HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500020 Correspondence 2016-01-12Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:01 PM
To: 'Lee Miller'
Cc: Justin Deel; 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'; Megan Yaniglos
Subject: RE: SDP2015 -20 Inglewood Terrace — initial site plan
Lee,
Yes, the County has received your email and all the attachments. The applicant has been provided this
information too.
Today is my 1 st day back in the office since the New Year. Below in red I have responded to each of your
comments /concerns. Hope this helps.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Lee Miller [mailto:le — miller @prodigy. net]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 8:02 AM
To: Christopher Perez <cperez @albemarle.org >; Justin Deel <jdeel @albemarle.org>
Subject: Fw: SDP2015 -20 Inglewood Terrace — initial site plan
Hi Christopher & Justin,
Please confirm receipt of the emails sent on Tuesday?
Thanks - Lee
From: Lee Miller [mailto:le — miller @prodigy. net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 6:49 AM
To: Christopher Perez <cperez @albemarle.org >; Justin Deel <jdeel @albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SDP2015 -20 Inglewood Terrace — initial site plan
To: Department of Community Development Albemarle County
Attention: Christopher Perez
Attached is a professional scientific stream report conducted on several dates. The stream is perennial by a wide margin.
Jeffrey A. Sitler, CPG Associate Director for Environmental Resources Facilities Management University of Virginia
arranged for Lyle Silka of the Silka Environmental Services, Inc. and Anne Dunchel of Stream Watch to conduct the
report. They made comment that they wondered if the developer's stream report was even conducted at the site! The
Powell report appears to be a fraud report that was hastily composed by less than a professional entity. It should have been
obvious as it was pointed out by many in the neighborhood that the timing and statements from the developers engineer to
be suspect! Your own County engineer said he thought the stream appeared to be perennial after visiting the site just prior
to you receiving the now suspected fraud report that appeared out of the blue from the developer. You were informed by
several neighborhood residents that this steam flowed as a perennial stream, forming from springs located beyond
Solomon Road near Bennington Road. That is confirmed in this report. The validity of the Shimp stream report is
professionally extinguished by this report. The stream report among the other major issues with this Site Plan, confirm
that this site plan is not feasible. The report you provided was forwarded to the County Engineer and the applicant's
Engineer (Justin Shimp). The County Engineer reviewed the study and upon request of the applicant's Engineer, met to
discuss ways to move forward. It was decided by the County Engineer that because there are two conflicting studies
conducted by two different professional entities, that a 3rd study shall be conducted to officially classify the stream. The
applicant and the neighboring property owners shall come to a mutual agreement as to which professional entity shall
conduct the 3rd study. If the applicant and the neighboring community cannot agree upon a 3rd party to conduct the study
then the US Army Corps of Engineers will be required to conduct the study. Justin Shimp should be contacting you to
work this out.
The entrance at Inglewood Drive does not have the ability to have the public road vacated, as placed in your comments.
The two adjacent owners will not agree to receive any property from the developer to vacate the public road. Understood.
The applicant still has the option to install the public road within the existing public right of way to serve the proposed
lots instead of vacating the public right of way.
Your comment suggesting that the developer should just work out something with the driveway owner of 1622 Inglewood
Drive as a civil manner is incorrect. It is not a civil matter it is a legal enforceable executed document stating an easement.
The easement is a recorded joint access easement that is 30' in length and 30' in width to be used for a joint driveway to
provide ingress and egress to Inglewood Drive [DB 1654 PG 291]. There is no grading taking place within this recorded
joint access easement; rather, the grading you are referring to is on the applicant's own property which you currently have
a portion of your driveway on. This is the portion of the driveway that I am referring to when I mention a civil matter to
be worked out by the applicant and you.
The stream report, the public access that cannot be vacated and the driveway easement completely demolished any
possibility of the site plan being re- workable. The conditional approval needs to be reversed to denial. As previously
discussed the final site plan shall meet the conditions of approval for the initial site plan. If they cannot be met those
conditions then the final cannot be approved.
Another issue is that the public meeting of the first round of review in June was conducted without proper notification of
all parties. You were notified to that fact that neighbors in the community were complaining of never being notified. You
responded with a mailing list that confirms you did not notify all in the neighborhood residences adjacent to the property
of the proposed site plan. You did not send the notification to each actual mailing address, but only to an address location
of the tax billings. The attachment is signed by all adjacent address residents to date that never received any notification.
These residents had no idea of this site plan until just recently when informed by the Barterbrook Subdivision Group. All
oppose it and all would have informed that the stream flows all the time. Just like Frances Koehn of 1704 Inglewood
Drive who inform you of 20 years of the stream flow in her back yard and asked you to keep her inform. She has never
received any correspondence to her address as she requested. The following residences have never received any
information about this site plan at their address: 2411 North Berkshire, 1715 Solomon, 1713A Solomon, 1713 B Solomon,
1711 Solomon, 1709A Solomon, 1709B Solomon, 1707A Solomon, 1707 B Solomon, 1708 A Inglewood DR, and 1708 B
Inglewood DR. We, the ` Barterbrook Subdivision Group" (Attached signatures of all to date), demand that all actions that
have been taken on this site plan be reversed, dismissed and the site plan rejected!
