esr M in Phase III. Raain to he us al tl in phase I Phased phase Pna23 maY 1 ((as-) 628 113 if Sit u a'. [distinction M) Cnnrwr Arm (s0 Volume (I 42'36"aa�^ 425 4836 1572 426 60]8 212.1 427 731. But 426 6924 331.9 429 10338 35; 3 430 11826 4117 d31 1217 952 2124.] Via Ph.. 3 Phase 3 Par Requlel(cy)(BTDA) 558.1 Usual Hqh Water Felional Method g Ohfice Element, M42i.0 Ra11mHaIDid MRUmRVdune 25 yr CY as Proceed se Ibis Elherat Icy) tim5 Dealgn Hgh Wader SC525yr(eonrral 432SO lu Vome Belme Deal sort (M*f)A) 2832 Lou N Oar. In 4. () Eleelien(11 426D IS Vnelh a0am(1) 15D from aearoul to O,a- in) 1-11 to Bottom d Bear IS) 424D Appoc Bollpm Dlmereims: lail' 9e: Upalrean Face slope: 31 ereR ulred arl(6r64) 5% Commerciale Face Sbre: 3:1 at Ele on (it) 431 9e Prompt at this Eleslim man 15161 Bees: Yes d uNmmmn9 Ddee (in) 3D Launch d Burns, LN) 36 of fill ni(dn)(Onfam2') 5.D EOectims Al We m) 66 L I We(B9An exas irei n c 2) 0.5 84 Collars: No 6 Dedh d Ware at Sptwry Cred(R) Up 2, 0.5 Else a Urotream Face R1) O 25, SAW Skce d Bvra(so) .,in of Barrel in Se Wc'i(ter) Spleens, Nonlinear Ca blm Fachu ad I hill '(With EmerOal SplMay) 16 Cimens. Or w arc RserUn) 48 Trash Rack on) 48 Ema9sncy 8pllMay: Yes glh(1) .2 S. WMth(it) 2➢ N Barel(In) 33 ame d East .ell MIDOR) 34 In Elelahon (1) 42415 hash of &R Channel (th 36 Od Expartion ("L 4R 83 Use dSplMavOr) 433 1 Sediment Basin #2 Design 1 "I' - e lassaii is �t res) A. had 249 earn Gmu N Eiane up ConswtAma(an Volume any) Volume Pat rs am .5 Sion c^ 91^ace �Ye 49 17B4 513 513 4W 2b3 ]58 12T2 451 MT 114.8 241.8 452 4`(as 1965. A64 463 5281 1.4 sao] my c,.r Km Taal 580.7 Phased Dealrm Fifth Wale Eastman Melnm rl Stwye: Balino9 MNIW Plum Vdume 25 yr CV :l slorea lRWIrN (cy)(6!'0.4) hall pulps Han Wale SCs 25yr(...[a) 4D93 astemp Onfise Ekcation MB 451.0 Top N Dam Sp 458.0 It Stwye PrmlhN at Nla Eleatwn Ay) 2418 Top WMN of Win (If 60 pulreJ VdumNmut e Bee Geahy)(WEA is Balsas d Be.., un .0 amW ElXuar(it) 450.0 Amms Smada gmemlonar snam' Ieme lmm Danielto 00.(ft)p 11 1.0 Upalre Face Slate: 21 LVnn.m Face Slope: 21 easeBefficersbran Feelion(ftcy)(BPDA) Yea rer.a Eayment!N) 455E 4530 lergOot Row beench- 11 .am PmN@ft al this n(cy) 333.0 EfleCe We We (n ] matt d .(,a) (n) 3.0 LI We (B&ile9 rm,Ul Hllc2) arms 1.8 Frvalemgalfic mattd FlekLVe Total (Inl(MlEca'2') 5.0 Wl N0 mat Anher pthd Water at splllwayGttl (ft) 68 Fxe(Zt) (min) 8 S:p:Andorra. isl d Op2m 1 Or4N tow Barrel inommed ezwc (La) Be I" O ZSyx to 09 human human .,an Repaired Pmenalm IXCdlew Isle Bphhrev: cMarfi m) 'No Ema9enar splMav ] 1 cr v: No maerpser Ohl 24 Bottom FExIh (ft) Bottom 0 wn Pack (In) 05 shape OF Exit nu (N1C4M) 0 rrel Leralnm) urfamI 215 lsrglnFA Damo m) 0 maattdearel Ra t5 ailr,(1) Gal dsplway (th D SAFETY FENCE PERSPECTIVE VIEW PERSPECTIVE VIEW PERSPECTIVE VIEW OPLASTIC FENCE METAL FENCE C EXAMPLE PLAN VIEWS OF BAFFLE LOCATIONS IN SEDIMENT BASINS anreva ace.\ p 0 r L sage 1 ��pM11E IxmE L Dh xaGMeNDnx t/Y F%nnW 1 f m6r niurva wmmla I � 4 Len mv. a xrm TMU31 ..-no earn is. commul �..... :Pave¢ li, �ws (aaranl a Elealkn(1) Coa- Arn he Vanua far, I pual v - 1746 a55 za]3 99B awx e3] 457 55In 15i.8 .1.1 45I.5 5W5 107.5 Ma q^+rq S]pa Rsgn Hleh Wela Wlunal Menal n Slmaee: PMe 1 ILliwl Mdno] RumR Volume 25 yr CV SlomOa wears¢ lcy)Ia l 11.1 Tessin Her Wales 5L525yr trot l lnlre oraa EkMam en 45he Top on" (ft) 46Wrape PmMfee at this EleMlm(Cy) 26A9 Top var", or Cam ell au. Vdume Sabre Gaaaul(cy) Fat So Bcin NB (') aaul Eleces.e0 454.01 Al B Braimpoes GM O hat- fern espb nfiu he 1' 11 2.s Brunei Fare Sloe: Wrmanum Face Sole: 9luale: ' tmDexy l mars. (erWl tsar naa- aGlusElewtl (1) 4575 men offill L Nl stage Pmmbi d thisEosin(cy) and ERec- W41R We aq rrettr d Ebasts". Os'. Ina e L I We tBeeeC rgale4 H<2) rawer orFler . Tunrrp up lnrrnce.r) 3o Gers one CepM1 of Metal SpTlwy Cast (ft) as Blase of Burnam Feca rsi) (elm 0 slope W0-1 slab) On ryr 111 mand, 1.a mS.N 2kara, ho, o 2Ar n.ln ..me Gllna Pessrm .,-.a of roach, wple5palxay. eppost Emerymcy 9pAlwry) 23 ineshican yn(1)y'. ssohn1VNO maer That 1B n) EDLre.1 .1 Le TrmM1 Rak(in) pa 10 SlopaooE QJ)WL) EaI Le "m(q 4n allrxna Lenpin nl E.11panted at) rheas Uhl 1e Lres4 dSglllwry(fy In sa as gas In 11 453.13 .1suanlad ,.perm. Cd Fl.almn ten 453n now ..a(As-)(©) 059 ValUmes: demands M) Arm uhhaicume ICY) "A 115] 4W 1743 5n.1 103E So 'DAI an G.1 fFarma(ain(1) d Exlandaton(th If Inlet Ele�elen on Of 45003 EXCAVATED DROP INLET SEDIMENT TRAP specs t APPLICATION TWs NETNOD OF INIR PROTECTION Is APPLICABLE WHERE HEAVY numas ARE UPEWEO AXD WHERE AN OVERPLOV CAPABIVIY AND EASE OE CE NAINIENANCE ARE DESIRABLE. 9mA me Sediment Basin W Design .,wlww w1 age Am Phased 542 prompt volumes: cumuanae: w�r� EIOMnnm) Comour An:s (dj Vd a - (ny) -_- -- Ban Ban 2118 r 7 "0 6Y.15 163.9 163.8 am.awu ac 453 rest 270.1 434.1 al al 312.5 ]48.5 ^' ^^"" 455 10252 359.9 110.3.5 1103 6tere0e: Storm¢ RemNred (of) mB [)A) el same Ordare illusion (ft) 1530 Stma, Founded an this Eleonlion(cy) 431.1 Cesiln Hi, Water SIDE Myr(mdmlaj 45503 aired Volume Before Deal (cy) (3T11A 181.3 Top W Cam (R) 4%' wd Elereton (ft) 452 0 Top Width d Di(ft) 12.0 nce hoe Okmwul to name (ft) 1, T) 10 Bottom d B (ft) 4510 By Simple: Yac Dry Drum, Piedmont py)(6TOA) 3631 .an Raa Crept FleMlme an 455.0 58 Dry Storage Fireman 9 this Emmon By) haas4 08 Diameter mt Dewaterinm Ounce (in) 30 Diameter cif Rev ae IDdnm(in) uniffi 2') 50 Be RunW .N ss To(min) 6 Cq 2yr ago O 25yr 28.93 No Freddie Spillway: 0 Fre .rd (Ip' N0 Emergency EdIMry 3,00 O Barrel Rleer(in) 36 0 Damper Trash Back (.a) 36 0 Dana term, an 42 Dameler of Barrel (in) 35 Based lots In Eleretlmn (1) Bum m signed For largest 11.W AC in Phase II) falls some(acres) (c3) Ph. I Ph.. It southern 1 U 1.8 eleation(ft) Bq wlurful 0.58 2055 459 33W 832 450 3P0 M9 481 42M t46.6 Tonal 378.a Morale: done, required (cy) (BT'DA) 107.2 am auto, it (ft) 459.0 acre, pmJtled at this akrtion (1 99.2 a a wet stomle skies 2:1 store,: store, required ky) di 107.2 ISa stone amer 461.0 tom, sotitled at the Mevaion IcY) 2]9.7 Arpms. Batlom D'mereiors: trthket' Omhemn Ease Sides 3:1 Dow stream Face Slope: 11 Banes: Yes Lear of Flow, L (ft) S2 ERedlw Width , We fine LIM(Banned rnryerNltc 2) 12 Dinars: Na Depth dWater at But Nor Gat (ft) Slmce 0f Up tram Face (z1) Slope 0f Barrel (B5) Leal 0f Bartel In Seemed IDne 0.$) Norms CallareI mired D rm nsion of Cdlan Emegency Ssleor,'. No Bottom Men (ft) D Slope of Exit Channel tN1001D 0 Length of Exit Channel (ft) 0 CF fix D a eio B z 45. Nd 041 Y '�.0 't-/9/a$ �w6' 0NA4 T/Wf]I Ps 11/11/2022 M. DENHARD • me5Lv4m BY • M. DENHARD • B.QE Dir sGui • Al 0 ten smuacrrs w apparral __-_ 0 .s vtvrz-' her copse agamund shall br VIDDI M57 d4I5 .let art. Isigh (1) mxDAB Be bdbm OF hap ele ion (ft) 456 carom trap dimemiom: 22' x50' by alum seats, (ft) 46 lop wish3 atlem (R) a 49821 C3.2 Phase 2 Excavated Drop Inlet Sediment Trap#1 Design Phase 2 Excavated Drop Inlet Sediment Trap 92 Design Figure 4- Pipe Outlet Sediment Trap Figure 4- Pipe Outlet Sediment Trap Drainage Area (Acres) (<3) 0in D2lass, Area (Acres) (s3) 058 �' CF Df Trap VdPrnel Tmp Vo1udrw: Pipe Outlet Sediment Trap Pipe Outlet Sediment Trap �, Eleagon (R) Area (BF) Volume (CY) Eleatl. (RI Area (SF) Vdume (CV) 4sa 2210 449 1312 (D/A: 1 to 2.99 acres) (D/A: 1 to 2.99 acres) a a CINmH z 455 2653 911 AND 17a9 GTE (Load.n county cold. Ord. 1220.01(c) (Load.. County cold. Ora. 1220.01(c) O. Xa 041 � 4% 3118 106e 451 2209 74D line 131.5 Star.,: Storage: �20NA4 Et�l Storage Secuired(C )(134-DA) BOA Storega Reached(CY) HWDA) ]]] y#TL Bottom of Excaatpn(fl) 4540 Ban. 0Excaegon DO 4490 �3if TOP OF DAM: 45e' �3tl� TOPOFDAM:-1 Top of Inlet Elevation 456.00 Top of MIN Elleal 451.00 Storage PmNtled ICY) INS Storage PmNtled (CY) 1315 P S Slope of Wet Sromge Sides 2:1 Sbpe df Wel Sbmga Sibs 21 16' CMP PERFORATED RISER 10' CMP PERFORATED RISER P 1'RYMIN. 1'RR MW. Phase ll - III Sediment Basin #9 Design L L �S Pllas3 phase .aw ... 3Dh MIN, OO OOO 35'MIN. OO OOD Coinage Aaa gi 353 3.5 TOPOF RISER:452.5 TOP OF RISER: 45]5 €.15 00 000 I 00 000 Q�3 Basin Volume. Cumuletie - BOTrOM OF ORY"BOTTOM OF DRY Elevation (0) Cor4our PER Vdume(cy) Vdume(cy) ¢➢�STORAGE=4m 0 0 0 ¢➢/ STORAGE=4RR 0 0 0 451 1169 - w..v - BOUTOMOFTRAP: 4Yl BOTTOM OF TRAP: 454' tom 452 1422 m:8 4]s -{ mm o,m L-------- m _w._..o.q l r________ C 453 1848 80.8 1M.0` CONC.fl4$E CONC. BASE n 454 2340 ]].B 185.9 w. nxxx Il' 1B' ORuGTEEL 6 Is' ORi STEIT EL k&e ges ERS 456 3564 1899 M2.9. r. SX"ARB 30' SHOWN) 30' i av O 49 1329 146.2 599.1 mYy L' 0 1S HOPE BARREL tB'HOPE BARREL a''re" M.1 2TIMES RISER 0. BROSS �f� Dry � TIMES RISER U. Oe0y8 �gyy� pN \ ~ x p Design High Water Rational Mehl tV Wet Slonpe Rod I Method Ruder Volume 25 yr CY GRAVELCONE GRAVELCONE $w j Npl St., Rep're0(a,) AfeDA) 2365 DacusHigh Wder5CE 25,Ocrmisl 45T91 MOT MI CONVERTBLES) THREE DOING OF 1' MOT EI CONVERTIBIEB) THREE ROWS OF � r,TRc Eksatim (it) 4$$0 To, IOam (fl) g69,0 (• HOLES SPACED - ,, HOLES SPACED 6- Discussing 6 Was Small Pmdbtl out thia Ela ton buy) 283.1 Top Width of Da (it) 8.0 �fi �t2'�-� a'A`RTVERTICALLY. ?��L �12'�-T APART VERTICALLY. Req�retl vM aeb aemuM (cy)13a'Di 115.g Bottom al Bas (it) as1.a ee (9 HOLES TOTAL)A yJ (9 HOLES TOTAL)A GRAVEL CONE OF _ _ _ _ GRAVEL CONE OF _ _ _ O O Distance Man (fl) 4510 Appmx, Bottom 0' ns ns. 35'z 35' VDOTIL CRUSHED p VDOTil CRUSHED IS Distance from aEemNeD Qifice fl 1 10 imam Face Sla e. n 3:1 0 194a CY/Ac aA ap- 1S4a CY/Ac ()(e l�s P g �3- AGGREGATE MUST �3' AGGREGATE MUST 6 Drwnstrmm Fxe Slays: 3:1 BE PLACED BE PLACED LYy Storge: AROUND THE RISER AROUNDTXE WSER Dry ge-p Paryi buy)pri 238.5 Ban-: No TO PREVENT TO PREVENT ch Raw Creat Elesssbn(it) 45]0 Laglh of Flaµ LDU 135 CLOGGING OF THE CLOGGING OF THE wda DI Stomge Pusi]ed as this Elesfion by) M60 Effective Width, NN(fl) 60 PERFORATORS. PERFORATORS. �a gamNer d Demand, Office (M) 3.0 L/ We(8anes moralred Ra 2) 23 OamNer d Flexible Tutu, on) (O fiel 5.0 _ Collars: No PBRPORATRO 2n8®! D63'A6 B CE VOLU1® nQUIRED PBRPOBATBD RISER O61'Ad BfpB PoIA18 REQ ® _ w1r Inal DrpIM1 of WdaM Spillesy Deal Mi 11/11/2022 ON 86 Sbpe of Ups. Fee. (21) O To(min) 6 Slope claimeBil OeAwx ev Dip 2yr 12.I0 Length of Be in Saturated 25she Rx) a6]CY/ACwet stomas and 67 CY/AC MY stomp. e61 CDACwN Morzge bid 67 CY/AC dry [tome.. 025yr So 49 Numbr Colors Require] M. DENI Donal o Colors dry.® eY PdmiPE (it) 'With PHASE 1 & 2 PIPE OUTLET SEDIMENT TRAP 1 PHASE 2 PIPE OUTLET SEDIMENT TRAP 2 Fredmed Re...'A`flh Emerllescy BpilMay) 248 BottomEmergeWidth illway: Yes eesW • M. DENHMD DominateGoal Risa gm 40 SOnamfExit (ha 25 Phase l - II Pi Outlet Sediment Trap 1 Phase II P" Outlet Sediment Trap 2 • OamNer TaNl Rack Cut) 48 Slope NE Exit Channel l (it) A) 25 Pe n ye p msdr -Cliff DuseetenfBan 136 Crest Of Exil Otanrrel (it) 45 (Designed fu prose wish lagrsl CA, lnstaPhalich iegiase l) . B. CIpOCY.,f Oee!ImI Election (In) 36 Qed dSgllxey (R) 459 Phase PN 1. P 2]4 AC • • £ Band lm. Innt Eloodd (fl) 448.00 Tree Vdume 1.03 AC 1.8]A0 Ta VAure BarM Im. CW Elmelion (fl) 414.75 ElewB45 Aree (aR V01ume (cY) E1e28o' Alee(ap Vdume (cY) • ill Phase l - NI Sediment Basin#5 Design Ut 2nd0 7561 CS 31]80 lines To�pdRlaer 45T5' Demands! W Largest DA In Phase Ill. Basin to he InstalM In phase) Yw 452 26ID Rd in Ttp W Wm I51' 4`.b 35W] 12] W • Pryasel Pryas¢2 PM1es]allYM� • 452,5 3241 SG.21 Trp NysIN 452,5 457 5392 1fiB an Usual AR�pachi) 4.n 5.31 4!T 4111 1. 1D]N 'fi]CY/AC Mi Basin Voumea Cumuli p] Hu CYIAC py Elevdmn (ft) GMcurArea (s0 Vtlume (cy) Vtlume (cy) AT CY/AC Wet 5a 4fi3 .72 °X •vwx _ m 1R CY1A. Dry Rof 496N 1751 1751 Wgulnt Storage In CY We 183.6 CY BY, Red 552D 1945 3B9.B p9uiand abra9e odC CY We 63.00Ypy am In 60e2 2149 564 4 provlbtl 5bn9e 238 CV Wn ZI1 CV Oy W] Y£8 2361 M6 wY '�,w 'roy`q--- PmvlJetl Bbnae TO CY Wet iN CY BY 468 Y180 2583 1ci69 sF tm8.9 5epanM analy9a lw phaxiBaaln49w.rtlam bellV Q PNaet Phem] �q( (_ WN Biomes : Phase 1 Phav 9 Lei W Wef Sson9enfice Excess (6]'DA) 4650 4650 Top of High Wall SEA 25yr(mntrols) 468 469475 Dewandnd Orifice El as this (R) M96 me Top ofRestPH R 4]6 4]5 Willstand,land sie Dissident Email. URyl41 3888 389.8 Top With of WDam(n) 6 W.0 RepJln] Volume Beside CleanoW (oy)(31"D° 04.0 183.5 ALI of Goals Di 463 9610ClionfoI/1 U) astanc l EEaB. (n) 484.0 481.0 Upside. d Face Slope one'. 89M21 69M21' L � W G fan[e nvn Cleerw1100nfi[e(n)Q 11 10 t0 D-nd Face Slope: 21 21 �wmlr®m Face Sbpe: 21 51 211 O Grinding; s�/ DryCred Resengn )(fir0A) 468R 355E Barge, yes No > Z .setCree pleaded n(fl) 488D 4B8.0 EntireOf Him, Width LghWe 25 135 J Gy Sfora9 P a�NNia Eleetion Icy) i093 7093 Effective WdN, We ffll 75 WO asmdsrdWN Oeering Oune Bna ) 5D 60 M(Bemes reoulred f- 2) 068 23 J a ar Diameer NFlviiMe Tubing (in)(Cnrel 5D 50 FI z F, Colude NO He > m Z Rumrt Deplhaf WN«NSlAsix CnN(n) a O CN . & Slope 0 Uestrwm Face(Ll) T. and) 6 6 Slope of Barre SM I p Op Tyr 13 62] Lerch of Bang) In Saxamol Zene(LIA 025yr 33.] 4Im Num[er Cellos Reaulb Q Z Z DmwxIcA of Collars 0 Phmipk8pllmsyW '. O Residual TH'(No Emergency Sell 2 5.R Enreryency Spillway: No Ne O O Domeier Riser(m) 45 46 Botlwn With on parader Rash Rack (in) 46 46 $lope N Exit Chace Mi.) LU Bartel behatoin 139 in Lmglh of Exit Obarld In ` W Domed" of Bond (in) 3B 38 Crest N Bestially (it) / U) Barrel Tion IN Or In an n s 462 1113 46213 © elf Barrel Ira. ON Elecetion pl) 162.13 46213 L Z O O In 0 W F sma"N C3.1 ' IP "+ I C SAF EwSn A 100 � Fl/A nV r y,� y1TL v _ tot \ �n r + W IP I KEN, PLAN Y I F ' IP /� � DD I ' • UDC •k��.aa31 o"`A`":.: Ass I ��Y,)Jy � D� `�� � 8 V IB' EXCAVATED DROP WASH RA.CKA A I A59 Aov. pN0 ViiA AFA wa V 'r INLETSEDIMEMTRAPI 9EOIMENTTRAP ♦♦` RS] _ _ _ ��A� / Vii SC.ALEI . 059 AC DRAINAGE AREA I i ♦ >� �'yp� $� > SEE/INSEf1 ';u,. TOTAL STORAGE REQT8.1 CY r r ♦' - / :.\ �:� \ io IP 6 TOTAL STORAGE PROVDED 103M CY TOP OF TEMPINLETASD'ii ` 0 IT PH TOP OF DAMA31 g ! — , `C :::�. \ >�\ D 0 0 DID T$ DC ��■ D5 , �::�a�. �� sEETE_N .:�::� 1 �:`,IF ExlSrwo ' r _ V` SEDIMENT flkRNi3 A PT5 VA` ' 2%ACORANAOEARH / � �. ✓/✓ p \ TOTALSTORAC£E0918.2CY REQUIR, i'i� _ _ \ /r r DID�� TOTALSLORAC£PROVIOED: 5203 CY / ..A�2C. r� i _ bm / 's 1111112022 �No�T' IP m. OENHA40 IP IN IP DIDDD 9EOIMENTBA91N f2 i r / \ • 9. CLCHOCKL TEMPORARY \ / 2ABACORNNGGEAREA P \ / / I ` \ TOTAL STORAGE REQUIRED: 3331 CY OUTPIPE y/ t� TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED -EBRTCY iii _ si y"�30 SB iii / _ _ �� �• � I 90127BDID SE) '-E TEMPDRARv-________ / ®®rrrrrrrr L. ' W { NTROL ODD / I I � ' ire t) / �♦ Q # i' l SEE NOTE 1/ 't(� i0iir EROSION CONTROL LEGEND - M UNITS OF CLEARING AND GRATINGr....... DWNAGE DNIDEw d 3 '- ( ♦ DD (1 y6• _,/ SOIL AREA DODGE - J s •9 $AF SAf MFETY FENCE 3OL Q w 0 ♦ / /'� I CONSTRUCTION ENDNNICE Jl F v 1. , n I �` ' _ /,, \ \ \ CE PCE ® 3.02 Z i € �y \ i//!` PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Q ASt 03 ( / o r r �/ DID , - _ 4 \ SSF �.