Notice was sent to all abutting owners of the site. The addresses of 2411 North Berkshire, 1708 Solomon Rd, 1709(A) &
(B) Solomon Rd are not abutting owners of the property and are not required to be notified. The notifications are required
to be sent to the real estate tax assessment address per the County ordinance, this requirement was met. See Section
32.4.2.1(f, g, and h) provided below for code references to notification requirements for an initial site plan.
[32.4.2.1(f)] Notice; recipients. When the agent determines that an initial site plan is officially submitted, he shall send
notice that the plan has been submitted to the owner of each lot abutting the site and to each member of the board of
supervisors and the planning commission. The notice shall describe the type of use proposed; the specific location of the
development; the appropriate county office where the plan may be viewed; and the dates the site review committee and, if
applicable and if known, the architectural review board will review the plan.
[32.4.2.1(g)] Notice; how provided. The notice required by subsection (f) shall be mailed or hand delivered at least ten
(10) days prior to the site review committee meeting and, if applicable, the architectural review board meeting at which
the initial site plan will be reviewed. Mailed notice shall be sent by first class mail. Notice mailed to the owner of each lot
abuttin, the site shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address shown on
the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed to be compliance with this requirement. If a
lot abutting the site is owned by the developer, the notice shall be given to the owner of the next abutting lot not owned by
the developer.
[32.4.2.1(h)] Notice; defect does not affect validity of site plan. The failure of any person to receive the notice required by
subsection (fl, or any error in the notice, shall not affect the validity of an approved site plan, and shall not be the basis for
an appeal.
Thank you,
The Barterbrook Subdivision Group
To: The Albemarle County Department of Community Development
Re: Notification of SPP2015 -20 Inglewood Terrace — Initial Site Plan
We live at 1622 Inglewood Drive, adjacent to the proposed Initial Site Plan. You
were notified with copy of an executed real estate legal contract on November 4,
2015 of the driveway easement along the property lines. This is to inform you that
there will be no negotiation concerning this easement as per your comment. All
executed real estate contracts are legal documents and enforceable! This is to
inform you that this easement is enforced! Inform the developer to remove grade
marks on it and its maintenance area on any site plan. Inform the developer to
move any proposed building away from this area as to the required setbacks to
the easement area!
Signature:
L 1
Thank you,
Date:
l
Barterbrook Subdivision Group
> - -/b
To: The Albemarle County Department of Community Development
Re: Notification of SPP2015 -20 Inglewood Terrace — Initial Site Plan
I live at the following address adjacent to the proposed Initial Site Plan for new
townhome construction and have never received any notification from Albemarle
County about it. I was informed about it by the Barterbrook Subdivision Group
just recently during a request for access for a Stream Report or receiving its
results affecting the proposed townhome construction.
Street Address
Signature
Date
170 9 - A ��l��i�d,,�� -,�-� :� ' 1►
Thank you,
Barterbrook Subdivision Group
To: The Albemarle County Department of Community Development
Re: Notification of SPP2015 -20 Inglewood Terrace — Initial Site Plan
This notification is the formal request for the reversal of a conditional approval to
a disapproval of the subject initial site plan. The documents provided by the
Barterbrook Subdivision Group indicate non - notification of all parties, a
professional report showing the stream is perennial, an executed real estate legal
document of easement along an adjacent driveway and the elimination of the
vacating of public entrance, extinguishing that option. These documents require
so many major changes that the propose site plan is unfeasible.
Street Address
7 Od
r7c _
50 Ad
%coq- s�t�d. Rte(
l 7n L`I it Ffr r�r
1 �o3D 11-I z ►�s-
/7 rs
1-4-( S so fcc!
�/ �.✓c %�vs� /lam
Thank you,
Signature
i
f �
Date
D l � ;7,
r-3 =4,
Barterbrook Subdivision Group
e.
l414i�2
To: The Albemarle County Department of Community Development
Re: Notification of SPP2015 -20 Inglewood Terrace — Initial Site Plan
1 live at the following address adjacent,to the proposed Initial Site ,Plan. My
location is -at the public road entrance. I will never accept any property from the
public road access from the developer to allow vacating the public access for the
subject site plan. With this notification the proposed option of vacating is
extinguished.
Street Address
Thank you,
Barterbrook Subdivision Group
Signature Date
4 Ld4i�16_
o r a l
�Q
Silka Environmental Services, Inc.
PO Box 1283
Haymarket, VA 20168
(434)953 -5468 or(703)216 -2490
LSILKA @COMCAST.NET
December 22, 2015
Barterbrook Subdivision Group
c/o - Lee Miller - Group Leader
and
Department of Community Development
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
Subject: Stream Evaluation, Barterbrook Subdivision, Albemarle County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Miller:
An evaluation as to whether a stream is perennial has been completed for the stream that crosses
the Barterbrook Subdivision, beginning approximately at 211 North Bennington Road and flows
under Inglewood Drive at the northeast corner of 1704 Inglewood Drive as shown in Figure 1.