^E--- $F -%— SUPER SILT FENCE /SILT FENCE 3.05 m U y AO $T DIDPROTECTION P INLET PROTECTION 3.07 I p t Q SEFRI �� \ r _ \ \ _ ' l / I :.pe.s. . `- W � DIP ® CULVERT INLET PROTECTION 3.08 O - _ t ♦ DIVERSION DIKE O Vi W _ i� \ TS DC f / 1 ` ♦I♦ DD WD�— alGM oiwA�'o�EFAsaory 3.05 W t OESIGNDRA NAGEAREASPO ACED pij •f f ' 6U� _ _ ,t ' I ♦♦♦ $T SEDIMENTTRAP 3.13 g - ` �,' TRAP 1 $ - _ r / II i i � `. DID `_- �_ SB SEDIMENT BASIN 3.1a i TOTI STORAGERE0111 RED 130Cr 'a _ N\ Ir 1 / _ :D 3 T$ DD TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED 227 CY ♦- r - Dpffiffla OUTLET P0.0TKTION 313 EE DETAIL SHEETS C32 C33) , `�" 0 r INSEf1-INLET PROTECTION _ � _- '---- 4 \ i _ _ _ _ _ _ T$ TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 O W g 5} -__-_-___- i:•n '"C , / n �`�� \ 1 _____ ________ P$ PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 T$ DC P T\ P � / •'/ A ��, \V t A \ ___ - - OIL iV'PE mu MULCHING 3.35 �. ' �---� — — — — ass — — _ _ v .zTc DC DUST CONTROL 3.39 E i A R IP '/, A ___ _ ___ A BM AREAS STEEPER THAN 3.36 r , j t, / • _ - _ WITH 11 STESTABILIZE9 �{ _ t W[iX $TA8102ATION - S>N SEDIMENT 643INM - _ - - _ I v \ OB NO. S RO PHASE I CA fi 2fi AC DIANKET r (DESIGNED FOR WEGESTMIN PRASE III OF 333 AC) -- _ - LBO NOTE' 498z1 2 -t TOTALSTORAGE REQUIRF➢9339CY `SS _ _ t)ALLOIVFRSION DIKES OVER 2X SHALL PE Z / ' \ TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED 21219 CY .Si _ _ neFT In 8. I TI \ - - STAERFEED WTH CLASS I RIPRPP GOPE DEPTH) (SEE SHEETS C32C33 FOR COMPUTATIONS, TER -_�` - - - 'VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK' SPECIFICATION NUMBER 1 - OVER FILTER FABRIC. C34 YY' NPD� SCME t =90' 0 NOTE: 1) ALLDN DIKES OVER 2%$HALL BE STABRIIEDEO'NNRH RIIASS t RIPRAP 12'-0` CEPTI) OVER FILTER FABRIC. V EROSION CONTROL LEGEND a LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING - Lt m m mmmmmmmmmmm DRAINAGE DNIDE - SOILAREA DIVIDE - Y A NIIKK I ?. SK SAFETY FENCE 3AL CE PCE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/ 3.02 PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE-"2oNA4 $$F ; F SUPER SILT FENCE/SILT FENCE 3.05 p INLET PROTECTION 3.07 P 3 rmu CULVERT INLET FROTECTION 3.08 F DIVERSION DIKE CLEW WATER DIVERSION3.09RIGHT OF WAYDIVERSION SEDIMENTTPAP 3.13F SEDIMENT 84SIN 3.10OUTLET PROTECTION 3.18 TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 $w j MULCHING 3.35 F 6 DC OUST CONTROL'oROL 3.39 yx BM AREAS STEEPER THAN 3.36 ¢ a 3:1 TO BE STAFF € MOTH STABIIRATION BLANKET SEE NOTFI _R'VIR6INIAE105IONANDSEDIMEWCOWROLHANDBO 'SPECFFlC ONNUMBEK ° �41 T$ DC / / r '0 1111112022 i V I 1.DENHARO DD �� PHASEI-II PIPE OUTLET SEOIMENTTRAPt �. / (DESIGNED OR DRAINAGE ARCA PHASE Da:, o3 Ac) _ \ PHASE IORAGERMEM O aC J M. DENHARD TOTAL STORAGE PROVIRE0. 13A CY DN\ / z ,TOTAL sioRacE PRovIOED: zzT cr I" '-_ — _. msaaTnm (SEE DETAIL SHEETS C32-C33) TS • I L E. cfQNCA:Ar �� _ i / • :` \ ` SEENOTE, ----- ♦ _ l / - _ _ _ _ — --`_ _ , �mmmmmmPmmm�m � __ _ _ _ _______'_ __ _ BASIN - SEDIMENT 3 �� (DESIGNED FOR UAR➢EST DA IN PHASE III OF 023 aC) 4(5 i , TOTAL STORaGER0UIR0:0303 CV - - KSS �L `` -• P1 y.� ' \r 1 � - ' / OLu (SEE SHEETSC32t303 FORE COMPUTATIONS TVP)- 65$ — - C6 Y , P ,r , , , / / / , SEE NO1E 1 - - i Lu 1 i I lll` iY �/ _ _ _ - ; / 445 -uti 6 • _/ ,\� 35 — -- _ _ SB earFLe - I p Z r O o � rr I U) O Q� 49821 1 C3.5 1 EE5 1AB ` a iBB IP IP / / V mmmmm m¢ $EDIMENT Ba$IN i2 � IP TOTAL 9iORaGE REQUIRED: SAIZCY . P OUTFALL PIPE — / {/ I TOTAL 9TORaGE PRpVICEU. fi3o.]CY ✓ ® -/._ A \ DUD I ' '___-TEMPORARY / \ �. IP CONTROL - - _ - _ / STRUCTURE - SI — IP WB SSE SAF _ ST Bnfne _ i' I DD Eaoslory mNraoL LEGEND \ \ \- - SAF i I LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING ............. DRAINAGE DIVIDE - • \ ■ �q \ � O _ IP SN � \ Y O SOIL AREA DIVIDE \ - , W 0 new YI I, ■ A q kDl 54FEIY FENCE 3.01 CONSTRUCTION ENmarvcE/ PAVED CONSTIUCNON CME NCE 3.02 ♦ O \ \ O♦ p NA4 $F II SUPER SILT FENCE/SILT FENCE 3.05 s IP I'a' p ♦Z 0 �\ 1 /\ y'•L i i ♦ 4 wLFT PaOTCLiIory 3.02 CULVERT INLET PROTECTION 3.08DIVERSION DIKE T$ DC \♦O - EEC'"'AoI I P �`\�': • iE CUM WATER DIVERSION 3.09 00 `A'E' I 1 ♦ = _ $AF a p ; RIGHT OF WAY ONE0.510N 21. SOIL TYPES \ ♦♦ / -� -\ r ♦ oo-'' - - r♦ 9 T SEDIMENT TRAP 313 PC o •♦�♦ / � i _ _ I � SEE x0LE1 �� � � -�_ DD -'� '" ' O ^Fn� n $B SEDIMENT BASIN 3.14 ��\ I ♦I'O - I ••...... v • / ` zM�i+ ♦ �V I �- 3 ouREr Paorsrnory Sae �, - l6♦♦� _ __�` l�••f..r..�..'. __ `' r - o:D` �n OP - �� !. I .par. � E>>"„ o W TS )EmPoRARv SEEDING 3.31 �� /rl '\'� ( ♦♦♦♦♦♦/1 ftft PS PERMANENTSEEDING 3.32 ♦�'♦ - ♦ ___ _ --� ✓ev ` Lm -�� m mot IMP RAU MULCHING 3.35 — \ \ ,♦O B OC 0US?CONTROL 3.39 " -F \ ! . \ - - SEEINSETIL M _ - _ - s k \ DD g ARRAS NE STA0. THAN BM 3:1 TO BE STaBIL)2ED 3.36 \ \ � ! WITH STABMENTION BURNETBE o ! I *YIRGINIA EftO510N AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDWO("SPECIFICATION NUMBER / ', \ i `_11 � - �_ \ -- /���V .� NOTE: 1)MLOIVERSION DIKES OVER2X SXMLBE -' A �� `� �A A T$ 1]p1/?422 STABILI2EO VrITH CLASS RIFRAP (Y-0'OF➢TH) ♦ - _\ `` \` __ omwx ev OVER FILTER FABRIC - \- i I �In•��_ I � - � \ ! - `_`_�-`__ _`_ M. DENHA9D r ' DD _ /4t5 \ \ - ® •• M. DENHMD 1 I I `•C 4l5 I 1 _ DD --- _------—--- _- - - - --- - _ _ -°�s- _ \ �rL • 1^-3D• _____-----'------------------------ ----- - - - -- - - - - -- aTPBE\ - — \ �, _ .I`I \ \ ps •• _ _ .27C _ �� �• -_ / -------- ----- ----- ------ -- -- - -- __- __._------ ---- MENTBASIN Nt _ _ I \\ , / 1 IEIDA.828AC - _ — - _ _ , 0 III OF033 AL] Ab _ _ , \ TIRED: 8388 CY )ED 2, 1247 CY // r _ I.I.I TAnDNS TYP_/ TS OC w _ �/i \V _-__-____ rll v.aTe^CIA`, �I-_____'' SEE - (q I' ��/ f Q � I / _ \ ENOP I 1 I I �ll DD y\ _ SEENOTEI 1 _ ` \P `• \ �`- '-- - - a J - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ gw� ME _ — _ r_ v ) Z - SEDIMENT 69SIN Et Q F IJ.I TOTAL STORAGE REQUIRED: \ , ♦ Z SE�NOT�1 ORNAQEARU1RE0: T6.9CY \ p TOTASHEETS GE PROMFORCO]3CY TEE®ORARV CLEAN (SEE SHEETS C32-L33 FORCOMNTATIONSI I a O Lu U) _ WATERPIPE LLI — s O \\� � $SF � 445 / I • / OF TOR xo B SCALE 1�. m e• u 49821 (SEE SECTION 3.130E ___ - $$F $AF_ �- (J • - C3.6 SC3.6 Y \ , -T SAF DID \ \ \ PROVIDE GATE FOR PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEIP O^� w I ,n r i i /r,$ /\\ \ NPD NCE: 252tACRES t BE EROSION CONTROL LEGEND s r— LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING - nvma®®o®®®®ou DRAINAGE DIVIDE - i rs SOILAREA DEVICE - SAFE GAF SAFEN FENCE 3AT CE PCE CONSTRUrnoN ENTRANCE/ PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3.02 $$F �"f— $F �F— SUPER SILT FENCE/SILT FENCE 3.05 P INLET PROTECTION 3.07 CULVERTINIET PROTECTION DIVERSION DIKE CLEAN WATER DIVERSION RIGHT OF WAY DIVERSION SEDIMENT TRAP SEDIMENT KAREN OUTLET PROTECTION TEMPORARY SEEDING PERMANENT SEEDING PLUMPING IF \ CONTRACTOR BXALL ENSURE \ \ SAFE V \ ��� .HmT 4g,. i i DC DUST CONTROL POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO SEDIMENT /'/ BM 31 TO STEEPERSTABTHAN ED PROVIDE GATE 0 .�, _ _ 'i peS/" - WRH STABILIZATION �- _--_ _- F011CONsrRLICT10x_ " ll'i -c __-__- - c3,�'IV�y P85^r- BLANKET _ _ _ ENTRANCE - _ _ - �', / _ _ _ _ _ _ / (- _ 3.08 3.09 3.13 3.14 3.18 3.31 3.32 3.35 3.39 3.36 ( j -_v _ _ ;- z-_ - - __ _ _ _ - : --'VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK" SPECIFICATION NURSE \C p.CJ7\\\lLai 'o\ =c=_ --] _`-__` _t NOTE SALLOIVE WERCILASS OVERAP RICE DEPTH) STAB FILTER FABRIC RIFRAP (2U'DEPTH) - � \ _ @ / � �� �`� �"•�'\"��aY _>Eo= �< OVER FlLTFR FABRIC. �- \'-�\ _ ��•�_ -_ - 5 \�`���la�\.1 \mac _��.I ;;;�_\;r �I.�_ ,I I/ ♦ -��� :� .�: \`� �`;�. c: p,:. .-'�-____---A_� _ ... r rV 'O+s v 1 rr� I tv� _ _ _ "I;, , _ SO _ BEDIMENFfl4SIN l6 \ r PHASEIDa4ESAc \ \` r r ,er l r / / r I @`I�11` e \ \ _ \,� \� \`_ IO_ / ESI3NEOFORIARGESTDAINPHASE IIIDF. C -__--_ A rr TOTAL STORAGE REQUIRED, M 1 Cv I ' V' A i l i `(`�r�` I \ A . A _- , `- --_ (SEETOTL STORAGESHEETS PROVIDED OR 1oTB9w _ (SEE SHEETS ca z-c�a FOR COMPUrnnoN51II 1119 nlllr' AA A. ---^ / /� A ♦ I - 1, I� l I _ r'r/n 111111'�I v - / ,/, 1 I� TT 11 Illlil NI A � 0a\ � ♦ / / I I I °.� ' i I I A�I� I 'I II II �I` I (. .�. A2�A`v ` \`, / �/i 4'r r N t i 475 AFFI£-/ � I ;O T DD I 1 ' I '1 I � ` SEE NOTE T$ IDO �I I S DID / �111''II�I'�I6wA e ♦/>-� /-` 1 71 ICI I,I / r 1 -I �'IK'/ /i� -'/ rl II ,'�N I � / 'Oi '.�., ) L¢P_ h�-I( I l `T-I �� I\ Irlll r/l�r�l rli�r ".2�. 11A��r�IA/• -� __ '/, I �\ �zN' � A J ' NI ' \1�J/\•\%6 '/ - r, ' I /(` I I'I //�r•I �ar Y-\ / "/ ' / /v r I n' fjJ/// $AF ,�7 / /' /r / Im /" / ' I' III .J I \d' ,- \& /o / Yy .If \I`/J_ % // /`b' /,\ �/r �i �r'�' "'I 'I'111 I' 4�0``\�J �'N� I --- If /. / Ilr� 'i IV wd; , Yj_ , �/ / 1 l II l 'I'r 'I' �I -"Nf� ,., _-I I n Y V n y`AIj 1'I' I N III v l'\*" / /-� / ffi � rl'''� I J- � ,'�J � (v/ I �. � y: ��A`'II' I'I II;'. Ih I'' I f 1�4m /-�� I,I �III'I II d1':%_', I \1_j il'rii if Ili II IIII h11f, II L_'Ja. � • - �' / n1' ' ,I� fy' i' 'r'_ Imo' ''rr lr'�'i/��i�i'ur li'i ilr iR$c-- r ' \ / � I I`1 I'I,- J� �r' `_'' iliiu Ilu �' I I � s /iir � i'r /'r; h I' �'- I ✓'r ., rrr l'in r'Igp il'Il llir q`t` / �--- - r I y�c,i'I ? .i i/� �', r l/'I i�'M 'i� Sol avae'- �I'rrr 'rrr/I�rI1 irp i, \ , ' , l l A r / J' r /r -� l'rll r1r111 II'Il IIII - _, j / I ^ L, /r ' l /i ,' i /I i z2e -/4ii" "l4'�I li;il ;I�illn f`I o If, l / iv, / // - _';' rI _ _ / _/� /,'l /c'x - l` 'I/i�/ll''I'I III 11 Ps '0 k a SwF s ll/11/2022 � oAAwx ar M. DENHA4D . Nc GV® e • M. DENHALD • e. CffHOCKf • I•_3D• • • C6 u U M O Lu 3 (D < ❑ g>� J � f Iti � � m C a LLo u z s O o . ZO V U 2 c ODD O u')u 4981 C3 7 IA- ----------- --------- " � I r �F -_" - - ® --- ` - 1-- _3EMP0RM4MH DDT / SEDIMENT fiPSIN$ ♦r ♦ ♦ \ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ '>t- _r i r _ \ PNasG Dwas5 AD li[ Xo 59911 Y \\ \♦` ` / I � _� l _ "��r.. -- (DESIGN OFOR I R OTIRDA IN PHASE III OF 8.59 AC) ♦ Q r ♦ ` \ \ ♦ ` TOTAL STORAGE REODIRED: 1623 1078 CV ♦ �� \ `��♦`♦ I / _DD __ \ \ -_ __ \ / TOTALSTORACEP C RRFECOMUT '� l , i5 C32 C3 (SEE SHEE 3F0R C0M TN3 1ONA4 V \70Q - SAF SSF _ $EOIMENT Bf51NH / / / // _ P3 SEE ld0l[1� DD -5A2 ACDMINAGEARFA �' TOTAL STORAGE REOUIRED: 7263 CV \ s' // Yy TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED: 15]3 CY fe�[Y TEMPORMYCLEAN (SEE SHEETS OR IC33 FOR C0MPUTATIONST ` \ IIe / 1/ ' ' / Ot'> 3 r �/ �""��` 1CC• i_..OP SB �'// o2ZA 2 2 �� // �aN tztrt £ \�V A - � •- ° SSF SAF sV6. _; °P ram' S'� fi 1. / I o u srDNEv.1=iR Li CTION 3130F_ _ I STANDARDSABS, I/ /A I ♦ ♦ - 1� r/IoLOT LJl F/ n REARE LEE p ,I, • —T / 475 S. DEAUMUS) -460 �Okk-kkkkkkkk— _ _ _ — 45`+ Ilk �/ / _ _ _ / / rl //PVT' // ) _ uT [NHAR /// / /'A55 L / • M. OENHARD /SEE�TEt`\\ _ ,/,// / /. rI--/___1 • "_"_ ST ___ '•/ _ ___� / _". __. / SAF �� //g, e.aWDCKf __-9 _ �• �` _. DD r' 1 / _ 'III, / / r I / ♦ ( I b / • �� I 1 , I I 1 / / ♦ II `� � / • • SON£ _ TEMPORARr sEOIMENTTRAPI 18a AC0 IMAGE AREA -- _____• r' / _ ilji/r'i _"'"-_______" e3°/ d+_R��' . \ a05_, DD A6V ___ T0TALSTORAGEREWIRED:1]R.BCV _ / ' ----- _`♦ i • TOTAL STORAGE PR0VIRED: WEN CV __ `—��_ �I ^ • _(SEESHEETSC32433FORCOMNTATIO S,. .) i I 1 I/ _ABO- ____ '-- ` '-w� ��_ / '!' �; _•.. _ __ i ,_ � _ '✓nip i ___- ' �I � DID / / � �_� / i//�/ Tl_ �i� --- ,I��C6 — /45 _i _ SORT s V jI / �, �i♦\` SAF �� / •�/ M D_ _ y( `♦�� / ERDSION CONTROL LEGEND Z `- ''W� �--.y rt R� R� >t UNITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING -mft- __Lu ____ �_ l . • DRAINAGE OWING ' �/ ,II h"�� _____'� r smnLAREorvmE - a415 s \ \I \ _- I �� r - �--/ _ 3bS ➢ - I I I / /\ ` I" I SAF SAf SAFETY FENCE 3OL Q > Q :i/ \ -1�'M�' _ -_ _ _ \ A\ \ `�\ \♦ T♦ ♦ \\ ♦ \ ♦ I /'r�'`�- '1 �I / 1—� _ �T=,_LJ� F1�_ ��0za 0 1 '��IE`_� / �r �/r J // /, r � /ry�'J'/�Y� �♦`1 i/ /r I,NI�I / ENT" PCE NOENTRANCE �I£ Z�J P A VEDCOTRUCTI 3,02 I44 LSS—SUPER SILT FENCE I SILT FENCE 3.05 k_-- a UNITS of UMBEE,U a6y8 1�} P1 r I // //-/ II / /I' IP INLET PROTECTION 3.07 ( " z s I 11 QzW CIP ® CULVExnNUT PROTECTION 3.08 scAU r-sv p I \ � lfilar e � i • _ _ _ a .. q � / / \ 1 _ -/� '' / _ DIVERSION DIKE E, 0 A \♦� /� 4 ' \ ♦ r L� !,. ,___ cLEnry WATER mvERsrox 3.0e \ 7 ~ / / , / / K DD VYD RIGHT OF WAT DIVERSION O W g 0 30 BO / ' /i �� A V ` _ _ l" _ SAF / ,' • ;` ,./ 1 _� _ i _M .mil Ii� / /' / /CrA /j/ �I ST SEDIMENTTRAP 3.13 £ KEY PLAN �/ b I v v C n , / '/ a ' I SB scomcrvr aasm 3n4 O 7I ,II Via' / // // ,/i pp owner PNOTECNON Sae -a - —_ _ _ tiv% / /' i O 0 - _-_ / y—♦ ae� Mom,.' ,, ----'q=s""__'---" 111 v� /,; �,,�r' �i j }�r� rsLd TEMPORARY SEEDING 331 \ ` p,5` PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 '�- 1 wM�� r_ ` , � �p � `♦ I I I I I � I I / / , �� j ___�Y II MU MULCHING 3.35 � vI-L---,-''---/-w--,-------r-- -- - - --- - '� � ' \ Dusr corvmoL 3.39 J.`r_ 1' III Ih II'I!".�. Nan -\ AREAS STEEPEN THAN 3.36 r L Y_ . / \/ II'I BM 3:1 To BE STABIuzED _ 1h L_—LJ V IA �. ♦ I- 1 ` wrtx srABluun0ry g �--- � �'A `. II 111 Iil ( y / IDR xo i 4—i♦-- _ 49821 2 d /' F" I / ,-' _ /-�/-_r__ T- $ • ♦ r 1♦ I� 11'I 'I 'I I11 �1' `\\�''� 1.)uL OTVERSIONDS oYsnz4aE t j _ \. `♦ ' ` "III \ sTALEEO BINATI CITRUS RIPRAP (rU'DEPT11 xFFT Ln 3 % / IV I _ '���- ` I♦ I f' II'``III I'1♦ \`♦ \. OVER FILTER FABRII "'VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK' SMICIFICAT10N NUMBER SC3.8 4 e PROTECTION 1,' i ,'/ ✓�„S�' 1�i 'i �� �/ IP _ N zSza ACRES � �1���zDNAG Cf �\ NS I _ W�o 1 nE IXCAVATED ORS INLET \ $$F � y TOTALSTORAGE REODEDE ]].]CY TOTAL $TCflAGE PRWICE0: 1915CY /l TCP OF INLET: �51 EXISTI I 1 = r i, �'. \ q KEY PLANS„ O IP Nw I _ D 9tl 50 6 0 NOTE � I I iMYC1E WAl Y 0 ry ••J• `i Ai� ly 4 IP 1)ALL DIVERSION DIKES OVER z% SI RE 0 Rwgc9PPE' � \ C i V '� �\ , /N OVER zED vnrxcussl RIPRAP Izw DEPTH) AND Mx STRUCTURE / _ OVER FILTER FABRIC fFAVE0UT3ECT10N OF WRx FOR ��T`1 �A Cam.#�� ,� T' `rA w mo �TEKRORARY DRNNM+E TO STwh PPE ourLEr SEDIMENT TRAP2A.EAR / `•� �V ( \, v SF •� ; vaALSTO GE i aV-- _ ]o/MWxDR, 22 $sF �y.� TOTAL STORAGE REQUIRED: %]2CY P A O - - SAF \ T\ O TOTALSTIXiAOEPROVIDFD: WTCV A V 1 \ (SEE DETAILSNEETSC32-CB9f A B1 M. OENHA4O No�� _ A � FywFo ev r �4cceNHAeD 1 r r cTOroCXT i II DID / - - , • ' TEMPORARYNANPIPE IXTENSIOD I /� I - CONIROLSTRUCTURE _ I ST I / � A ) /R 1 ` ' r -SE) A ,1 SOIL 27B / N I B _ 3 -EXCAVATED DROP / s -- I a mIET$EOIMwrTRIP 1 _ A �\ W IP aOT AC DRAWAGEARFA !ate _ — TOTAL STORAGEREDDIRED:BBA TOTAL $tORAGE PRONDED: 1969 CY / TOP OFINLET: N66' �I SEEN TE1 M / D - TOPOFDAM:IST - / v 6i EROSION CONTROL LEGEND O Z UMITEOFCIEARMGANDGRADING - 3 DRAINAGE DIVIDE �1� ' �' I R� I I I_ SOILAREADNIDE - `J a Q MFIFT FENCE SOT � Q > 0 a ,L • \ CE PCE ® N ENTRANT3.02 PAVED WNSTENTRANCE JJl y z f-I £ Z SUPER SILT FENCE/SILT FENCE 3.05 > m 0 y T BNiTE 1EAVE WT9ECTpN OF CURS r 1 § �_ F� / ] ' / FOR TEMPORARY ORNNAGE 0 AN \ P INLET PROTKnON 3.07 p Z e CIP ® NLVERT INIFT PROTECTOR 3.0$ j DNE0.SIOx DIKE 0 dt! P DD VYD CLEAN WATER DIVERSION 3.09 O W 3 r RIGHT OF WAYOIVERSION F� g: I �j _ HASEI-IIPIPEIXIILETSEDIMEM IRAPt p� P � r �.' / �� IS $T SERMENTTRAP 3.13 �j € 2 i D T11 DRAIN LARGEST P HA SE OA:103 AC) ` p 1 NLAORAINAGEAREA 1 QUIRED 1AL �® ! OAL STORAG1,11-1RE0:138CY $B SEDIMENT R45IN 3.10 O n O LL C - �-oa"F oAL sroR EPROVDED: zz]Cr 7 a^ 1 EE DETAIL SHE r c3zc931 � _ _ OUTLET PROTECTION 3.1$ O 0 C= TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 Ix BLn 4 __ - s •�� _ - _ - _ PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 { j IP MB / - / \ IP 8 MULCHING 3.35 v v N _- 'MR vs . ,' S T$ DC '/7� ,� '• r /'/ / .-i ' �/ ' . r.` `\ \\ \• -' `,' v®�\ \ esB__ _ __ - _ _- _ __ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _- - ,,�q_. N 050 DC DDuusnrKCONTROL 3.39 N - AREAS BLEEPER THAN 3.36 BM AZED IP Ip WITH SDkBlUDnON 49821 SEDIMENT CONTROL F T,1�11 , --- '06 xo MPORC3.9 {gEiFqf£ BF EROSION CONTROL LEGEND14 a / .'�,/ '/ / IP ' 2T, / ' �,/� / �y� 4�R IP , �!�,5 � 5y�` /� _ / by � p�v /I I_ Dv DA T\$ DC ,0`0 N r�• IP \ _ uMITDFcARINGAwDGnnoG enmc.ar.<DR=DIVIDE - OSERE AREA DIVIDE jAF SAFETY FENCE 30 IP rE OE cAo%rnNSTRN=CNrvcTRANCE 3.02 $$ SUPER SILT FENCE /SILT FENCE 3.05 INLET PROTECTION 3-02 P g / - TEE@ORARY PIFE 59 V i E �\ ` $AF / IXTFNSION ANO ' QP ® CULVERT INLET PROTECTION 3.08 \ �•.,:® r CONTROLSTRUCTURE $T i \ DIVERSION DIKE �W U3 Tr CLEAN WATER DIVERSION 3.09 o j. $ n — I— AYI / DD V D �� RIGHT OF WAY DIVERSION W E q _ F F 1 KEY PLAN r-- U( $T SEDIMENTTPAP 3.13 b m C T ,'� •.