This stream evaluation was requested by Mr. Lee Miller as representative of the Barterbrook
Subdivision Group in response to the stream evaluation presented by Environmental Control
Opportunities, LLC (hereinafter ` ECO "), for Shimp Engineering of Charlottesville entitled
"Stream Categorization For Proposed Inglewood Terrace, Tax Map 61, Parcel l0A and 10A2"
dated June 19, 2015. These two parcels are outlined in red in Figure 1.
Stream Evaluation Methodology
The stream evaluation follows the Fairfax County Stormwater Planning Division "Perennial
Stream Field Identification Protocol" dated May 2003 (hereinafter, the "Protocol "). A detailed
discussion is provided for each "Field Indicator" listed in the Protocol along with photographs
referenced to the locations along the stream reach that are numbered on Figure 2. The stream
was inspected by me on two dates: November 23 and December 6, 2015.
On December 6th, I was accompanied by Anne Dunkel, Monitoring Program Manager with
StreamWatch. Brief resumes for Anne Dunkel and me are presented on page 29, and the field
rating sheet is provided at the end of the attachments on pages 30 and 31.
The attached pages discuss the Protocols and documents the evidence collected during our
stream evaluation. We conclude that the stream is perennial from close to its head near North
Bennington, through the proposed Inglewood Terrace development, and to Inglewood Drive.
The stream is fed by several springs /seeps and discharge from high groundwater levels through
the streambed as documented by the presence of gray, hydric soil exposed in the stream bed as
well, presence of springs and seeps, and presence of numerous macroinvertebrates and
amphibians.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 2
Stream Evaluation Results
The Protocol rating that we have determined for this stream is 42.5. This is compared to the
ECO rating of only 18.5. The Protocol states that a minimum score of 25 was set as a guideline
for classifying a stream as perennial. Our scores are explained and compared to ECO's scores in
the attached documentation. A summary of differences between ECO's and our ratings for five
of the Protocol's indicators are:
Presence of high groundwater table or seeps and springs:
ECO scored this a Weak (1 point), while we scored it as Strong (3 points), since there
is documented evidence of springs and seeps and hydric (gray) soils just upstream of
the proposed development. Difference of +2.
Active or relic floodplain:
ECO scored this as Absent (0 points), while we scored it as Moderate (2 points), since
active bank undercutting on meanders and an abandoned meander are present within
the proposed development. Difference of +2.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates:
ECO scored this as Absent (0 points), while we scored this as Strong (1.5 points) due
to the documented presence of many benthic macroinvertebrates. Difference of +1.5.
EPT taxa:
ECO scored this as Absent (0 points), while we scored this as Present (3 points) due to
the documented presence of ECO taxa. Difference of +3.
Amphibians:
ECO scored this as Absent (0 points), while we scored this as Strong (1.5 points) due
to the documented presence of numerous salamanders. Difference of +1.5.
Just these five rating indicators raise ECO's score of 18.5 to a score of 28.5.
The ease with which we identified benthic organisms and amphibians within the stream in the
proposed development in December, with limited D -net sampling, raises the question as to how
these organisms could have been missed by ECO during their June stream evaluation.
Anecdotally, Mrs. Frances Koehn, residing at 1704 Inglewood Drive since 1990 adjacent to the
stream, stated that she has never witnessed the stream dry up.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 3
Conclusions
Our understanding of the proposed development could significantly degrade the riparian forest
buffer capacity by significantly increasing impermeable surface area with the additional
pavement and roofs. Modification of the hydrology of the stream by construction of an
extensive culvert and filling of the floodplain most likely will change storm flow through the
stream, and potentially increase flooding and erosion downstream by constricting the floodway
and increasing the stream gradient.
Continued maintenance of the mature woodlands bordering the stream reach between Solomon
Road and Inglewood Drive, including the small floodplain contained therein, provides an
important buffer for flood and erosion control. The many ecological benefits provided by
riparian forest buffers, well documented elsewhere, would also be adversely affected by the
proposed development.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further service in this matter.
Sincerely,
00 0
Lyl R. Silk!
Virginia Certified Professional Geologist No. 972
(434)953 -5468
LSILKA @COMCAST.NET
Enclosures
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 4
Figure 1. Approximate stream location in the Barterbrook Subdivision. The two lots that are
proposed for development are outlined in red.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 5
Figure 2. Aerial map showing the stream with numbered locations corresponding to the
following photographs. The two lots that are proposed for development are outlined in yellow.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 6
1. Streamflow and Hydrology
1.1. Presence or absence of flowing water, >48 hours since last rainfall
The stream was visually inspected on November 23 and evaluated on December 6, 2015. The
Protocol prefers observing streamflow at least 48 hours after the last rainfall. Table 2 provides
the max /min temperatures and rainfall for each day from November 23rd through December 6 th
Each inspection day is outlined in bold in the table, which shows that more than 48 hours had
passed since the last rain event in each instance. The November 23rd inspection was four days
after the last significant rain ( >0.25 inches), and the December 6th inspection was five days since
the last significant rain.
Table 2. Daily temperatures and precipitation preceding
the dates of stream evaluation.