® -"� -EXCAVATED M2OP O $B SEDIMENT ROSIN 3.10kge INLET BEDIMEM TRAP I _i . TOTAL STCRACE REp RED: BRACY DP OUTLET PROTECION 3.13 of °•LL / TOTAL STORAGE PRONGED: 19fi.e CY € �+ 'OF INLET: 456' _ TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 as TS NAG � � / / D TOP OF OAAh15T C Ety30, / / P$ PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 �/ T I IT eBSTf ysA. M / MU MULOUNG 3.35 B DC DUST CONTROL 3.39 O Ly B NOTE IP \ ® 31TO BE STABILIZED a i STAI IVE RACAN MTBCIKES 1 Rff 2 91DFITS� BE J _ SAN BM 3.36 STARILPED VrTTH CUSS 1 RIFRAP (2-0' DEPTHJ _ / WITH STABILIZATION € _ GRER FlLTQt FABRIC. " _ \ / y}/" �N `` J � / / I BLANKET � w n / _ _ �y3 g RAFFLE I I LFAVE OUTSECTION OF CURB 5n / �' _ / y _ $T _ I I — FORTFMFORMYORAINAGE e P R'VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK" SPECIFICATION NUMBER In wh \ I r n/v/zazz ) ) _ RASE I- II PIPE OUTLET M SEGIMENLTRAP 1 ' LARPRASE DA 1 �9 AC) e 6.D P . GE GEE IIDMINAGEAREA:103 AC �o p 'r �,, I . oF51p!®B"BV STOMGEREGNREP t39CY EPROVIOEO' 22TCY / • Al. OENHA4D BO (EE GETAIL SXEET C32-C3.3) _ — • ' — B. CfCHOCKf ��' .\ - J / NOTEt � osier TI / — �; � � P _ _ � • sCua I ♦ems , Bw 's'%v � IP ew —� , r c T TS r I �45 \ Ndg EL EL 3 NOTE V _ I %: LIMBS OF 013TURBANCE.252A SEDIMENT ROSIN NO W PHASE II DA213 AC / _ _ O OV g IGNEDFORWGESTDAINPMSE111: 039 AC (�S TOTAL STORAGE REQUIRED: 955 42 CY TOTAL STORAGE PRONGED: 4IN T CY i , SSF SA o U) i - .- O O W p __""_--_-_-_ _aJ_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — 106NO 0i 49821 (SEE SECTIONIN $E VTSH STANDfC3.f0 41 .IP 9• A r l ✓ �� - >� oA '. A I I /, = I EROSION coxmoucsRD I I UMITS DRAINAGE DIVIDE AND GRADING - �l u . SORIILLAREA DIVIDE - Y0. CIfkfH Z IP I r� III I' Pq $qF J3AF 54FEIY FENCE 3.01 A CONsxurnpN ermuxCEJ nu c ■ / ■ e s, e r 2l I ' CE PCE ® 3.oz PAVED CONSIAUCTION ENTRANCE S Sj`p X— SUPER SILT FENCE / SILT FENCE 3.05 } i��r�" r"`,_.� /•� ';\/n I*_.K _ Y \��,' �!\' — �.,`,�mo1_'t'v`� . ��i_�vrI�� / ,E�/I/-�_'���_ _/'1 _ _ `� 4n_A�- A:- �B�*3 ./�`'1 - __��___�__ /A___\, �_a % - ��1/ 1_/_e-_1 / __ -_ * -A \ ,�__ is_$I _ cA- mT' �Do/.^lCo-a1 a ��',_' -nm�'` �_\ �\_�/ \,PVH_l���'_n_-\_�sIR T IE , „ -uQI PcV �c�' /s_ ; 3 , /A_`IE L/�] �RAE�O 4�,_ W'',/�aa�'/' _ :�/��l '',� x ���/� ( `A_r�I\ _ a/'���JT�� v�V ) .✓? v / fAn ��f�- /V Ii�/' �Z� /ir_ O*/ ,aO /v %_ // a 6,_/`,r�\0 i�� y®`ti,v/Ei -'Vnem/0.isls (♦ n�/\allHi��rcA / d)f .1VIV/ '�_I I&I I ,_I.�I�I'�'�','TII ,:PI��'ii1l.i��_�l�� ` _TI�oP ._�\AC� �°I.I .A\_�r`i 1S-,vJ i.1F�II'I�I M��. l)�R/� 111/.I jS��am.�O/�CIQ A�FI/_ �� I'D�.�-7 l■I�TI Bl;_�4rV/�`lTam/'�'/Il,_U�.lwI. '_/<i'ti `�B1 '/aA\il-��/A��{'_i�N'/'i);0- C/- Ti°�/ -�1�n��-°v'a�`�i�1 y■y*-�7 r �I,8YC �'/_ ' II�� />I�1-if,`l��'iIj_/_//r1.'/'lI. y��I �!/'y* _:/ �/ �/W�/_i7/I\�':.��_:' /V.A. r�ei\'%/\_ \'I,:\�:I1//_.I/�%\pi'l�.\ s OA /mo�llr/ \ ��clIo I�j/.� c1=I/i'\vI�li /\�_rr',�:-/I/i ����1+�1��/�//��,�yS��/„� -dti . ,/1�icY/'h� �tI''P �jI1 -/ ''�/�� ���V��AVI' ATI %�/I\_1�\ VI )/ y�Ay�(_;���/I\��-_�' �'� \'11'''_- � /� /tAi�`��i/ /III. �— '\ >�_Y'`I-'�//V'ry �A4�'�:!,' „� :-�W �� ��b,\ / 1Ajy' �— ' s��- (c. A�'� '1,' `'� ,/��1\I�'�_l�" >\�I`;/i I'_ 1%,aa.LA1;'/"Z �,i�y�9t�/i�/� �VI mX..'>i °�/�j�/0I'� �.:,T_'/Ai�'/'/I I, ��IA7, l V I,��L�rI/,IEii`I•�I%Ps��i ��as�V_$,i,I M'iA�`i1PIFl�RIfS,E1IA�'�11�/'Ia N�_.� �rI.•�'3E�,'vY�I E� Y :�Q4 Ig� _u�`ss °�/C�'D(I� jI/ v.:I\ mo}/lq Y�1N%,fI ' R�� '�� „����II��1"�'lrI�'-1-✓ _ III„I 'A �,C�C`���li��c'lC !�a��'I`y�'l�C'� �uI_i,1,1 �`I�I�/�/.l3AIC\,'�A � /.l�.'A..i\/ Ic/,�'.rI�I�� 1 I�vI/��IDI®`�II�pIhIW1II `0.vN`iI rmaLl�1l.I � ICRSDNVIE�u`L�E/TKPROTECTION ROTEQION 33-0.3/ ] CULVERTINfTPROTERION 3.0R ' / a0F• *�o '•'y yV earaa$ � � �RwE4 DIVERSION DIKE € GM OF WAY DIVERSION IFAN WATER DIVERSION 3.09 AE8T3 , OOIMENL TAP 3.13 5. Al SEDIMENT BASIN 3.14 zr ORPROTECTION 3.18 N�� TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 A V, A'ia��w�MgQ 8 PE0.MANEMSEEDING 3.32E2RIA ACRES MULCHING 3.35 0 KIN, ARKS STEEPER 3.38 3:1 TO BE STA.Ull PCE WITH BNZAO BLANKET NIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONROL HANDBOOK' NUMBER o ZZ - 4 - *NOEl]FZ6Snpryo/rz Lwwn w/auh,2wr 0 :e 2v-gaJOZ2 vonHN As RIPRAR DrLDRM CAI FLnR FABRUC.OEM osalToeBy 480 m®e.M.OEN -iE iN. aCou Tj 190IF N .vI, .. GCLTY ze NMI LLJ �z $s r I ui aPN 4�.0"/- / 1J,(D I 0sas ()ESIGNEDF0aGESTDAIN / TOT 1995 CYREDP1CY T4MER CR..EDARG>FHQ Z k.E0WT 1 i0AV WLj-^�lr O /0 �WD. rl gg gSi3Ty=ag`'Bg uE3i } I ',�I 1 � i _ '� I /I �,'/� - I C ____ /__, l n,J /.' >•' /�l .'�. l ! /r � / ^_ 'j/I i'i//, �'/4 `li li li iiliiii__II� 1�.' I r I' ,/ � T� f 1B a yam• J r ! / -/ / '� -i — I' /,' l,' '' I/ '/.'I'/i /,'I '' li�ll� l'l�l l'l��ii KV I 'I Ii 1 P /,;I,�111 a 'a �m / i ' /v � 1/�! �'*a .,/` J �j I _ �_ / w -_ __ _ �' ,'���' / : i *'/ ./ � /' I / ,','� � l,�i // l'�II/,i,i/�....I :'%%� ��ar 1 / '%� Ali Ii11I11 49821 1/ I ��dd fHMET NO. C3.12 3F er f i r _ E PH II III SEDIMENT \ - 353 AG DRAINAGEAREN / ■ `� Ot'�3 - FETAL STORAGE REOUIRE0:4]3CY-- \ -!I FETAL STORAGE PROVICE0: 5491 CY _ `\. ,0 -�'�� I PHASE I�DA 55,9AC e�om s F s / POHEA$SGNED FOR LARGEST DA IN I FETuSTORASTDRA E GE REDmRED, 5R4, CY EA+MEMc a $ TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED. 11995 CY cIJT i /�� 2 C e45AD.,� I �� I r �e 3 If STONENEIR Cnox a,a OF_ _ '''SSF ______--r,-fS - _ L1 /` {'�i I_ ♦ / 5E H STANDARDS),- S, RIPtri 111112022 _ / I I% - ___ _� __--�• — ,'- - nE __ � Is � p e-' dppA:m � J� " ♦ �/_ -/ • n. DENwwD TS ce TEMPORMYSEDIMFIITTRAPI �_. - ' II V'� �� �_ 'rAA SAF- ".� `K' � � 1•_30 IIIIIIIIIIir �-�' � J � _ ______TOTAL STORAGE PROVIOED:3'N.B CY_ _ _- ____ L / P _"- I A� � �� \ � i � 405� • _ sEeaoTE, ��----------- ,�_„►`� _-_ - _ _,�-- - � �,I��I �I� / IP ,�.I�'_ ----__ '" �_���� ��i� ��/� � --� � p ` / �- p4 ___ / I�ns�� �_a _ �,_/_ /- - - / / .,JL, n " i 4 l,' 441 ,Ll II /,' 3 d6 to $qq ! r'�. sDR IRE - .,-.a.�,,,y M 2 1 EROSION CONTROL LEGEND a - r r- �- _ �- 1 / ,,• SPACING OF C1EARING AND GING - Z d 4 �p I• In m DRAINAGE ONIDE - IWBT J is ��pl +_ pp rx�r $ 1`_- /405. ,,. �, �I,>t,Imsll� SOILA0.FA ONIOE - V Q a 8 PP,\ \ \� F>s ��- / - `� I` I pp r _ 'r 11 ^ _ ��RL IV/ ' / ., //\ r I $AF USAF SAFETY FENCE 3.01 Q > O _ ul P �� _ �I \\ pp, :'� ,91D��� ,'r---+--Ir / % 'I /1- corvsmurnoN ExmnrvCE/ Jl v .T 1— '( v I / CE PCE 3.02 f' ` I I ` \ \/V�Y @ PAVED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE H £ Z g \ \\ ptmlp L_ '/ _--rI��U_---_- 7 v9 rJ / 4 I ///� TJ /� �6 $$F �.^!-- $F - SUPER SILT FENCE/SILT FENCE 3.05 Q pp \ \ LIMRSOF DISTR9A14CE 252�ACRE$ I `� _ L_, G I� // /N/ -, // I1 IP INLET PROTKIION 3.07 I p 1 z Z If € BAD v1 1 v\ \ / r If `\r���p -1 �. �'J SAF L__�.-r1 ti / ��,-'—f.—--„dr— CIP ® cuLVERr TNItT RROTErnory 3.os g pm- I _Sr= / dvs ,. / _ DIVERSION DIKE o gl p Sf:AIE, =Stlr' / DID M WD DIVERSION o sa By `T �'` '�`I \ AT :I I//r^�II m, �' yis•-\ -V�Av� ielrb 1 r��,fi� � _ CFWATER 3 RIOF WAYDNERSION .OL V W 3 nST seDIMENrraAR 3.019 �I a zO SB SEDIMENT ROSIN 3.1Q gEgEE :- I $: _ aE� 't-AS, / 1 OP MEMO ounET P--.N 3.18 Y) ; o •� �c' / / �^� �/ / °eo %\ �s ! _ p� 9 loff,J.}I sccolxc 3.31 12 � wTS remvaARr PERMANENT P$ Q-' ';�� '' .� � _ V !p .I � I` I 11 I � �' � / / ,,' � ♦ MU MULCHING 3.35 %. i w -�� '� � �� \ � � � A�'V �'� r� ?=sll� �►�� IJ4 p�I !L'/m .'', /, � .' :� ��ti DC Dusr wxmoL 3.39 r.AV V� \� -1 .VV>��I �I II I h m�T m p r. AREAS sre RTHAN 3.38 P L _ � �-,, I�`, I I ' / Y. v )•' _ 11TOBESTABIMED - ' 'L 1711, �7- (�- C�___v �A \ L ,-J�VI �II 1 _ Iri ( \ l�i•�mmm�� / - r� wnx srna,uunory nBOURRET e xo i NOTE9'49821 1 LIALLDIVERSION SOVERR%SHALLBE A VEDVUTHCI,Vg91RIPRAP2-0'OEPIH) NI0.GINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDOK"SPECIFlCATIS$2 . OVER FILTER FABRIC. 14 NUMBER C3.13KEYR DTI 3: I' - \ r : ,� \ � . �. PROVIDECATE '�- — — _\ *EHA \\ \ fir\ Sy3• , FOR CONSTRUCTON IP ' r � y1TL t N� /� ENTRANCE -W 9F UNITS OF DWNSTIANCIF 252A ACRE iE"�i exuan ✓- IF I PS s � `A q / � MU �� �\ SAF •� `\���� KEY PLAN �]Srmn O � A • �Y s" -—� �E �� s NMI o, web 1 - - v SCALE1=(Y \ W E a n 111 r 'a]snNo � wn I T1 /1 112i0 e2 2 ` e IP v • M. DENHARD \ � C \/ \ PS MU � � `AY • i Lu I r - dS o _ M x I � \ I EROSION CONTROL LEGEND • d OF CLEARING AND GRADING Q 3 I DRAINAGE SOILA0.FA ONIOE 3-0 \J , a a P SAFETY FENCE 1 O cOxsTNurnory ENTRANCE 3.05 w SILT FENCE ID i PS NI_ P INLET PROTEUTION 3.07 Z R CULVERT INIFT PROTECTION 3.0B — " ` I u W yBg� DIVERSION DIKE O O e Cl-FAN OFWAY IVERSU) 3.09 / I RIGxTOFTER DIVERSION -�SEDIMENTTRAP 3.13 06 SB SEDIMT ROSIN 3.14 Z g3{€f3 I - / OP OUTLET PELTION 3.1R O _ ~ o / 0.0Tpp TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 x $}p� W PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 E e _ e - @I E INSETt-INLET PROTECTION -` __ / -- a, - - `^ - _ _ � MlJ MULCHING 3.35 E �- P DC DUST CONTROL 3.39 AREAS STEEPER THAN 3.36 ' a 11 TO BESTABRIIED "VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FANDBCOK'ON 8 G L IP 40 =- �_ / _ - '--' �I BLANKET 2f wTrx STABIuun SPECIFICATION NUMBER eC3.14 4i EROSION CONTROL LEGEND ' � OF LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRADING �l So1LAREA DIVIDE - �B A CLMtYI ?. tDDM SbfEll'FENCE 3.01 � � 59111 .� 9 corvsTRurnory ENTRANCE 3.03 ro ��� 3-0S vi.- 1DNA0 srtT FENCE / MU INLET PROTEGFION 3ID PY LULVE0.T INLET PRDTELTIDN 3.0Rtr�DIVERSION DIRE �zs RIGHT WATER DIVERSION 3.09 j. CLEAN OF WAYDIVERSION ItEY Wxw '/r �• �.... _ A SEDIMENTIPAP 3.13 bm - 92 N g SEDIMENTBASIN P 3,14 z &� r o OIRLET P0.0TERION 3.18 Mia tygp 03 o r �\ $ TEMPORARY sEEO1NG 3.31 o a 1 PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 $ F 0 8 O 9V Etl ,'Y ..'. � � '! i ` MlJ MULCHING 3.35 i B — — DD DUST CONTROL 3.39 O �y I IP _ - \ J IVpTE ALL yy, J1BB3.3G To E STEEPER WITH STABILIZATION BLANKET w n VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT LDNN1oLHANDBOOK' SPECIFICATION NUMBER FATE 1111/24II i rr • , I ` r II � RxAwx ev DENHARO SAF r r r r y . i � r✓ /, ( I � lY 458 4 � � �,/ � ___ IP - \ I M. OENHA4D uj r _ n r , t I r _ YYYY � N i _ I p Q F_ Lu a. IP , 1 } r 's J z / Q O 8 fr 1 o Z g U r JJJJ � PRSvEBva)STEEP am - � � �Lo(t ' 1 {g 110 49821 8f NA -_i _..1. //r'r''�:;i� _--'______ _ _ _ _ _ _"_ 44e _ SC3.15 4i _ ������ IP 7 V/ �v / / rJ! N/'r'' /- ERoslOry wxmoL LEGEND PROVIDE GATE "' / 8, ' V ` I"l�"'l' ` _ - UMITS OFCIEARINGANDGRADING wRGDrvsTRucnON - / _ K' r/'r _ ENTRANCE " '����/ DRAINAGE MICE O soRAREA DIVIDE B G CeE¢ti 2 SAE seF SAFELY FENCE 3AL ❑e. Xo OW, Y I mnmturnoN ExmorvcE 3.01 T 6 ��NA4 ® , SF SILTFENCE 3-06 yITL •._ 691-� �� N9p� �� rTr� l'' INLET PROTECION 3.07 �g CC\\ n a9p � SAF `Y ' '', I M /" �VV CID ® CULVERT INLETDIKE PROTECTION 3.08 �T DIVERSIONDIKE p�z: A, age \ B ` , `/ � RIGHT OF WAY DIVERSION O4c= CLEW WATER DIVERSION 3.09 $� j � RE4F N ST SEDIMENTTRAP 3.13 Ps semMwrassw 3aag P MJ SS k o OP OUTLET PROTECTION 3.18 �9n \ \ \ j 9tl9 _ \ 2p06p'EXISr'NG \\ / \\/�� '/� \ ` ✓ y �/ TS TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 --488 � � � _ _ .- �� qB � CE Y52d ACRfS � A �_,' ��' \ r $QOIEi � � P$ PERMANENT SEEDING 3.32 _ \ .—_<8> '_' `. �°•`[� F \ , � 0 MU MULQIING 3.35 DC DUST CONTROL 3.39 AREAS STEEnR TIAN 3:1 TO BE STABILIZED 3.3G WITH STABILIZATION `411 _ _ BLANKET w n � - —VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK" SPECIFlCAIION NUMBER I \ ' np1/mzz M. CEM FvGa®vPROVICEGCT DIRCONSTRUITMN \ M. OENHMD 7-1 r4mmo, I ps MU ` `( I '1�`<\ c Z `6Y15RRA, ORAINFJELO AR, \ H sAE C 'ram ''V \\\w, C.\\�V; "���. t • B. craroa:r 478 I� " a¢ m Bu'� w v ♦�/��<vL /> j \ yI v r�l�' v ` A� .v v ..� � v:: A!`; `, `�"vx` �_ z•_30' A"O dD ° _ 6mcoii %/ °tr . A J' lI II III / rw —lie I _-->l ' , III' _ v I ! Lu 01 NMI n Iv �I' I III' II 11\I;A,�V. z I '� !I- li A � J I I I I I r'll III � � A v` A i % � I Lu SAFE 111 11 j lll'I 1 r aI`+-I ,'N 0' / I�"j I.' ,1 ili / I I' I I 'm�'�l I'll' III'' Dili" Ill: \v�jdVv./. �/ J d•s RE- REAP Ery \ s- r J e z' -T—_J' i ILA—�'- oiGGl AID TE. = r __ I-r— -� I � / / % Y. � � / r �1 I I i In e d j�-''% \ d' I \✓, <' _ 1 ED s s�/' l'' �;, , Yt / r � '/' I'r I � I'rBi , ii L� 1 V wy _ ``,, jOID W gg ' r I ' 'I I I 1 1'I'll ' � lI1 111 �";t,` � � � O - r, I �� I /� �� J $. I n' _-I I \ i ✓ / ,' � '�'/ �\\Aye W / w y��� i� m ��dl Z w�g /=r %'I / I ;mT�a�'ily'li h h'I' I''1 -t l Z31 e-1`// //,p`/// I € a>•�/—F — d T x/ ",Il,ml i� ili L'll'llli `'r,a \ —iJ IMP �i O %l;' cn l o \ l'„' I;I'�i;;i ./IJ ,. _ _ - I 'Ir���l�l'� ICI, 0 v 'lint'/,�i i�r 'il R I ' SAES► �ir'7'' il. \I - , �., W. \ roR,'aea, /I ' n / ' l�r" C -d`J / I ^ L' /' lI >•=/�i ,' Y /' „ ^—'/4, II ,�Iliiiilii�i t / C /__, r.o=AvoB rl�, - a�`bA' \` rl a, I 3 y / </� r�\ �I /JLg`)�' !/� ✓`J,' -,' 1// ` � '',/`✓ �j/ ,' .' : I I /;/,A;; /;'111 . " I � II rDx xN pi `'�' 49821 — /r'/�rlll' pc I YLvI vv 1 H3r1. 1. <'. �_ L��— 4 t � A r i ✓ � _ 'i ® ' /�'/ e �/ _Y- ��_ _ -�i m P ✓ G' � _ �< <_n r _'Y.t ' /: il,'<' '}nl' � r rl .I e '�1.� .. .'1_l .'LTA e. \�a�i6 dn��� N Y / I ] � \ � - mNc nEl�Mr.e =► +as - _ "" ° `l9��3 I ` h OL a�rvRI C EA 9w i � �4 `` s �_ ill r 5 )6 1 i ♦ //� 1, O C AIN STABRII�IN@IAQEJJlDTOR€AWN _utmL anotam-VV'a.�ORRKK aGp3E5 � �— 'tiiV/� - _ � _ IIII P6 i A4 _ , w]__� _ vvzzz 2 0 Al. DENHA40 RE _ Wr L Al. OENHMD _ _ A,aarocKr 470 ' _ I— ] � / _ _ __ ___' � ___ � �_ \ n"� _ "" _ __ J- o� / f „}tit \ � �1 ,, • ,+ I ' �� � � __ --- f _, �'-_i � �,'���5"- - I II �' / � If f-�_-- _ _S� /`v -'-" j—?1��;>•�-k ��, �-W �.: � —� i//<� EXSAM / �' _ ♦ Dtl'_' C.S — /;, �• -"- - Darr �T 1/ _ _ 1�{ dJz r't/ / / : ,/ ) rJ� 1 f �'p W ixs — _ .I/ / E_ — _ - - ). d j_ - _ I,b-!dare L /^v A / / lI ( I / / 4 - - ,--__ - _ �`✓ 4 - IP _S;kF l �' m4-�'' f1- _ .. , IP eds / M S �S` VNP ' �'�� EROSION CONTROL LEGEND Iw0wyamsµ-- IIMIr50F C1EARING AND GRADING Lu Q ` '�l ` e ` ♦J� BV`' / l DRAINAGE DNIDE JIS w� °j (/$A�F) /AB6' �: y`� _' ��"' : l: SOILARFADPNDE - V Q a 8 Q_� �i r I ce SAF SAF SAFETY FENCE 3AL > J CONSTRUCLON ENTRANCE 3.02z IL O? L�—_I—-d-BdO945 �1�iI rT .. SILT FENCE trc 3A5 __—u_(_� a� r U 4 INLET PRorwnan 3.m 1E2F O s 1 xP i __ �� �_=� rJ �A I /// - /�— - L—P Q w I CIP ® CULVERT INLET PROTECTION 3.08 scue r=0a 4 1\\ \ h r3'7 `lr1 DD VUD ADIKE O o CLEANTDrveaSl3.0e WRGHTOFWATDVERSION sa p: ST SEDIMENTmov 3.13 z 06 gl olj SEDIMENT BASIN 3.10 r z 3 g; tiAy F 1 _ +�^''_�_'_• I A M I I ' TOP m-0177 �'S �/ / //iv/ j ;1 OP ourLEr vaorEcrlory 3.1e O peBU I - _ �,� Ili ll �- �/ / i �,�/ —� TS TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.31 v LI` �/' / • %� 1�/`I �t %A r--�-11 1 I V` [ A� __ _ �l `.I PS. PERMANENT SC{-0wG 3.32 I III A .� �I I, �I I `,-w--r Mu MULCHING 3.35 _ rJ �JAi l`I IIIV ]EK'SA,Af,/ :DC DusrmrvmoL 3.3D I �� h i��AREAS STEEPEN THAN 'J `\ ( \ < I I ✓I-aYe i'r 3:1 TD BE STAeluzeo 3' . f' L N� I II I I I III i1I;,�, N, i\ _ T� 11TOBWITH naluunoN iA •�—L—LJ oR82491 SHEET "VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENTCONTROL HANDBCOWSFECIFICATION NUMBER C3.18 1 r I i, Section 5. Stormwater Management Plan (Provide a reduced 11xl7 copy of the latest stormwater management plan. Do not reference only.) Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County pqgv i//i ii/S./�%r ,/:i:%.i/te%-r!5%lr��iji'i%r.b/'.,r.;,.�1b,' I�`'/ %�3% •'�yS^,y`'A' P �I'r P��F/'Ej;ERVi,E'/E/DiO%'/F/AI; N"'AG"Er""A°RE4T _ '�' / \= - �-� \- _� ---r-nPFAlEEFlrRFETuvN4rWO---U2'-s5Bu((1 IrAYnuWCrRE0l75- 1BI=R4fo,.8a9cA(C7Br (BrIr '. LEGEND I IMPERW=053AEAEASISPOINTP-01ECAC—EAREAS 9PEXISTING IMPERVIOUSAREA X%' 2IMPFRVlGU5=301AOF LI+G� � PEFVKK/S (WGCD5I=8.B8 AC (BI "'j - 1 / /�,�:'%/'i'rOq"g�/i�1 r�aREa 95f aC •�� _b n,� CN'66 nr'"�'r lf�l �rTIME OF CONCENTRATION FLOW �B0.LkENb z 0IMPERVIOUS =B.BSAL �+'�' TC 850 (mm.) Ta 8,3 (mfi.) q%r' i - PATH PERVIOUSSWFI=016AC(BI :♦ \ "_�" 5 11L Ib 59111 Y Y �i 1/Y'h/ / / r I- ay/+c/BVroa ustwWOs1-z69 clBl �y ✓ \ `—r: _ _ _ _ t _tea0 aASIN DIVIDE /IPI1 _ /, 'a _ ♦ i �] -e _ -}�„ ' :_��;_ WIL DIADE ylsu ` /y -4�— �—' -•_�, _ -- 7,X '� +,.�_ III, Ps o S L o "1� /,_ _ 1 \ ,'�'ImI�F'' '�21;!PI°°'IC 110 �; n, g�6'm �_�''''. v 1 ?`'055° / �Q-'��■!� J/4Ts / -II�S' I�� i'lili --_ - --_ F Ev 9 ♦, /�, ,, - 1 ,. ANALYST POINT3 1 ` ` _Y/ �_ - - ''\ � rir .i' i & ` . � i �/III h� `M1M1Iy /\ F✓`i c� o W X71%={0�lo �2;VAI, � 6 ` Aaea_ sov ooFAl GE ftE,a3 r / nNALvsIS PAINTS m � � 'i '� ` �lr� � �A� ;pee�"� - � : � "9,9r`/•, � � yp� v. `� 3 _ J ' PERwoGGsl-f.lzaclel � __ � 1:60(mm.) '[��� v TT ANALvsIs - �I' t6t _�` \ x'` _ ` - �,"",, \U�I POwTd _ �'I'i� 1 _''t�`� -t `� Ile f 's9G r.+ "A _ Irn. 6 A / .�,'A o /u/uzozz p055�Q PRE-0EVELOPEOORAINAGEAREAO 6.10RC � J45, >. �', 'l _ �' I �I � ��. •��� l O_�" � I 0 / I � `.�w/A A- omwx ev IMPERVlWS=0.G5AC {� $ M. DENNARO PERVKK/S (WGCOSr 544 AC (BI s cNeo /15 /n1�i,s '� C a r ;72 _ P EVELOPED DR NAGE AREAS , / d/ / i✓0p4. Y, '� --'I '1 dhr� �. - LEGEND x i / POSTOEVELOPEGORAINAGEAREA -Lc - ePOST-OEVELOPEOOFRINAGE AREAf "' ' / C a'n I . PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS / ,.�' ¢< \;Y <T' POST-O ELOPED DRAINAGE,/ `' \*\\�� \ _ _ IMPERVIOU$AREA i' 26 (ON3/¢UNOETAINEDJ "°a° f + _ (CNSITE,OETAINEDI I ,\I PlPFRV UAC / / \ ANALY I$POI AREA -2BOAC MEAD ONSITE DETAINED _ l /�/ AREA B.33AC / / IIAPERVIOUS=0T5AC IMPERVIWS=155AC y ' 1 IMPS OW=51f AC CONCEPTUAL FUTURE ' 4 / . ERVIOUS (TURFI =O.53AC (ef �b >"- - - PEIWOV- 11-1)= "T (BI 3 _ O $ / / 1 (rvRq=3Ytac (sI I= f r/ I IMPERVI U AREA / T. 6..0(mn>-1 TIME OF CONIC A AA SA, j / n „ wlLVSIs aOINr z' ; b _ '� _. ' ". - 5 � oW PNTRATI ON -q iw w 491 _ _ r I 0 Pj / _ //�PoSTDEVT D GE - 8 \ /� d ` Si$ 'L b <.' y - • - p I �.\�� - BASIN DIVIDE rW�urrrl=ocsaclBl - - �7 �P/ ICI IIII O (L a ' d AFEA iT6AL \ LIJ 1ifr A / Y' �i{ a a PO PDEVELOPEDORAINAGEAR[A S s / D111SE.,UNO AINED) .� ! l 1{ 'II 4 J/ P \ i� Q _ AREA =0ISAc IMPERVIWS-O.. ACg_V p Z S 'SP PERNOU9(NRF 0WAC (8) _ ,� _ to nfi �� I� 1, d. rlpTy ( WI �' Q Q 8 i= >ANALY515 POINT3 m b9l_ a r5 :,.I AREA 6.53 AOPEDOFAINAGE r, 6a I I ca arla�s e f l I p' /r �3 [ :5.+ POS EVELOPFD OFAINAOE FEA �. ✓ 'SB � � 6T� \ .K 40 /S / p �A� 3A 55 M1 POST-OEVKOPEO DW,INAGE l �� U ^/ +� T AREA- DETAINEOI p5� ey. r5'a�nh` ` T \ '\\ T Q e€ AREA 6AC _ _ �� AREA B96AL IE y f• ppA N , _ 1 F9 a30- - - ,!; IMPEFVIO 054AC IMPEFVIWS 233AC PERVIOUS PEFVIWS(TUFF)163AC(BI N £ - _ I. ON. e3 asz.. _ -- v' - o'e or �, ". 11e3 60( MI � .!/R /439 d26 e ANALYSIS POINTS �`�_ � - I I " I. : _ Y / POST#VElOPE00RAlNAGE q \; ANALYSIS POINT - 6ya�Pc-nvrou5(rvRPJ=rB9ac[xI ,lam o I'" POST -DEVELOPED DRAINAGE B S':Y Po6TDEVELOPEDOFAINAGE ��> ` II A. (ONSITE UNOETAINED , hs__ _ � j'; AREAS(ONSITE UNDETAINEO) CN; 63 L-�' I { AREA =OPO AC I 4R5: d AREA=0f6AC a3� -.. _. NA AR 490 6 PERVIOUS FF-O.iBAC (BI - P09TOEVELOPE00lNlNAGEAFEASC 5 PERVIOUS(NRFI=0T4Ac(B/ y / (TU I F 696 RCN61 AREA B97AC Y) Bf �'^ Im.VlW5=023AC TBO(minl �44D; ��ri'(Ta'60 (minJ PAPOOSE(TUFF/-0.T4AD(8) �/ III nB qca fis c Vib` IOB xo ♦i 1'/v.��,_.A,;� ly �i,/'v�</�� ryJ ] ^•C4 �yyyi _ �e� k� 49821 2f _Y AREA sBE l= ''' �'@` / w_. /sell scue r-,00 LOPED DRAINAGE S\\ V%' �iY- d`vI S�� T C80 .. may}_, ., o far S E_ F WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS POINT t WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS POINT 2 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS POINT 3 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS POINT WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS POINT 5 OF L to NARRATIVE : NARRATIVE: NARRATIVE : NARRATIVE: NARRATIVE: G1 IN EXISTING CONDITIONS, FLOW TRAVELS FROM PRE -DEVELOPED AREA 1 IN EXISTING CONDTIONS, FLOW TRAVEL$ FROM IN EXISTING CONDTIONS, FLOW TRAVELS FROM PRE -DEVELOPED IN EXISTING CONDITIONS, FLOW TRAVELS FROM IN EXISTING CONDITIONS, FLOW TRAVELS FROM PRE -DEVELOPED u 0. LkE¢B 2 TO THE CULVERT (STR.502) INSTALLED UNDERNEATH HORIZON ROAD AS PRE -DEVELOPED AREA 2 TO A DI-1 INLET ISM 140) THAT AREA 3 TO INLET 236 CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF VILLAGE I, PRE -DEVELOPED AREA 4 TO THE DUSTING, EPHEMERAL AREA 5 TO THE EXISTING CULVERT UNDERNEATH HICKORY ROAD, La Xo 5910 '� PARTOFTHEVILLAGE I PLANS(WP0201800082). THIS FLOW IS THEN ROUTES THIS FLOWTO THE EXTENDED DETENTION POND WHICH OUTFALLS TO BIORETENTION#1 IN VILLAGE STREAM ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE. IN PROPOSED WHICH DISCHARGES TO THE EPHEMERAL CHANNEL ON THE EAST ROUTED THROUGHSWM A INSTALLED IN BLOCKS B-11(WPO20210IMM). IN INSTALLED AS PART OF THE VILLAGE I PUW$ (WP0301900062). IN PROPOSED CONDITIONS, THE MAJORITY OF CONDITIONS, FLOW WILL BE ROUTED THROUGH WET SIDE OF THE SITE. IN PROPOSED CONDITIONS, A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS, POST -DEVELOPED AREA 1 WILL BE ROUTED (WPO201900062). IN PROPOSED CONDITIONS, THE MAJORITY THE AREA MALL BE ROUTED THROUGH PROPOSED BIORETENTION POND#1 TO MEET ENERGY AND FLOOD CONTROL AREA WILL BE DETAINED BY BIORETENTION" FOR STORMWATER fDNA4� THROUGH BIORETENTION#1 TO MEET ENERGY BALANCE AND FLOOD OF POST -DEVELOPED AREA 2 WILL BE ROUTED THROUGH #3 TO MEET ENERGY AND FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS AT REQUIREMENTS BEFORE OUTFAHJNG TO THIS EXISTING QUALITY, WHICH WILL OVERFLOW INTO EXTENDED DETENTION y1fL CONTROL REQUIREMENTS AT 8TR. 502. THIS STRUCTURE WILL BE BIORETENTION#2 TO MEET ENERGY AND FLOOD CONTROL INLET 233 WITH A SMALL PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AREA DRY CHANNEL. IN LARGER STORM EVENTS TO MEET ENERGY AND FLOOD REPLACED FROM AN END SECTION TO A MANHOLE CONNECTION. REQUIREMENTS WITH A SMALL PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE FLOWING TO THIS EXISTING STORM SEWER UNDETAINED. CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. THIS FLOW IS THEN ROUTED AREA FLOWING TO THIS EXISTING DETENTION POND TREATMENT PRACTICE: WET POND#1, MANUFACTURED THROUGH EXTENDED DETENTION JH IM1ICH ALSO CAPTURES rs TREATMENT PRACTICE: BIORETENTION #1 UNDETAINED. THE CIA INLET ($TR. 140) WILL BE TREATMENT PRACTICE: BIORETENTK)N 03 TREATMENT DEVICE UNBOLTED FLOW FROM HICKORY ROAD AND THE FUTURE RETROFITTED/REPLACED AS THE OUTFALL FOR VILLAGE 5 AREA), BEFORE OUTFALUNG TO THE EXISTING ' F %E DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS (PRE -DEVELOPED) BIORETENTION#2. DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS (PRE -DEVELOPED) DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS (PRE -DEVELOPED) EPHEMERALCHANNEL €W Ls ai AREA EVELOPED AREA i(ON-SITE) TREATMENT PRACTICE BIORETENTION PRE -DEVELOPED AREA 3 (ON -SITE) PRE -DEVELOPED AREAd(ON-SITE) TREATMENT EXTENDED DETENTION f2 BIORETENTION AREA ACRES AREA, ACRES AREA=IOU ACRES ENDIED DETENTION ft, EXTENDED DETENTON#1 W IMPERVIOUS ACRES DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS (PRE -DEVELOPED) PERVIO3 ACRES c] C TURFDODO ACRES WOODEID=1.12 ACRES ACRES WOODEID=5=0.65 RESACRES Vd000ED=5.d4 ACRES DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSI$(PRE-0EVELOPEO) aWS E WOODED .88 ACRES AREA 2 (ON -SITE) Tc=6.0 MIX TC = 6.0 MIN. TC= 9.6 MIN. C „� MIN TC=85MIN. 0(CFS) V(AC-FT) AREA= 3.51OPEO AREA=3.51 ACRES IMPERVIOUS =0.66 ACRES TURF =0.26 ACRES p(CF$) V(AC-FT) 1YEAR 1A9 0(CF$) V(AC-Fn PRE -DEVELOPED ACRESAREA S(ONSTTE) AREA=11.99 ACRES =far o!^ W 1 YEAR 1.81 OA14 WOODED=2.%ACRES 0.073 10YEAR 5.TI 1YEAR 22] O.1]8 10YEAR 15.64 IMPERVIOUS=3.01 ACRES WOODED =8.98 ACRES aN =a 10YEAR B.]3 TC=&0MIN. Tc=8.3MIN. C A wa 8 DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS (POST -DEVELOPED) $w DRAINAGE AREA ATULY315 (POST -DEVELOPED) Q(CFS) V(AC-FT) ORMNAGEAREA ANALYSIS (POST -DEVELOPED) V(AC r 1 YEAR O.14d POST -DEVELOPED AREA3(ON-SITE DETAINED) iVEAR 8.53 0.57 9.53 6 POST -DEVELOPED AREAi(ON-$NE, DETAINED 10.9 10VEPR 10.80 AREA, =0.95 ACRES POST -DEVELOPED AREA 4(ONSITE DETAINED) 10YEAR 40.51 AREA=2.84ACRES IMPERVIOUS = 0.55 ACRES AREA =8.33 ACRES IMPERVIOUS = 1.55 ACRES DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS (POST -DEVELOPED) TURF =0.39 ACRES IMPERVIOUS = 5.11 ACRES o TURF =1.29 ACRES TC= 6.0 MIN. TURF = 3.22 ACRES ORAINAGE AREAANALYSIS (POST-0EVELOPEO) a TC=6.0 MIN. POST -DEVELOPED AREAZA(ONSITE DETAINED) TC=6.O MIN. AREA=1.26 ACRES OUTFLOW FROM BIO IQ OUTFLOW FROM BIORETENTION #1 IMPERVIOUS = 0.57 ACRES OUTFLOW FROM WET POND #1 POST -DEVELOPED AREA 5A (ON -SITE. DETAINED) TURF =0.fi9 ACRES Q(CFS) V(AC-FT) AREA =3.96 ACRES Q(CF$) V(AC-FT) TC=6.0 MIN. 1YEAR O.2A 0.11 0(OF$) V(AO-FT) IMPERVIOUS = 2.33 ACRES $PmP 10YEAR 1. 1YEAR 0.29 1.008 TURF =1.63 ACRES N 1 YEAR O.dO OA97 OUTFLOW FROM BIORETENTION 02 10YEAR 12.19 Tc=B0MIN. 10YEAR T" Q (CFS) V(AC-FT) POST -DEVELOPED AREA3(ON-$NE. UNDETAINED) POST -DEVELOPED AREA d(ONSITE, UNDETAINED) p(CFS) V(ACfI) ll/1112022 1 YEAR 0.32 OA13 AREA=T15ACRES IYEAR 9.87 0.46 AREA =0.24 ACRES oxnwx ev CHANNEL PROTECTION (ENERGY BALANCE): 10YEAR 6.75 IMPERVIOUS=0.10ACRES TURF =024 ACRES 10YEAR 24.07 POST -DEVELOPED AREA2B(ONSITE UNDETAINED) TURF = 0.05 ACRES TC= 6.0 MIN. m. DENHA4D C . 50.W*(QIR,...RV.E. RV.. TC=6.0 MIN. POST -DEVELOPED AREA 5B(ON-SITE DETAINED) AREA, =0.]8 ACRES pfyCy®�. 0OF$) V(AC-FT) AREA =6.53 ACRES Q,. YES0.80f(1.81 CF$' 0. 114 AC -FT) 1(0.19] AC -FT) IMPERVIOUS =0.25 ACRES Q(CF$) V(AC-FT) 1YEAR 0.12 0.00] IMPERVIOUS=3.43 ACRES •• m. DENHARD o'.'(" xl=0.84 CFS TURF =0.0 ACRES 1YEAR O.d2 0.020 10YEAR 11701 WOODED=3.10ACRE8 • w E�m �. AClfifOCKf 0.(,_,)= OF$ CF$ OK TC=6.0 MIN. 10YEAR 0.9] Tc=6DMIN. , 0.40 S 0.84 Q (CFS) V (AC -FT) CHANNEL PROTECTION (ENERGY BALANCE): CHANNEL PROTECTION (ENERGY BALANCE): Q (CFS) V (AC -FT) • • scua FLOOD PROTECTION 1YEAR 1A6 DXG37 iYEAR IT19 0.65 N.A 10YEAR &W O.�. S0.80'(C�rs vEioarn RVwE.oE�ioamURVoennffn (bE i�m5 10YEAR 36.91 POST -DEVELOPED Quo S PRE -DEVELOPED Qio 0.80'((LxEuavm RVaxEuewzOam)1RVOEVEmcEo Q.,10.8W(1.C9 CFS- 0.073 AC -FT) I IT 12fi AC -FT) POST -DEVELOPED AREA 50(0NSITE. DETAINED) � 7.63 CFS 5 Kn CFS OR CHANNEL PROTECTION (ENERGY BALANCE): Q Ityx) 5 0.80'(2.2] CF$' 0.178 AC -FT) 1(1.008 AC -FT) AREA=0.97 ACRES Quwx U.yxl=0.68 CF$ IMPERVIOUS=ACRES LL�aam 5 Owy(1.yx)= DUDUCFS TURF = ACRES 80 0.'((>pxE.oEv¢acm*RVpxE�vEioam)IRVombarm Clwy(yyR=860 CFS 50.fi9 CF$ OR MIN Tc=6.O MIN 0.11-yam = 0.33 CFS 5 DU CFS OR FLOOD PROTECTION Q (CFS) V (AC -FT) Q-11 VN 50.80'(2.T6 CF8•O.taIAGFT)/(0.149 AC -FT) FLOOD PROTECTION : 1YEAR 0.78 0.40 POST -DEVELOPED Quo S PRE -DEVELOPED Q,o 10YEAR 3.37 ...F O�IyyxI=1S5 CFS POST -DEVELOPED (J,aSPRE-DEVELOPED p10 �I (n 4.40 CFS 55.]] CFS OK Z OIywyI=1.41 CF551.]5 CPS OR 12.43 CFS 515.66CFS OK POST -DEVELOPED AREA SO (ON-SITE.o6 DETAINED) Q AREA= ACRES � FLOOD PROTECTION IMPERVIOUS 4 TURF=1.09A RE ACRES TURFDMIN ACRES M POST -DEVELOPED SPRE-DEVELOPED Oio Qo TC=6.0 MIN. yT n 10.3d CFS S 10.W CFS OR Q (CFS) V (AC-FT)w Q 1 YEAR 0.86 0.Od] 10YEAR TM V j L) � Z < H W POSTAREA S ROUTED THROUGH TREATMENT PRACTICES. i m W Q(CFS) a (J 1 YEAR 3.60 I 10YEAR 35.50 inZ O Z POSTAREAS(UNDETAINEO) O -0 Q V V w (CFS) (AC-FT)O W 1VEAR 0.6 O.000 10YEAR 0.4fi] Q CHANNEL PROTECTION(ENERGY BALANCE):re © LL r T�maEo50.80'(OrxE�avm RVaxEumbmmuRVoeuraEo' OFFSITE O O OVERALL STORMWATER NARRATIVE THIS PROJECT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR 0,.y 1, 5 O.W(9.53 CFS • 0.57 AC -FT) / (1.20 AC -FT) BIORETENTION BASINS (ONE LEVEL 1 BASINS & THREE LEVEL II 0.,, = 3.0 CFS BASINS), A LEVEL i WET POND, AND TWO LEVEL I EXTENDED DETENTION BASINS. DETAILED NARRATIVES ARE LISTED UNDER CF553.63 CFS OK EACH DRAINAGE AREA TO FURTHER ELABORATE ON THESEIyy�=363 QUANTITY AND QUALITY TREATMENT METHODS. FLOOD PROTECTION ENERGY BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOD PROTECTION POST -DEVELOPED (i1p 5 PRE -DEVELOPED p1C REQUIREMENTS FOR THE tOYEAR STORM WILL BE MET THROUGH THESE $WM FACILITIES, WTH CALCULATIONS 36. 01 CFS Sd0.51 CFS OK Toe xo. SHOWING COMPLIANCE ON THESE SHEETS. 49821 ca.1 vrolebxame: Sw NII R oae: 'tn/E0DSL3 unear De.elapmm Project? An Site Information Post -Development Project (Treatment Volume and Loads) Enter rose Disturbed Area(aeres) 4 25.93 P.e-aeD.velmmeM loss Coverlve.l A MAE I .Mons Esoils A1.11, cable sxreWP.nspmlce0-welsnixe Iren/.xenm.e HOOFms Ha seavyeamalr D-FIR.nee.MAND, eas [me,lsngn SM S?6 IS93 nwelwnrM uM emrr, 1-1 A. .Sails csolls esolls 1-1. -w cross,reroreRea.Ae88reRetl wt U.3? 143] •:ce nr6 0K pL nL qL 2593 pinta s amlal llMeel AS 4anx rail Evewllmmesl tin Yo:N Pnospno:us UPl EaelmW aM 'loa w:rvvenpNl En[Imv 1.% loaello/aw/ "Ussr's-LA-urso I Dee 0.SO mx0 e, PmneM Drmd Aeuma' EweWDcen. EAR-UAPPl oats LARD VALAREa AIRS., Am 0.03 % Me eanaseandrwV,NAVo a66 o.6G NeiNceemvum Ato Ei. pea 3% se Ymreniousarnerlaeal Sze AEe avompeniwsl ass NM St. enlRm:M-) 2R.0 R6.N Aaa Treatment Volume anol Nuttlent Load Md Mr,M,,VA"M, Vdume Inn -NI o.4nx ..V7 PrvM1 UPPAemTnaomMVPMom In6xnnl 3a?9] .,As hebMdapmnL3PRoaa Ilb/yr) 2.0 12,40 P,..nawl,memm.eMl ee SAO D.ra neonNp IwLWmnr Inn Prr,Wnro.mm 6.90 Check: 9MP ne9gn6pxljl[aNms Ust 20335Lds85pea lineurprOw? No Landroveroressentered[wrxHy? ✓ TOWEASIwbedomaentered? J Ruroe cceEtklexb al osolla wreavoWnspw OR Am nm ow ON A� TOW A. A. A. D.R INCLUDES CONCEPTUAL AREA FROM VILIADE 5(FULUCE) A".1.n1. Al,m., owe Res.ann as royre -1oA ,PPVV1en A,A1n.appw,/epn,pwon INp "e For 6.]S 1RAPA Rr16.00 mm.pee ,11 pmp.ref/wnew rvrvsm e.eaepeM pe WRAP) pns. s b/yNAI aai.nM:P:.I Prix. e.on,:Nm: wxn ron-Receernp�nem.nmPe rmn,.. wrew.olnew mp•rvrow f Wxn�lsnvxs �mne repunvnmrMnermcervo.emrcrlWallon mw .bMm+ fits atl+/.ere/MN. re.RvvM,=-M 93N I 11iIWa-nehwiopmene8raewe I ELMS VILLAGE 3 & VILLAGE 5 (FUTURE): Drainage Area A Onlmse ere. Al andcove, fica-I AL.A e5otls ESAia D9oS TMab lens Ewer ax EwnVopenspcelacm 0.W OM MamERSTLAOn[real 1 7.22 732 0.20 xlpeMurs Earer NUM 1 10.12 1OL,, 0.95 Tpbl 1].30 Trial Plesphosto Available lw Removal in D.A. A 11b/yrl 25.22 Polls Development TreMmem Vaber In D.A.AIflal 40,141 eFUROMIL V`AEFDARRDlnl -MAxeamTuuuMmMTEolVo dS. De SICMe rme[ oxcv W vl5 vtx W el vt¢axf o M aR IeM10 ae16n1 aAl /yn Amu Puce anlnnx n A:h') } A[Px PHsvuuuma A[nRAP-...MPmeoamlximxslxo Al.MI 11 R/voM Amx REMwe.wma AAlxnn awe[ Rmcam mMOVED IR O. A OEnN VILLAGE 4: Drainage Area B Dainaae Area A Land Cover (acres) Result aSON CSolla Dsolls Torah Usal Cover Re Fwat/Open Span (acres( 0.00 0.00 FYnaeMl Turtla[BI 2.44 2.44 0.20 InpemmOVM s Cbares) 3.43 3.93 0.95 Tamil 5.87 btal Phosphorus Available for Removal in D.A. a(lb/yr) 8.54 .. Innm.MTwMm.Mvabim.bno Rleal 13,600 As w.unan Rxi.rerenmnapec nl Pn M D D D D zs oa ADD D.ED D.ro rvorc lb R-tVs,,'2,r MU-Rw.wmionasm D znD .a. a B.a EDp]ISW[p15) D 2,Ro D L.RO 3, R0 IS ON 0.W DID D.0 ab.EDOVIAMA51 0 TOTAL Tmin[An:AOIECR: OR. ROTALMANAGEDDIRFAxMTasATm I0 ACHeCx OK TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL REWIRM ON an VIEW) and .Al An RIVAL PHOSPHORUS A.anaYrl AHOML'm/vl TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMAININGAMA APPLYING MAP LOAD REDUcnOM IN DA. RIIb/nl SEEWA QUAL WMPLMNUMBFORSREMO NCECALCULTLON5 A. RDaMI s xlnNSA REMOVED REMO nD a.1 - f4 TOTALNDID.R. A.. lx.,.Ianl ace 000�00 0©0©00 o00®0`1_ I1 ®©0�om ®00000 rl 0 S I UHMWA I EN UUALI I Y ANALYSIS SITE DATA PRE -DEVELOPED PROJECT AREA FOREST/OPEN SPACE = 20.43 ACRES MANAGED TURF =0.00 ACRES IMPERVIOUS COVER = 4.14 ACRES PRE DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP) = 9.67 LBLYR POST -DEVELOPED PROJECTAREA FOREST/OPEN SPACE =0.00 ACRES MANAGED TURF = 10.ZA ACRES IMPERVIOUS COVER- 14.33 ACRES MST DEVELOPMENT LOAD (RE) = W.72 LBIYR TOTAL LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED = 22.T2 LBIYR TOTAL LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED =20.52 LB/1'R REMAINING TP LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED = 2.20 LBOM FINAL TP LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED = Z.20 LBLYR ARM 'REMAINING TP LOAD REDUCTION TO BE ADDRESSED WTH THE PURCHASE OF NUTRIENT CREDITS. REFER TO THE CALCULATION BOOK FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Plan Nurrber VRRM Total Area Phosphorus Reducton Required Phosphorus Reduction Provided Credits Purchased % Phosphors. Treated onsite VVPO2D1900032 215E B. 8.52 1,25 BZ21% WPOM2100004' 749 8,52 6.67 1.22 78.29% Offs to W P0202100004 2.91 0.18 0.63 D 350.00% WP0202100022 UBosck 11 127 1.5 0.65 0.84 L,L0O% WP0202IM022(Bbck 12) 2.84 3.48 2.7 O.79 TSER,6 WPO202100038 488 4.5 3.O7 1.43 68.22% V%1R,e 3,4 & 5 2457 22.72 20.52 2.2 90.32% Total 65.54 60.67 44L]T 7.73 81,11,P156 PB ••0 a D 0 z 0 11111/m22 M. DENHARD L, SL®ay M�IED RE, Rr e. Cf(YroCKf scuff N.A Z g }a F- Q Of W Of Of 0 1n 49821 P"IAR"OE;NM°�"9MO Ia�ao.Rr-.aOx..OEaIDx®wR MPNaeIMM N� O.Le,.A,oxa.ro M.