Date
Max Temp, F
Min Temp, F
Precip, inches
2015 -11 -13
66
47
0
2015 -11 -14
61
40
0
2015 -11 -15
55
40
0
2015 -11 -16
69
44
0
2015 -11 -17
69
47
0
2015 -11 -18
64
48
0
2015 -11 -19
60
48
1.23
2015 -11 -20
66
46
0.11
2015 -11 -21
56
35
0
2015 -11 -22
56
37
0
2015 -11 -23
47
28
0
2015 -11 -24
42
28
0
2015 -11 -25
54
35
0
2015 -11 -26
57
36
0
2015 -11 -27
62
43
0
2015 -11 -28
68
52
0
2015 -11 -29
70
55
0.13
2015 -11 -30
55
37
0.11
2015 -12 -01
41
37
0.97
2015 -12 -02
49
41
0.6
2015 -12 -03
55
38
0.24
2015 -12 -04
49
32
0
2015 -12 -05
53
32
0
2015 -12 -06
52
34
0
ttp: / /w2. weather .gov /climate /xmacis.php ?wfo =lwx
for Charlottesville VA "DaiIV data for a month"
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 7
On both of our inspection dates, the stream was flowing along its entire length beginning within
about 75 yards of the estimated headwater and exiting the study reach at Inglewood Drive. The
estimated headwater is just downstream of North Bennington, but the exact location of the head
of the stream channel was not observed due to overgrown vegetation. The stream may be
connected to the storm drain in front of 211 North Bennington shown in Photo 1 at Location 1 on
Figure 2 above. Photos 2 and 3 are views of the stream as it passes between the yards
downstream of North Bennington at Locations 2 and 3. The stream channel may have been
modified during the original subdivision development in the upper reach, up stream of Solomon
Road.
The Protocol rating for streamflow is:
Strong - Flow is highly evident throughout the reach. Moving water is easily seen in
runs.
Moderate - Moving water is easily seen in riffle areas but not as evident throughout the runs.
Weak - Flow is barely discei nable in areas of greatest gradient change (i.e. riffles) or floating
object is necessary to observe flow.
Absent - Water present but there is no flow: dry channel with or without standing pools.
The stream exhibits numerous riffles and runs throughout its reach with highly evident flow
throughout the reach. Note that the flow rating is not based on the volume of flow, rather, it is
based only on whether flowing water is present and discernable.
The score for this indicator is STRONG (3 points). ECO rated this as Moderate (2 points).
Photo 1. Stormwater ditch and grate on North Bennington. This is near the headwaters of the
stream. The stream channel begins just down slope of North Bennington (to the right of the
photo).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 8
Photo 2. From North Bennington to near Solomon Road, the stream channel is narrow with a
small flow near North Bennington that gradually increases down stream. The banks have been
lined with large rocks on the right side that borders a back yard (from near Location 2).
Photo 3. Photo of the stream channel near Location 3. Obvious flow was present.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 9
Photo 4. Flowing water just downstream of the culvert passing under Solomon Road at Location
5.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 10
1.2 Presence of high groundwater table or seeps and springs
The groundwater table is high with a number of springs /seeps present. The three photos from
Location 3 in Photos 5 - 7 show a broad area on the northwest, upstream, side of Solomon Road
that has an obvious spring with a broad are of soggy, water - saturated ground. The main spring is
hidden in the large bush but is visible
Photo 8 shows an exposed layer of gray soil in the stream bank that is overlain by red, oxidized
soil. This is just downstream of the Solomon Road culvert pictured in Photo 4. The gray layer is
indicative of a high water table that keeps the soil saturated and anoxic, resulting in the iron in
the soil being reduced to the ferric state that produces the gray color. The red colored soil is due
to the oxidation of iron in the zone above the water table where the iron is in the ferrous state,
just as iron exposed to air rusts to a yellow and red color. The saturated gray layer indicates that
the water table is slightly above the stream level, resulting in the flow of groundwater into the
stream (referred to as a gaining stream). This is strong evidence of a perennial stream.
The Protocol rating for groundwater table or seeps and springs is:
Strong - Spring, seep or grouundwater table is readily observable throughout reach.
Moderate - Springs, seeps or groundwater table are present, but not abundant throughout reach.
Weak - Indicators are present, but require considerable time to locate.
Absent - No springs or seeps present and no indication of a high groundwater table.
The score for this indicator is STRONG (3 points). ECO rated this as Weak (1 point)
Photo 5. Just upstream of Solomon Road is a broad area with several springs /seeps among the
bushes at the right side of the photo. The grassy area between the bushes and the channel was
soggy, water soaked with small pools of water (see Photo 6).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 11
Photo 6. Photo of one of the larger springs /seeps. A pool of water is present within the large
bush at the top of the photo. The area is saturated with water and very spongy with water
moving toward the stream.
Photo 7. A soil sample collected from under the small pool pictured in Photo 6. The soil is
saturated with water with a grayish color indicating that there is groundwater emerging from the
ground that keeps the soil water - saturated year around.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 12
Photo 8. Photo of a layer of gray soil that is visible at the stream level overlain by red, oxidized
soil above. This is just downstream of the Solomon Road culvert pictured in Photo 4.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 13
1.3 Leaf litter in streambed
On November 23`d, with the recent fall of leaves from the hardwoods bordering the stream, there
were a few leaves being transported through the stream as shown in Photo 9 (taken near Location
6 on Figure 2). By December 6tt', there was very little leaf litter in the stream bed, since the trees
were essentially bare and the stream flow had cleared out the previously fallen leaves, as shown
in Photo 10 (the same reach as in Photo 9).
The Protocol rating for leaflitter in streambed is (this rating is reversed, so "absent" means
stream is perennial):
Strong - Abundant amount of leaf litter is present throughout the length of the stream.
1oderate - Leaf litter is present throughout most of the stream's reach with some accumulation
begirining on the upstream side of obstructions and in pools.
Weak - Leaf litter is present and is mostly located in small packs along the upstream side of
obstructions and accumulated in pools.
Absent - Leaf litter is not present in the fast moving areas of the reach but there may be some
present in the pools.
The score for this indicator is Absent (1.5 points). ECO rated this as Moderate (0.5 points)
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 14
Photo 10. In the same reach as Photo 9, on December 6 ", the stream was essentially free of leaf
litter.
1.4 Drift lines or wrack lines
There are many drift lines visible downstream of Solomon Road. Photos 11 and 12 show drift
lines of twigs and leaves caught in fallen logs laying over the stream and balls upstream of
Location 6, and leaves caught in bushes growing in the small flood plain near Location 7,
respectively. Photo 12 also shows an area with finer sediment deposited on a flattened area
created by flooding water.
The Protocol rating for drift lines or wrack lines is:
Strong - Large drift lines are prevalent along the upstream side of obstructions within the channel
and the floodplain.
Moderate - Large drift lines are dispersed mostly within the stream channel.
Weak - Small drift lines are present within the strealrr channel.
Absent - No drift lutes are present.
The score for this indicator is Strong (1.5 points). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points)
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 15
Photo 11. Drift lines of twigs and leaves upstream of Location 6.
Photo 12. Balls washed down and deposited above the stream bank near Location 7.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 16
1.5 Sediment on debris or plants
Since this stream is within a well established residential subdivision that has little soil erosion,
the major potential sources of sediment are from street runoff and stream bank erosion. The
small flood plain in the area centered on Location 7 has sediment deposited in pools within the
stream as well as on the surface of the flood plain. Photo 13 shows sediment deposited on the
top of a rock that is sloped slightly downstream.
The Protocol rating for sediment on debris or plants is:
Strong - Sediment found readily on plants and debris within the stream channel, on the
streambank, and within the floodplain throughout the length of the stream.
Moderate. - Sediment found on plants or debris within the stream channel although not prevalent
along the stream. Mostly accumulating in pools.
Weak - Sediment is isolated in small amounts along the stream.
Absent - No sediment is present on plants or debris.
The score for this indicator is Weak (0.5 points). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points)
Photo 13. Sediment deposited on the top of a rock that is sloped slightly downstream.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 17
2. Geomorphology
2.1. Riffle -Pool sequence
The entire reach of the stream is a sequence of riffles and pools, as demonstrated in Photos 9, 10,
and 14. The slower moving pools have finer- grained sediment with larger particle sizes present
in the riffles.
The Protocol rating for riffle -pool sequence is:
Strong - Demonstrated by an even and frequent mnuber of riffles followed by pools along the
entire reach. There is an obvious transition between ritties and pools.
Ioderate - Represented by a less frerpient number of riffles and pools. Distinguishing the
transition between riffles and pools is difficult.
Meak - Streams show some flow but mostly have areas of pools or mostly areas of riffles.
Absent - There is no sequence exhibited, or there is no flow in the chaiuuel.
The score for this indicator is Strong (3 points). ECO rated this as Moderate (2 points).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 18
Photo 14. Riffle and pool sequence near Location 7.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 19
2.2 USDA texture in streambed /substrate sorting
Photo 15, taken between Locations 6 and 7, is an example of finer sediment that was deposited in
the deeper scoured channel on the left side as the last heavy runoff event subsided, with a gravel
bar to the right that was deposited during the heavier flow. Another deeper channel is on the far
right. There are many riffles /runs with accumulation of larger particles and pools having finer
particles, such as Photo 14 above. Also, Photo 14 above illustrates sorting with a bar of finer
particles accumulated on the inside of a meander with finer particles scoured from the outside
part of the meander where flow was faster during higher flow period.
The Protocol rating for streambed /substrate sorting is:
Strong - There is a clear distribution of various sized substrates. Depositional features are
present, filer particles are absent or accumulate in pools. and larger particles are located in the
riffles/runs.
Iloder ate. - Various sized substrates are present but represented by a higher ratio of larger
particles (cobble /aravel.rock). Small depositional features are present: srn1a11 pools are
accumtdatll12 some sediment.
Weak - Substrate sorting is not readily observed. There may be some small depositional features
present on the downstream side of obstructions (large rocks. etc...).
Absent — Substrate sorting is absent. There are few depositional features.
The score for this indicator is Strong (3 points). ECO rated this as Moderate (2 points).
Photo 15. Finer sediment deposited in the deeper channel on the left with a gravel bar on the
right. Another deeper channel is on the far right.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 20
2.3. Natural Levees
The stream is too small, generally too steep, and does not carry enough fine sediment to form
natural levees.
The score for this indicator is Absent.