[ Ee.RaTe �ml AR C6.2 y♦ FLOW�A - - '- �- \ - PRE-TR iMENTADER \ - SEESH ELOVJ PREAGER SEE SHT Yl➢P \ Cfi9 TE GRA" TE 1 TOP R TOP `A/ `• - \ - /' HPRGNgOD MULCH GABIONFOREBAY TOP =458 DI 1Q2 T EImPT � \ �. Mff 460 I � HARowgbO Mu4�� MERLEOPFL000 REMEF OW PATH � 7 4 G / NYLOP DINE / v WRM DOM GRA qqq �o as0 BIORETENTION 91 (LEVEL 2) scALE r-va �BJ o��� IRE f, AM T� ,B•NYILPIA .,. CIFANdR YAMOOMECIUTE T�-asB Sa RPMPJOI .P., OYERFLONBTRUCTURE 5 OPE y HORGWCCDGRNMULCH � �— 3— S BOTTOM EIEV as>15 JM BgFILTEtMM -- BonoMFLEYA.: S N2B BTODIFCNE BOn E...5IMT NfiEN0STONE `�° `IXYT UT.45J15 sEECLFANour Eie/. upon I. DBB 91EET M PERFORAIFll IDRIFICE SE.E. MIRAD 1tlH OLDER P/C UNDERDRMN FABNCOREOUNALENT. TE INNO�ERFLOW TOSF2WOE BTRUCTURE CENTERED. U.M. NOTES WBMLTFAMEMADE BHUL MEMINIWMDEPTHAFTERABETT PER'OD OF THREE. ]. FILTER MEDIA MUST BE SUPPLIED BY A 4 R LEVEL 2 BIORETENTION ALONG UNDERDRAIN (BIO #1) ND _:: i i iI I MP. Mez-Lewvv I � �, ISLW I n®Wouk.re I 11 GEANOUT 1B'NYLOPIASTI TOP�LPo.00, / GPBION FOREfl4Y IH .... RAMP�LTOUP OF SaiUCTURE 1rf J: TOP N9.T5 \ Irn°i°°•I OVEAFTOW \ 1 MIN BLOPE St I \ rcx 3 OF I \ \ BgRETENIIIXi I� •� =..RE fll51NHYDY \,1 M rovstlMea�nv J'HMaACCO 84tKMLLCH I\ BOTTOM Tr J b EPTER 'BIODE'I �15 BOTTOM EEv�u.I M �IMAP III ' BIORETENTION 92 (LEVEL 1) scvE vwa NAD aJ o� l^^a IF t� B a c�eaM z li[. Xo 59111 Y fONA4 ylfu Q�ijE s„ c IF O ,I FATE � a p 11111/mzz � oRAwx ev M. DENHARD • ocvGw® AY • M. DENHMD • FdFnM • e. CfCHOCKf • 1•_1a• • • • S W Q M !g ^ J y U) F gaol w�= J a H � y �m<`i a LL f O d' L W �J Q0Q Z 0 -1t © L x€ O,^ VIi �F �i 49821 8f 8s sC6.3 �F wmynnn,imKM. " LEGEND: MULCH TOP ase � w AYER ALNMAL I1........... , n: mI.�...raNwe®meuv COBBLE I r I / cGBBLE SE�I.woscAPR ,PIANs d _, scone cur N I a'w OFLgSDREOEF SCURB LCVJ PATH `S9N M� / SqN f 15\ PRE TREATMENT: GRAVEL FLDW SPREPDER SEE SHT 0 \69 \ i OR E GABIONELiAV TOP OR Yv3 1Y NVLpRASI ___ _____ _ WITH nO -H,3 TE Who � '. Mom. ,i'x' i I}L dW EXTENDED DETENTION #1 (LEVEL 1) SCALE I'=1G EGB b 0 1a _FERMPNENr "^ NPOBO 2T MrsEL W r: FLaMM wwntbn , - LML, 1YNYLOPI TH N GIFANdR NIM TOP -.ATE TOP•�5}}S RAMP SCHLTOLIPM OKJ6lfIW 5rRL`MPE MIN SLOPE SI i ROTTOYOF RbXNI fl44N0.52]5 25N J"HARVACCO RViK462 Iy BOTTOM EIEYT62. .OT �f•1 ' h T IW. BSTONE BOTTOM EtEV H»5 SI STWE IIN IOUT•H]35 sEEC S EIEJ aaa.lr DEraLTHIMls SHEET 8'PERFdtATFI) SOHEWIE,D MIMFIIWX FILTER I.RIFIOE W UNDEFOMIN fPHRCOREWIVP. TIEIMOOKMLW TO HE WIOE ..SE OUNTERFDON OERDEA. NOTES EB'MOFLTERMMABEPIH SNPLLPl THEMINIMUM OEPM LATERA SETRING PERgEOFTHREE USS 2 FLTER MFLN MMUE7MUBT EE SUPPHF➢ BY A KJIDOR LEVEL 2 BIORETENTION ALONG UNDERDRAIN (BID #3) NO SULLF EXTENDED DETENTION EMERGENCY SPILLWAY ,«m..aw.eluam.w-s N.T.S. GEE TOP OF EMBANHMEN =45= 0.50' ELEVATION •w EMERGENCY SPILLWAY WEIR EL=458.5V — VIEW BELOW — — ,mu:100WWSE � � 1 pL.om . m. .�v .ay.. awmwvwe®"wr CLASS I RIPRAP ME MIXW OF OI fi'OF TOPSL CVSSI RIPRAP mlu.EHy.7 2 ELEVATION VIEW t� B a c�eNN z fONA4 ylfu Ps >E }a a �1111112022 � omwx ev M. DENM4RD • ocvGw® ev • M. DENAMD • [drum • 9. QCHOCKf SCu£ • 1"•t0' re')J 0 i !L! F _ gaol w�= � s Q O LL E i o V LU W ) 3 s Z0 �J� O o ©/= D 3 O F E ! y '06 sib 49821 SHEET NO. C6.4 ! e T \ _` - - - - NET FORD PERMAREN T 665 „ h PO'JL WSEL 02T �' __ v c _ w O \ 9 WET POND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY N.T.S. SEE TOP OF EMBANKMENT EL=454.50' ELEVATION EMERGENCY SPILLWAY WEIR PAT =4533 VIEW BELOW t00yr WSE1 NORMAL \ / POOL \1 CROSS SECTION VIEW CLASS I RIPRAP CIASBIRIPRPP OE➢T12A MIX W/fi'OF TOPSOIL CEPTI-2, 0, 1' ELEVATION VIEW wnmecerciaentzlR'al 45aIX BsoN csal. OsoIR FomVOpen Spa[e 003 003 8.00 OBS Mana8a3iur! 0.15 030 033 035 Impttviaus fovtt 095 0.95 095 0.93 GABION FOREBAV TOP =42800 -255X DOWN PIPE W/ TRASHRACK a _ sTROci DRE 502 11111/m22 - —_ / \ M. DENHAV) 1TGWIVEL k4aB3IPENnxcE \ . SSUC ar RDPD, SEE SHEEP M. DENHA4D - •• • B. CfCHOCKf 131 _ - - - - (MID_ _ _ d _ _ _ _ arse • 501 � r ta.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � _ �mn °°n - _ � ' � • sC.va 1rrwo - C 433 � _________ \ � FMERGEN I RIPRFP_ - - TEL.43a.5P. SEE DETNLTHI- - _ � � --_ BMP: WET POND I-IEVELl ���( WLu W g,o J a / a LE. I O _ PERRUWFNT Np0 Q W wsEL senLE ntB' Nce Rv la. coenlnennxuna u.r Xl z 0 ManaBM curl BSoils, flv. OAg O OV i Impenioua, fl.= osz Bb4 \/ X wiw GANSW pg�xrromma BPtlN B]Tlpl OABLDN UNIONS 01E8: 1. H8rY1 WBIpIg IN/,Lc[MnNSTN Ma.4FK11IlER88PECIFlLg1gNA 3 W ONSANgF71NINN MEET45M4910.9). a LOWr lm�xnc.Oo To PoW., ,.An . wa�wu p. MwsiruAmi e FYIWSIONIASNET5wr4 TOB S*ONEIge=85. GABION BASKET FORESAY DETAIL xm rosaLE �E� [T LEGEXP. 18EEMN8rE£.T1 03 9mpweeCondition rorm-ss XSG 8Q1 Neala[1 % RCXWea glmpenlaml 9e AE1 s9X 4sx B ManaBatl iurX fil 3.13 I]M 196 TI)AIS ).tl 98 RLX= 58 OtheirDesl Re ulmoentl M.. Re M.S.S.) Connote. T..n[VoI Tv c.No. TBbII V bibutin d =Sil 5ea'r¢ X n[SMbacaa=69' Va aer¢ S. N=IIIl Blnlx l[v x All+13-volumereau[N byvpabeam BMP Orainage4r¢a,P= 3n1A)5 V 5veam Volumeireatetl= B at [ufl er PBM 34 falummE Min .SNba[ka 30'fian pmperry, 35' flour bltlg.ouMationa, 100'.mmxepri[' fleln V¢ g'iCWvkao uxsbragetlrvation DepNo,moSrablea3' Vn —USMMVdumCN= 1AS, aR NUM r-d M iI,C W g5pile,m cmaiar ubei na V.,=oI%-LUD V¢ o. xla w^vitlea heglmemvaume- sbr brry Pbma nlwa Va Plaerwnnbaanrack x Anal INN.Vo„me ToraVnume NontIUM gbw0[Iflce Ym SlnemounRnbaebra[k U—S-13pillway To FmergmcVSplluay EI.J33.25' 433.5 3A9B D D Pontl Orain Yn 4345 "'St 4,'33 4.033 435.5 5,1311 4 Alan OLryuattDURaII P[ocMlan Ya V CIC5.DBSPEC3.18 421S 6�933 1,321 ",.N 421.1 &319 23A69 Inlrt Pwhecion VDOT.o EC-1 M..cW,,n WA ,S nN r Nabn 4' bnacca In Y. TreacmeM VWme�IY= A. aR I.d. 0DV) OUP '06 49821 'NOTE THIS GABION BASKET DEENL IS ONLY APPLICABLE FOR THE WET POND. SEE SHIP Co 10 FOR THE OANDN BASKET DETAIL FOR THE XE[T SIGREIENNON AND FXTENOED DETENTON PRACTCES CB.S LBBBxD: O tMAOLCH YER roP = PERMEL�NENT OALLWF COBBLE / NICROpOdL I (L OEYI/1) I CHASSAIIALW W1L —75 3- DEpTx=3'6• TOp5014 n-[4ABION FOREBAYJ ee's`t�R�+ro Sc TOP=Ov5 1 i9 l I 1 I 1 RW 1 i I ` I r I I / 1 I EXTENDED DETENTION #2 (LEVEL 1) 8 BIORETENTION #4 (LEVEL 2) NOTE: 1) A FOREPLAY IS EXCLUDED FROM THIS ED HNSIN PS THE TREATMENT TMIN INCLUDES A FOREPLAY IN THE BIORETENTION PRACTICE. NAD� $GOLF 1'�tlt 0 To- 20 BNIP. Wend" Mention i - LEVEL 1 wwf ceemaema m A 3Nn esom t'xIx oxe =w m waOR e napl ran Repmed TaMmon fBTRS HIM <reaHN. ROIW kII3A3 336 Blanana mril 61 '.up U, PkI B. ..P—I I,ll Kemx Treatment Volume,TvlSpec No IG, Taxe ll3 Te IID.o nit lnN nl<II. t11-w ume reulemb upstream N., aN BI , IT uprva en tuff vPPAt 30 GI. —I nee etm UUO,, ulan Treatment Vdume Sto for TV Naa BN v VWne Mi Klume 41, 0 n A 3 72 3y9 3,U6 ` 470 4472 2 n339 433 5.345 3t6N 6011 411 7020 10 3e,6T3 Valme. re• MIT mN—. ExiENOm BETmnCN fi BOTTOM PRO BtASS Al ALI3 COBBLE CLSANORT MMm VL 0 OF TO 11 B BERM BIT TOR 4CI 75' AT RIPRAP RII.. BO ou OF BLoaETEunox B49N R2W T H4RVTCCD &VIK MLLCN BOTTOM EUW47175- ,B'BI--.. RMIX BOTTOM EU,.Is T NO BSTONE BOTTOM EtF/48I.SP dB'Ip.S)STONE ElEV.4B..NT IINDERORAIN BVBIQA BIIPIL LCNBIBT DAYIIOUTNNOERDRANS S IT CO.LTFAALLL IXTO mY2 PIPES FPBRIC OR EQUBN ENT. LOCAim ON EALH SIDE TO BE 2'WIDE OF THEBIORETENTgN CUNTERm ON PIL E DERDRFIN NOTES 1. 48' BIO RLTER META DEPTH B WLLl BE THE MINIMUM DEPTH AFTER A BEETUNC FFBgD OF THREE DAYB. 2 FlLTH2MmI WIBT BE SUPPLIED BY A VENOOR LEVEL 2 BIOREfENTION ALONG UNDERDRAIN BID #4 NO SGtE DF L t� B a LkE¢b z Ik, fb 041 Y fONA4 ylfu Ps >E g'n 1g 5� F 0 8 0 11/11/2022 M. DENHA40 • • ocm.BB Xv M. DENHMD 9. Cfl]IOCKf • SCX£ • 1"�t0' • • • g o6 S M 4I'^ J y w W 3 gaol w7i= J a � ; H � >1<i q a >O F L 8 W O 0 yL 11— QY Z O 0 0-1 ©L11- r 0 0$ E v �F 49821 8f $E C8.6 eF aiw o.0 lry,l trn) IDPOF DM1=ay.50' ofi Uj 1 1 \Y EMERGENCY SPILLWAY B A CLMtYI Z mm 1ATF EI£V.A9325 TRASH MCK 11L. Ib 5Y111 .� EL_i39.3T_ _ _ _ — C7 100YRN5E 9 n /q/23 I3].3]0�Qo,`,/ l ""mom awmnaa avm — — CRESTELEV.C2.25-"fONA4 RISERTOP "— ELEVeOQ25' _S] 10YRME .14 STR NUMBER:EN 3n OF DI-1 RISE W/ONTWORTIX OEWCE INV WTJ2lt5 95 RC PIPE NUMBER: Wt 15X25" WEIR M I P) ELEV. I3D.]S y'aE a.— 25'ORIFICEW/TRASHRACK02].50 36'OUTLETRPE PERMANENT POOL ELEV. 427By €B3 ¢ELHSH ma V• oIJC 3 a p.'ro nm. _ t YR W3E O r ' M. GATEVALVFF STEM. SEE DEfA14SHEET ORA IMPERVIOUS CORE 430.5B0He O GENERAL Soros FOR TRAY RACK AND CUTOFF TRENCH a o N I SIDE Ru nn, PONDPOFO TMBOUS1' Ze z AT vacA¢s° .vex FAUXES) Mosr AM x oleo uv,xizso Arun nuounox. 5 q n w AUSCA TO ME AwI aE FAMENTO AAu MIN 1AP MRY ANCHORS. mm A 2 V1 VUI TO BE RfMwAmB. CONCRETE CRADLE, .TEru—nd HE aE¢Mrtnm..IfBNULr EVER THE OPErws B'oW x OUT 2 SEE SHEET CG.10 PERM .PDOL i✓`+> or CONC. WE EMPFD INCONCRETE ELEV.51y r cP vl£ fl NBw To FRBNuna. . M�n<,wnNB MUST BE ArvwVEn ar nRFICBAT /i \ I5"DIA ORIFICE $F Z ORIFICE TRASH RACK DETAIL ELEV. @Z50' CAI RESOURCES RMOMCES MOMflJMERY COUNTY, MD NOTES: 6 WATER RESOURCES SPECIFICATIONS RACK TORE INSTALLE)ON3'ORIFICE SB'OL DMWDONM PIPERS REGAIN ON DEfAILON THIS SHEET ORAPPROVEDCORE ANDPL. 21MPERVIOVSCOREAND CUTOFF TRENCH SIgWN FOR INFORMATONPL PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL DESIGN o O TO BE PROVIDED BY GEOTECHNIC4L ENGINEER. FLARED ENO SECTIONp 3. WARNING SIGNS PROHIBITING SMMMING MUST BE POSTED STR NUMBER 500 A AQUATIC AND SONFETY BENCHES ARE HOT REQUIRED FOR FUNDS SARM DEPTHS U* WITCEWALL ES-1 DIE Dun CULVERT a OUT WATEROWa1TY SOLUME BY INV.t2A15' WLVREOUIRED: 18.235 CF UPWET STORAGE VOLUME PROVIDED: T2,31T CF o LEVEL 1 WET POND #1 DI-1 RISER STRUCTURE 502 DETAIL SO _ �� No Scale No $r;k 11/11/2022 IS Al. DENSHI • ocvp® By sw wur 1 )rel TOP OF DATA=A9J.50 . M. DENHARD \z mid® Be 'WLe 1Z��-Rp— ByEMERGENCY SPILLWAY TRASH PACK • B. CfCNOCKf r N-. Ire lmn�n n _ —110LLYR F1EV. 05B.08 _ ELEV. S. _-9 100YRN5E • • sGui a HS In aSB.gc •""M eve awmww _ _ CRESTELEV. W.50 _ _ _ __S] 10 YRWSE N.A RISERTOP , ELEV 458.50 _—� 4. — RoSSE R WSE STR NUMBER:EN30 DI-t RISER WIANTWORTIX DEVICE WTM600'1SE RCP)IPE NUMBER:EW J' ORIFICE WITRASHRACK052.ar35' ODRETPIPE w 5Xlm1 8'%8' 4130 FILE (?irv�LV1 MICROPOOL ELEV 05350' r TOP EL.=t51.5f1 n e bWIMIZ4 BOTTOM ELW]50'IMPERVIOUS CORE GAMERAL xoIES ASH EXTENDED DETENTION 11ANDCUTOFFTRENCH r. z L to awoa. ro ,sM A r ACK BOTTOM 052 ar . . r DIA ORIFICE 0 z ALL me a AT(s) MUST ME HOT HEDU —11. AT— r.� an' i' N E WIREVERSE SLOPE`—C) TO ei �MPHAAuBE dEo Tc w,u wm rry' uAmlar AxcxoRs mAsr CONCRE t' PVC PIPEO♦. TRAw 1-11 e° as axTmm xumESPorwAnws rains aEnnHwvn er 0' PVC PIPE WIREVERSESLOFEBTRASHRACINSEE SHEETC5.10ELEV ia2.OVMinas RBw Ta rOF TUP MAY HASo-H POSE MA m CAUSHAFES RA« mE A R VED ByE •X 1.sV U" A®NORIFICE TRASH RACK DETAILcWNc. erssE / \ F CETNL TAKEN FROM MONTGOMERY COUNY, MD NOTESWATER RESOURCES SPECIFICATIONS 1. TRASH RACK TO BE INSTALLED ON i' ORIFICE AS SHONM ON DETAIL ON THIS 1 > _ w 21MPERVIOUS CORE AND CUTOFF TRENCH SIKKNI FOR INFORMATION4 PURPOSES ONLY. FINUBLOESIGN w W v e TO BE PROVIDED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. J Of `m Fl FWiED END SECTION STR NUMBER WO EW-1 SCCIA CULVERT /\ m W y W/TIDE WALL Elfl 1AB.W ELEV. Oi6.00' O Q 8 8 � I Q i LEVEL 1 EXTENDED DETENTION 91 DI-1 RISER STRUCTURE 604 DETAIL $ Q NOSrak No Seale O gy EXTENDED DETENTION COMMON MAINTENANCE CONVERSION FROM SEDIMENT MASON TO WET POND: O Y EO pinch me Pmner°eMdi°g Y 1M ED Io Ffir. Wlfice. Thia mmlurcut HE de vwd'a Ta4H tAB. Ma/WM PonJNaMbnmw TaBAaanO •(MoERTSEDIMENTIMASINTOWETMND ONLYAFlERALLUPSTRFAM DRAINAGEARFAS HAKE BEEN STABIDSD ° pll0 aM°W HeiN—bod! Of 4ers,—. eu. TTw oba ly cnanyi°g M'arer levek He ED • FLUSH AND CTFAR ALL ONSNE PANNG AND STORM DRAIN PIPE OF ANY GFDIMENTS y mull, m°ke it ddfi,dr 1° mow nT A—,, o,oNnae Monet, ITO hm°m of ED IMMM.6. DE-WATERANDDREOGE RABRN scanHONG,a°d wareFic... I, rrea Sol be wHWw may YLe— Fro mawreua°Le plan e REGRADE ARFASTOAMIEVEFINAL PROPOSEDELEVATONS O `F• hexM cleuly mline Mw veReutim in We pmd and iY WRer wJl be manaRed mhavaW I. a REPAIR/CTFAN ALL RIP MP OURIOW PRODUCTION AREAS BE FREE AND CLE R OF SEDIMENT I /1 Itr future. PmWic mwied °f Bx our—leal buffer umly rcq°iaM°b°g wml®as ri&I • CONVERT RISE R STRUCTURE FROM SEDIMENT BASIN DESIGN TO FINAL FOND RISER DESIGN V A a °r vy and Mhos•^NMy_L I rtmamiSR b°Pc Pon be gMss a mealew lmsenim y 5@§ 5 pm°drc°Ily B. heellhy SE-14°rf°m COMPACTION TESTS SHOULD BE PERFORMED REGULARLY THROUGHOUTn1E EMRANKMENTCONSTRUCOON. ]S Them.menmu P HOSISSUMmhadde—Nrelim cleal Munn noes to remove rmh •TYPRALLY, ONE TEST PER S,D MFE ON EACH IAYEROF FILDRAS DIRECTED SYTHEGEOTEMNIGL ENGINEER. tl5fiy q Had OUrWka Wn ndVm mum ix She T°reny, memfmL aml m he hwbm°f EDp°nd. • USE FIIHERASTANDARD HLCCTORTFSTIASTM DEAN) ORA MODIFIED PROCTORTIEST POOR DISS]—USALLY MOREAPPROPRIATE FOR Vd MEN DAMAO !C `+ ass maul • ANEWPROCfORTESTISREOUIRMIFMEMATERMLCHANGFSFMMTHATPRMN LYT6TE0. C '6Y FUN —A Ends— rem°aal Irvin Ibe nards, is mliel S. mx IG ImGm mW • ME ENGINEER SHOULD CERTIR, ATME TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, TIMT EACH FILL LAYER MEETS ME MINIMUM DENSITY. perfemm IF u° ED FS,d. F., pla°nmg P , m e or,,, cord a inpme E Vkuro°la Ill 5 r° I Y— °r when "Hol"imr ino—O Uu� 5 S. a IhO I..1c, E'I her A GEOTURNIGLLOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR SHOULD BE ON 511E DURING EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION TO DOME FOLLOWING: $ m been rnu. IANa w e 1 a rra 5eymmr Of 1 a T m • 0TFUSE LLCOMPACTION T§ d MUM he -L, 1n d'h MJeaieTa �$ 5 n PET n 4 n M J a p F°kd laev -Iedl • OBSERVE FOUNDAnax PRVAMnDx. ,T MM1aulvJ nx SJ u1LJ TD fend, arcypcally nW PonsMertd lux!va •OBSERVEPIPE INSTAWTION. TDB NO. 'A naurd�va-IMSod, IB,,I I, III LOST eFplaul°n Or lend Ellro6 LMaimmauw Hours And Ter,uiaed Bernard, should IN venFied w11L ]HERE! Tegwn:HNAUN • ORSFAV RISER CONMEMION 49821 g • OBYRJE FILTER INSTA M,DOE, 8 HEETx] �g C6.7 eg Mimmmw Min¢' Fregumcy' • Remove tlebrie Bntl blockages OueMdy Or ellar majorabma • Repair unaertlQ eroaea, Bntl bare veil erects let ircn of ralnhll) • Mmvinq ert6enknleM Twkea e year • SM1°reline G®Sup to remre hasM1, aebri antl flmtable¢ • ANIInrelMmemelnapedlpn Annualty • Opan up Uerkerto xcassana letl Me valves • Repair m:nmialw menro nneeaea . Pond buffer and agNatn omen rdnromemem vlannng¢ mina ea, mil��rn on.vMm°n . Fnreba sea mein Remmn Evansrw7 rmr¢ • Re er I s, Uerkerantla tlMe a neMetl Frain 5to 25 yeas HHHHUM �YµMe M. wu rtxltvtna- area PROPOSED PARKIN (NOEM&WKMEN' ,DD-YR ELEV.4]3_3V raL 73.OU _ CRESTELEV.4T2.]5 _ _ � • W/ANTWORTEK DEVICE INVOUT. AEVGN-H LPE) 4-ORIFICE W/TRASHRACKae] HE MORAL HOLES FOB GRANT RAGS EXTENDED DEFFHTKIN I. Fo araasu BE BOOM.