2.4. Sinuosity
The upper reach of the stream, upstream of Solomon Road may have been straightened when the
subdivision was developed the 1960s. Between Solomon Road and Inglewood Drive, the stream
appears to be in a mostly natural state. There are small meanders and active bank undercutting.
Photo 16 shows the stream is actively undercutting the bank on the left, resulting in the slumping
down of the unsupported bank, which, in turn, causes the saplings to bend as they attempt to
maintain verticality. Photo 17 shows another section where the stream has been undercutting the
bank, exposing the roots of a mature tree. The larger tree cannot bend as quickly as a sapling
and begins to lean into the stream, and eventually will fall across the stream as it loses the
support under the roots. Photo 18 is a panoramic view of an old stream channel located on the
north side of the flood plain north of Location 7. This demonstrates an old abandoned meander.
These features exemplify an actively meandering stream. The sinuosity ratio across the upper
half of the proposed development is estimated at 1.3.
The Protocol rating for sinuosity is:
Strong - Ratio > 1.4. Stream has numerous. closely- spaced bends. very few straight sections.
Moderate - Ratio C 1.4. Stream has good sinuosity with some straight sections.
Weak - Ratio < 1.2. Stream has very few bends and mostly straight sections.
Absent - Ratio = 1.0. Stream is completely straight aith uo bends.
The score for this indicator is Moderate (2 points). ECO rated this as Weak (1 point).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 21
Photo 16. The stream is actively undercutting the bank on the left, causing slumping of the
overlying undercut bank, causing the trees to bend as they attempt to maintain verticality.
Photo 17. An older tree being undercut by the meandering stream. The roots are exposed where
the stream is undercutting the bank, and the tree began to lean toward the stream as the support
was removed.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 22
Photo 18. Panoramic view of an old stream channel located on the north side of the flood plain north of Location 7.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 23
2.5. Active (or Relic) Floodplain
As described above, in section 2.4 for sinuosity, the stream has an active flood plain per the
indicators listed in the Protocol. The area around Location 7 is a relatively flat floodplain with
drift lines (section 1.4), and active lateral cutting and meandering and an abandoned meander
(section 2.4).
The Protocol rating for active (or relic) floodplain is:
Strong - The area displays all of the aforementioned characteristics.
Moderate - Most of the characteristics are apparent.
Weak - The floodplain is not obvious, however some of the indicators are present.
Absent - The characteristics are not present.
The score for this indicator is Moderate (2 points). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points).
2.6 Braided channel
This stream is not in a geomorphologic setting that would be expected to produce a braided
channel. Braided streams typically develops where a stream with abundant sediment suddenly
reduces velocity, such as when the gradient is abruptly lowered, causing the stream velocity to
drop and sediment begin to settle out. In accord with the Protocol, there are a few "islands" or
bars, such as pictured in Photo 15 above.
The Protocol rating for braided channel is:
Strong - The stream displays a braided appearance with many crossings creating many "islands ".
Moderate - The stream displays a braided pattern however, it does not cross many times and only
has a few "islands ".
Weak - The braided pattern is present but the stream only crosses one or two times creating only
one or two "islands ".
Absent - The gradient is too high such that the water is flawing too quickly un order to create a
braided channel.
The score for this indicator is Week (1 point). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 24
2.7 Recent alluvial deposits
Deposition of alluvium is present in the reach through the proposed development as shown in
Photos 13, 14, and 15. Due to the lack of available sediment load, the rate of deposition is not
great and probably is at about steady state through the proposed development. According to the
Protocol, there are many alluvial deposits such as several islands and bars in the channel.
The Protocol rating for recent alluvial deposits is:
Strong - Large amounts of sand, silt, cobble, and/or gravel alluvium present in the channel and in
the floodplain.
Moderate - Large to moderate amount of sand, silt, cobble, and/or gavel mostly present in the
stream channel.
Weak - Small amounts of sand, silt, and/or small cobble present within the channel.
Absent - There is no sand or pooh bars present within the stream channel and no indication of
overbank deposition within the floodplain.
The score for this indicator is Moderate (2 points). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points).
2.8 Bankfull bench present
The stream exhibits channel scouring and deposition as noted in section 2.4. The creation of
bankfull indicators, such as benches are not obvious. The left side of Photo 12 shows scouring
and deposition on the surface of the bank where the vegetation has been removed.. Photo 14
shows several bars in meanders. While these indicators are not present through the reach, they
are relatively continuous in the stream as it passes through the proposed development.
The Protocol rating for recent bankf ill bench is:
Strong - Bank -full indicators are obvious throughout the sample reach.
Moderate - Indicators are present throughout most of the reach.
Weak - Indicators are infrequent along sampling reach.
Absent - Indications of a bank -full bench are completely lacking.
The score for this indicator is Weak (1 point). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 25
2.9 Continuous bed and bank
The stream channel is well defined through its reach with a clearly discernable bank and
streambed.
The Protocol rating for recent bankfull bench is:
Strong - There is a continuous bed and bank throughout the length of the stream channel.
Moderate - The majority of the stream has a continuous bed and bank. However, there are
obvious interruptions.
Weak - The majority of the stream has obvious interruptions in the continiuty of bed and bank.
However, there is still some representation of the bed and bank sequence.
Absent - There is little or no ability to distinguish between the bed and bank.