-11 EMBEDCINCONCREI x ALL OJETFUES OF MUST ESPEA MOST ED ROT DIPPED T:uvnwEED Arm UAm—. a• ti :A«ai AU OBE TO Ba`�mTED On WH MHOTn- MAmTRY ANCLOBS. TRASH .. nell R—OF He BE aurtnm "ORiaouT.wY Dvn mE OPENNO a` PVC PIPE FUGHT W REVERSE SLOPE 8 TRASH BACK mPs mw Fb F Fnc OH ' MWIi1LARMS MUST BE Amww BY B pIA X 10 .I e CONC. BASE ORIFICE TRASH RACK DETAIL DEFEAT TAKEN FROM MONTLYMIERY COUNTY, MD NOTES: WATER RESOURCES SPECIFICATIONS 1. TRASH RACK TO BE INSTALLED ON 4P ORIFICE AS SHOWN ON DETAIL ON THIS SHEET OR APPROVED EQUAL. \ I IAV SO OVER � REUEF / RLANp Ft�j 106YR L �� / I l •O, HT •S r ( �� •�' \ I' 4nY / I T / i 9 "4Ta �` EL 4]R RE ovEREAND RBURF eAEcuuTIIBNs: 100I FUJW PEAK INFUJW.]O.SS CISOR OVFAIAND FLOW ® T DEPTH: I]eg CFS ADMITTED FOR RE INSTALL MANHOLE STEPS (HOOT STD. ST-1) LATE VALVE STEM MODIFIED JUNCTION ROSE OU STRUCTURE STEM GUIDES ANCHORED TO WALLOFMODIFIED JUNCTION BOX. — SPACING TO BE DETERMINED BY JOINTS AROUND PIPE TO MANUFACTIRER PE SPOOFED YOUR WATERTIGHTMATERIAL GATE VALVE CANNECTEp TO tr DIP DRAW WNM. MINIMUM 15 UNSEATED HEAD ORESBURE RATING ('TO REMAN CLOBED UNDER NORMAL OPEMT0 ) RU° ELBOW < 2A`HD E Ir DW DRAW a. MINTS AROUND PIPE TO + ,�• BE SEALED wM A WATER TIGHT MATERIAL - S•pS]STONE BEADING A KEY TO THE GATE VALVE VALL BE PRWIOED TO THE ENTITY THAT MILL RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LONGTERM INSPECTION AND MARfTENANCE OF THE W£T POND, AS APPROY£OIpETERMINED BY GREENE TH 0 t� p a MPereM z DP. Rd 041nz Y /pNA4 ylfu OF P3 iE %a BE SO 6eA �8 SO UP SHATTE $: z 6 0 a � a s 0 1111112022 M. OENHA40 . DcvGV® ev • M. OENHA40 Dn'SONS, BY • B. c1CNOCKf sGxi • NI • • • CONVERSION FROMSEDIMENT BASIN TO WFTPOND: • CONVERTSEMMENT RASINTOWFTPONDONLYAFEERALLUPREEDUA DRAINAGE AREASHAVE M BEEN STAMuzEG • BUSH AND GEAR ALL ON -SITE PAVING AND STORM DRAIN SHE OF ANY SEDIMENTS d • DBWATERANDDREDGELATIN • RGURACE AREAS TO ACHIEVE FINAL PROPoYp MIAMI °REPAIR/CLEAN ALL RIP RAP OUTFLOW PROTECTION AREAS TO P£ FREE AND OFAR OF SEDIMENT /Fp J ° CONVERT RISERSTRUCTURE FROM SEDIMENTBASIN DESIGN M F.S.-N. B.S. DESIGN J ; F $ E COMPACTION TESTS SHOULD BE PERFORMED REGULARLY TIROUGHORTME EMWIIMENT W W CONSERUCTION. a . TYPICALLY, ONE TEST PER UppaSD. R. ON FAOI DYER OF FILL OR AS pwREEND AT ME Q O G.NIGLLENGINEER. HI £ 6 • USE EITHER A STANDARD PROCTOR TEST CG%I OR A MODRED P�CEOR TEST MUSTM DB5T \ m W -USUALLYMOREAPiRWNATE FOR FARMEN DAMSL. / B •AIII %HOCEOR OPT IS REQUIRED IF ME MATERML CHANGES FROM MAT INGLOUSLY TESTED. L O TIL • E EMERY ERSHOULD OURBY, AT ME TIME OF CONSTRUCRON, THAT EACH FILL SS LOVER ME�j THE MINIMUM DEARLY. Q T > gyp A GREFECHNICAL ORCONSDIKTION INSPECTER SHOULD BE ON SITE ERRING EMBANNM ENT Fj @S O CONSTRUETON TOM THE FOLLOWING: O 9C . SO Q TEST FILL COMPACTION 0 g3 • ORSFAVEFWNDATOH PREPAMTIOH. • OBSEAVEPIPEINOTALUTION. 3: � _[ • OBSERVE RISER CONSTRUCTION, i • OBSERVE FILTER INSTALLAMON, ETC. TARN 1A6. Ina/WN PonOMaMMence asand r Mtlmenmce Kama' Frequency' • RTmve bebre and blockages GURUS BYOrsflermagoretomo • R:,mr undemSt, emned and bare OUR areas (>t-wM1oTrenkY) • Momngembenkmem Twkaeyeer • RGONline GwnUPWROAMeensh, debNand flMeblee • ANIITHU pen An—Iffy • Open uptherserRaccessandtasafthevalves • Repair bralueM1 onern Kneeded • Pond bufle deq el be M1renbrcemem planOnp¢ °F.rmelarn tha contl lollown • Fene sea mem Removal EYey sM]yaare • Re aH' s0e daeraad, Ybe,aa BUTHI Fmm5to R5yean 0_ (n _ • p$ Y$ f E {v EF Tn7B anenu items and reulmd Be mincy BRnwd be.edeae wdb REST! regmrememe 49821 it 5s C6.8 81 ,B VA DCR SPECIFICATION NO. 9 MAINTENANCE 9.1. MVlnlenvace Agreements PrMomlruenon Meetivg Tlm Vi�giniaStamwaar Mangemenl re8ulations(d VqC 50.(Wl specify lM10 ciM1rmsbncw miner ❑ Premmtnmimm tthg thmecmtrx desipaf wwmllmebio =don and the VSMPcthgiry, whichamaintenance arrcemml min be cxccuhace pamce hmboscdmled proPtsWnthureeminer adde t awMarMargininspatian reyuiaelmnt, wmPliancc a if twin, on an the is regattas, ❑ uclion and verify mertquiaemmt ants waduh mmpgcdo scandri 11oaRstim afire local pwgam upon arnmfer of ownmhip,aud right-0£<nny fin local pm8ram Nom -off. Ira wegim inaxctiuna vM siw'oR. pmotmW ❑ Suburban investigation and so&Wait suppmes the placemere; am biartcention prince w rbo pawdlaatinn. • An bimeremiw pectiad mint include a lug MM fnabamna agtemmnt consismak with Ibopmvisio eofthe VSMP minimum, shad muvlimlutl mommended mmntenancctub ❑ I mperviom eoverhee bxo mmnucleNivswllea and area Mfiee Ofcnnsuucnm and copy ofin mnml inspecion chxkler. e9uiPme°t. debases, melaiel smm8q eon. • When mieroarale bimetenum prameas art applied an private madmeial Ims, hogaoAww should be edumled regarding their mutine maintenance needs by bei^8 provitled a simple ❑ All pgr idue area ofineconWbWmg drainage— have hernadegmlely ambid", was din ant that Whimthehpuryna and rmnied maintenance needs.. •thick layaofvegemtim and eusim monwl meeamw have been monved • Added reariaim. drainage wuevent order m.chani.sm cnrarccr filth mho VSMP aumairy be in place 10 help enaure that min me maintained bud and blommmr, ❑ Areadbbrcannm Pr%Wa has nmbem 0wectM inning emstamam. not d d. llmw ens MYs n on, vmmacn<dm ❑ mesa ms and to imeknowfNgeelVSMPwysubsequentowmn. • Wm Themechaniamrhw114 ifinmsm,assrmt authority fin th vSMP aNhoritYw aecew the theark mmu+twedebceud amain cmwlmaemmwpmwm Me laeilitr amwgcmawdim Eeve bcm wsWlM. Former Mee emand,me ctimrecda man propMnYfor impeeaaa mcm4Wre mfim. Euavatleo 91. FYrM YeerNWnhnvnu Operanom ❑ Comparefa bimweMm swmcemdwvudgian elevations wimme uruW cwsfam� eleuanwa of me inFlow ants a W lea aromas cola adjmt deign elenriom m reatled Mablishmwtofbiorebodm tress ragllhae lW(thafollowing tmka be uMenakwm Suacat ❑ preaaybioremtam excamnm is mehN antl meaim malprntim cmf In Plm. yea following a Om year • In Fee the r cmalrumnon, the site should he impeeled lna— Rrst 6mmmdedIn ❑ Ifthe him manwerwor mad mask verifynmt the bottom ling ahous him,.t—c ram m lnld inchnfreintare rs,Me,amemaare Me begs: excess, and. Drina prmaxdswne rservotris lowwmmme tram dcvrbn ofmcmxietWgo-ra. • Siso Reseeding. Ind,rmavmt ]wit n d contributing age link Ma bee Or crundthey a mrsomas Inhousa ing, ma ar—,.—,.ad Led ant omdtho biorelmlinn are; and make sure may animmdivaely slabilixed wimgrus ❑ Pm Lead 26ioaeaanm aurae ds hmomolfhe exwmnmink smaifedprim w plaamentofamoc. • Pertlfitprr'nx Duration. neetlM fin ininelpleolmgn, ❑ alnlsseie haofracks mdmm{ants i shoWrlbend metal onnlrzMoomaybe • Wabriowi ga wnaceneedMmceausekamigca mince[2mmths,aedmenvaoeededdtviny Suit growing of winsmein( Greecealevel surface fomepawnmtmfag®egaas and and the MY He tem. at thll. Wfac deadplemborkdepending O, batedme, oft in Me SonMat • Ressup,w,. ustainerea mdrcbain (ifaequirW). . shoal incldew on aIM1edamhocknaydie yew, emlmd, should include a care and rcplecemmr so ensure timtracdon established andsurvives during me firstgrowing vegmtim is win se following ❑ No gmwd.a Martin eepagem gwrris prtlam. Any standing wareris dewecereaw Tor ,arm ewwetim. ThetypiN mrtsholOs below, which replmcmmh is rcquiaW are 85%surviwl of 85%orlmala anmcepbble tlewacenngdevice. plain mawlal and 100% amvivnl of Iowa ❑ Mummers of me translation practice was xhnotal"re, grades art din required 93. Malnumanw lnspsnrm ReumeuY art conswma wimrat cornpaenng the antra of Me excavanw o Ca ftWoa ofeaeeroEo^Robertson lmpector sT6m me auccwsfd wmpletiun of It is Sign, momtmmded thin ,spring mmammame inspection art thaw, be wvdmted at each Me emae'°nnn maps lumtl atone. boomerang arm, The foOcand, 6 a list of some arrivekey mamWnmx pmblmsw look for. • Check w am if75%to 9M wver(mulch plus wpWive cover) has lean acbievM m me had, BlMe"er, Ul earl ,cad SmithResrvo4 Pluemem and memure rbo depth ifm,—.turn, mobb. ❑ All aggregatw,including ,ashamired in. filer lasesfbaker a. J, and), meemne • Cock for sediment buildup at curb con,gtavel diaphragms a pavement edges that ptmam re evwtrhW mio<Ibadw sump emfammspxificatimsmceWRW by 9umy. Raw from grain, iano the bad, and check far the, ai,, ofWask., • Chuk f any winter- orsall-killW segomtio, And" Ina it with ha ion spxiw. ❑ Underdrain aice and peNanima trust me apgnflarons. • Nine ptesmce DfmcumulaW mn45Wiaxnl and hands he list pmtrealmml cell or film India, and wmwe it ❑ Fmi 121mlalWm Placement offilwr layer and inlaid lift a sane acrammor layer • bimeemnnn side slopm and gals filter sMW threviderra ot'myri0 to gully vasian, sagreppfmwiW uvdmdmw minfilewdon satrap, speed (mtdumpe])mvwideggegate saing mud aepair iL s8regueim; m • Cheek Me bimwmtim bedfar evidence ufandich ROlaam, ewMd,epmding, did phms u ❑ Impermeable liner, when required, Irreeb pryxl y ifimdma and is placed as Muhammad town, and take VpWriat mdial scriw. aims ofxawm cufichuerse, agStiaos. ❑ Stdea of<xcevetiovcovemdwim gwaxdle, whan«quired, Primmpbcwg scone • Cash inflow points fin clogging, it remove sty aetimmt • Imok fanny bare aoil of sMimcntmwcw isfats cootrlba6, dpom C thaw, anderbilia them ..—i,a ter ame;w revs m holes, m meemive winflm mepammG CgwkrA • cl an pre, rap laytt,mappropnnt ❑ rnt of wel 6, and me (45 hgee wya, cep witekf ,oB Anddrome, Of anagedAltmgHas, mil mesa, m arbor cause of mmRrcime filarwg nine, and whom proper fikandm ANiT—aft 1hadmaii armadfom of MY of MY uwtaewmd are.)remxcodmce with me approredplam. dmaactMstwa. ❑ iddo.HelmmM muktemwnueare in eccoaamce wins erymvea plans ,mea ExsdaletmMemnceimpection cM1eeklist foreirrerenam eras canbomlaxdin AppeMixC induc M)wladwmat field emdxma. ofCM1apu9afine Viaginw 5rormwarg Managemem Hmdboat (2010). ❑ Placemxtofmmeiviog liftdaome aweridr Mygma,MeawemhievefarerWW 9A. Rounm.vnd Nun-Rwfine Mvwhovoee Tmke mnmoirdepm, ❑ Ce Madm a Mlmr Wyer and Petermann Placement bvpxtlon: lnapecwr Mamicnanwofbioreanti0 ma shmldbcinte (Wimmutinclandswpcmamanancc taeka. auaewful comphnm ofinefibrlaygaud mdeadaw plaamunuceps If landsmpin, correctors will be Gxpeacd,.perform rtaintenaA,a.aheir cowacushould ..mceWfiwfhe lutdabove. specific, oa unique biomrchad sndwich 6 Postal, mdifferences proimainin6 clearing neWW fm,mdinS Proper rnWching, sediment and torch removal, and limiad we of fwdliaers Biorwwnon foe Mardis PheemM and pemotions. A cmwmized amine m wadule must be prepared for Mail biorelendm ❑ Sell metiais ariifiM bYaupPlierwwnwcrmu meedngm<prol<ctapecificedoru. fxiliry, aloe me moratorium, risks will dinner ticpcnding on me acak of bumtm m, Ire[ Wtldspim, gamble ends, cord Me We insurance, cover. A genemshW n® groomsman nuwtewnx basks and nrcu fiequency is provided an Table 9AL ❑ Sella is placed in 12-imh lips b the Amin, lop elevation of me biagametm tea The mesa onmrann nm-mutine tmwtemnce problem mvoly grating Young, fwinter Minimum an Elevation Law Won verifiW after wWam tD to 4da1 after wand placmrm0. the surface ins more San 48 hours aftera alarm, mijttauems to the amdwa may be needed m ❑ Side slopes afpmding Area sure assistant back arms acquired slope(w sin rman underdrain rcpaia any bo ^eW W. The onfaa of he film, bud should also the cackW fin 311:I V), accumulated sad,., m a fine cough that builds op mraf ha first seveml storm crams, From the cal mMtrom Ism cm be usM to rchabiliuc me filler (I Me emieN mange Mt, aslistedoPg ❑ Ce "don of& it MMIV Placement lv npn: ble srnfiea me me—" ,mein below): complenmaf me soil media saps lashed above. oMervadno well Df ordther and pour of wine, verify coal the • Opu In, now dorvtt funchimw mingt t edor whervdse inmorl h ir, The a crfthia W check is rough Me check is w sx ifmhem is stentlingwetgall the way down through me oil am tf .ddIswsmWipg walermwp.bua mtwme nnMNmi, meveMa id a cloggW a oil lam. i iamd Pretrevmml.M Phnllmmwnm add if dery sand Pile indicates amusing water then me IlndeNaeia mint bo clogged and if need as he snvlaed, (bin Idx ❑ Placememof duo gars and nnenl Lays, ®eve pbaeQ w p pntraa pe • Remove esuamlared sdimentaM d82m3iwhw ofsmd'mm me uPPg Bta li ivchw or em)are i^sMnNweccoNa^ce with Me eppmved Plans. . Uwun mil. ❑ Rim, overtlm weir or 0mr suennw, snacnae is ad w the pmpm athenem and loran sand wicks fired, 3 inches bobs, the surface tome mdgdmin hyw. Sind with canbe hlvctiaoul; m. mablled by excavating or magenng (miag th nee surer An dim0ur mot) dram w the rtavW sema8em^e to creole veanml eD]—a wWeh era ebm filled with n clam o,k,,wdsd mwae ❑ Exrwml lWms slmcmre is built in—o .men the apy plus. rats weresim (amuse read this similar w the gmdmim used fin the soil amWa). A auR 'col umber of wick drains of auf rat dmevam should b, imbua1 b meet Jn design ❑ Apprommenumberand spacing orphans ae inmlled inwmd eewim me appavetl dewareriag time for the facility. plant. • analsma- remove am rephce.. aura afine if media ❑ All eanum and sN tcaovol he beenr®ovM Tectigaav I ❑ F.11-upm—sr,a mad u1s ill turvey/ceni! nth Ma Land echetlWed GPS cmrdimhm base was tlocummrMfer all bkmtmt-,onetime imwlbtimm th s e Tare ass awed Annul Mairrtxunce AwA.M.ear Br... MNaW.Tuks I Frograw, • Mn tinon wrM as s fitter sand bnamn tin ewer un At least 4tlmese e Start anedin erwlon re it vase remwel and no non rein a TAme during❑ • Add remmeement panting a mamma desired the vestrandn damety As Pincer. . Remove Invaewe (Aare analog ram ended conhol Hamm, rise area rr fie • road Ice the consuchang dropers, ens ermlon • Spin impemMn an and meap • Small amam mulGl he mamain a 3110sym Annmlly • Prune lies and ahmN • Remwesedma. In re•treelmenl w®a eM lnMv powas Onew artery 2m3 Yana • Re von me nabou area Every 3yeeta FWIer Me]b BD%-g0%cents Tlm arm—dM rmMiab der 11016 GammellYn 10%-20%edlflnw of the" aroma, m amount par m Its 3%S%a arm rrmtlm ancompWdrt me .I.. P Ce .L+antl M MYFlier Media DOR 20W NUWenl M' The mOW should W mMletl by the TeNrp cM m. suppler. Mul[h began Use pe,, dwddm1 am. back Lss, 2m3area laymwmeeurfamdth Sal'waiting aw Ihe5%TuTFIXPgaMdwheNcen that, ccnlenl, pH 3incM1 sorbs MpM. 6 and ], and an ma0 mmmllofmleast2%. Uwe mnwwen9wleagle (eMlc wlln "may only W meaMeser9 ornery ebmre (mlmtilNly a flmv ate d > 110 gal-hu in lag. fl to uNardrein. For hubP antl whin (U... Gmhx351 apuivalenll knoustsanly, uweng pdMe Hnxm Cacbg Laya Untlertlmin 1hchMw •hoots betlwbl®wa¢hetl 12 inche WIM UManlmin; snNotlSbrepa ants cKnn era her d a0 flow (e.g.. 12 to 15lndlw 1IX Ne Nana eloa� laver. VWTM67Nom. it neetlM DMBmmH (IX egYtrFml oxnt"I HDPE mr 11. biorde. �I, end Install nth. Gwrwb, end morad=dnnl' xaM SBmcb penoatM pip as needed to cmnnct vile MY—. pub . M 6 per. an sorer: the storm balm gysl¢m, Irewp Te and rs wells poNtbn rasa undl in an a t%or as Nkw,d aepmaing on the undwriam 2%Mmelrc mrrmmM Mn et comigumlwn. fain formed pipes to the framtM SN 0. surface Mlh veined spa at the Ts and Yin Rem a r, lied pm 2W Square fast (I I Palawan pland mmt is as summit in lM feat mr®Itm, minimum 1 Inch lantlsapina pan and the recommsntled mipsen Number SNYM a minimum W 30 mM ce high In general, plant mac'mg must be sulfcbW pleWM a minima of 10 font an rover m Me In the pmpwea pagrang marls nMF %antMflafiela tallersor "I consong NA . aSTAar parts. Plena ground much pugs at 12m 1B If seetl mites the used they sand be from inilw nteri PBW co �inoeT a quephea pm suppres, should be eppdale grown ,m-mlama ar 10 to z4 corn far eormwma basin appnraeom and W, Initiel depend1ng on the plant shoultl wn¢iatof move species(unkea tM onI now largaRmu grow. shour Is to establish mamteWM Amilahte So)l^osphorad (P). Plant -available soil P should be within the range of LRV (C) to Medium (M) as defined in Table 2.2 of MR (2005) Virginia Nutrient Management SrandaMsand Criteria.