The score for this indicator is Strong (3 points). ECO rated this the same.
2.10 Second -order or greater channel
According to the Protocol, a stream receiving input from stormwater outfall is considered as
having first -order channels draining in to the stream. There a number of stormwater drains
entering the stream above the proposed development. Therefore the stream should be a second -
order stream.
The Protocol rating for second -order or greater channel is:
YES - One or more first order channels are draining into the stream above sampling reach.
NO — There are no first order inputs above sampling reach.
The score for this indicator is Yes (3 points). ECO rated this as No (0 points).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 26
3. Streambed Soils
3.1 Redoximorphic features
Redoximorphic features in the stream were discussed in section 1.2 "Presence of high
groundwater table or seeps and springs." There are strong indicators of continuously inundated
soil in the stream reach. Redoximorphic features are defined by the Protocol as the presence of
the classic iron oxide or "rust" red color in soil that indicates an unsaturated soil, NOT a
saturated soil due to a high water table.
The Protocol rating for redoximorphic features is
Scoring is ranked purely on the presence or absence of these features.
The score for this indicator is Absent (1.5 points). ECO rated this as Present (0 points).
3.2 Chroma
The presence of continuously inundated soil is indicated by the distinctive gray or "gleyed" soil
that has iron in its reduced state. This is demonstrated by Photos 7 and 8, above.
The Protocol rating for chroma is:
Strong - Gleyed soils
Moderate - Matrix chroma of 1.
TFeak - Matrix chroma of 2.
Absent - Matrix chroma of 2 or greater.
The score for this indicator is Strong (3 points). ECO rated this as Moderate (2 points).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 27
4. Vegetation
This investigation was completed in late November and early December when plants were
dormant or dead. The ratings of ECO are used for this section.
IV. Vegetation Absent
Weak Moderate
Strong
1. Rooted AQOATIC Plants in Streambed 0
UP 2
'-
2.) Presence of Pert h tonl reen sl ae 0
i UP
3
3, iron Oxidizing BacteriaiFun us
0.5 1
1.5
4.3 Weiland Plants in Siroambed {Skip if r)o plants prmsant in streArnb2d}
SAV T 3 Mostly 09L = 1.5 Mostly FACVV =Q
Mostly FAG= 0.0
Mostly FACU, UPL, or
None = 0
Total V6gethtiorn Paints:
5. Benthic macroinvertebrates
Anne Dunkel, a Virginia Save Our Streams Certified Monitor, used a D -net to randomly sample
two locations in the stream reach within the proposed development near Locations 6 and 7 in
Figure 2.
The Protocol rating for the following indicators is:
P*en ranking the presence of Benthic macroinvertebrates and bivalves, use the follotiring:
Strong - Indicator is easily found in all samples.
Moderate - Only takes a few samples to locate indicator.
Weak - Sampling takes 10 minutes or more to locate indicator.
Absent - Indicator is not present.
5.1. Benthic macroinvertebrates
Photo 19 shows the results of the D -net sampling of the two locations. Larva of aquatic insects
were plentiful considering the limited scope of the stream sampling.
The score for this indicator is Strong (1.5 points). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points).
5.2. Bivalves
No bivalves were noted during the survey.
The score for this indicator is Absent (0 points). ECO rated this the same.
5.3. Ephemeroptera, plecoptera, and trichoptera (EPT) taxa
EPT were present in large numbers in the D -net samples.
The score for this indicator is Present (3 points). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 28
1 - empty 9 - empty
4
2 - Salamander 10 - Hetspinning caddisflies -
K'- `M r
Tricoptera Hydrophyscidae
3 - Salamander - 11 - Waterpenny beetles -
Psephenidae
4 - Craneflies - Tipulidae 12 - Midges - Chironimidae
5 - Fingernet caddisfly -.1, 13 - Midges - Chironimidae
Tricoptera Philopotamidae
h6 - Salamander �' , 14 - Aquatic Worm
R
7 - Salamander `y 15 - Scuds
8 - empty
16 - empty
Photo 19. Macroinvertebrates and amphibians found in the two D -net samples.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 29
6. Vertebrates
The Protocol rating for the following indicators is:
When ranking the presence of all vertebrates, use the following:
Strong - Indicator is readily visible in all prime habitats.
Moderate - Indicator is evident in smaller numbers. Some prime habitat is not occupied.
Weak - Indicator is not readily visible, requires 10 or more minutes to locate. Very sparse.
Absent - Indicator is not found.
6.1 Fish
Small fish were seen during the stream sampling.
The score for this indicator is Strong (1.5 points). ECO rated this as Moderate (1 points).
6.2. Amphibians
Numerous amphibians (salamanders) were seen in the D -net samples.
The score for this indicator is Strong (1.5 points). ECO rated this as Absent (0 points).
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 30
RESUMES OF INVESTIGATORS
Lyle R. Silka
BA Geology, University of Northern Iowa
MS Geology, Oklahoma State University
Virginia Certified Professional Geologist No. 972
After completing his Masters degree with a focus on hydrogeology, Mr. Silka completed a year
of post - graduate research and course work at University of Kansas focusing on geochemistry of
water. Mr. Silka was a staff Hydrogeologist with the Environmental Protection Agency in
Kansas City and at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC from 1977 through 1980 where he
assisted in development of drinking water quality regulations and hazardous waste enforcement.