£or Ne Meh)fcdlect onproa m des equines as a range ofs m IS mging Par l8 w 40 mg4gpfu the Mehiith l)l pmxduu. The filter media should contain sufficient plant available P m support initial plant stablishment and plant gmwth, but not serve m a significant source of P for long ream leaching. The tmdla must also be relatively loose and non compound to allow for pdegwte imereomecred porosity to meet the required permeability (fast) specification. Saran et W. (1986) emerated Benebilioad bulk &with. and sWl-wile chawrrisneg ram eo11 rmmre assumptions. The expected bulk density of the loamy sand soil composition described above should be in me ors, of IA To 1.7 g/em'. pssibiEN thin come m arherwim Cbg In the shot team GmgdFibgMedia Phpim(Compmitiom Tanrweml soil rezone ofthe bioretetWm t z sM1mJd bo Iesmy coeae sand wins vo wre than 10%cley, no owns f1Mo 20%silt+c cod at least JS%oftM1e send fiacNm eM1OWdbe manse cowry muse sands To allow fin Upruprare Catim Exchange Capmiry (CEC) and warned removal, the a aimed Masada al Now! 10% son finea (sib + dill) while rrwdm, fke overall that ,butificachu above. The panicle shot analysis must be ins wWan the Thbwal realm a. a fallowingeppro fiats, bemmmb an removeprganic minter before parnck sae amlyaie. veal pander arm mamowm on, me this inn vary since we was a."A same findic ae As will native tMadds ifunveMea ld. As d paepalviously, me al is W mldeve the decided managed band pemrmbility+3heMme, the filar mWi nandabove eenrea As the MA met, fin the three mr hadireoM, while the Wt gain is to achieve a warned soil Lemmings m hydraulic Mohamied,(Rsadm pea hour par 30 W 60 cMday). The fnumvivr is me recommended mmpasifim offe, tare¢ die ingredient: o Send shall mnaiN of allied hazed comes aggregate, angular m mud if me mixture Smith sin Mrs btWon below. No subshmions ofaltemece as diabmq Goldman certain., duck dust or dDlomific sand are accepted mins an make up no mom dun 5%ofthe tight sad Ralson, The saw also contain a th W ted amour approaches > 2L ram and < 9.5 That per m but the overall mind fiwdNM must cost the V idifimtim of>J5%hiring cwae sad Sieve Siu %Prasiog 318w 9.50wn IN 1114 4.75 non 95w IN No.8 2.36 ram 80w IN N,16 1.18 ram 45m85 No. 30 0.6 ram 1500 No. 50 0,3— 3m IS No. IN 0.15 non Om4 E3Rcfim Panchen, sae (DIMY, 0.3. Uvifumi Coefficiut WDIO)<4.0 o Topm11 is gmwally refs IN flan mmbimdm of me athw wgredieo s afine Me brmwmam it mesa: aaud, fires (silt and clay), add my .ermined soil raga .M, Since me abjecnw offhes whifica en is momently establish me properble of these bgedlwt, the debugger (or container or ThNgbls supplies) most snafu select me mwoil sauce meuiul an order to rmf exceed Has rvamt of my c Wgrethent Generally. the no of a topsail defined m a lumy sand, study learn, or learn (per I USDA Textural Tdangle) ad[] be an mspbble wg W lent ud in umbwaam wing e orhw ingredient= at Sr, overall perfommnx grin affair soil media. o Otg c maths mthhnau wed in fa soil media mix should monist of we NARAFI LION FILTER FABRIC OREWNOLENT COBMI; G°aCN er3KEr, NE£IAIOSfJPINO SEEGETMLON gAN3 $HffTfb.tO Jy 1' BLf' ILIFR WI NO 8 STONE ep.5/STOIE BIORETENTION FOREBAY DETAIL No Scold WASHED GRAVEL MARAFI 14M FILTER FABRIC OR EQUNAIEM No Scald GRADE PbAN NEW SECTON A-0 POaa.eMr_TMumiAMlvE1 P a.. alrttan tiiisrcETMAM atav commight coo as nnath EI_ arnce, ntuae Is G sams air ury heir Ter Humbi musho ClMUIT TO MY aware uro soo am SECTION BA 1. Mo x enmlNarare I • ks d` PRETREATMENT - GRAVEL FLOW SPREADER DETAIL Ido3m4 CONRRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE TIMMONS GROUP PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF BMP PRACTICES INCLUDING THE MORETEMION FUTERSANDTHE WET POND. A SPECIFIC PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR, ENGINEER. INSPECTOR. AND MANUFACTURER IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THESE PRACTICES TO ENSURE THESE PRACTICES ARE NOT ONLY INSTALLED CORRECTLY BITAL30 DOCUMENTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO DOCUMENT THE INSTALLATON OF THESE PRACTICES. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE NOTES, PICTURES, AND MEASUREMENTS OF ALL STRATA LAYERS NATi1N THE BIOREfENTION FACILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED TO TAKE PICTURES OF EACH MEASUREMENT OF EACH STRATA LAYER OF EACH FACILITY. W INFOUT DOCUMENTING TO THIS IEVEL OF DETAIL THE CONTRACTOR RUNS THE RISK OF DIGGING THE FACILITIES BACK UP TO PROVE THE CORRECT SECTIONS HERE INSTALLED. PS z 0 11/TIRo22 M. Ogadbli migration an, N. GEANSARD corsage, as B. CICHOCKf stuff MA F- W Q W W CQ L 0 Son Amentlmevts), pine bark finer or Omer organic soil comitiming a Nawever, Per above, the continued soil mix ahouU contain 3 % W 5% soil meter on dry weigh basis (Rams organic rmna per 100 grams dry soil) Wn141ev.Mlar4 mrthM,rc Mvr similar annlNiral wFare u r. DETAIL 49821 C6.9 ,k m �s �s m�0s memo memo GRADEDRIPWMZING/MMENMON5CALC UnONS Ouffall Outfall5ize Type Nlas IlMion Apron len¢h(Of Apron Width(ft) Rip as Class Riprap Depth 136"RCP TypeB 15 9 Class 30" 336"RCP TypeB 15 9 class 30" 315"HOPE TypeA 0 5 Class Al 00" 026"PCP TypeA 6 6 Classl 3W 515"RCP TypeA U. 0 6 Class Al 2V 615"RCP TypeA 0 6 Class Al 30" 715"HOPE 0 6 Class Al z0" 8 WHOPE TypeA 0 6 Class Al 00" 9a HOPE T eA 0 6 Class Al 20" NOTE: RIPRAP MAY BE SOURCED FROM ON lMMATERI SMEETINGTIE GRAOATON REQUIREMENTS NUTRIENT CREDIT AVAILABILITY LETTER AA ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, LLC r 1102Crt Avwue ��pp pe Chal.,s He,VAM •.-. "'i 510.T18.a296 Fe q6,=3 Matt DenMrd, BE 'I Prole'dEngineer TIMMONSGROUP 60SPreston Avend,Suffe IDG III fharbttesville, VA229% i RE: N ONSL CrRecall lMer opa;wMdWiNge3 Pwktt Adtlrers:53g NiUay Street CM1arMtesW Ile VA 33902 Pmka Hioz%az% bank Ilucmzamzoe bank Atltlrta: USE lambs Rwtl, 6vrlot[esvllle, VA 229% Dear Matt, We appretlrte the Opportunity W provide a credit availability letter for 2.20 pounds of phosphorus for The abroad referenced project. This letter is to transfer that a$ the daleof this heater, ivy Creek Nutrient Bank has 159.56 pouMs of phosphorus (TP), 265.54 Pounds Of nitrogen ITN), and 50,314.37 pounds of TEE vailadefortranshrlolhZ entitles repuinngpfsets in accordance with the Chesapeake Dry Watershed Nulnent GradR Fatlmnge Program (VACWe 462.1iC.19:14 etseq ). Those offsets are alwtransferable in accordance witM1the Virginia stormwaRr offded program IVA code 462. 100. 15'. 35) and the Virginia Soil and Water-Comenation BwN's Guidance Doctored on Stmmwater Nonpoint Nutrient Offeets approved duck ly23, 2Do9, to three regulated entities qualffyingfor nutrient credits. We can certainly accommodate your needs and could offer to Nlnl the order of LID pounds of phosphorus. Plea efeelfreeto [onla[ms wdh remqueslmns.I he,.we have the opportunityro ..it together on this Project Sincerely, Ecosyerem Service; LLL B*( RA. Jonathan R. Roller, ROSE PSS CLAMP Manager- Authorized Representative DRAINAGE AREA= NI AC COT3 Tb6MIN S=10G% I('l 47931NMR D(2)= o.5i(G.T3)(O A3)=1]B CM 1(10)=63331NMR CNIOR=051(O 73)(623)=232 CFS V(2)- 3.36FT1S(PllGNWBIEVELOCITV=5FT/S) Di=017T L 1D GRASS LINED DRCX =0u36 T OI DITCH SECTION FILTER NA 11 onarmthi 8"21 AGGREGATE RAPP Nn STONE v YT annrnawauo[ DENOTES GRAVEL ON PLANS GRAVEL BMP ACCESS ROAD I spar.raireene=- =TOONS a`- = I IS BE F 6 E ... Oz•addel PRonom t5"1MFl P@E ATO DNi IN �YSAVS) tS IMEI P@EAT9U CEG 6' ADS BARRACUDA DETAIL CBS Ps n 0 I Z 11/11/2022 M. DENHA40 E..p for L. LENHARD A. CICXOC(I N.A `�qT IZ M^ IJ ) W g f \C� L_ r D O ir a- I_^ r„ -M i� a• E aT 49821 C6. 10 0 10 VIE el ho 4 0 •.. KEv auN i I �� / � 5az o.a � _ � ♦ _ m �C — _ _ o u c�eoc6 G�z \ I �� ._ • 0.49 __ ', ♦ \_ � � _ �Ry �� _ _ s,YyoR/z � V A � ue. xo 5stn a • 1 : — sao 0.7 rv 9 � � O � � �_� ___ - ♦.� __ --- / w�NRpd,. -� - � gnf3 ,� 4/xy ,� � -� _ 0 94 ♦ � Y yz/ •e7. +ev Ir _ �. ;�>e/ � _��' [oxn� �' _ _ ` C L r! j ♦ j >E 518 089 'I — _ _♦ \ \ / t;�� t. 'y —�W' s j �z _ \ _i T 96m o or Ora 578 0 �� A 528 0.80 -- � ms y \ �/' � ♦ '' � � -' •. a _ r , - r r t � ' ' 0 17 , r � 0.15 ♦� � _ 704 0.5 N� �\ • a 1 4j' ♦i 830 079 - ♦ ! ;, ' d _ .>s - ;>\ / _ r'l�r € ' r � � r vaumzz M.DENoWD ♦ t � v � rr 0 33 > dx / , _ „ � rA' ♦♦♦♦ C � A 1 � n. DENNA4D ' - das aas � ' ■ � / Vr � �` � hl- ( S. a(Yfopa v � B �s �/ Bno � / � � 607 0.80 � 1 / � � t� \ 4>3 � v> I r i ; L7 $ � % ����� �' ��� �d I r � � ��f • r = - � - '=.r-.ic�sia-s>t'ri.,�'.�rr� _ I / ]� ' / r ' l < \J �•/\ $` I I ' �'_� /. r I` } e / � W of rtl E _ F - -- ,I T- , in J — - ■ ""-,oa .__, - 511 o:5s �' T•.t'f- ;h/j -� __ r J _ W a 5 _ r oo 847 90 I' LLI ki fA 0 z a g� - 47s' - / _ _} C -t 673 080° �✓ ♦ ') r, Irr _l I- / 1 \m \ DUE0.74j` a r\� \ •\rL� \\-,\/ / _ 1, `_X 679 0.4 AA '�� _ - III= ,'�� L- g_'� _ __!�`: \ �Zr c r_I -r L7),al� `5-_ _y �_____ / r / ♦' '__•'r 'r� r /°i �Tr -+r 9 �o>� "___���.I/��, _ __ = U) o: 05 ��•�,r'r�) �\������ .� \ '� tl -1-_ t-1 rt'aes - -+ �.r�s� qA�.I-� I'r1 ■�I J °"°'.J�/i r /r!! r. /� ��- ti ( �J �_ " r �� a ;�`,A� L \._� eQ / i/ ! !` I /"r1/r�'rlr rl: ����1 N♦ .� �� e� it ! /% % �� r ♦ I[� �:r li�r�llr� r r �r' d_==- \ �` y''`__ `. ILA g ' :a �;.- ✓° r, r �p _'� _`` � � Ili \V V (ii 1�5. :��� �.�-T �-r't'r��"� _- ,��_d�Vic�'fi-.�'��-�� roe xo g $ _--E-'�--��, �'V i�+°R--� / �`",' % r a '1--rr�r ILhr _ .✓-_^c-__ _ ♦ �I )r�lr�l c��>----�-` .��},'::. A�r�o �>`'- _ p: 49821 � A C6.12 e4; r m-Il �_ s = 9 _ - r �����'i"! .-i _ .�_ ��_ ���� �_�A���_ - f'J D�J; Ilse. ... tsxG./ti r _ r, A � � �� r. �r rr r: A Y.r JA � _� _ ✓. `5A`1� E. CF L t� o a c�eae z Ik. Xo 041 Y o 't 1ONA4 ylsu Ps INLET CALCULATIONS - wore owwKr so.NVlllro..x. Mo 11.INN o a ffi W c bae o$ 6 0 a s� p 11/11/2022 0 M.DENH D • ocvGw® ev • M.DENHMD • g aS O rM Lu z w a o' C�agg g> a J w C ma€ s a U f 0 LUqq O 0 p�W = a� ka $E 49821 1 C6.13 13, mmm�mmmomoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmlmlmtl mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmlmlmtl mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� ®mmmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mm®mm®mm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmm®®mmmmm®mm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmmmmmmmomommmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��� mmm�mmmmmoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmm®mmmmmmmm®mmmmmmm�tsm� mmm�mmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� aamm�mmmoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm mmmmmmmm®m®mmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmtmt® ®mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmmmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�titaa mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmmmmmmmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmmmmmm��m� mmmmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmmmmmm®mmmm®mmm®®mm®m®®mmmm®mmm��t� mmmmm®m®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmmmmmmmommmm�mmmmmmmmm®mmmmm®mm��m� ®�m�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmlmlmtl mmmm.mmmmmmom�mmm�mmmmmm®mmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� ®mm�mmmomommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmam®tmt ®�m�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmommmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmm�®tmt mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmmmmomm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� ®a�m�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmmm�m®maaaam�mm®mmm®mmm®����� mmma�mmmmomom��®m�m�mmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� ®mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmomom��mmmm�mmm®®m®mmmmmm��m� amm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��t� mmma�mmmmmmmmmmmm�m�mmm�mmmmmmmmm��m� �C�m�m®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmlmlmml mmmaa�ammmmmmomm�mm�m�mmmmmmmm®mmmm��m� mmmmm®®�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmomtl mmm�mmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmmmtml® mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmomm�mm�m�mmmm®mmmmmmmm��m� ®mm�mmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��t� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmommm®mmm®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� ®mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmomm�®mmmmmmmm®mmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmommommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��= mmm�mmmmmmom�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�� mmm�mmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmm®® mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmom�®®ma•mmmmmmm®mmmmm®mm��m� mmma�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmm��®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��t� mmm�mmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmm®� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� aa�C�m��mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmlml mmmm mmmmm®om®®mm®®®mm®®mmmmmmmmm�� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmmmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� ®mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��� mmmmmmmmomomm�mmmm�mmm®®mmmmm®mm�� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�� mmmmmmmmm®o®m�mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� ®mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmomoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®m®�®mat mmm�mmm0000mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmm�mmmmomomm�mma�ammmmmmmmmmmmmmm��t� mmmt■mmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®�mttst mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� mmma�mmmmommmmmmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmm��m� 6�, CF L xc 041 Y 'k0 't fONA4 PIPE CALCULATIONS: w=L Ps LU 229 PROJECT: $MMmal vlue0p 34d pgl®1¢E b)' S..tV,m8 Mlle... 314 PROJECT: L0. iSESICIE00Y'. STORM SEWER DESIGN COMPUTATIONS WCAMN LD�T 'E COUMY: Allaanmk CTrokM 1, n U 3 CMckw'. STORM FREQUENCY t0 IMADENCEPROBABILITY 10 Year Q UWrs ENouex 0 IE 1. RAOt �aa SF eA �� $r 2 6 0 a �pn N /1111/2022 O M. OENHARD . SE Fal B • M. OENHA4D • dnn • F. CffHOCKf N£ • 0' g_ V J $$$ w OM V / Y) w O 5 gags >a J w a U \ m Q 3 sONOOaa�NOOO 01261 a U q oLU sqqq YOa�1.001aOl.FLI4. � J �p 3SO.16�0.all.41a.I'll1_1 O0Zg8g L O R� B S 2 W = a� O� v O tz a $E 49821 1 aNEErro. 5e C6.14 1F NO PAOm POMT iO PoPT OMM. PFA m RUNO COFFF. Id) CA TOTN. mimm� m M3N FALL ww Its 0.VNOPP Q ai ¢EIAWFA VATIONB EENOT NPipe PI o0 4/JPE FIN, IN 5¢E IOud sp ea¢iee) m Irdl SNAPO Cepeiry cvs ns naivn P9ope W Puss oM f1AW min en x12.3 AaKs obi INC ul Att13M 1s AO o nm tip m Its 113s gnusD cwrr 9xei fa lPys Oox hwn Biobl Iyw+Re) IOZ a. WO R15 _ 5 2b9i g51Db 451.131 ID Na Dl5 Chats fl015 5. 9] 0.19i s�mrn lore. o. rimm e�oxl pH)vtiJ 6TR(90]) 0.160 ['ualm i: 1 DR JUIGnCx srA]au amET slaaA� ea. aA w MI B®c m (681 La6m � 181 su>,; ao (FTiTII I,>g In (N ✓.ec Dwlces RraeL IPo All � va w (F9 a vl wl vru� x A11y. re fa B6 102 tONb.W d53.08 10 ]55 E0.5 O.da% 0.9 5.19 0.1 ].6B 5.2 3BW 0.d2 0.15 50.16 0.29 O51 0 FALSE 0.85 d5d.]9 dFA.IXt OI( d.28 1w n.Bz.aB dw.n fe ]fie 1z9e pas% os] 5.z 6e D D D a D 9 D Ba o FALSE ae] a5s.a d50s ac ace 1B] 1B.2am ase 1s o 2pa p9B% a D D s a D 9 B 9 D 9 o FALSE o ase a61 s5 ac zes 1W 11.98M d59.28 15 O 1]325 003% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FALSE 0 dSB.R d06.B1 OI( -]65 111 12.8219 d82.39 15 0 80.15 OW% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FALSE 0 d82.39 d8]d] q( dw 202 11+29 T] 10.9.ds 18 039 53.21 ON% 0 220 002 02 10] 09] 065 002 6]89 OIXi 00] 009 FALSE OC9 10.9.61 6S.E.9 q( -01d 2w f0+0I� IL9.03 15 0.2 32.15 OW% 0 18] 001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001 OOi FALSE 002 dd9.Hd d85.02 q( d99 2� 10+209d 450.5 15 0]8 1894 001% 0 3]H OIX1 033 3.18 0.I1 00] 0.03 tilt 001 00] O.W FALSE U.03 d50.59 d81% q( 3Ld 20B 10+52,g0 d59.F0 15 0,33 319] OW% 0 2.18 002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002 0p2 FALSE 002 450.] d8183 q( -2 Y2 302 10W.]9 d511.15 IS 1.1] ]9.]5 O.CO% 002 0.2d 00] 10] d.R 3.12 036 0.13 ]9.9] 023 063 0 FALSE 00.5 0`A.8 d53.29 q( -3.Po 3w 11Ktd8 d5t05 15 1.0] W.% Il.@% 0.@ d]8 O.OB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0.12 FALSE 0.13 d51.10 d55]5 OK d.5] 305 10+213.w dOt19 IS 6.I5 28.w I].W% 0.% 8] 0.d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 FALSE 0.55 Mt.]d dW q( d.'ffi dOR 10+Rt0] NLOt 12 O.d] 21.P 11.01% 0 d.'16 Il% 0 0 0 0 0 0 FALSE 0.1 RL1 d55.5 q( 8.99 Md tOtE6.W HI.25 15 3.d0 W.d6 0.25% 0.1] 6.Ed 0.1] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ot] 0 FALBE 03d da].59 d3.% q( -].E6 5W 10+Rd.10 d93.6 RC RS.Id 113.OR 1.9% 0.23 11.35 0.5 Mn 1d.16 35C 139 3.11 ION w.W R.18 AP 0 FALSE d d3].6 KO.W OK 3.d6 5W 10.50.]e d3].6 2a R5.]] 26.] 190% 0% 1a.1fi 0.]0 25.139 td.et 305W 3.d5 1]t %56 1/0 3d] 0 FALSE 38R dOt.d2 dM.2fi OK 3.& S. 10.&t.]8 M1 /R 20 25.93 de.% 130% O61 1d.81 OE6 25.85 1dPL 361. RB 3d8 1.21 ]fi. ]5 228 a.39 0 FALSE OeB ddfi.dl 1a953 OI( -2.1R 512 11.9a.P d08.d1 M 25.95 B4.W 132% 125 1d.92 pE8 1251 Bda 118.1] 138 Oa8 BtE O.B] 232 0 FALSE 95] da8.� G5305 OI( 80] std 1NM.01 I515] 10 1281 d9.32 102% 0] B40 03 11 ]d B3d 1W83 1.ffi Od] 2]]8 Od] 1H 0 FALSE 15B 153.5] dSB� q( d11 510 13.18 ]a d53.5] 10 11.]I ]d 3B 125% 0� B3d Il.% 105 B9] tOdW 1w e5d 52.02 OT] 1B5 0 FALSE 258 d50.15 d6121 OK 6CB 518 14+50.8] d58.15 10 Na 132.W 1L0% 132 B9] OS ]tI 835 590 1m 030 50. ]8 031 131 1] FALSE 302 d59.1] d0d.]9 q( S50 SM 15+02.ID d59.t] 1H ].tI 518] Od0% 02q 8.93 OP ]18 8.28 59.11 1w U.3] 1309 O.ld O]0 0 FALSE 1d2 dW.10 d08.e1 OK dW 522 15+6129 dW.18 15 ].18 35.d8 1.23% OCd B.M O.R 3]] ]% 28N 0% 031 ]d82 05d 1.11 0 FALSE 1S5 d81.]3 d80.03 ON 5.1 52d 15+T1.16 d81.T! 15 3.08 35.85 11.25% O.C9 ].3S 0.21 0I5 5.15 5135 0.01 O.N 0 0 OS 0.q8 FALSE 055 d83.ID d8].29 q( d.01 5R8 113H8.2R d8R.01 15 0]5 20tfe 11.01% O.CO 5.15 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.13 FALSE 0.16 d@.B] dT1.M OK 9.fl 533 1W811.23 d511.93 15 B.RB 59.R 11.95% O.Y 801 0.1C 5.10 59R 32.d2 OW 0.19 ]S.OR 0.38 O69 0 FALSE 115 d53.18 d59.21 CK -].IX1 53R 10+W.8] d5R.18 15 5.18 39.d9 Il.]R% 0.� 5.9R 0.10 3] 5.d5 i11.10 O.dB 0.18 w.29 0.3 11.8 0]13 FALSE 1.W d53.25 d59.19 CN d.95 53d 1RK5.% d53.25 15 9.] 186.2] Il.%% 0.61 5.0.5 0.12 3d d.� 11.I1 O.T 0.13 6R.]Il 011 Od5 050 FALSE 1.R d5d.d5 d61.]3 CK -].'tl 535 13.25.29 d5d.d5 15 2.d 90.91 Il.ta% O.M 0.80 O.W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ow O.1R FALSE 0.1] d5d.62 d6R.w q( -].dt 539 10.58.d8 d5R.55 15 5.03 SB.d 001% 133E B.89 11.:6 d.d5 Al 303d 1.15 O.d 9.19 0 0]0 0 FALSE 1.1d d53.68 d5B.93 q( Aw w0 11n2200 d3.]1 15 dd5 63.35 Od]°6 09 Bfi1 02B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OID 03] FALSE Ofi8 ISfi.30 d8235 OK fiB] Sd2 11.Oa C8 d61 T3 15 3]] tw.05 02846 09 ]w 022 1R5 ]� 08 0.]Z U.2] a3. ]6 U.93 OB2 10] FALSE 1�] dfi3.11 dfi93 OK S2 SM 12.fi0E0 dfi5.11 15 125 f5]� OCO% OW ]O6 Of9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01B 025 FALSE 03 Ifi501 d]B� OK -1I 28 00] 10+59.01 d50.T 15 999 50.01 239°b 121 102] OI1 ]92 Bd8 51.1] O05 023 59.FB 032 09d 0 FALSE 21fi d59.91 d]OB] OK -1199 P09 11+09 ]d dB3.9 19 ]92 135.13 150% 3Ce 808 0.18 38d ].35 ffi]5 OBl 029 2].28 025 0]1 092 FALSE 295 IQB.BS 0]3d9 OK 884 81] 11+0121 988.85 19 1.23 1W.d8 O.Od% 001 40H OPo 0133 3W 301 02 00] d9] 0.1 026 031 FALSE U.35 d8]2 d]259 q( d39 819 11+52.52 d8]2 19 003 8132 Oce% 001 383 005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 005 00] FALSE 00] IB]ID d]d55 ON -T2] 813 f0+3d 90 d919 15 V 3d 0.0]% 0@ ].31 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 0.2] FALSE 0.29 d82.f9 d]OH] ON -a AS 811 12N9.59 a6THd 15 3.W 89.% 0.32% 0.29 ].35 021 2]] B.BR 10.8] On 015 39.3] 031 OP 101 FALSE 1.29 dG9.t9 d]EO] OK 69] 813 13+t9.H] dG9.95 15 2.]] a0.� 0.113% 0.0] 6.BR 0.18 0 0 0 I] 0 0 0 018 OR3 FALSE 0.31 q03] a]6.55 OK b38 61R t0.a0S d5].6 2a 16d] 3dA] O.dS% 0.16 10.01 O.d6 1035 9.41 td2.d2 1.53 0.51 89.59 LW 2% 0 FALSE RRR d59.62 dfi5.] OK b8] 6Rd 11N5.d6 d5B.OR 20 1d.35 ]d.91 O.dM: 11.9 8.93 0.� 10.R] 6.M 69.115 0.] OR5 dt.w 0.3 0&9 0 FALSE 113 d6LW d]0.9R OK 82G &W 11N8.10 d61.] 20 103] 118.]1 0.21% 0.2d 6.T[ 0.18 IOd2 ].58 ]9.01 009 031 10.]9 OI1R 0.6 0 FALSE 0.& d6R.51 d]d.92 IX( -1R.38 WB 1R.5L10 d6R.&i 2a 10d2 130.W 11.18% 025 ].59 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 0 FALSE O.a] aET.3 d'M]5 OK 8a5 093 10.i0.55 dSB.BR 15 2.Rfi ]aw 01R% OW d.81 OW 105 SW d.0] 09 O.w 981 0.1fi 030 U.M FALSE 053 dE0.35 dfi56] OK S9R BT2 10.0055 dfi0.35 15 1.05 31% 003% 001 980 0 0 0 0 0 O� e88 FALSE 003 Ifi040 dfiv. ]2 OK b29 828 11.]3� IBd.90 20 d.1 50.18 003% 0@ T01 0.19 235 0% fOw OS 0.19 59.21 031 OAS 09 FALSE 092 d6508 d]5.10 OK 928 820 12.186fi d06.22 M 295 99.B5 001% 0 560 016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01a 018 FALSE 0.19 dfifid I]518 OF B]8 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 lxl7 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 Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Albemarle County a _ l b 1 3 I o��mom � ___- � -- ® -� I = �i:� ._.f%'i! '��� V �o_ �sv - � �• I 41 o 90 "o 00 �Aivv :1171 yy \ TIMMONS GROUP .••'00 :••• a SOUTHWOOD — VILLAGES 3& 4 4 o oo COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VA POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - PHASE 1 , ffio �® Wis I , poN �VAA0Aa� i \AamM J THISDIMMINGEPARED PTTHE oun. CNuRIAIIESAILLE OFFICE �y0" 6C8 PreRan Avenue, Sulce 2. °IarloNeevllk, VA 22903 N TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.mm n REVISION DESCRIPTION O PER COUNTY COMMEWS @ ¢ r " rIIm �l , I -- , In II - 11 -- �Id` ?I P _ I , T '\"� � \� pl III 11 I _�`�� •o ��o� , y y I a \ �\\\_ \ 1' i1'I I I 1, 111 „u1 I m 11 I' III I 1 i I III 0 II V � I�IiI IIIII III III nl I I �' � ' 'I I I o i 4 ♦ ki ' �' _- y , " _ - �� / 41 p i uP I I I I 111 I , 1 'l♦� ,� � � l l - \ a v '�`�_�. I YYY 1 , n,f' I0 (� > oA ,� ''1` � I� I `I A `, —_ �0�11& m$Aa CIA`, `,Agin, ��` I�� m �A ',�` , ! mob yu�nv `p II,✓ r '` I o- �I 11'ril I I pl / 'II I - , I I I III � V 1` i �• ��oo � ` A ` /' I __ i"'- III I oal 1 n / ,I 3 n 1 / nl o ON 14 I / �I 1 „ u'I z g�g MM IIu y�F III' 1 1 Ills n' I I' Wl;( , 111'II 11 ' Il,lp Iiiy 1 ' III li In 111 lii ll„h �N�_``I �`,• II , , { I - ___ p I I 11'u111'i 1 X,� ' JII'n 'I�I / 0 _ j ••�•• THIS DIMMI31111.1D AT NE VOUR VISION ACHIEVED THRWGH OURS. CHAIIMMIVILLE 0MCE �y0" M N GROUP P• ;EL: z9„s=aeFw4ce4�=a!7�ammog.mm N TM OSG I �m a SOUTHWOOD — VILLAGES 3 & 4 4 _ o DATE REVIStONDESR[P ON 2� QQ o T g I/9/2023 UPDATED PER COUNTY COMMEN(S No COUNTY Of ALBEMARLE VA o S 6 Tp 6 i Icy `� bil�yl POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - PHASE I p n... nu...e .waa.e eew..m.re n.wax.. ww.r or nrw,oxs w,ws..a m.v m a wnwewe n �vna e, a wn..a Nn.a e. ow w..v wwa+..nmo.w,. nmw. a, ro, a Ilc _ frr I I r i Irl 8 / o vmm�' c Em o5� rl I r / a 0� r \ 6"6' " 1 yr / a y r � r , I � r r �n I S r � 11 r I I }} I r 'I I m � 1 I I m 1 I II d O I r i1 � r'r , I I r r , `I I ✓'I "rl_ `-ql'r %..III, A r I 1 _ - / by ;pm p IIr IIlhl rr/ p,li mq a jil l - -- - V "' p 1 I , r _ �m Ir -465— ✓ r I' I , � / 0 � � ` � l///�// "b -''-_� it I a r I I �� �� � �` A � � �'�II li III � ✓�� � � li / � I i� igi r 4�' � r 11 I - V: r 41 'ii%i 41r � I I It l� -- I - \ z 9 / , n p y r / , y rrl 2 If N r qq ��� �"I�I I I II s �' I r I � _� �-'-• /'• "__-J nllh�l�__-_ 0/II ' r - _ � r , V� ammo / /. i r �'b� —'-- I�H ��r ? 1' 'ir��V�O rr•li '/r"' I' rir 4 ' I 00 /p6T� TI - \ r � � r n qP r r I r • 0 THIS DPAWIN3 PREPMM AT THE T M M O N S GROUP •• • • ••. YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THRWGH DIIRS. CNARLDITESYIUE r. C 6D8 PreRan Avenue• SoII 2D0 OIarloNeavllk•VA EE903 NN TEL IIN.295.5629 FAX 439.295.III www.bmmons.mm �m a SOUTHWOOD — VILLAGES 3 & 4 4 _ o DATE REV6tONDESR[P ON 2 QQ o m g I/9/2023 UPOATEO PER COUNTY UV ISIO (S No COUNTY Of ALBEMARLE VA o S 6 6 i 9 Icy `� bil�yl POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - PHASE I p r ��• -IS 0--NG IRI-15 AT TIE T I M M C� N • • �• OUR VISIONPCHIEVED NR0 HOUR MRRD ES F1OMCE 7www e y� WB Pm Son Av,n., Wte 200 CM1atloNervllk�VP E2903 ofll TEL 4M.B5.56M FAX41. 295.031J w &, VA 229 3 i m THWD — VILLAGES 4 Qm g ; °ATE RE SIONDES R[PTON SOUOOGS 3 & � c a Q4 3/9/ATI UPOAJEO PER CDUNJY COMMENTS N� 'S N N o COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VA POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - PHASE II g o x .l.,.m..,. ....-..M,.. ...._ " .`._._. .m._.,.W� an n.nN.l w� a ,alp r , I E I I ? I - __ I - \ �� ✓., lI Il Il lip nl I I I v �� \ T i/ - NIP � I'�'il, i I' II IIII 1 II V lot, . �mn a I IIII III rX �g \ „ (! \ �,�` _,Q? I 1'• 1 III- r I I DDN ng:� a� . `� `. A `� / e °n z "o o ° 9 m e 'I y 3 P,3no y / ,A� c--- ,',II o��SN_ — — / . \5 a �9 --- IALJ I - ��op 1 EEll ---r b �I I __ ml I , y C y I 0 Iy tl `I l sl-sr nzm '/r '/' - _ n ��• TXIS OMWING PREPNIED AT TIf �`,� T I M M C� N • • ••• OUR VISIONPCHIEVED R0 HOUR MRRD ES F17www e y� 6CB PreHan Averm�5Nk R00 @atloNervllk�Va EE903 ofll TEL 4M.B5.56M FA%<SG.295.B r w llle, VA 229 3 m SOUTHWOOD — VILLAGES 3 & 4 m m g ; DATE REVISION DES R[P ONE c d Y Q�Q 3/9/2023 UPOAJEO PER CDUNJYCOMMENIS N N o COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VA POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - PHASE 11 g o x IIII ',I R` _ I I _ rr 6 � 6 I I g �I 1 @ I / / II \ I I fl II 9 o033C & j �£/r ♦ �-gn/ i Imp I I/I '1 r I I r 6 I - rl � I I I III Lrr A`�Ii IIIr/ ,', 'o l - -�m n a wm °°ol - IIII Y r I'I �,` rr ,Ilr I' / o a I I I I � e I ♦ 9 �s Ma"� d n 00f n % / r";o $$ n a I I / y 9 - F r /r f _n \••'API 'Y. � � _ t �r r � V / ____-'�15r ka IN -_ I _ r�I �I I � .•I' I II' - 1 _ _ —� _ AU _' / ' _ _-_ _ � �' ICI I I' ♦/ �pi,'�'/r_ � , ��,�, , r �47 a TXIS OMWING PREPNIED AT TIf YOUR VISION PCHIEVED TiROUGH OURS. DMARIDTIESVEIIF OEFlCE T I M M O N S GROUP • • • ••• TELII H.B .56n , X4 200 83f7 wewllk VP EE903 C �� TEL <3G.29 E.Sfi2G FA%tl3G. 29E.031J w llle, VA 229 3 i � P SOUTH WOOD -VILLAGES 3 & 4 m _ °FTE REVISION DES R[P ONE 6 d Y m 2023 UPOAJEO PER CDUNJYCOMMENIS 'S Q M COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VA POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - PHASE 11 g o x s — . �s 00 r � . m _ _ 1 /r v 'r 1 I is M� r-om c - � A � � - ,I � ♦ai��' �Z CSC �t \ �_ _ '°n\ � \ 1yy r � j , r r r \ 1 tip' � 8 4 I' r - r -- I z , I I I � ��� / m� rem ✓ V@ / r ,�/i„// l 1� E • / f v xCti� I 1 r < \ F I _ , I , , , , , r I r. I � I I U, 1 I/ 1 / \ J] I / e J i > I` a 1 l �n � 4] /i ��� TXIS OMWIHG PREPMEO RT TXE + C T • • •••• OUR VISION PCHIEVED 0.W HOURS CNARD RM E17 C`y� 6CB Prestm Av¢nue�5N4200 Dlarltwil@'VF 1E903 NN TEL a30.B5.56M W 4341.831] www.bm VA 2293 p y SOUTH WOOD —VILLAGES 3 & 4 q o m $ ; °^'E REVISIONDESCRfl ONE g r d 3 3/9/3033 IIGOA]EOVER COIINT'COMMEN(E Fi COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VA .1 a 0 ti s a o I m vtxt� POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN — PHASE III 8 " , �Ini�y� ypgY �bb�� y�•� �!IDYJIIII/pl!AYJ(iN� (� � l+peb" Ind n10015 ot71 FA ` �a Ive„ 0 OVA ii III is� ���a ,�„tea �1 � .'�►h� _:�"_ � I I� P Bull f��•YII;10(. ���4 � C �� ���� III � �u �. E�i oil yy jj �p�y1l� II, •ti O,yi �sjo�g P'`fk✓�J M' S�F! II. � -e�.�: .� 4 ppq.� OM� w • � III FA n�Jlllqg ��y MIS DUMNG PUMED AT ME COUN� OF ALBEMARLE, VA IN POLLUTION P12LEVENTION PLAN - PHASE III o - / e /m , ` ` r ,r 11/ _ 1 1 1 I, I I I OB r 1 / , 1 1 I 1 I / 1 1 1; Ind `I`4ru /' //,,//'/ _- �� ' / � /] '• F 1 �IQoIA o 11'; a ml 1/ 7 / ' I � Syv' I / y a I I /✓ 6L� 891 - \ ` A li /p g � I 1 , a o t F {Vq y V6 arm Cy ( % 1 I O TXIS OMWIHG PREPMEO RT TXE T •�• •••• TOUR VISION PCHIEVED THROWNOURS. CNARLOTRML8317 www 6CB Prestm AVMAII N4200 Omrlotlervll4�VF 1E903 NN TEL a3a.B5.56M FAY a3a.295 M r www.ti, VA 229 3 o SOUTH WOOD - VILLAGES 3 & 4 w $ ; DATE RE EIONDEE Rfl ONE g r d q 3 O m 3/9/3033 1/GO4IEO GER COUNTY COMMENCE N e COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VA o 4 i z i bixt`✓"l POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - PHASE III m o D. .3OnreCS of rOHUTanTS, locations. anu Pollutant, or Pollutant Location on site Prevention Practices, Generating Activity Control Measures i C. Sources of Pollutants continued. Common activities and minimum control and prevention practices Pollutant, or Pollutant Location on site Prevention Practices, Generating Activity Control Measures Follow Erosion and Sediment Control Clearing, grading, excavating, and un- Land disturbance area Plan. Dispose of clearing debris at stabilized areas acceptable disposal sites. Seed and mulch, or sod within 7 days of land clearing 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 com unds. 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 Stortttwater 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 plan wash waters per the plan Minimization of exposure to precipitation and stormwater. Minimize the exposure of building materials, building products, construction wastes, trash, landscape materials, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste, and other materials present on the site to precipitation and to stornwater. (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 (S WPPP) 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. William Thiessen 967 2"d Street SE Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.293.9066 F. Response and reporting practices Minimize discharges from spills and leaks. Minimize the discharge of pollutants from spills and leaks and implement chemical spill and leak prevention and response procedures as follows. Respond to all spills, leaks and discharges as follows, Materials and equipment necessary for oil or chemical spill cleanup will be kept in the temporary material storage trailer onsite. Equipment will include, but not be limited to, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, kitty litter, sand, saw dust, and plastic and metal trash containers. All oil or other chemical spills will be cleaned up immediately upon discovery. Identify and stop source of discharge. Use absorptive materials to soak up as much chemical as possible. Place all contaminated material in trash containers for disposal. Report all spills, leaks and discharges as follows, (Provide detailed response and reporting practices according to 9VAC25-880-70, Part II, section A.4.e.) Reports will be made to the following: Virginia Department of Emergency Management Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Phone: (800) 468-8892 Spills large enough to reach the storm sewers will be reported to the National Response Center at 1-800-424-8802. Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) 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 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 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 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. William Thiessen 967 2"d Street SE Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.293.9066 Issued — 10/2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) 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: John Desmond Company: Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville Title: �Q Signature:; / Date: 2 fBkaz; 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, John Desmond, 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 Southwood villages 3 & 4 construction site. The designee is authorized to sign any reports, stormwater pollution prevention plans and all other documents required by the permit. Roy J Wright Foulconer Construction 2496 Old Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-295-0033 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. John Desmond Company: Habitat for Humanitv of Greater Charlottesville Title: 111mo Signature: -O ,? Date: x ll3%Zo gt 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)?