From 1984 through the present, he has been a consulting hydrogeologist planning and directing
groundwater and surface water evaluations, hazardous waste cleanup, Phase I and II
Environmental Site Assessments, and investigation and remediation of soil and groundwater
contamination from petroleum and chemical releases. He has been practicing in Virginia for
more than 30 years.
Anne Dunkel
BS Geology, University of Texas
MS Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Virginia Save Our Streams Certified Monitor
Ms. Dunkel has been Monitoring Program Manager with StreamWatch in Charlottesville for the
past two years. StreamWatch is the Rivanna Watershed's local stream monitoring organization,
a 501 c(3) nonprofit organization, that is relied upon by many of the local institutions to provide
biological monitoring of the health of surface waters in the Rivanna river basin. She is
experienced in freshwater benthic macro - invertebrate surveys.
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 31
Fairfax County Perennial Stream Field Data Sheet (12/1212012)
Site ID: k Stod,,,ujotal Score:
:*,- Recorder 1 AZ S
Time: E wNua:ora
Field Indicators: it
Oj StFOMM lOW and Kydrcil5ay
AbSerg
WeOiS
MoftMe
51mn
1.) Pmvmc o or alas once of lowing water
WA .. 46 hxs sines tmt rairrWl
4
1
' J
2.) Presence of high gmt rdwuater table
Beeps N%d
0
1
2
--or
3. LOOOer m stiven*0
_3
1
0.5
4. QnR Men
05
1
0 5
5. 5 eodknem an debO s Or s
0
`
I
1.5
Total StreamRow and Hydrology Pomtu
11.1 to Absersd
Weak
Modemac
1
1.1 Rills p s seqotwe
0
1
'
2. Substme S USDA temtwel
9
1
�`
of c h onlnei or hoad c Ld-
31.1 Nstxmri Levees
''.' Q)rorra
A- Sinocaat
" = 2
2 = 1
5_ Aebwe or RaIic Flaad wn
6- arm 1--d Channo
4
1
?J Receni AII~3h+i,3i gppQsits
a.) Bank Us Bench present
0
1
9. C&Minuous Bed And Bark
10) 2nd order orgrenter channel present
Y011 - 3
Iwo = 0
Total Geornorphelny Points:
10.1 Streambed Soils
1.) %dox,maphic f Latures pmenl m esdet
pr garrr = o
Abaprsr 1 5
of c h onlnei or hoad c Ld-
''.' Q)rorra
le t4 �
" = 2
2 = 1
TauI Streambed Soils Points.
1V. j ve tatian
Adse�;
W eak
Moderate
Saran
1 ? Rooted ACIL44T1C Plardl rs StrellMbCd
0
1
+ —
2 Presence of Pmz=aftert tm
0
]
3
3_'. won Ox' BactefWF
G
CIS
T
1.5
4.+ Werda d P'Jra'Its M $V1V irr*M4d (Skip if rso psari(s present in streembed
Mostly
WnUy FACU_ UPL or
V - 3 Mostly FAC'4V
O B L=
Mm"
FAG - 0 5
None y 0
Toot Yplp ton Points:
r
- 7- L
Fron#PatlCTiAal _poirils
Evaluation of Stream in Barterbrook Subdivision
Page 32
V. $en&oc Macroknverftbnw s AbGenl Weak Moderate stmng
1. BentNC M DC ruin yerlebrates C ; f
2.) 81'1dN" 1 � 3
. €PTtexa Preswit 3 Abaant = 0
Total Benlhic Macsolnvertebrates Pointy 4's
VI-I Yeniebratci Alas" weak kkKkrate
1.1 Fish 0 0.6 1
' h+on$ 0 O.5 1
Total Ve rtcbra les Perot&
{�
BenthicslAnq*ihaans FQLmd-
? -dr ( a---L
Weather
Rain Gauge Date of Larvik Rwi.%Il Rar ftI Ar•l tpzl
Reach 04ewription
Lkelreom- TR5 HCT GRC RCU POF SOO ARC RPA Othe,
Dowrstrea TTi$ FACT GRC RCU P OF SOO AM F PA Other
commentu { CLCD
Storm Network Connections and Watershed OHb rv#tiWS
."-". 1' C.� � �S7'Y3A"` uJ'� �.l+t+�.ra t •'"` l) 4 �'+- -ti3`+!� i �
i�`
RIPartan Bkil4ers %dEh I `u C k ��'" x` •�
LB: Drs#RCe IEet '5Q 1.75 7100 100+
rti srisn BufFer nts
CQ'Vk r;yp� Shrub Herbaceous Lam Other
Dnrmnam Species:
RD= Drb1anGC 5 f 26-SD 51 -75 76-100 100+
hover ty nn Shrub Hesbaceaus Lawn Other
DOrVinan, SitIC's we Uj&c
Other Ob"rvations and Comments: r
dkweii"i't 1c7rk f 7 �+yl{�ct'S ++ i /►'1 Ity+/�y (jam
J
a'
lR the re h perCrirtisa? YES NO
PhoW#
Direction I UPS. DS
NoFe9
t,